Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for his very careful scrutiny of Judge Gorsuch and for participating with us tonight.

It gives me great privilege to join with the distinguished Congresswoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) to be able to really articulate

what is at stake with the potential for Gorsuch to be the ninth member of the United States Supreme Court.

As I do that, allow me to offer a personal note of sympathy to my hometown, to the Constable's Office, in the shooting and death of Chief Clinton Greenwood, to his family for his tragic death, and to acknowledge the service that he has given in many, many ways as a law enforcement officer and attorney committed to the implementation of the law. My sympathy goes to his family and to his colleagues.

I also want to acknowledge the tragedy in Russia and the loss of life, which indicates how close all of us are around the world and that we should be committed to the fight against terrorism, wherever it may be.

If I might, I applaud the Democratic Senators, in this instance, in the other body to express my appreciation for taking a fight that many would be critical of. Now, that fight I don't put in the context of politics or partisanship. I have not heard one Senator who is opposing Judge Gorsuch and is not supporting or participating in the filibuster mention one word about the political elections or the process that occurred in 2016.

I have heard truly deliberative analysis that I think is important to recount, Congresswoman Norton. I am delighted with the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia and the distinguished leadership that the gentlewoman gives us as the chair of the Judicial Nominating Committee for the Congressional Black Caucus, a position that the gentlewoman has served ably for years and has resulted in some outstanding jurists because of her leadership that the Congressional Black Caucus has been able to advocate for.

During the tenure of President Barack Obama, as the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia worked very closely on his nominees, distinguished jurists have been placed on the Federal bench and in the Supreme Court to no one's complaint. In addition, President Obama followed protocol and consulted with Members of the other party in the United States Senate.

Unfortunately, we are now ending this process with the nomination of Judge Gorsuch by the President of the United States, this President who announced it as a campaign trick by issuing a list of individuals that he had not vetted but had been given by those who were bartering: This is a list, and you will have our support in the election.

My fear is that that is not the context in which distinguished jurists should be appointed to the Supreme Court. There is no doubt that this was bait for voters to be able to fall in the column of this particular individual who now holds the office.

So no criticism should go to my colleagues in the other body who realize that this is about life-or-death matters. This is about the millions of Americans who will suffer at the hands of Judge Gorsuch on the United States Supreme Court. I am more convinced now.

I am grateful for their debate because, as they have debated in a very detailed, passionate manner, I hope that they have been able to provide light and education to Americans who may be watching and trying to understand the ``no'' vote and the ``yes'' vote, the filibuster, that it is not in any way anyone's political desire to not have the Supreme Court working on behalf of the American people, adhering to the high calling and ultimate judgment of the Supreme Court, which is to recognize settled law and to be able to respect the rights of all Americans and not skew this Court to the point that some Americans will be left out in the hall of justice.

Why should my friends in the other body who have taken this courageous stand yield to false criticism and pontificating and grandstanding about they have never seen this before, the other persons who have voted ``yes'' have never seen this before, this is outrageous, a qualified individual.

I have no angst against the person. He has ascended to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. He has colleagues who respect him. He showed himself respectful before the Senate Judiciary Committee; in fact, some called him charming and engaging. Again, I make mention of the fact that this is about life and death.

So let me put in the context a very important statement made by Amanda Bronstad in the National Law Journal article, February 28, 2017: ``Neil Gorsuch `Piercingly Textual' and Often Pro-Defense on Class Actions and Arbitration.''

``According to a careful review of Gorsuch's decisions, his textualist approach, more than ideology, is the common theme of his opinions on class actions, arbitration, and mass torts. And yet, though some of his decisions have favored plaintiffs, Gorsuch's careful judicial reasoning and parsing of statutory language has more often led him to side with the defense,'' leaving most others out in the cold.

In addition, Judge Gorsuch has a disdain for those who seek to redress their civil rights and other remedies of law.

In a 2015 article published in the conservative National Review, these are his words:

``American liberals have been addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private school education.

``This overweening addiction to the courtroom as the place to debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary.''

Well, Judge Gorsuch, let me tell you a thing or two. I grew up in a segregated America. At my birth, African Americans were treated unequally in terms of education as well as accommodations, as well as the right to vote. We couldn't even march in some places in the Deep South without being shot at, losing our lives, being hosed at, and dogs making sure that our young kids were intimidated and even bitten.

Maybe he fails to remember the four little girls in the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, called the bombing in Birmingham, in 1963. Maybe he fails to remember the tragedy of the Edmond Pettus Bridge or Jimmie Lee Jackson shot dead in the streets of Selma. Or maybe he doesn't understand Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, Miranda v. Arizona, Gideon v. Wainwright, New York Times v. Sullivan, Obergefell v. Hodges, and Shelby County v. Holder. These cases are dealing with issues such as the right to vote, the right to an equal education, the Fourth Amendment interpretation of the right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure, and the First Amendment right to freedom of the press.

