Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, Navy Yeoman 3rd Class Edmund Ryan of Wilbraham, Massachusetts was killed when the Japanese sank the USS Oklahoma during the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. For 75 years, Yeoman Ryan was one of the nearly 400 sailors from that vessel whose identities were deemed ``non-recoverable.'' But thanks to the advancements in DNA testing and the efforts by the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency, Yeoman Ryan's remains have been finally identified. This was possible by matching the mitochondrial DNA to family members of the deceased. This achievement gives hope to the family members of the 26,000 servicemembers from World War II that possibly they too can be identified.

Next week, Yeoman Ryan will be interred in his final resting place at Arlington National Cemetery. On behalf of the First District of Massachusetts and the United States, we are eternally grateful for his service and sacrifice to his nation. And on this solemn occasion, I want to extend my best wishes to his family.

Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker said: How could a group be so far off in their analysis? Well, they were that far off with the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Alan Greenspan was certainly off. In his commentary about economic growth, we had the slowest growth since Herbert Hoover was President, based upon $2.3 trillion worth of tax cuts.

So this is analysis. It is an economic forecast. It is not an algorithm. When you pick up the computer, you push a button, and all of a sudden you get a score.

I am in opposition to this amendment because they play a vital role every single day, even when they are not entirely accurate, in keeping a scorecard. Members and staff on both sides, particularly at the Ways and Means Committee, rely much upon their hardworking and nonpartisan analysis for what they do every day.

I have never, in 29 years in this House, said to a member of CBO: Are you a Republican or are you a Democrat?

When we demean professional achievement from economists who try and strive every single day to come up with an accurate forecast, we do this institution no good. We should have a high regard for what these people do every single day--and let me say this, by the way, more accurate than the Office of Management and Budget, in my recollection, who work for Presidents and who, generally, didn't come up

with forecasts that Presidents might or might not like.

The CBO is an independent agency and we need to keep it here. Congress could not do its work without the CBO. As Tim Ryan said a few moments ago, this is the equivalent of let's beat up the referee after we don't like the outcome of the soccer game. Let's jump the referee and tell him: You better go back in and change the score so that we might meet, perhaps, popular polling forecasts, which I also might tell you, based on what happened in November, weren't so good, either, for all of us.

Regardless of what political party we are Members of, we should have regard for this House of Representatives and the independent role that CBO offers. Chairman Kevin Brady stands with me on this. Leave the CBO alone.

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

Madam Speaker, I stand in support of H.R. 3178, the Medicare Part B Improvement Act of 2017.

I am pleased that Chairman Brady, along with Health Subcommittee Chairman Tiberi, Ranking Member Levin, and I worked in a bipartisan manner to draft this legislation. It brings together a number of important measures to improve Medicare part B. I encourage all of our colleagues to support it.

As I said during the bipartisan Ways and Means Committee markup of H.R. 3178, I hope the committee will be able to hold more meetings like this. This is what the American people want and expect from their Members: to get things done in a bipartisan manner.

The bill before us today is pretty straightforward. It makes important changes to Medicare part B in a number of ways. It includes a commonsense transitional policy for home infusion services, cosponsored by Mr. Tiberi and Mr. Pascrell.

Our colleagues Mr. Bishop and Mr. Mike Thompson are cosponsors of language to streamline Medicare rules to improve access to medically necessary prosthetics and orthotics.

Mr. John Lewis cosponsored language to help dialysis facilities improve backlogs so they can more efficiently treat end-stage renal disease.

Ms. DelBene and Mr. Mike Thompson are cosponsors of a bill that allows telehealth so patients can receive dialysis in the comfort of their own home.

Finally, the measure includes clarification language to Stark laws that Mr. Kind led to provide more certainty for Medicare providers.

Our colleagues on both sides of the aisle worked hard on these bills, and I am pleased we can move them forward in a bipartisan manner.

Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 3178, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene), who is a coauthor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), whose husband served with great distinction as a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the staff for their hard work on this bill, including Amy Hall, Sarah Levin, Melanie Egorin from the Democratic staff; Emily Murry and Nick Uehlecke from the Republican staff; Jessica Shapiro from the House Legislative Counsel's office; Ira Burney, Jennifer Druckman, and Lisa Yen from CMS; and the staff of the Congressional Budget Office, Tom Bradley, Rebecca Yip, and Lara Robillard. I want to thank them all for their very, very hard work.

We have this rare opportunity, this rare moment where we have broad agreement on this legislation, and I hope all Members of the House can find their way to be supportive of this legislation, and I hope the path of bipartisanship that we have chosen here can serve as a reminder of what we can get done.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Ambassador Anne Anderson, the Irish Ambassador to the United States, as she retires from her position in the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs.

Throughout her time in the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Anderson has served in assignments of great prestige as well as been the first woman to represent Ireland in all these positions. Her first post was as Ireland's Ambassador to the United Nations (UN) in Geneva in 1995. While there, she chaired the World Trade Organization (WTO) Trade Policy Review Body in 1996, followed by chairing the UN Commission on Human Rights in 1999. In 2001, she became Ireland's Permanent Representative to the European Union (EU), the first woman from any EU country to represent their nation in the European Parliament. In 2005, Ambassador Anderson became Ireland's Ambassador to France before being appointed as Ireland's Ambassador to the United Nations in New York in 2009. During her time at the UN, Ambassador Anderson focused on human rights, development, and gender equality issues. Furthermore, the Ambassador oversaw a review of the UN Peace-building machinery and facilitated preparations for the 2013 UN Special Event on the Millennium Development Goals.

On January 15, 2013, Ambassador Anderson was appointed as Ireland's 17th Ambassador to the United States. Throughout her time in Washington, Ambassador Anderson has focused on further strengthening Ireland-U.S. relations in regards to economics, trade, immigration, and culture. She especially did an exemplary job with all the U.S. events around the centenary of the 1916 Rising. Furthermore, Ambassador Anderson has focused on keeping the U.S. engaged in issues regarding Northern Ireland. Her engagement with the Friends of Ireland Caucus throughout her tenure has been critical in our country's continued involvement with the entire island of Ireland. In recognition of her outstanding service, Ambassador Anderson was presented with the International Leadership Award by the Ireland Funds this past March.

