Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this is the Republican bill: a trillion dollars in lost health care for millions; at the same time, a trillion dollars in tax breaks, mostly for the very wealthy and corporations.

The Republican majority says their bill is to provide patient- centered health care, but for patients there is no healthcare center when there is no insurance.

The Republican bill robs millions of needed insurance for their health and, in many cases, would rob them of their life.

The Republican plan would create death panels for numerous unknown Americans.

This is not our America. America can do better. We must.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Neal for his work and that of all of us on the committee on the Democratic side.

As CBO has said, under this bill, 24 million Americans would lose their health insurance next year, and 24 million over the next decade.

Today, most are invisible, but they would become seen and heard at emergency rooms, with no other place to go with more serious illnesses because of no preventive care.

They are people 50 to 64 with far higher premiums; mothers without access to affordable maternity care; elderly evicted from nursing homes, losing coverage from Medicaid, the largest source of long-term care in our Nation; and lives lost that could have been saved. I repeat: lives lost that could have been saved.

I remember some time ago I met a woman who had health insurance through her job. She contracted breast cancer and received treatment but then lost her job and insurance. Then the ACA covered her. She looked straight at us and said that, without further treatments, she would not be alive today.

Under this bill, a trillion dollars is lost for health care, and there will be a trillion dollars in tax cuts, mostly for the very wealthy and corporations.

This is not America. I repeat: This is not America.

Mr. Speaker, at the onset of the Great Recession, our unemployment insurance system was completely inadequate. Democrats took the lead, against increasing Republican opposition, to improve the system and to provide unemployment benefits to Americans who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. The result was an emergency Federal unemployment compensation program which helped more than 24 million people.

Research from a broad array of experts shows these Federal UI benefits, in combination with State-provided benefits, saved more than 2 million jobs, prevented 1.4 million home foreclosures, and kept an estimated 5 million Americans out of poverty. In short, a strong unemployment insurance system helped prevent the Great Recession from turning into another Great Depression.

Today, our unemployment insurance system is again inadequate and totally unprepared to respond to a future recession; and once again, rather than stepping up with solutions, Republicans' answer to working people is a cold shoulder. Instead of responding to the deterioration of our unemployment insurance system, Republicans today want to shame and blame Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, while also violating their constitutional rights.

Here are the real problems this legislation completely ignores:

Number one, only one out of every four jobless Americans now receives unemployment benefits, near a record all-time low.

Two, eight States have cut back on the maximum number of weeks of benefits available for unemployed workers, including my home State of Michigan.

Three, the value of UI benefits has declined over time, with 30 States now having maximum UI benefits that are less than half of the State's average weekly wage.

Four, the triggers for the federally funded Extended Benefits program, EB, are extremely out of date, so they do not turn on when unemployment begins to rise significantly.

Five, our Nation's UI system is underfunded, with only 18 States' funds reaching a minimum level of adequate solvency, according to a 2016 DOL report.

Six, the Federal UI trust funds, which support extended benefits during downturns in the economy, have a deficit of over $8 billion, hurt by the majority's decision to allow part of the revenue stream to those funds to expire in 2011.

Seven, our spending on workforce development as a percentage of GDP is now only one-seventh of its 1979 peak; and since 2010, Republicans in Congress have cut workforce education programs by $400 million. So we are doing less to help the unemployed while they look for work and less to help them prepare for a new job.

Today's bill ignores these problems completely and, instead, attempts to demean those needing help. In discouraging access to unemployment benefits, it reminds me of a massive problem we have uncovered in Michigan that involved at least 20,000--and perhaps many more--UI claimants being wrongly accused of fraud and ordered to pay huge penalties.

We should be focusing today on ensuring our UI system is ready for the great challenge, not to mention helping Americans who are seeking work right now. Instead, this majority has

brought up this misguided bill, and I urge all Members to oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's headline in The Washington Post: ``These Muslim families sought refuge in America's heartland. Now, Trump's visa ban is tearing them apart.'' One is in my district.

Madam Speaker, with H.R. 7, Republicans are again targeting American women's health care.