Maybe he doesn't understand that these cases have brought to America the image and the recognition of justice. It doesn't seem that he has that interpretation.

So I just want to read another interpretation of his record by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

``Judge Gorsuch's decade-long record on the Federal bench, as well as his writings, speeches, and activities throughout his career, demonstrate he is a judge with an agenda.''

What a frightening proposition, that he goes to the Supreme Court, having given the impression that he is just an open book, genuinely concerned.

``His frequent dissents and concurrences show he is out of the main stream of legal thought and unwilling to accept the constructs of binding precedent and stare decisis when they dictate results he disfavors.''

Stare decisis is something that we learned in law school, but that is a very appropriate and important basis of decisions.

``If confirmed to the Supreme Court, which is closely divided on many critical issues, Judge Gorsuch would tip the balance in a direction that would undermine many of our core rights and legal protections. He lacks the impartiality and independence the American people expect and deserve from the Federal bench.''

Let me make one or two other points that I think are so very important. I hope to put my entire statement into the Record, and we will be engaging, and I know that my colleague will have further comments, but I want to make sure that we point back to those who are criticizing a very courageous stance because they are taking the stance, my friends in the other body, in the backdrop of all these accolades and

how genuine and charming he is. I have said that before.

But he is going against the backdrop of protocol--no engagement with the Democratic Senators, no adherence to the President, when he was President-elect, who pledged to the Nation that he would be the President of all Americans--because it rings hollow to tens of millions of Americans.

My colleague from New Jersey mentioned the truck driver story. It was a 2-1 decision. He was dissenting. No person with common sense and knowledge of the law would reject the understanding that this individual acted not against the instructions of his employer in leaving a truck that--by the way, the cargo area of the truck--nothing was violated, no product was taken, with bad brakes, and in jeopardy of his life, if he had left the cargo portion of the truck and tried to drive away on this frozen night, after waiting 3 hours in a cabin where he was freezing to death, he would have died.

Yet Judge Gorsuch did not think that was important enough to rule in favor of this African-American who had a 2-1 decision. He thought that the employer could fire him; and there was no factual basis for that, that he did something when it was a balmy day, and he just went off recklessly because he didn't want to be bothered or he was tired or he was hungry. That was not the case.

That is cruel, Judge Gorsuch. Your conservative ideology and professed judicial philosophy of original intent has harmed many.

He is not an unbiased judge. At best, he is a younger, more charming version of Judge Robert Bork, who was rejected 58-42 by the Senate in 1987. So he has a history of ruling against people who have used the legal system to hold government officials accountable.

The gentleman who was fired was fired, I think, 7 years ago, and has not been able to find a job yet.

By the way, the truck's heater didn't work.

His words were--Judge Gorsuch dissented and said the employee should have followed orders, even at the risk of serious injury.

In NLRB v. Community Health Services, Judge Gorsuch again dissented from a majority opinion that found in favor of employees, where a hospital was required to award back pay to 13 employees whose hours had been reduced, in violation of the National Labor Relations Act.

As the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations, we are trying to find the right kind of balance between police and community. But Judge Gorsuch has ruled that there is no reason to give police any punishment, such as the case when an individual used a stun gun and the victim died.

Judge Gorsuch's judicial record on police accountability minimized the Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless search and seizure.

I will continue my discussions of Judge Gorsuch. I will come back again and finish my comments on issues dealing with, again, civil rights and the rights of women.

I am delighted to cohost and comanage this hour dealing with the nomination of Judge Gorsuch.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for again articulating the really egregious opinions, judicial approach, and temperament of Judge Gorsuch.

I will conclude my remarks with a focus on the issues of women's rights as well as some cases dealing with immigration.

Immigration, Mr. Speaker, is a crucial issue that we are addressing now. In fact, I will cite an incident that happened in our district--or in my district or in my community just a few days ago, which means, as we proceed, there may be a number of cases coming to the Federal courts and the district court because I think, as my colleague has indicated-- both of us have indicated--that the courts are for petitioning. That is what the courts are for.

It seems that Judge Gorsuch wants to slam the door. And this is a-- how should I say it--a metaphor. It is not a precise comment by the judge, but annoyed that people have to come and use the courts. As he has indicated, minorities and women and others want to use the court for their social agenda.

And for fear of being redundant, I feel moved--my passion is so strong because, Judge Gorsuch: Have you walked at any moment in your life in my shoes as a woman and as a minority?