Mr. Speaker, as a co-chairman of the Friends of Ireland Caucus, I have gotten to know Ambassador Anderson very well as both a colleague and a friend. Anne has made momentous strides in strengthening Ireland- U.S. relations on numerous fronts and has been a great influence to our country. She will be greatly missed and I wish her all the best with her retirement and future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to recognize St. Luke's Episcopal Church in Lanesborough, Massachusetts as they celebrate their 250th Anniversary on June 25th. The continued dedication of the congregation of St. Luke's was pivotal in the church becoming the oldest active Episcopal parish in Western Massachusetts.

The origins of St. Luke's Episcopal Church begin in 1767 when a small group of Church of England members would meet in a private home to worship together. From there they moved to a school house where they continued their worship until they were able to move their small congregation to a wooden church located in the center of town in 1769. During these early years, the church seldom had a pastor and was kept alive by the dedication of its lay members. In 1862, the parish built the ``Old Stone Church,'' an impressive Gothic Revival structure that was added. to the National Register of Historic Places in 1972. Along with many of its original 19th century fixtures, the Old Stone Church also boasts a 450-pipe, hand-pumped organ that was crafted by William Johnson of Westfield, Massachusetts. The organ has gone through several restorations and is currently the fifth-oldest organ in use in Massachusetts.

In 1898, the congregation moved into a new structure called the Village Church and temporarily ceased operating out of the Old Stone Church. A major restoration effort in the 1980s, aided by the Massachusetts Historical Society, and returned the church to functional condition. Since then, the Old Stone Church serves as the parish's summer home as a place of worship for parishioners during the summer months, while a second building, the Village Church is the parish's winter home.

Mr. Speaker, St. Luke's Episcopal Church serves as a vital link to our region's history and still has much to offer to its parishioners even after all these years. As they celebrate their semiquincentennial, I wish them all the best in continuing to preserve their rich history and community involvement that has been the legacy of St. Luke's.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to recognize the town of Conway, Massachusetts as they celebrate their 250th anniversary. Since its establishment in 1767, Conway has continued to flourish as a rich agricultural community located in the foothills of the Berkshire Mountains.

The town of Conway was first established as the southwest portion of the town of Deerfield, Massachusetts. After the end of the French and Indian Wars, the area was divided and the town Conway was official established in 1767. Named after General Henry Seymour Conway, a leader in the British House of Commons, the town was known for its sheep farming along with other agricultural pursuits. The first settlers of Conway were able to build gristmills and sawmills to harness the power of the many waterways that flowed through the town. As the Industrial Revolution began in the United States, Conway was no exception to the rise of the manufacturing industry. Factories began to emerge in Conway along the South River, where power could be readily accessible from the mills. Everything from textiles and hats, to washing machines and furniture were manufactured in these factories. As Conway transitioned into the 20th century, their manufacturing industry began to suffer as a result of the high cost of transporting goods from the town. The town has transitioned back to a farming community and the remnants of the old factory buildings serve as reminders of the town's history.

Today, Conway is a quiet, beautiful town with much to offer. Bardwell's Ferry Bridge still stands as a treasured historical landmark, stretching across the Deerfield River and connecting Conway to the nearby town of Shelburne Falls. Every fall, the annual Festival of the Hills serves as a way for the community to come together to celebrate the town's long and distinguished history. The events of the festival include a pancake breakfast, live music, as well as various family activities. All the proceeds raised from the festival go towards scholarships for local high school students, as a way for the town to continue its legacy as a hardworking community dedicated to supporting its citizens.

Mr. Speaker, the town of Conway is an important piece in Massachusetts history and I am honored to represent it. I wish them all the best as the town continues to preserve their rich history and community involvement that has been the legacy of Conway for these past 250 years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 2847, the Improving Services for Older Youth in Foster Care Act, which would help to ensure that all the congressional resources that would be provided for foster youth will indeed be utilized and make sure they are used to help them in the furtherance of their education and becoming independent.

My colleague, Karen Bass, who visited me just a few weeks ago, has been a leader on this legislation and on foster youth issues for a number of years, and our committee has worked closely with her to move it forward today.

I want to note that this is one of five bills the House is considering today to help at-risk families and children in foster care. All of these bills passed the House last year as part of the Family First Prevention Services Act, which also provided significant new investment in substance abuse, mental health, and parenting skills services to help kids and families avoid foster care when possible.

We continue to work on a bipartisan basis with our leadership and our colleagues in the Senate to find a way to move forward on broader foster care improvements, but today's action provides a good opportunity to once again highlight the sharp rise of children in foster care in the United States and, indeed, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, fueled in part by the opiate crisis.

In Massachusetts, between 2011 and 2015, the number of petitions to remove children from their homes grew 38 percent. Today, Massachusetts is home to nearly 10,000 kids in foster care. Over 1,000 of them are considered at risk of reaching adulthood without being adopted or safely reunified with their birth families. That is why it is so important that we do everything we can to help them finish their education and develop mentoring relationships with supportive adults.

While I am pleased that our committee and the full House are working together to help these young people, we can't ignore the bigger picture, which is the President's attempt to overturn the Affordable Care Act, because it will have real and measurable negative effects on these kids.

Republican Medicaid cuts jeopardize health coverage for older foster youth, the same youth we are trying to help with this bill. By cutting the essential health benefits and Medicaid, there will be a consequence. In turn, this endangers access to substance abuse treatment and, by extension, many of the treatment centers themselves.

Republican proposals to end the Social Services Block Grant would reduce States' abilities to provide substance abuse, mental healthcare, and supportive services to foster parents.

While these larger issues are deeply troubling, today's five children welfare bills, including the one before us now, represent an improvement over the status quo, and it is refreshing to note the bipartisan collaboration that is involved.

In addition to Congresswoman Bass' leadership on this bill to help foster youth, let me also recognize my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee who are providing great leadership on these very issues--Mr. Davis, Ms. Chu, and Ms. Sewell--for their work on behalf of foster children as reflected in these bills that they have coauthored and that we are considering today.

I urge our colleagues to support this bill and the other bipartisan child welfare improvements being considered today and to work with us to even do more to help foster youth succeed.

I reserve the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), be allowed to control the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1551, a bipartisan bill to modify the section 45J production tax credit for advanced power.