This bill limits financial assistance in order to restrict women's choices in the health insurance marketplaces, forcing women and their families to select only certain plans. The goal is to restrict the ability of a woman to make her own choices.

This bill comes up 1 day after President Trump reinstituted the Mexico rule. It prohibits U.S. foreign assistance to any organization which uses not those funds, but those from any other source for any activity related to abortion services.

When I was Assistant Administrator of the AID in the late seventies, I led the highly organized effort that established a strict process for cordoning off any U.S. funds from any activity related to abortions, in violation of the Hyde amendment.

What the Mexico rule means is that if any organization uses funds from any source related to abortion, it cannot receive any U.S. assistance, even if 99 percent of its activities related to women's health are totally unrelated to abortions and even programs in a nation where abortion is illegal.

The result will be the absence of health care for millions of women in our Nation, as H.R. 7 will result for millions of women in our Nation. We are seeing 48 hours of reckless disregard for women's health.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to my colleague from Michigan: Hundreds of thousands of people are going to lose their insurance under a plan that was agreed to by the Republican Governor, and I will send you the numbers in your district.

Mr. Chairman, the Republican effort to repeal the ACA, causing 30 million Americans to lose their health insurance, is built on a foundation of misrepresentations and falsehoods. Yesterday, the Speaker said the Affordable Care Act is collapsing. It is not. Nationwide, enrollment is higher than it is has ever been, and the percentage of Americans without health insurance is at the lowest level on record.

What is collapsing is the time for Republicans to move beyond their rhetoric and come up with a plan. They say they will produce a comprehensive replacement, but they have been saying that for 7 years.

Mr. Neal is here. Seven years, Mr. Neal, we have been hearing that.

Those files on the Republican desk--I wish you would raise them again--aren't a plan. They are a ploy.

Republicans say repealing the Affordable Care Act will help people, and there is at least a sliver of truth to that claim. The GOP repeal bill will help millionaires, providing them an average tax cut of over $50,000 a year. At the same time, it will actually raise taxes on millions of moderate and middle-income families who will lose tax credits for purchasing health insurance.

Mr. Speaker, to know how high the stakes are in the Republican effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act, you only have to listen to your constituents. One of the many I have heard from is Kevin Wittbrodt from Warren, Michigan, who writes: ``I'm a Marine Corps veteran, and I'm covered by the VA system, but my wife isn't. She has kidney disease and I've found it hard to get coverage for her with the preexisting condition . . . but I found an affordable plan under the ACA. This allows for continued treatment and she's still with me.''

ACA is not collapsing, contrary to what the Speaker is saying. The Republicans are trying to sink ACA while it is very much afloat and alive for Kevin, his wife, and millions and millions of others. Republicans have been promising a plan for 7 years and never delivered. They will not deliver now for all of America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Jacqueline Noonan, who recently retired as Mayor after 29 years of service and dedication to the city of Utica. On January 8th, friends and family will gather to celebrate her retirement and pay tribute to her many accomplishments.

Jackie graduated from Oakland University with a Bachelor's Degree in Secondary Education. She found great joy in working with kids as a teacher and later as a volunteer in the Utica Community Schools where her children attended school. In fact, if there was a way to get involved in her community, Jackie found it. A committed and prolific volunteer, Jackie served as a member of the Utica Community Schools Enrollment Advisory Board, volunteered with the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts, was active in St. Lawrence Catholic Church, and helped new mothers with La Leche League International. While serving as Mayor, she continued to work closely with students as a spokesperson and advocate for the Macomb County Traffic Safety Association's ``Don't Drink and Drive'' alcohol education program. In 1991, she returned to the classroom teaching at Marlow Junior High and later at Eisenhower High School.

Jackie and her husband Jerry loved being a part of Utica's small town life where they ran a family business for 21 years. Jerry went to work for the Fire Department and later retired as the Assistant Fire Chief and Fire Inspector. Jackie was a founding member of the Friends of Utica Public Library and served on numerous committees throughout the community.