Have you walked in the shoes of the little children who made the plaintiffs of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka?

Were you in any way discriminated against with respect to education?

Have you ever been a victim of stop and frisk?

Have you ever been incarcerated for something you did not do?

Have you ever been a woman who had been subjected to sexual harassment or discrimination?

Do you understand the purpose of title VII?

Do you understand the value of affirmative action both in policy and in law?

Just a few weeks ago we got an effective and important decision on affirmative action out of this Supreme Court, in a court that is 4-4.

I don't think that is the case. And I just, again, want to take this as I cite these cases. I just want to, again, cite Amanda Bronstad, that some of his decisions may have favored one or two plaintiffs. I am not going to deny that. But Gorsuch's careful judicial reasoning and parsing of statutory language has more than often led him to side with the defense.

That is not the role of a Supreme Court Justice. It is not to side with anyone. It is to have the view on the basis of the appeal within the context of precedence and others how a decision should be rendered.

So these are Judge Gorsuch's decisions:

In Strickland v. UPS, Gorsuch dissented from a ruling giving a female UPS driver a chance to prove sex discrimination, arguing that the plaintiff had not provided evidence that she was treated less favorably than her male colleagues, even though in the documents submitted in the lower court, her coworkers testified and gave written testimony detailing the level of mistreatment they witnessed her receiving while employed by UPS.

In Hwang v. Kansas State University involved a professor employed by Kansas State University who was diagnosed with cancer, and after treatments, requested an extension of her disability--another woman-- due to a flu outbreak on campus which could potentially compromise her health. And Judge Gorsuch talked about ``showing up'' as an essential job function, and that the Rehabilitation Act should not be used as a safety net for employees who cannot work. I think her request was an extension, not a forever.

Two women, among others, that he found no reason to be supportive of. He could not find no legal precedent, nothing that would give him the ability to make a decision that was within the law and humane, even though he was in the dissent.

And then in Planned Parenthood Association of Utah v. Herbert, the Governor of that State, again, he dissented against the court's majority, impacting women's health, to decline a full court review of the case--the court's majority decision to decline a full court review of the case, in which Governor Herbert of Utah stripped Federal funding away from Planned Parenthood. Neither party requested a full court review; however, Judge Gorsuch decided to deviate from court practices and norms to signal his favor of Governor Herbert's decision.

Other women--he continues to show hostility toward women's rights and his willingness to overlook institutions that discriminate against women. His record indicates that.

Let me finish with this comment on immigration--and if I might, Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, let me finish quickly and let my colleague from the District of Columbia close.

Let me indicate an immigration case, and he voted to affirm the district's court granting of summary judgment which blocked a title VII national origin discrimination case from going to

trial, despite evidence of animus, unlawful reverification and document abuse by the employer.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, and member of the Congressional Voting Rights Caucus, I rise today to express my views regarding the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and the final arbiter of our Constitution and laws, and its rulings can impact the lives and rights of all Americans as shown in the cases of Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade; Miranda v. Arizona; Gideon v. Wainwright; New York Times v. Sullivan; Obergefell v. Hodges; and Shelby County v. Holder, to name but a few.

Judge Gorsuch is a judge with an agenda, as demonstrated by his record on the federal bench, as well as his writings, speeches, and activities throughout his career.

Judge Gorsuch's frequent dissents and concurrences show he is out of the mainstream of legal thought and unwilling to accept the constructs of binding precedent and stare decisis when they dictate results he disfavors.

Judge Gorsuch's appointment to the Court would tip the balance in a direction that would undermine many of the core rights and legal protections Americans cherish.

For the reasons I will discuss in detail, the Senate should reject his nomination and not consent to his confirmation as the next Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

On Election Night the President-Elect pledged to the nation that he would be a president to all Americans.

That pledge will ring hollow to tens of millions of Americans in light of his nomination of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Perhaps nothing would do more to reassure the American people that the President is committed to unifying the nation than the nomination and appointment of a person to be Associate Justice who has a record of championing and protecting, rather than opposing and undermining, the precious right to vote; the constitutionally guaranteed right of privacy, criminal justice reform, and support for reform of the nation's immigration system so that it is fair and humane.

That is not to be found in the record or character of Judge Gorsuch.

It should not be forgotten that the vacancy at issue was created in February 2016 by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia and should have been filled by the confirmation of the eminently qualified Judge Merrick Garland, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

In fact, the only reason Judge Garland is not now on the Court is because Republican Senators disregarded a century of precedent and their constitutional oaths and refused to consider the nomination because it was made by President Obama.