This bill is sponsored by two of my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Blumenauer from Oregon and Mr. Rice from South Carolina. It enjoys bipartisan support of members of the committee as well.

Passage of this bill is critical to thousands of jobs in South Carolina and Georgia. As you know, I am committed to passing good, bipartisan legislation that puts and keeps Americans to work in good- paying jobs.

However, I must highlight my disappointment that the committee at this moment has not acted on other important priorities in the energy tax space. For example, there is bipartisan interest in this Congress for extending section 48 investment tax credit for non-solar, section 48-eligible technologies. H.R. 1090, the Technology for Energy Security Act, introduced by our colleagues, Mr. Reed from New York and Mr. Thompson from California, is supported by a bipartisan group of 93 Members of Congress.

The committee is overdue in considering this important piece of legislation, as well as other provisions vital to renewable energy, renewable fuels, and energy efficiency and alternative fuel vehicles that expired at the end of 2016. As the gentleman from South Carolina noted, all of the above.

I hope we can act before the eleventh hour to extend these provisions.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude by reminding my colleagues that the United States Government invests a tremendous amount of money on energy policy through our Tax Code. These investments have helped to grow our economy and create good-paying jobs nationwide. Therefore, as we continue the discussions on tax reform, I hope and anticipate Chairman Brady will consider focusing on comprehensive, fully integrated energy strategy reform as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the assistant Democratic leader and my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), my friend.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in reference to the previous gentleman's comments, it is helpful for the acknowledgment that there is broad agreement among scientists as to how global warming is occurring. There is a suggestion that it is because of problems that have been generated by man- and womankind. I think that President Obama said clearly all of the above as part of the solution.

So the suggestion that we have had on this side as this legislation advances is also to use the pulpit of the Ways and Means Committee to move forward with advancing meaningful job creation in terms of alternative and renewable energy as well, and creating greater energy efficiencies.

I would think that there should be an opportunity in this House to find some common agreements on legislation, similar to what we are witnessing today, on the renewable front as well. Greater energy efficiency for all of us should be of paramount concern.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to send my deepest thoughts and prayers to our colleague Whip Scalise, the Capitol Police officers, and the staff members that were injured in yesterday's shooting.

Although my Republican colleagues and I have robust policy discussions, ultimately, we desire the same goals. Today is no different, and our institution is based on the respect and thoughtful debate that remain important pillars of our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, this discussion and debate that we are about to have here is an honest disagreement. There is no suggestion here that there is anybody on this side of the aisle that is any less enthusiastic or less sincere in their support of what it is that our veterans need and desire. This is an honest policy dispute.

And I must tell you, based on long service in this institution, this is an unusual manner in which to proceed. We are actually being asked today to amend a piece of legislation that a month ago left this institution. I have not been witness to this, I believe, in the past; and I hope that, as we go on for the next hour, we will have a chance to connect the dots for our colleagues about why this underlying bill is less than desirable.

Last month, the Republicans brought TrumpCare to the House floor and every Democrat in this institution opposed it. This was the Republican leadership's second attempt to pass the repeal, and it seems that their first attempt was not harmful enough to the American people.

The measure, as passed, takes health insurance from millions of Americans, raises premiums for working families, and places an age tax on older Americans. Middle class Americans would end up on the losing end, while millionaires would receive a handsome, nearly $1 trillion tax cut.

Perhaps most concerning is that Members voted in favor of this legislation without understanding its impact on the American people. There were no hearings on TrumpCare. Amendments were rushed to the floor without committee consideration, and the CBO score was not available at the time the House considered it.

CBO, based on nonpartisan career professionals, provides important context and independent advice for Members of Congress. It provides an opportunity for us to look at the long-term results and ramifications of policies we are considering.

Clearly, our Republican friends don't care about the jarring consequences CBO foretold. The House has ignored certain procedures when considering these important measures.

First, since the Republican repeal bill passed, the CBO confirmed that the measure would leave 23 million Americans without health insurance. It would cut Medicaid by $800 billion, discriminate against individuals with preexisting conditions, and drastically raise premiums for older Americans.

Earlier this week, the CMS actuary confirmed that out-of-pocket costs will rise by 61 percent, and premiums will be 5 percent higher than under current law. Simply put, TrumpCare would force Americans to pay more for lower quality healthcare coverage.

Second, this bill is not appropriate to consider now because it amends the TrumpCare bill, as I noted a moment ago, that has not passed the Senate. And our Senate colleagues have stated they are rewriting a House bill that the President called ``mean.''

Now I would like to turn to my substantive concerns with this bill.

H.R. 2372 would amend the AHCA to allow veterans not enrolled in military-related coverage to receive tax credits. It does nothing to fix the issues in the TrumpCare bill.

Whether or not you initially supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--and I was one of the few in this institution that voted and spoke against the war in Iraq those years ago--these wars have created 1 million more veterans, and we need to do what we can to provide them with the support that we promised them.

Let me remind my colleagues that the TrumpCare bill would shift costs onto veterans through per capita caps, roll back Medicaid expansion for veterans, and erode essential health benefits and preexisting conditions protections.

The Republican health plan would dramatically cut Medicaid, a program that provides healthcare for nearly 2 million veterans. And the President's recently released budget takes it a step further by cutting veterans' programs, including disability benefits.

Even if this bill is incorporated into TrumpCare legislation, it would not undo the terrible cuts in the bill: enormous coverage losses, more than $800 billion worth of cuts to Medicaid, unravel important consumer protections or cuts to programs designed to help address the opioid addiction crisis in my State of Massachusetts and throughout the Nation.

I am quite sure everyone in this institution at this moment and those who are viewing know somebody close to them who is addicted to opioids.

In addition, Medicaid is now a program that many middle class Americans rely on for long-term care. Thanks to Medicare and Medicaid, your parents are not living in your attic.

This bill does nothing to fix the Republican healthcare plan and could create new problems. If Republicans are serious about addressing middle class American healthcare needs, they should go back to the drawing board and start over and work with us.

This exercise is a distraction from the real issue, which is the harm caused by the underlying TrumpCare bill. Instead, we should be considering issues that help hardworking Americans and their families.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), who is a well-known advocate for veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster).