She was elected to City Council in 1981 and was elected Mayor in 1987.

As Mayor, Jackie understood that in addition to serving its residents, the City of Utica also plays a vital role in strengthening the region as a whole. She led the efforts to improve essential city services and responsiveness to constituents and businesses. Jackie spearheaded efforts to improve local roads including the widening of important roadways like M-59 and Van Dyke Avenue. Working closely with her on this project, I saw firsthand her dogged determination. Jackie also saw the value in establishing strong working relationships with her neighboring communities of Sterling Heights and Shelby Township as they shared services and resources. They even held their annual State of the City addresses together.

I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Jackie and wishing her and her husband Jerry, and all their children and grandchildren the very best as they begin this next chapter. I am grateful to Jackie for her many years of dedicated public service, as well as for her friendship, and I am so pleased to join with the entire community in paying tribute to her, which is so deeply deserved.

Mr. Speaker, any measure that seeks to promote a peaceful resolution to tensions between Israelis and Palestinians--whether coming from the United Nations or from this Chamber--should provide a balanced picture of the facts on the ground and the challenges confronting both sides. The recent UN Security Resolution on Israeli settlements failed that test by blaming Israel almost solely for impeding a two-states solution for peace and by using prejudicial language that places an unfair burden on Israel in depicting the basis for future negotiations. Calling any settlement activity by Israel since 1967 a major obstacle to peace, as the UN resolution does, ignores the reality that geographical adjustments will have to be made as part of any two-states solution reached by parties through direct negotiations.

However, the resolution before us today is also not balanced in that it too ignores conditions on the ground. Expressing the sense of Congress to repeal the UN Resolution does not focus on the increasingly fragile state of the two-states solution, and on conditions that make its potential achievement increasingly difficult to obtain. Prime Minister Netanyahu has called his government the most pro-settlement in history. President-elect Trump further diminishes chances for the two- states solution by choosing envoys who undercut the prospects for peace by expressing support for major settlement expansions, and whose opposition to a two-states solution reinforces opposition within the Israeli government. These positions threaten to continue to move momentum dangerously away from the possibility of a two-states solution.

I believe that the two-states approach, as challenging as it is to achieve, is the only way to ensure a Jewish and democratic state of Israel living in security with a non-militarized Palestinian state. It is important for peace in the Middle East and U.S. national interests.

This resolution is at present the only vehicle to express my concerns with the UN resolution, and I will therefore support it. However, I will continue to speak out on further actions that I believe will diminish the chance of a two-states solution and on other issues vital to peace in the Middle East.

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

Last year, as we remember so well, Republicans reacted to the tax reform proposal from then-Chairman Dave Camp with a ``blah, blah, blah, blah.'' That reception, echoed in the overall chilly reaction of the Republicans, stemmed in part from that plan's honesty.

Chairman Camp had pledged not to increase the deficit with his proposal. To achieve that goal, he played it straight--at least within the first 10 years. He proposed a tax on banks that drew cringes from his fellow Republicans. He put forward a surtax on the highest earners--essentially, a third tax rate. And he eliminated one of the most widely used provisions in the Tax Code: the State and local sales tax deduction. In the process, he paid for making permanent tax provisions like the bill before us today, this single piece of legislation costing about $80 billion alone.

Like it or not, it was at least somewhat honest accounting. And so started a Republican ploy to get around the hard realities of tax reform. The gist of that ploy: take a number of provisions separately, make them permanent, and don't pay a dime for them. Not a dime. The reason? The expectation of needing to raise less revenue in tax reform would allow Republicans to more easily cut tax rates.

Republicans feared that by trying to pay for their tax cuts--and they still do fear this--by shifting to the highly uncertain dynamic scoring may not be enough. So they are further trying to rig the system with baseline games and making permanent tax provisions outside of tax reform.

Not having to pay for $800 billion worth of tax extenders made permanent would make it easier for Republicans to lower taxes, especially on higher income taxpayers, carrying out further their trickle-down tax policies. It would allow them to avoid having to end the abuse of tax savings and incentives to ship jobs overseas.