Judge Gorsuch's conservative ideology and professed judicial philosophy of ``original intent,'' which more accurately should be called the doctrine of predetermined result, has been at the core of his prior legal decisions.

He is not an unbiased judge; at best, he is a younger, more charming version of Judge Robert Bork, who was rejected 58-42 by the Senate in 1987.

Unlike his predecessors, Presidents Obama, Clinton, Reagan, Eisenhower among them, the current President did not consult in advance with the bipartisan leadership of the Senate and its Judiciary Committee.

Instead, the President selected Judge Gorsuch from the list of names provided him by the right-wing legal group, the Federalists Society.

Judge Gorsuch's adherence to originalism is alarming and should raise concerns for all Americans because on a narrowly divided Court, his could be the deciding vote to dismantle many of the constitutional safeguards and protections upheld by the Court that have moved the country forward and made it better.

Judge Gorsuch has a history of ruling against people who have used the legal system to hold government officials accountable.

He has also used the bench to rule in favor of large corporations routinely and against the rights of workers.

He has been lenient on those that have used excessive force and police brutality.

His record demonstrates hostility towards equal opportunity, worker's rights, women's access to reproductive healthcare services, and protections for persons with disabilities.

For example, in TransAm Trucking, Inc. v. Administrative Review Board, the majority held that a trucking company unlawfully fired an employee in violation of federal whistleblower protections.

The employee, Alphonse Maddin, was a truck driver whose brakes broke down in the middle of a freezing January night in Illinois.

The truck heater didn't work either, and he got so cold that he couldn't feel his feet or torso, and he had trouble breathing.

Nonetheless, his boss ordered him to wait in the truck until a repairperson arrived.

After waiting for three hours, Mr. Maddin finally drove off in the truck and left the trailer behind, in search of assistance.

His employer fired him a week later for violating company policy by abandoning his load while under dispatch.

The panel majority said the firing was unlawful, but Judge Gorsuch dissented and said the employee should have followed orders even at the risk of serious injury.

In NLRB v. Community Health Services, Inc., Judge Gorsuch again dissented from a majority opinion that found in favor of employees, where a hospital was required to award back pay to 13 employees whose hours had been reduced in violation of the National Labor Relations Act.

Judge Gorsuch's frequent and recurring dissents in workers' rights cases suggest a refusal to follow binding case law when it leads to results that favor workers rather than businesses and employers.

In Strickland v. UPS, Gorsuch dissented from a ruling giving a female UPS driver a chance to prove sex discrimination, arguing that the plaintiff had not provided evidence that she was treated less favorably than her male colleagues even though her coworkers testified and gave written testimony detailing the level of mistreatment they witnessed her receiving while employed by UPS.

Hwang v. Kansas State University involved a professor employed by Kansas State University who was diagnosed with cancer, and after treatments requested an extension for her disability due to a flu outbreak on the campus, which could potentially compromise her health.

Judge Gorsuch ruled that ``showing up'' for work is an essential job function and that the Rehabilitation Act should not be used as a safety net for employees who cannot work.

In Planned Parenthood Association of Utah v. Herbert, Judge Gorsuch dissented against the court's majority decision to decline a full court review of the case, in which, Governor Herbert of Utah stripped federal funding away from Planned Parenthood.

Neither party requested a full court review, however, Judge Gorsuch desired to deviate from court practices and norms to signal his favor for Governor Herbert's decision.

This particular case amplifies Judge Gorsuch's inability to remain impartial when deciding cases that may conflict with his personal beliefs.

Throughout his tenure as a Judge, Gorsuch's record indicates his hostility toward women's rights and his willingness to overlook institutions that discriminate against women.

Women will likely be disproportionately impacted by Judge Gorsuch's appointment to the United States Supreme Court and any decisions related to health, labor, and reproductive justice.

Judge Gorsuch's record shows that he believes police officers always should be granted qualified immunity, allowing police officers and other government officials to avoid being held accountable for the excessive use of force.

His record on police immunity aligns with President Trump's belief in police impunity.

In cases where victims of excessive force did not pose an imminent threat to police safety, Judge Gorsuch has a tendency to side with police.

Judge Gorsuch's judicial record on police accountability minimizes the Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless search and seizure.

In three separate cases, Gorsuch ruled in favor of police searches of vehicles without a warrant.

As an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Judge Gorsuch would be one of the nine individuals tasked with one of the most critical systems of American democracy.

Because of the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States, women have been granted reproductive rights, de jure segregation and discrimination against African-Americans has been abolished and their right to vote protected, workers have been granted security from exploitative labor practices; and marriage equality is the law of the land.