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to make sure that the American people understand the impact of the underlying bill that H.R. 2372 intends to amend.

The bill purports to make a fix to the Republicans' harmful healthcare bill, but the fix is inadequate for the harm the underlying legislation would cause.

We have independent verification from both the CMS actuary and the Congressional Budget Office to reinforce our position. The Republican healthcare bill would cause millions to lose health insurance, face higher premiums and out-of-pocket costs, and jeopardize the health security that Americans with preexisting conditions have today.

We should be working to improve our healthcare system, not making it more difficult and unaffordable for America's families. If this is such a great policy, let's not tie it to a bill that is doomed in the Senate. In fact, if anybody can find out where it is even being discussed or authored in the Senate, they should inform us. It clearly is not being done in the open. Let's not tie it to that simple provision, and pass it as it stands alone today.

Middle class Americans can't afford this recipe. I urge my colleagues to work over the next few months to educate the American people about the Republican health plan and how harmful it is to our Nation's health. Hospitals oppose it, doctors oppose it, and patient groups oppose it. The bill needs to be scrapped. We should instead be helping the middle class, not giving giant tax cuts to the wealthy.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to express again, as I did earlier, the support we have for the Capitol Police and others for the good work they do every single day and extend our best wishes to Majority Whip Scalise.

My friend, Mr. Tiberi, who is managing time on the Republican side, said he was, I think, 17 years old. If he were here and had supported the Clinton healthcare bill, that never would have happened. That would be another way that we might want to look at.

Mr. Speaker, as I said a bit ago, this is an unusual procedure. We are being asked to amend legislation that left the institution. Heaven knows where the Republican healthcare bill rests today. The President calls it mean; the Senate won't tell us where they are, as they write the bill, and when it might emerge; and we find ourselves offering amendments to something that is not going to happen.

H.R. 2579, the Broader Options for Americans Act, would allow premium tax credits to be used for unsubsidized COBRA coverage under TrumpCare. Unfortunately, this does nothing to fix the AHCA, the underlying measure this bill intends to amend.

Older Americans are likely to rely on COBRA, and the AHCA would allow insurers to charge older Americans up to five times more than they charge younger Americans. The tax credits in H.R. 2579 would not make COBRA coverage any more affordable for the American people. In addition, it could potentially weaken the risk pool coverage because it would encourage older and sicker workers to remain on COBRA that could hurt small businesses. This is simply a backdoor way for States to discriminate against existing conditions.

Because of weakening essential healthcare in the underlying

TrumpCare bill, COBRA is going to be needed again to help people who leave employment for health reasons or have preexisting conditions.

Let me remind the American people how we got here in the first place. Last month, Republicans brought TrumpCare to the House floor and passed it without a single Democrat supporting it. The measure, as passed, would take away health insurance for millions of Americans, raise premiums for working families, and place an age tax on older Americans.

The bill is just one of the many promises the Republican leadership continues to make in an effort to twist arms for votes from their caucus to pass TrumpCare.

I am also concerned that the House ignored important procedures when considering bills that are on the floor today.

First, since the Republican bill passed, the CBO numbers confirmed the measure would force Americans to pay more for lower quality healthcare coverage. That is not in dispute.

Second, this bill is not appropriate to consider now because it amends TrumpCare, and it hasn't even passed the Senate.

Even if this bill was incorporated into TrumpCare, it would not undo the terrible cuts included in the measure. It would leave 23 million Americans without health insurance, cut Medicaid by $800 billion, discriminate against individuals with preexisting conditions; and will drastically raise premiums for older Americans.

It would unravel important consumer protections or cut programs designed to address the opioid addiction crisis in my State of Massachusetts, and throughout the Nation. I am quite certain everyone here and watching this debate has someone close to them dealing with a drug or alcohol addiction.

In addition, many middle class Americans rely on Medicaid for long- term care. That is beginning to resonate with the American people.

This bill does nothing to fix the Republican repeal measure, as I have noted, and it is likely to create more and new problems.

I encourage my Republican friends and colleagues to go back to the drawing board, craft a bill with us, and fix the problems in the Affordable Care Act. There is a chance to do that.

Twenty-three million more Americans have health insurance because of the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Now is not the time to retreat. In times like this, we should be advancing these arguments in this institution for hardworking Americans and their families.

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

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

Will the gentleman yield?

What is a conference committee? When is the last time one of those occurred in this institution?

Mr. Speaker, on June 1st, I had the honor to address Springfield Technical Community College (STCC) class of 2017 as their commencement speaker. In my speech below, I explained to the students, faculty, and families assembled that a quality education and working together toward a common purpose, you can accomplish great outcomes even in challenging moments. I want to thank President John B. Cook for his gracious introduction and commend him on his outstanding leadership as STCC celebrates their 50th anniversary. I also want to particularly recognize the over 1000 students of the graduation class of 2017 on completing this important step in their education. I wish them all the best in their future endeavors.

``Good evening President Cook, parents, friends and guests. And of course Springfield Technical Community College class of 2017. Or as you are affectionately known in our community in the highest regard--STCC. We define community as a place where no one is to be abandoned and no one is to be left behind.

I am honored to have been chosen to deliver the commencement address for STCC's 50th commencement--or as your neighbors on Federal Street, Merriam-Webster, would say, your `quinquagenarian.'

The story of STCC begins with the decision of Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara to close the Springfield Armory. In history, it was known as the arsenal at Springfield. Established by General George Washington and administered by his trusted aide General Henry Knox. The college is located on at least three historic sites--the Knox Trail, Ben Franklin's mail route, and the site of Daniel Shays Rebellion which helped bring about the establishment of the United States Constitution, of which the convening is 230 years old as of last Thursday.

However, when Secretary McNamara announced his decision to close the Armory, he waived off the emotion and sentiments of the day and stood firm in his determination. Consternation, and some even predicted, calamity, would be the result of the Secretary's decision.

A sense of despair settled in with the loss of hundreds of manufacturing jobs. A polarizing debate began over whether or not to use the site in an attempt to secure a different commercial purpose or to use the site for education. Today, coincidentally, both missions have been accomplished. A reminder, once again, that in every crisis there is opportunity.