By massively increasing the deficit--this is so important--through permanent unpaid-for tax revisions, Republicans could later cite this debt that they created as a reason to take a hatchet to programs like Head Start or fail to adequately fund the vital research at the National Institutes of Health. The President blew the whistle on that scheme--the rigging of the system and sound policy--with support from Democrats. Last year, the ploy was stopped in the Senate.

But here, House Republicans are going at it again--before even hinting, by the way, what tax reform might look like; there is no H.R. 1 for tax reform this session--throwing to the wind the statement of the chairman of our committee, Mr. Ryan, about trying to find common ground on common aspects of tax reform, at the same time betraying the GOP preaching on fiscal responsibility.

As chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan never assumed tax extenders would be a permanent part of the Tax Code. Otherwise, he would never have been able to say he balanced the budget in 10 years.

So what the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee is proposing now is the opposite of the approach he pursued as the chairman of the Budget Committee.

The bill before us on section 179 addresses an important subject. It is primarily available to small and middle-sized businesses. It will likely be part of any tax reform. And until then, it will be renewed. That is certain.

Republicans control this House, and they control when renewal would occur, absent tax reform, but this provision deserves not to be left out of a tax reform process. It should give careful and comprehensive consideration of all the tax provisions in our Code.

So maybe the best way to expose this Republican gambit is for editorial writers to use their pen and for others to

use social media, tweeting to Republicans this message: Stop your efforts at congressional alchemy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a very active and distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to myself such time as I shall consume.

I say to the majority leader: this isn't about small business. We favor 179. This is about monkey business, monkeying with procedure, doing the opposite of what the chairman did when he was chairman of the Budget Committee, of trying to rig the system. I wish the majority leader would have cited the entire Statement of Administration Policy. I assume he read it all.

Here is what it said on behalf of the President:

``If this same, unprecedented approach of making certain traditional tax extenders permanent without offsets were followed for the other traditional tax extenders, it would add $500 billion or more to deficits over the next ten years, wiping out most of the deficit reduction achieved through the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2013.

``The Administration wants to work with the Congress to make progress on measures that strengthen the economy and help middle-class families, including pro-growth business tax reform. However, H.R. 636 represents the wrong approach.''

That is what the President is talking about, and it is really sad when the majority leader comes here and misrepresents what the administration has said.

We want to work together. We want to find common ground. The answer today is, from the Republicans: Forget about common ground, common elements; stop working together; we'll do it our way; don't worry about tax reform now, we'll worry about that later.

That is what really this is all about.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I say to my friend from Ohio, you are running this railroad. If you want to wait until December, that is your decision. It wasn't ours.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), who heads up one of our subcommittees as ranking member.

I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), another distinguished member of our committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

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

Mr. Chairman, we are not suggesting you surrender your ground for 1 minute, not for 1 second. What we are saying is, let's search for common ground, and don't you come here and cut out pieces of it, piece by piece. That is what we are suggesting.

In terms of a 1-year basis, we are saying, do things comprehensively like your predecessor did.

This isn't a matter just of process, process, process. It is a matter of policy, policy, policy. That is what this is all about.

You come forth, and you then talk about wage inequality. What have you brought up here that relates to that? We are trying to get a vote, for example, on minimum wage. You won't even allow us a vote. Give us a vote.

You talk about TAA. The rules apply there. And we could go into the details in terms of whether it is authorized for a certain period of time, and after that, then if it is permanent, it becomes part of the baseline.

What you are trying to do today is essentially rig the system. You want to do it with dynamic scoring. And now you essentially want to take each of these pieces, make them permanent, unpaid for, to put them in the baseline. You did not do that when you were chairman of the Budget Committee.

You talk about honesty. I won't use that word because I totally respect your honesty more than that. I think it is hypocritical.

I yield to the gentleman.

Well, here is the problem: you took the baseline in the budget, and you don't want to take it for this. You want to squeeze $800 billion permanently unpaid for, change the baseline, and that increases the deficit by that amount, and then you use that deficit to squeeze out needs, whether it is NIH or whatever it is. Infrastructure has been mentioned here also.