If confirmed to a evenly divided United States Supreme Court, it is unlikely that Judge Gorsuch would have a balanced, unbiased view of important issues.

Judge Gorsuch's extreme judicial philosophy of original intent would likely lead him to cast decisive, out-of-the mainstream votes that reverse significant gains in the areas of police accountability, civil rights and liberties, women's reproductive rights, and workers' rights.

Judge Gorsuch's record in each of these areas should raise concerns for all Americans.

Opposing Judge Gorsuch is not a difficult decision; for members of the communities represented by CBC members, it is a matter of survival, of life and death.

An Associate Justice would be expected to be an independent jurist capable of rendering

judicial decisions that prevent executive overreach.

No senator should vote to confirm the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch as Associate Justice if he or she has the slightest doubt that he possesses the character, qualities, integrity, and commitment to justice and equality needed for this position.

There is so much to say about Judge Gorsuch, so much to say about the stance that is being taken by colleagues who are not being political, who are not talking about the 2016 election, who are simply talking about the courthouse door being slammed in the face of the most vulnerable.

I believe that this judge should not ascend to the United States Supreme Court.

Madam Speaker, $880 billion cut from the insurance of hardworking, low-income families; $600 billion going to the top 1 percent of the richest people in America. Those were the singular features of the TrumpCare bill: not caring for any one of you, but simply taking away and providing for the rich.

Health care in my district and in America is very serious. I heard the testimony for many years of mothers who had autistic children or children with severe disorders, or visited nursing homes where elderly who had worked were there on Medicaid, or maybe heard the pleas of cancer survivors who would not have lived but for the Affordable Care Act and having insurance.

This is nothing to play with. Any suggestion that health care is easy, Mr. Trump, or that we can get together with the moderates is not a direction to go. If you are serious, we are serious. But we are serious about people whose lives are in jeopardy, and we are serious about providing access and health care to all of America, including our rural hospitals and our children's hospitals, who beg for us not to pass TrumpCare.

We are prepared to work on behalf of the American people. Health care is not easy, but it is essential, it is lifesaving. I want to be on the side of saving lives of all Americans. It is not easy and it is not something to fool around with.

Mr. Speaker, the question we raise this evening is about

governance. In the debacle of last Friday, when the administration failed to carry forward on its promise to pass the worst healthcare bill in the history of the United States, the administration offered a definition or an explanation: the ACA was exploding. It is not exploding. The CBO has indicated that the ACA needs improving, but it has insured some 20 million-plus people and protected children--unlike the administration's bill, Mr. Trump's bill which, in fact, would throw 24 million people off of health care and cut $880 billion. It is about governance.

That is why it is important to have a full investigation of the Russian collusion of all of those who are involved in Mr. Trump's campaign, and in his administration, including very close members of his senior staff.

That is why we should have a full investigation, which would include the Judiciary Committee. I demand that the classified documents that we have requested in a bipartisan letter should be given to the Judiciary Committee, and we should begin investigations on whether there are any questions of criminality.

It is about governance, Mr. Speaker; and the House of Representatives must know the truth so the American people can know the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule governing House consideration of H.R. 1628, the ``American Health Care Act of 2017,'' better known as ``Trumpcare.''

I oppose the rule, and the underlying legislation, for the following reasons:

1. The rule under consideration is brought pursuant to ``martial law'' rule passed yesterday which suspends the normal House procedure and allows for same day consideration, debate, and vote of legislation that will adversely affect the lives of everyone in America except for the top 1 percent;

2. The underlying bill is less than 2 weeks old and has not had a single hearing in any of the Committees of jurisdiction; and

3. The underlying bill does not reflect the input of nearly half the Members of this body because the legislation was drafted in secret, marked up in a single overnight session, and brought to the floor without incorporating a single amendment or idea proposed by the minority.

Mr. Speaker, none of us here has had a meaningful opportunity to review the bill, ``Trumpcare 2.0'' we are being asked to vote on.

This bill has undergone significant revision from the one marked up just last week by the Budget Committee of which I am a member.

Trumpcare 2.0 no doubt contains many sweeteners and olive branches granted by the Administration and House Republican leaders in backroom deals in a last ditch effort to secure the necessary votes of Republican members to take away health care from 24 million Americans, many of whom are among the most vulnerable persons in society.

None of these changes to the bill before us has been scored by the Congressional Budget Office so we do not know exactly how many more millions of Americans will be hurt.

But what is unlikely to change is that 14 million Americans will lose Medicaid coverage and more than 52 million persons will be uninsured by 2026 under this Republican plan.

In addition to terminating the ACA Medicaid expansion, the ``Trumpcare'' converts Medicaid to a per-capita cap that is not guaranteed to keep pace with health costs starting in 2020.