The dream began with the vision of Edmund Garvey, who had been the principal of Springfield Trade High School. A decision was reached to build an addition to Trade High School, which would be called Springfield Technical Institute. Edmund Garvey's concept would be championed by other notables in our community including then- Springfield Mayor Charles V. Ryan (who actually handed me my high school diploma), Joseph Deliso, a prominent titan of industry, and Representative Anthony M. Scibelli, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Refusing to be turned back by the usual voices and forces of pessimism and doubt, with alacrity and unyielding determination, they created the only technical community college in Massachusetts. Recall that it was also another native son of Springfield, Governor Foster Furcolo (whose father's doctor's offices still stand on south Main Street) to create the community college system in Massachusetts.

This evening, we acknowledge their conceptualization. How simple but how important--provide education to students in the community so that they might see beyond themselves and give back to humanity.

They predicted the best way to accomplish that goal was to provide a quality education that can translate into opportunity and the dignity that comes with a good job. And not just any job--one that supports our security, our healthcare, our infrastructure, and our social needs.

Although their focus was to create a technical community college, they did something else along the way: they knew how to get a big idea accomplished.

Opportunity is still the theme that is much woven into the fabric of this college's culture. The grounds the community college stands on today has been part of our community for more than two centuries, where it once housed soldiers, guardsman and industrial might. Today it is home to optimism and determination.

There were strong disagreements at the time among community members as to what to do with this historic site. Persistence, patience and positivity was the foundation of STCC's birth.

In hindsight, the founder's unwavering courage was both warranted and wise. Compromises were reached and with the help of Congressman Edward P. Boland, my predecessor, the decision was made to establish next to the Community College a national historic site, ``The Springfield Armory'' which today is visited by tens of thousands of people. It is the home to the famous gun rack immortalized in Longfellow's poem.

This 50th anniversary is a great example of how we work with our colleagues, community leaders and peers to accomplish extraordinary outcomes that help to lift the clouds of despair. Much of this was accomplished in the

crucible of public life. And remember, as these founders understood, democracy is supposed to be noisy. But then we move to the next plane of achievement. Just as Holmes said, it is conflict that is the core of life, but it is cooperation that brought about this outcome.

As the Democratic leader of the Ways and Means Committee, I work closely on policies that directly impact our economy and America's middle class: trade, health care, taxes and Social Security. One of our tasks is to take on the issues that will have far reaching consequences on the United States economy, revising the tax code and our nation's trade policies to provide greater opportunity for those of you assembled here this evening. I can assure you that the degree you receive tonight is more critical than ever. While we speak of income inequality, and greater concentration of wealth in America, we also should be reminded that the unemployment rate among college graduates in America today is under 4%.

Our economy has undergone major transformations. It has created companies that are highly competitive in the global marketplace. Unfortunately, our workforce has not always adapted and too many workers have been left behind. Globalization, skill-set, decline of private sector unionism and technological advances have been contributing factors in this. It has created what we know today as a ``skills gap.'' Companies have well-paying jobs to fill, but eager workers simply don't have what's needed to qualify for the 650,000 technology jobs available even as we convene this evening. Your accomplishment tonight will be critical to closing the skills-gap and provide incentive to employers for people who want work. And people want to go to work!

The education you received at STCC has emphasized the marriage of training and education. It has set you on a course for good jobs that are desperately needed and are an important part of economic policy debates. While state and local leaders hammer out policies that have direct ties to jobs, there needs to be a parallel discussion with community colleges and employers so we can make these policies a reality. Whatever the education challenges we face--economics and socialization--community colleges will be a profound part of the answer. We can pass all the infrastructure and health packages in the world, but if there aren't workers to carry out those policies, we would have accomplished little. Right here in New England, a recent New England Council/Deloitte Study estimates that over the next decade 20,000 precision manufacturing jobs could go unanswered.

There needs to be a serious discussion--not excitable language-- between employers, community leaders and our workforce. Community colleges can provide the bridge between an eager, willing, gifted workforce and employers desperate for skilled employees. A commitment from them to invest in technical and community colleges and apprenticeship programs is an important first step. Institutions like STCC can design curriculum and internship programs to ensure students can receive the skills and education they need that employers are seeking.

But in order to provide these classes, internships and apprenticeships, the private sector and Congress need to work together to provide incentives similar to the Community College Partnership Tax Credit, which would provide employers with a tax credit for hiring community college graduates. This would encourage business engagement in the community and provide students with opportunities to find good paying jobs upon graduation.

Experience always informs our judgement. It will help shape your understanding and ultimately encourage others to enter the world you plan to thrive in. On a personal note, let me tell you bluntly, the world responds more to aspiration than it does to grievance. Be proud of your accomplishments and your work. I tell you this: your talent, skill, and achievements are as important if not more to federal, state and local policy discussions.

Let me acknowledge the faculty this evening. You lend experience and teaching talents to help students reach their potential. And as I have always noted, when you reach your potential, your potential expands.

Today's economy is certainly complex. The conversation between our workforce and employers requires serious commitment to our community college system. As you move forward into the next step of career choices or additional education, accept the challenge you so proudly have earned to see your ambition as central to the new economy. Stay engaged. We need your voice and your talent.

Have a dream, but have a plan. The STCC founding and experience was born in doubt. But on this 50th anniversary, STCC has risen to become an extraordinary achievement because the founders had a dream and they had a plan. I mentioned earlier the site on which STCC sits has been home to events that have shaped world history. General Washington shaped history; General Knox shaped history; Ben Franklin shaped history; Daniel Shays shaped history; the Springfield Rifle shaped history; John Garand's invention shaped history. STCC has shaped history and tonight your pledge should be to shape history, too.

Thank you President Cook, the Board of Trustees, the faculty, and the students at STCC. And of course, your families who helped make this evening possible. You say it best--STCC works. Congratulations from the United States of America.''

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to include in the Record entitled ``Oh, the places you'll go when visiting the new Seuss museum'' that was published in the Boston Globe on May 25, 2017. This article comes ahead of the grand opening of The Amazing World of Dr. Seuss in Springfield, Massachusetts this June. This impressive museum honors the legendary work of Springfield native Theodor Geisel, better known to the world as Dr. Seuss. Geisel inspired generations of children and adults with his stories that have become iconic in American folklore.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that everyone will have the chance to visit this exemplary place and enjoy the marvels that Dr. Seuss created.