We don't have the money for that. It is hypocritical to do one thing in one committee and another thing in another committee. It is not only hypocritical, it is a very dangerous approach.

That is our answer. I am not suggesting you surrender for 1 minute, but don't take pieces out of ground that we want to be common. That is what you are doing, and that is why it is antithetical to tax reform. That is why Dave Camp came here with a comprehensive program, and you guys didn't like it.

You said, ``Blah, blah, blah, blah.'' That was the Speaker, and others of you did not like it--the bank tax--so you don't want to do it comprehensively at first. You want to do it piece by piece. That is bad policy, it is bad for the deficit, and it is bad for the hopes for tax reform.

If you want me to surrender time, I reserve the balance of my time.

I say to the gentleman from Ohio, I favor 179, not doing it piecemeal unpaid for this way.

By the way, this is not the worst job recovery. There has been an increase in jobs in the last month, month after month. The problem is it hasn't lifted the incomes of middle-income families. Let's get together to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), who has been working on small business--maybe you will tell us how many years--a few.

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

We have debated this now for 2 days. The issue isn't whether 179 is a useful provision. It is. It will be continued. That can be sure. It should not be continued essentially forever unpaid for, adding to the deficit, eroding the chances for tax reform, but this really isn't about 179.

The purpose of bringing up this and other provisions outside of tax reform is really essentially to rig the system. It is to play games with the system. It is to try to change the rules so that essentially, if you make it permanent unpaid for, it goes into the baseline; and therefore, after that, you don't have to pay for it.

That is what this is really all about. It means you can do other things like reducing tax rates mainly for the very wealthy, having more room to do that, not having to worry about the money to pay for that because you haven't used the money to pay for the extenders. That is really what this is all about.

It wasn't done in the Rules Committee by Chairman Ryan. It should not be done now. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are trying to adjust the rules, to change them, so that they can proceed with their approaches. It isn't forthright, and it isn't honest.

They are worried the dynamic scoring won't be enough, so essentially, they are trying to do dynamic things--so-called--with the basis. All of that really is contrary to sound policy, it is contrary to the rules, and it is really contrary to the search for bipartisanship.

We will sit down tomorrow and talk about 179 as an important part of tax reform. We will do that tomorrow. We haven't even started on tax reform. Now, you essentially want to say we will cut some pieces, and we will do that. That is not sound policy. As Mr. Neal said, it really abrogates sound practice. That is what this is all about.

Mr. Speaker, I urge very much that we vote ``no.'' There will be, one way or another, enough votes if this ever got through the Senate--and it won't--to sustain a veto. Don't play games. Let's address tax reform and responsibility in terms of the deficits.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the issues here are not the merits. That isn't the issue. The issue is whether we proceed this way. Proceeding this way is the opposite of bipartisanship--its very opposite. The chairman has said he wants to find common ground on common aspects.

What this does is essentially pull terrain out from under common ground. It is the opposite of a search for common ground. The President has said he will veto. We have the messages right here once again. It is the opposite of bipartisanship.

It is also, if I might say, the opposite of certainty for taxpayers. We went through this last year. These bills will not become law, period. If they were to pass the House and the Senate, they would be vetoed. That happened last year. It did not become law. It will not become law this year.

These provisions will be continued if we don't pass tax reform. Mr. Chairman, you control the schedule. If you don't want to wait until December, do it earlier if tax reform doesn't become a reality.

That is another problem with this bill and these bills. They are the opposite of tax reform. You don't do tax reform in a piecemeal fashion. Dave Camp, to his credit, understood that, so he came up with a comprehensive package.

In the Senate, Republicans understand this. Senator Blunt said last week:

As long as the Finance Committee feels there is an

opportunity for overall tax reform, I think you are going to

not see a quick response to individual bills coming over.

What could be clearer? What could be clearer?

This is also the opposite of fiscal responsibility.

You have here three opposites--really four, and four opposites make a big minus.