The combined effect of these policies is to slash $880 billion in federal Medicaid funding over the next decade.

In short, Trumpcare represents a clear and present danger to the financial and health security of American families, and to the very stability of our nation's health care system overall.

We should follow regular order in the consideration of all legislation, but especially in a matter with great importance to the American people that could impact nearly 300 million people.

For these reasons, I believe the House should reject this rule and the underlying bill.

Instead of trying to enact the largest transfer of wealth from the bottom 99 percent to the top 1 percent in history, House Republicans should work with Democrats to strengthen the Affordable Care Act which has and continues to make life-affirming differences for the better in the lives of more than 300 million Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman of the Budget Committee for his leadership.

Our mothers and our doctors have warned us about poison pills. Well, let me say that, this morning, the Republicans are giving to the American people a poison meal that would affect my friend, the senior citizen, with $175 billion being taken away from Medicare; a poison meal that will affect a young child who is being seen by a doctor.

The Children's Hospital Association, including the Texas Children's Hospital, has said to vote ``no'' on this bill because 30 million children will have no health insurance.

This will impact working families making $31,000 a year. They will have to pay $4,000 more out of pocket. In 2026, under pay more for less, $52 million Americans will be uninsured.

This poison meal is getting worse and worse.

Then, in the dark of night, what did they do?

They took away hospitalization. They took away pregnancy, maternity, and newborn care. They took away mental health and substance abuse care.

Those States that are experiencing the opioid abuse and epidemic, what are they going to do?

They have threatened community health centers. They are closing rural hospitals.

What is this disaster of TrumpCare?

It is injuring my good friend who is sitting there in the hospital room. It is injuring Anna Nunez. It is injuring small businesses who say that they can live better under the Affordable Care Act, and the youngster that is a junior in college who said she would not be alive had it not been for the Affordable Care Act.

More than half of the American people--and it is growing--are against this bill done in the dark of night. It is the poison meal that is keeping those who need health insurance away from health insurance.

I ask my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Don't feed the American people a poison meal.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Budget Committee and the representative of a congressional district that has benefited enormously from the Affordable Care Act, I rise in strong and unyielding opposition to H.R. 1628, the so-called ``American Health Care Act,'' which more accurately should be called ``Trumpcare, the Pay More For Less Act.''

Seven years ago yesterday, March 23, 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law the landmark Affordable Care Act passed by the Democratic controlled 111th Congress.

Seven years later, the verdict is in on the Affordable Care Act; the American people have judged it a success and are adamantly opposed to any effort to repeal a law that has brought to more than 20 million Americans the peace of mind and security that comes with

knowing they have access to affordable, high quality health care.

Before the passage of the Affordable Care Act, 17.1 of Americans lacked health insurance; today nearly nine of ten (89.1%) are insured, which is the highest rate since Gallup began tracking insurance coverage in 2008.

Because of the Affordable Healthcare Act:

1. insurance companies are banned from discriminating against anyone, including 17 million children, with a preexisting condition, or charging higher rates based on gender or health status;

2. 6.6 million young-adults up to age 26 can stay on their parents' health insurance plans;

3. 100 million Americans no longer have annual or life-time limits on healthcare coverage;

4. 6.3 million seniors in the ``donut hole'' have saved $6.1 billion on their prescription drugs;

5. 3.2 million seniors now get free annual wellness visits under Medicare, and

6. 360,000 Small Businesses are using the Health Care Tax Credit to help them provide health insurance to their workers;

7. Pregnancy is no longer a pre-existing condition and women can no longer be charged a higher rate just because they are women.

We are becoming a nation of equals when it comes to access to affordable healthcare insurance.

The President and congressional Republicans call this enviable record of success a ``disaster.''

The American people do not agree and that is why they reject overwhelmingly (56%-17%) this Republican attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act according to the latest Quinnipiac poll.

Americans know a disaster when they see one and they see one in the making: it is called ``Trumpcare,'' masquerading as the ``American Health Care Act,'' which will force Americans to ``pay more for less.''

And they are right to be alarmed at what they see.

This ``Pay-More-For-Less'' bill is a massive $900 billion tax cut for the wealthy, paid for on the backs of America's seniors, the vulnerable, the poor, and working class households.

This ``Robin Hood in reverse'' bill is unprecedented and breathtaking in its audacity--no bill ever tried to give so much to the rich while taking so much from the poor and working class.

Trumpcare represents the largest transfer of wealth from the bottom 99% to the top 1% in American history.

This callous Republican scheme gives gigantic tax cuts to the rich, and pays for it by taking insurance away from 24 million people, leaving 52 million uninsured, and raising costs for the poor and middle class.