[From the Boston Globe, May 25, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, this procedure that we are witnessing here this morning, based on what happened at the White House for the last 48 hours, has all the charm of a ransom note.

The idea that this is put in front of us so that they can provide a tax cut at the expense of middle class Americans is really what we are voting on today. So that child who is born with diabetes across America can no longer be guaranteed health insurance if we turn this option over to the States. Anybody who comes from local or State government knows this: that money will be used to balance the budgets in economic downturns at the expense of those who need it for health care.

Another essential point here as I think we go forward, the other side--by the way, there are only two on the other side. What is amazing about this is--when you consider that argument that they had with us yesterday about national defense, understand this: real national defense also includes providing health care for members of the American family. That is a very important consideration. They are about to subtract from guaranteed benefits to the American family for the purpose of offering a tax cut to people at the very top, again, at the expense of middle class Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Judge Hastings for yielding.

The previous question I offer with Congresswoman Slaughter would prevent any legislation from being considered if the legislation would deny coverage or require higher premiums for preexisting conditions, increase costs for seniors for prescription drugs, or reduce Medicare solvency.

I have listened to the previous three speakers on the Republican side talk about national defense. That is understandable, but might we, for the purpose of this discussion, also acknowledge the following: real national defense also means providing health security for members of American families. That is part of the balance that we should be recognizing.

The priorities on the other side are the following: they are going to turn the issue of preexisting condition back to a voluntary nature at the State level.

As one who comes from local government, we should recognize the following: every time there is an economic downturn, you can be certain that Governors are going to use the money that was intended for health care to balance the budgets, and they are going to call it good management.

They are undermining the health security of the American people with their proposal on TrumpCare.

They have been threatening to eliminate coverage for millions of Americans for years, and now they are telling us they are on the eve of accomplishing just that.

But what does it mean for the American family? They want to go back to the days when you could be denied routine health insurance because you might have been born with diabetes, you might have had a liver transplant in midlife, you might have had a diagnosis of cancer in midlife, and you can no longer be insured despite the fact that you have spent a lifetime paying those premiums? And we are going to make this an option of the States to decide? This is going backwards on the issue of health security.

But that is not enough, as we know. They also are going to ask you to pay more for hospital care, more for prescription drugs, more for mental health and substance abuse treatment, more for pediatric care, and certainly more for cancer care. And they are going to call this an improvement in health care delivery?

Well, their recent improvements have made it clear. Let's not forget the previous bill had an underlying $1 trillion tax giveaway that would drain $75 billion from the Medicare trust fund and cut $840 billion from Medicaid, all for the purpose of providing a $1 trillion tax cut to the people at the very top.

Fewer covered, higher costs, and fewer protections for the American family. The previous question that Louise Slaughter and I are going to offer is the following:

We would prevent any of this legislation that is proposed that would be considered harmful to the consumers, as the Republican bill is. Americans need assurance about health care and, by the way, some predictability.

During my time of service here, I have seen how difficult it is to do health insurance. I think there is only one person in Washington, by the way, who said: Who knew health insurance could be this complicated?

Well, for those of us who have served here for any extended period of time, I can assure you, we all knew that health care was complicated in terms of delivery and economic consequence. But that is not enough for our friends today. They want to change the basic tenet of the guarantee of ending preexisting conditions.

I had a Republican friend I talked to yesterday. He said: I wish I was still back in the House because I would vote against that bill. He said: My daughter had a liver transplant, and now they are saying, with preexisting conditions, it is going to be up to the Governor of a State to decide whether or not she can continue to get care? We need the guarantee of Medicare coupled with the expansion of Medicaid, which has now offered insurance to 24 million Americans that didn't have insurance prior to the Affordable Care Act.

I would say this as well. And remember, half of that number, that is private insurance. We kept the private sector alive for the purpose of offering discipline to price. It has accomplished that. Healthcare spending in America has plateaued.

But, again, on this occasion, we won't let the facts get in the way of a rigid ideology that says we need to change the Affordable Care Act because Barack Obama offered it. That is what the test is now for the American people: Who sponsored legislation?

We have debated health care since Harry Truman was President. We have debated health care since Lyndon Johnson offered Medicare and Medicaid. Bob Dole and Mitt Romney and Richard Nixon all understood you needed the mandate to provide health care to all members of the American family. They are going to shun that today and tomorrow by turning their backs on preexisting conditions. Remember, real national defense also means providing health care for members of the American family.

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

Recently, President Trump said: Who knew that health care could be so complicated?

Well, 70 years ago, Harry Truman knew how complicated it could be when he first proposed national health insurance. Lyndon Johnson knew more than 50 years ago when he proposed, successfully, Medicare and Medicaid. Richard Nixon knew when he proposed the individual mandate. Bob Dole knew when he proposed the individual mandate. In Massachusetts, Mitt Romney knew when he proposed the individual mandate.

Mr. Speaker, recently, within the last week, the great on-the-street writer, Jimmy Breslin, died. Amongst the great columns and the great books he wrote, one of them that he wrote that will be with us in a timeless manner was ``The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight.''

That is what this institution has been like for the last 10 days. There were caucuses and there were conferences. People were running back and forth with new CBO scores and coming back to the floor with new proposals. Members are put in the position of being offered special arrangements so that they might be brought over the goal line--that, after 61 times they have voted in this House to try to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Well, here is what we have in front of us this afternoon: a CBO score says that 24 million Americans will see either an increase in premiums or they will lose their insurance, there will be an imposition of an age tax on older Americans, and a tax cut of $1 trillion. This bill has gone from bad to worse.

If that wasn't enough, to get the votes to pass the bill, they want to cut prescription drug benefits, mental health benefits, hospital benefits, and maternity care; and, yes, every one of us in this institution knows a family who is struggling with a loved one's addiction, and they want to roll back that benefit.

Recently, the conservative columnist Bill Kristol tweeted:

The healthcare bill doesn't, A, lower costs that they have;

B, it doesn't improve insurance; C, it doesn't increase

liberty; D, it doesn't make health care better. So what is

the point?