Fourteen billion is the cost of this bill and 79 billion, the next bill--that is 93. We marked up just a few hours ago in Ways and Means two more bills, one 42 billion and another one 177 billion--that is 219. And you add up those, over $310 billion in terms of adding to the deficit.

There has been some talk about helping the middle class. Action is the opposite of platitudes. Where is the action on the child tax credit? Where is the action on the EITC also affecting working and middle class families? Where is the action on the work opportunity tax credit? Where is the action on the minimum wage? The answer is we are now several months into this session.

A reporter said to me, What is bill number one?

I said, I have no idea.

How about other bills that really address the needs of the middle class of this country?

As expressed in Ways and Means, so many of us are very opposed to what is really a counterproductive path here. The merits, again, are not the basic issue.

The basic issue, do we want to fly in the face of bipartisanship, fly in the face of certainty for taxpayers, fly in the face of tax reform, and fly in the face of fiscal responsibility? We should not be doing that. We should not be doing that.

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

It is now my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished whip, who is going to supply, if the gentleman will wait here, for a very clear answer.

I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland.

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

The answer to the gentleman is you pay for certainty. If you make something permanent, you should pay for it. And that is essentially what our chairman did when he chaired the Budget Committee. His budget never assumed these provisions were permanently in the baseline or he would never have

been able to say he balanced the budget in 10 years. That is the reality.

If you want to add hundreds of billions of dollars to the budget, you have got to face up to paying for them; otherwise, you squeeze out other necessary programs.

Mr. Speaker, it is now a pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of our committee, a very active member.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my real pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, Nancy Pelosi, our distinguished leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Essentially, what the gentleman from Illinois says is: Well, let's do tax reform by picking and choosing a piece or a few at a time.

That is the opposite of tax reform. He described it. That is the difference.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), a very distinguished member of our committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, if could I ask how much time we have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), another distinguished member of our committee, the chairman of our Caucus.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I think the majority leader is leaving the floor, but I want him to hear me. I am an original if not the original sponsor of the provision regarding food donation. I have a son and daughter-in-law who are working on this very issue.

The issue is this: the majority leader helped lead an effort to cut food stamps by $40 billion. The argument was we could not afford it. Now, they come forth here with a provision that they don't want to pay for, added to other provisions that will cost $200 billion, $300 billion, going to $700 billion or $800 billion.

That puts a bad name on the notion of commitment. Commitment needs to have some consistency.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), our ranking member on the Committee on the Budget so dedicated to these issues. If he needs more time, he should just ask.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), another member of our committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

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

We have heard a lot of discussion about many of these programs, maybe most of all about food programs. But really, let's look at it beyond the rhetoric. Essentially when it comes to food programs, what the Republicans are doing is giving with one hand while they take with another. And there is much more that they take than they would give.

The food provision here comes to $2.2 billion. They have chopped $40 billion from food stamps; that is 20 times more. As the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) pointed out, when you add in WIC and other programs, they have cut way over $100 billion. And they say they had to do that, in part, because they could not afford it.

So they come forth with bills that are going to add to the deficit, and that shows what this is all about, because they pass these bills adding to the deficit, and then they come back and they say, Sorry, when it comes to other needed programs, we don't have the money.

Indeed, not only do they give with one hand and take with another, and much more, but they give an empty hand, an empty hand like this-- nothing in it--for the Child Tax Credit, for the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, for the New Markets provision that really matters, for the EITC. And then they say, Well, we can't afford it, yet they won't close the tax loopholes. It is so inconsistent.

I think in terms of the impact on human beings, it is not only inadequate but it is impersonal.

So we come here fortified. We are determined to do the right thing when it comes to tax reform. We are going to do the right thing when it comes to other important issues, including fiscal responsibility. And we are going to make sure that there are the funds available for needed programs because we have paid for things.

I strongly urge a ``no'' vote. That really is standing up for the right thing

when it comes to bipartisanship, to tax reform, and to fiscal responsibility.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the NASA Authorization bill before the House.