In addition, Republicans are giving the pharmaceutical industry a big tax repeal, worth nearly $25 billion over a decade without demanding in return any reduction in the cost of prescription and brand-name drugs.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, of this bill, it can truly be said that ``never has so much been taken from so many to benefit so few.''

The Pay-More-For-Less plan destroys the Medicaid program under the cover of repealing the Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion.

CBO estimates 14 million Americans will lose Medicaid coverage by 2026 under the Republican plan.

In addition to terminating the ACA Medicaid expansion, the bill converts Medicaid to a per-capita cap that is not guaranteed to keep pace with health costs starting in 2020.

The combined effect of these policies is to slash $880 billion in federal Medicaid funding over the next decade.

The cuts get deeper with each passing year, reaching 25% of Medicaid spending in 2026.

These steep cuts will force states to drop people from Medicaid entirely or ration care for those who most need access to comprehensive coverage.

The Pay-More-For-Less plan undermines the health care safety net for vulnerable populations.

Currently, Medicaid provides coverage to more than 70 million Americans, including children, pregnant women, seniors in Medicare, people who are too disabled to work, and parents struggling to get by on poverty-level wages.

In addition to doctor and hospital visits, Medicaid covers long-term services like nursing homes and home and community-based services that allow people with chronic health conditions and disabilities to live independently.

To date, 31 states and D.C. have expanded Medicaid eligibility to low-income adults, which, when combined with the ACA's other coverage provisions, has helped to reduce the nation's uninsured rate to the lowest in history.

Trumpcare throws 24 million Americans off their health insurance by 2026 according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Low-income people will be hit especially hard because 14 million people will lose access to Medicaid by 2026 according to CBO.

Trumpcare massively shifts who gets insured in the nongroup market.

According to CBO, ``fewer lower-income people would obtain coverage through the nongroup market under the legislation than current law,'' and, ``a larger share of enrollees in the nongroup market would be younger people and a smaller share would be older people.''

The projected 10% reduction in premiums is not the result of better care or efficiency--it is in large part the result of higher-cost and older people being pushed out of a market that is also selling plans that provide less financial protection.

People with low incomes suffer the greatest losses in coverage.

CBO projects the uninsured rate for people in their 30s and 40s with incomes below 200% of poverty will reach 38% in 2026 under this bill, nearly twice the rate projected under current law.

Among people aged 50-64, CBO projects 30% of those with incomes below 200% of poverty will be uninsured in 2026.

Under current law, CBO projects the uninsured rate would only be 12 percent.

Being uninsured is not about ``freedom.''

Speaker Ryan has argued that people will happily forgo insurance coverage because this bill gives them that ``freedom.''

The argument makes as much sense as the foolish claim that slaves came to America as ``immigrants'' seeking a better life.

The freedom to be uninsured is no freedom at all to people in their 50s and 60s with modest incomes who simply cannot afford to pay thousands of dollars toward premiums.

They do not really have a choice.

The claim of our Republican friends that Trumpcare provides more freedom to all Americans calls to mind the words of Anatole France:

``The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread from the market.''

Trumpcare raises costs for Americans nearing retirement, essentially imposing an ``Age Tax.''

The bill allows insurance companies to charge older enrollees higher premiums than allowed under current law, while reducing the size of premium tax credits provided.

Again, these changes hit low-income older persons the hardest.

A 64-year-old with an income of $26,500 buying coverage in the individual market will pay $12,900 more toward their premiums in 2026, on average.

Trumpcare raises costs for individuals and families with modest incomes, particularly older Americans.

A recent analysis found that in 2020, individuals with incomes of about $31,000 would pay on average $4,000 more out of pocket for health care--which is like getting a 13% pay cut.

And the older you are, the worse it gets.

An analysis by the Urban Institute estimates that for Americans in their 50s and 60s, the tax credits alone would only be sufficient to buy plans with major holes in them, such as a $30,000 deductible for family coverage and no coverage at all of brand-name drugs or many therapy services.

Another reason I oppose the Trumpcare bill before us is because its draconian cuts in Medicaid funding and phase-out of Medicaid expansion put community health centers at risk.

Community health centers are consumer-driven and patient-centered organizations that serve as a comprehensive and cost effective primary health care option for America's most underserved communities.

Community health centers serve as the health care home for more than 25 million patients in nearly 10,000 communities across the country.

Across the country, 550 new clinics have opened to receive 5 million new patients since 2009.