Here is the point: it is a $1 trillion tax cut so that they can change the baseline for their tax cuts that are coming down the road. That is what this is about.

Now, the President said he wanted an insurance plan that covered all members of the American family. What they are offering up today is a plan that cuts health insurance for 24 million American family members. It does not increase coverage, it does not lower costs, and it does not strengthen consumer protections.

So what does it do?

Sadly enough, back to the old argument that we have had in this institution for years: a $1 trillion tax cut for the people at the top and special interests.

The former speaker here a minute ago, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, spoke about perfection. I was here when this legislation was authored, and I helped to write it. I can tell you this right now: we knew it was not about perfection, but we subscribed to the idea, as was the case with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, that we would improve it as time went on. We would fix it so that all members of the American family might benefit from the basic notion of access and affordability as it relates to health care.

So what do we have here?

$839 billion of cuts to Medicaid, which is now long-term care for members of the American family.

Do you know why?

Sixty percent of Medicaid dollars go to nursing home care, and they want to cut $839 billion to provide a $1 trillion tax cut. Let me tell you, members of the American family can understand that.

In Massachusetts, where proudly I can say 100 percent of the children in our State are covered, 97 percent of the adults in Massachusetts are covered. And guess what? It polls regularly in the high seventies as to consumer satisfaction. A Republican Governor of Massachusetts has advised them to go slowly and to go carefully, that this is not the path that they want to travel down, as well as other Governors across the country who happen to be a Republican.

The hard truth here today is they are asking the American family to pay more to get less. Dozens of Republicans have said so today.

Secretary Mnuchin recently said that ``there will be no absolute tax cut for the upper class.'' I hope that the Republican Conference confers with Secretary Mnuchin so that they might get their facts straight on this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my friend--and he is my friend--from Ohio that his vote will result in 39,500 people losing their healthcare coverage if this legislation prevails.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), who was a substantive and major player in the development of the ACA when it was passed.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), a giant in terms of the morality of our time and a good friend and individual who helped write the Affordable Care Act, as well.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that his vote for this bill will result in 49,200 people in his congressional district in Minnesota losing their healthcare coverage and care.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Governor Charlie Baker of Massachusetts that relates to the debate we are having today.

Office of the Governor, Commonwealth of Massachusetts,

State House,

Boston, MA, March 21, 2017.

Dear Delegation Member: Health care is once again at the

forefront of national and state policy discussions; I know we

all share the goal of ensuring access to quality, affordable

health care coverage for the people of Massachusetts. With

Congress set to take up the American Health Care Act (AHCA)

imminently, I wanted to share with you my administration's

analysis of the potential effects this bill would have on our

state.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its score of

the AHCA on March 13. This analysis is broadly consistent

with concerns we have raised, with you and others, regarding

the bill's impact on the state and its residents' access to

affordable healthcare. Applying CBO's assumptions to

Massachusetts results in at least $1 billion of reduced

federal revenue beginning in 2020, and we estimate reduced

revenue of $1.3 billion in 2021, and $1.5 billion in 2022,

with likely a greater annual impact in the years that follow.

Specifically, our estimate extrapolated from the CBO

analysis of a $1.5 billion impact for FY 2022 includes $1.3

billion of annual MassHealth federal revenue losses and $200

million in annual reduced federal subsidies for private

insurance through the Connector.

Several key areas of concern for Massachusetts were not

included in the CBO analysis and could further impact the

Commonwealth's budget. For example, the CBO estimate does not

address 1115 waiver payments that we believe this bill would

put at risk. By FY22, the Commonwealth estimates an

additional $425-475 million per year of reduced federal

revenue in potential elimination of 1115 payments not

captured under the per capita targets, including federal

matching funds for a state-run ConnectorCare Wrap subsidy.

The actual experience for these and other factors is

significantly dependent on how the U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services implements the legislation and

unpredictable factors in the future (e.g., pharmaceutical

growth).

In addition to reduced federal revenue for Medicaid, the

CBO also projects a reduction in employer-sponsored health

insurance of 7 million people nationwide as a result of the

repeal of the federal Employer Mandate. This would exacerbate

a trend that Massachusetts has seen over the last several

years. Massachusetts repealed the Chapter 58 Fair Share

Contribution in 2013 in order to comport with the ACA. My

administration has proposed reinstating an employers' shared

responsibility for the costs of health care. This would be

increasingly important if the federal Employer Mandate were

repealed, as the AHCA proposes.

The Commonwealth does have certain protections in place

that could mitigate the impact of some of these changes.

Massachusetts retains its individual health insurance

mandate, reducing the likelihood that many people would drop

out of the insurance market due to the repeal of the federal

mandate. Massachusetts also has protective insurance coverage

laws that would not be superseded by the federal legislation.

The AHCA includes a provision that would prevent Medicaid

from reimbursing Planned Parenthood for providing important

health services such as cancer screenings. My administration

opposes this provision, and has already committed to funding

these services with state dollars if it should pass.

During conversations with governors across the country, the

Trump Administration has expressed a general openness to

providing greater state flexibility with respect to health

care, including through a letter issued by HHS Secretary

Price on March 14 to states. Our administration will pursue

additional flexibilities to stabilize our markets and ensure

continued coverage for residents and we urge you to support

these efforts by leading discussions in Congress to ensure

the people of Massachusetts continue to have access to a

quality health care system.

Overall, our analysis indicates that the AHCA would

increasingly strain the fiscal resources necessary to support

the Commonwealth's continued commitment to universal health

care coverage. I hope this information is helpful to you as

Congress takes up the American Health Care Act.

My administration and I will continue to stay in touch with

you as we work together to ensure access to quality,

affordable health coverage for all Massachusetts residents.

Sincerely,

Charles D. Baker,

Governor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), who played a major role in the substantive contribution he made to writing the ACA.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that his vote for this bill today will result in 68,300 people from his congressional district losing their health coverage and care.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), a very thoughtful member of the Committee on Ways and Means who also helped to write the ACA.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague and my friend that with his vote for this bill, 41,400 people from his congressional district in Pennsylvania will lose their healthcare coverage.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), who is from an adjacent district and a close friend and a long-time member of the Committee on Ways and Means and an individual who also contributed mightily to the development and writing of the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleague that her vote for this bill will result in 63,000 people in South Dakota losing their healthcare coverage and care.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a visionary, certainly, a forward-looking individual who also helped to write the ACA.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleague that his vote for this bill will result in 70,000 people in his congressional district in South Carolina losing their healthcare coverage.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), who is a thoughtful member of the Ways and Means Committee and lucky enough to have been educated in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that her vote for this bill will result in 42,000 people in her congressional district in Indiana losing their healthcare coverage and care.