This legislation is important because it reaffirms Congress' commitment to space exploration and the important role NASA plays in the areas of science, aeronautics, exploration, and human spaceflight. Over the next few months, NASA spacecraft will visit Pluto and the dwarf planet Ceres for the first time. We will further develop our nation's commercial launch capability even as NASA continues work on the Orion space capsule and a new heavy-lift rocket. NASA will also build on its efforts in the important areas of space science and education. The bill before the House supports all of these endeavors.

I want to mention one NASA program in particular, the Student Spaceflight Experiments Program. This program gives students across the country the chance to design microgravity experiments to fly in Earth orbit. Indeed, one of these experiments is scheduled to come home from the International Space Station today. The experiment was designed by a team of four students from Wilkinson Middle School in Madison Heights, Michigan. The experiment involves the effects of microgravity on water purification. In Michigan, we tend to take the availability of fresh water for granted since we are surrounded by the Great Lakes, but water is a rare and precious commodity in space, and hopefully this experiment will help future astronauts to re-use water.

I want to commend the students who have worked so hard on this microgravity experiment: Regina Alsabagh, Farah Sabah, Maryam Kafra and Israa Alfadhli. Their achievement is all the more remarkable since their experiment originally was supposed to be carried into orbit last October, but that rocket exploded shortly after liftoff, destroying the students' experiment. Fortunately, NASA was able to find space on a rocket to the space station that launched in January, and the Wilkinson students managed to build a second version of their experiment in time for that flight.

I congratulate the Wilkinson students for their hard work, perseverance, and determination to overcome obstacles. It's important that Congress continue to support NASA and efforts like the Student Spaceflight Experiments Program. I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting for the NASA Authorization bill.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent earlier today during roll call vote 59. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on roll call vote 59, the motion on ordering the previous question on the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 50 and H.R. 527.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, well, the majority leader says we need a new system. This has been for 4 years their new system--a total blank page.

Their problem is that it is working, that health care is working. It is working for these people: 12 million uninsured Americans who got coverage; over 10 million enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP; 3 million young adults, 3 million who are now covered because of their parents' health policy.

It is working. It is working for the 129 million Americans with preexisting health conditions, so many of whom were out in the cold; for 105 million Americans who no longer have a lifetime limit or an annual limit; and for seniors who got the benefit of filling the doughnut hole.

There is some reference here to increased health care costs. It is a lie. Health care costs have been going down. It is a fib. It isn't true.

I think what bothers Republicans most of all is that it is working, and their ideology is blind to success, or they don't want to see it.

We are going to vote ``no.'' What is this, the 56th time? We have lost track of how many times we voted ``no.''

We are voting ``no'' because of the millions of people who were left out by our insurance coverage, who now have the decency of health care coverage and the protection of health care coverage.

We are proud of health care reform, so we stand up to say ``yes'' to it by voting ``no.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) who has worked on health care for how many years, Mr. Rangel?

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, Dr. McDermott.

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

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), another distinguished member of our committee.

I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a member of our committee and also the vice chair of our Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is there remaining, please?

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we may have one additional speaker who is not here yet, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

Mr. Brady, are you ready to close?

Mr. Brady, are you ready to close?

And then you will close?

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I insert in the Record a Statement of Administration Policy.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, February 2, 2015.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 596--Repealing the Affordable Care Act

(Rep. Byrne, R-AL, and 48 cosponsors)

The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R.

596. The House has now attempted to repeal or undermine the

Affordable Care Act more than 50 times. H.R. 596 would take

away critical benefits and health care coverage from hard-

working middle class families. In addition to taking away

Americans health care security, the bill would increase the

deficit, remove policies that have helped slow health care

cost growth and improve the quality of care patients receive,

and detract from the work the Congress could be doing to

further job creation and economic growth.

The Affordable Care Act is not only working, it is hilly

integrated into an improved American health care system.

Discrimination based on pre-existing conditions is a thing of

the past. And under the Affordable Care Act, we've seen the

slowest growth in health care prices in nearly 50 years,

benefiting all Americans.

Repealing the Affordable Care Act would mean that Health

Insurance Marketplaces where millions of Americans now

compare private insurance plans and get tax credits to

purchase them would shut down. Tax credits for small business

owners who cover their employees would be taken away. States

would lose substantial Federal assistance under Medicaid to

provide coverage for the neediest Americans. According to the

most recent projections by the Congressional Budget Office

(CBO), 27 million Americans are expected to gain coverage due

to the law. Repeal will likely result in most of these

individuals remaining uninsured or losing their insurance

altogether. An estimated 10 million Americans gained coverage

during 2014, and repealing the law would erase most of these

coverage gains and strip these Americans of the security and

peace of mind they now have.

Further, repealing the health care law would have

implications far beyond Americans who have or will gain

insurance.

More than 250 million Americans with insurance private

insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid would lose the benefits and

protections they receive under the health care law. Insurance

companies would no longer have to cover as dependents

millions of young adults who have been able to stay on or

sign up on their parents' plans. Lifetime limits and

restrictive annual limits on coverage could be reimposed.

Women could be charged more than men and up to 129 million

Americans with pre-existing conditions would be at risk of

not being able to access or afford health coverage. Policies

that promote efficiency and accountability in health care and

health insurance would be erased.

Reforms that strengthen Medicare's long-term finances also

would be repealed. Seniors also would lose the more generous

prescription drug coverage provided under the health care

law, as well as free preventive care, and Medicare's Hospital

Insurance Trust Fund would become insolvent years earlier.

Moreover, by repealing these reforms to Medicare and other

reforms that encourage doctors and hospitals to provide

efficient, high-quality care, the legislation would drive up

costs and worsen patient care throughout our health care

system.

CBO has previously estimated that repealing the health care

law would add more than $100 billion to the deficit over the

ten years ending in 2022, and more than $1 trillion in the

following decade. This not only hurts the Government: it

hurts State and local economies, job creation, and the

Nation's long-term prosperity.

The last thing the Congress should do is refight old

political battles and take a massive step backward by

repealing basic protections that provide security for the

middle class. Right now, the Congress needs to work together

to focus on the economy, helping middle-class families, and

creating jobs.

If the President were presented with H.R. 596, he would

veto it.

Mr. Speaker, this came from the President. The President said, when he ran for office, ``Yes, we can.'' He came here and eventually secured a majority to pass a bill to rectify 75 years of inaction, 75 years for Americans without health care by the millions, and so we did it.

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have said, ``We will,'' but they never have. We have never seen a bill that addressed this issue comprehensively. Now, they are on the run because millions and millions of people have now benefited for a variety of reasons who never had a single hour of health care for themselves or their children. Now, the Republicans say, ``We will come up with something.'' It is too late.

Health care reform is here to stay. We can improve it, but Republicans will never destroy it. The American people know it is complex, but they know their health needs. We responded. We responded.

That should be and is respected, not the disrespect of coming here 56 times

to say ``no'' when they have never come up with anything.

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

Mr. Chair, we need to be clear about what is happening here today. The Republican Majority in the House is putting our national security at risk by threatening to shut down the Department of Homeland in order to advance their mean-spirited, anti-immigrant agenda.

House Republicans don't like President Obama. We get it. The Majority also disagrees with the actions the President has taken on immigration.

Look, if you disagree with the President on immigration, let's hear your plan to fix our nation's broken immigration system. Bring your bill to the Floor and let's debate it. But we shouldn't let down our guard on national security by playing games with the bill that funds border security, immigrations and customs enforcement, FEMA, and the Coast Guard.

We have a bipartisan Homeland Security funding bill that could easily pass the House and Senate. We could pass that bill today and the President would sign it into law. Instead, the Republican Majority is preparing to load up the bill with a number of divisive, poison pill amendments that the President will never agree to. Unless House Republicans change course, funding for the entire Department of Homeland Security will cut off on February 27.

So the message to my Republican colleagues is clear. Stop playing politics with our national security and send the President a clean Homeland Security funding bill.