I include in the Record a letter from Republican Governor Snyder of the State of Michigan raising his concerns about this legislation.

State of Michigan,

Executive Office,

Lansing, MI, March 21, 2017.

Hon. Sandy Levin,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Levin: As Congress considers

legislation to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act and

reform Medicaid, I want to ensure you are aware of the impact

that changes may have on beneficiaries in Michigan who rely

on these programs for access to care and overall health. I

also want to provide my perspective on priorities for federal

health reform and highlight how they have been utilized at

the state level to drive meaningful reform that has increased

access to cost-effective care.

In its current form, the American Health Care Act (AHCA)

shifts significant financial risk and cost from the federal

government to states without providing sufficient flexibility

to manage this additional responsibility. The proposed

legislation reduces federal resources that our state relies

on to assist 2.4 million Michiganders enrolled in traditional

Medicaid and the Healthy Michigan Plan, our state's

innovative Medicaid expansion program.

The current federal debate has largely focused on the

Medicaid expansion population, including over 650,000

childless adults and parents that are enrolled in the Healthy

Michigan Plan. However, half of all children in Michigan are

served by traditional Medicaid each year and roughly 67,000

of them currently reside in your district. Moreover, more

than 338,000 individuals with disabilities receive their

health care and support services through Medicaid and an

estimated 22,000 of these individuals reside in your

district. Altogether, there are 1.75 million children,

seniors, pregnant women and disabled individuals served by

traditional Medicaid in Michigan, and roughly 119,000 of them

reside in your district. As you know, these are our state's

most vulnerable citizens, friends and neighbors. The proposed

AHCA will adversely impact them.

While reforming the nation's health care system is vital,

it is imperative that gains in health coverage and access to

care are maintained. These ideas are not mutually exclusive.

In Michigan, innovative approaches to improving quality and

value are being utilized to support each individuals'

personal responsibility for their health. This has resulted

in significant reductions of nearly 50% in uncompensated

care, a dramatic decrease in the number of individuals using

the emergency room as a regular source of care, and nearly

85% of enrollees taking part in annual primary or preventive

care visits. As drafted, the AHCA would eliminate coverage

from the 49,000 individuals enrolled in the Healthy Michigan

Plan in your district, as Michigan taxpayers assume

responsibility over time for up to $800 million in additional

costs. This cost shift will trigger a provision in Michigan

law ending the Healthy Michigan program.

I believe Medicaid reform is necessary, however, that

reform must be approached deliberately to ensure that state

flexibility and innovation are valued, Michigan providers

remain strong, and our most vulnerable citizens do not fall

through the cracks. Ideally, this would be done by removing

prescriptive program requirements that require states to seek

waivers when implementing innovative ideas. Instead, states

would be given performance based outcomes with federal

involvement only when performance is lacking.

If Congress moves forward in passing the proposed AHCA,

which shifts financial risk to state taxpayers, my

administration and the Michigan Legislature must possess the

flexibility necessary to manage that risk. The Trump

Administration may provide additional flexibility to states,

however, I am concerned that federal agencies may encounter

limitations in federal statute. Ultimately, Michigan cannot

rely solely on the promise of future action without seeing

all of the tools that will be at our disposal to manage the

program.

In addition, under the proposed AHCA, I remain concerned

about the affordability of insurance coverage in the

individual market. I am particularly concerned about the

impact this legislation may have on older Michiganders who

could see significant cost increases.

I welcome the opportunity to partner with you to provide

greater federal budget predictability and improve health

outcomes of Michiganders, which in turn relieves pressure on

other social programs. I have worked with other Governors to

develop a proposal to accomplish these objectives while also

preserving coverage for Michiganders, and I hope this can

serve as a blueprint for you as we work together to

accomplish these goals.

I look forward to continuing our partnership to help

Michiganders lead healthy and productive lives.

Sincerely,

Rick Snyder,

Governor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who is a well-regarded member of the Ways and Means Committee. I think it is fair to say that everybody in this institution looks forward to his time when he gets up to speak.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleague that his vote for this bill will result in 38,200 people from his congressional district in Michigan losing their healthcare coverage, and 313,123 people in the State of Michigan, indeed, did sign up for the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a long-time friend, a very sound member of the committee, and also the well-regarded chairman of the Democratic Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that his vote for this bill will result in 40,900 people from his congressional district in Iowa losing healthcare coverage. I also want to thank the gentleman for being the first speaker on the Republican side to acknowledge that this is a tax cut.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Chicago, Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee and my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez), the vice chair of the Democratic Caucus, and a very strong performer on the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell), a valued member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu), a new member on the Ways and Means Committee, and a very thoughtful Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. O'Halleran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

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

In closing, I want to make sure the people of America understand what we are doing here in about 1 hour. We heard during the course of a Presidential campaign the promise that everything was going to be covered and we would be tired of winning.

If winning means that 24 million Americans are going to lose their healthcare coverage, if winning means imposing an age tax on seniors, if winning means higher out-of-pocket costs for working Americans, and if winning means robbing $75 billion from the Medicare trust fund, we don't want to be part of that victory lap.

This isn't about one person making up alternative facts. Our statements today have been based upon the CBO, the National Rural Health Association, the American Medical Association, the American Association of Retired Persons, and the March of Dimes.

This bill has fewer covered, weaker protections, and higher costs. Let's call this what it is today; it is a $1 trillion tax cut for the richest amongst us.

The Republicans are now facing the art of the ordeal. They have a bad plan, and they know it. They have scrambled for the last week to try to figure out how to stitch it together, and it hasn't worked.

For those across this country, think of the following: no maternity care, fewer hospital visits, no mental health services for those families who are struggling with a family member who has an opiate addiction, which is the crisis of our time.

This is more of the same: tax cuts for the wealthiest amongst us and healthcare cuts for everyone else.

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