Community health centers serve everyone regardless of ability to pay or insurance status:

1. 71% of health center patients have incomes at or below 100% of poverty and 92% have incomes less than 200% of poverty;

2. 49% of health center patients are on Medicaid; and

3. 24% are uninsured;

4. Community health centers annually serve on average 1.2 million homeless patients and more than 300,000 veterans.

Community health centers reduce health care costs and produce savings--on average, health centers save 24% per Medicaid patient when compared to other providers.

Community health centers integrate critical medical and social services such as oral health, mental health, substance abuse, case management, and translation, under one roof.

Community health centers employ nearly 190,000 people and generate over $45 billion in total economic activity in some of the nation's most distressed communities.

Community health centers serve on the front lines of public health crises such as the Zika virus and the opioid epidemic.

Mr. Speaker, community health centers are on the front lines of every major health crisis our country faces, from providing access to care (and employment) to veterans to addressing the opioid epidemic to responding to public health threats like the Zika virus.

We should be providing more support and funding to community health centers, not making it more difficult for them to serve the communities that desperately need them by slashing Medicaid funding.

Trumpcare Republican plan leaves rural Americans worse off.

Mr. Speaker, health insurance has historically been more expensive in rural areas because services cost more and it is hard to have a stable individual market with a small population.

Under the Affordable Care Act, premium subsidies are tied to local costs, which helps keeps premium costs down.

But they are not under the Republican plan.

So, under the Republican plan residents in rural areas, who tend to be older and poorer, will pay much more and get much less health insurance.

At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, the powerful and compelling reasons to reject Trumpcare lies in the real world experiences of the American people.

Let me briefly share with you the positive, life affirming difference made by the Affordable Care Act in the lives of just three of the millions of Americans it has helped.

Joan Fanwick: ``If Obamacare is repealed, I don't know if I'll live to see the next President''

``After nearly a decade of mysterious health scares, I was diagnosed with an autoimmune disorder called Sjogren's Syndrome last year, when I was a junior at Temple University.

``It's a chronic illness with no known cause or cure, and without close medical surveillance and care, it can lead to life-threatening complications (like the blood infections I frequently experience).

``For me, having this disorder means waking up every morning and taking 10 different medications.

``It also means a nurse visiting my apartment every Saturday to insert a needle into the port in my chest, so I can give myself IV fluids throughout the week.

``Without insurance, my medical expenses would cost me about $1,000 per week--more than $50,000 per year. And that doesn't even include hospitalizations.

``My medical bills aren't cheap under Obamacare, but I can afford them.

``Under Obamacare, insurance companies aren't allowed to cut you off when your costs climb so right now, the most I personally have to pay out of pocket is $1,000 per year.''

Brian Norgaard: ``I am a small business owner and leadership trainer who Obamacare has helped tremendously.''

Brian Norgaard, a Dallas, Texas resident, called my office to express his opposition to Trumpcare and to offer share how the Affordable Care Act has helped small business owners like himself:

``I am a small business owner and leadership trainer who Obamacare has helped tremendously.

``My wife and I both own small businesses in the Dallas, Texas area and as a result of the huge savings we received after paying lower [healthcare] premiums under Obamacare, we were able to reinvest those saving into both of our businesses and the community.

``And the healthcare we received was quality, at that.''

Ashley Walton: ``For cancer survivors, we literally live and die by insurance''

Ashley Walton was 25 when a mole on her back turned out to be melanoma.

She had it removed, but three years later she discovered a lump in her abdomen.

She was then unemployed and uninsured, and so she put off going to a doctor.

She tried to buy health insurance. Every company rejected her.

Ashley eventually became eligible for California's Medicaid program, which had been expanded under the Affordable Care Act.

The 32-year-old Oakland resident credits her survival to the ACA.

Without it, ``I would likely be dead, and my family would likely be bankrupt from trying to save me.''

Before any of our Republican colleagues supporting this bill cast their vote, I urge them to reflect on the testimony of Joan, Brian, and Ashley, and to on this question posed by a constituent to Sen. Cotton of Arkansas at a recent town hall:

``I've got a husband dying and we can't afford--let me tell you something.

``If you can get us better coverage than this [Obamacare], go for it.

``Let me tell you what we have, plus a lot of benefits that we need.

``We have $29 per month for my husband. Can you beat that? Can you?

With all the congestive heart failures, and open heart surgeries, we're trying. $29 per month. And he's a hard worker.

$39 for me.''

I urge all Members to reject Trumpcare, one of the most monstrously cruel and morally bankrupt legislative proposals ever to be considered in this chamber.

To paraphrase a famous former reality television personality, ``believe me, Trumpcare is a disaster.''

We should reject it and keep instead ``something terrific'' and that is the Affordable Care Act, regarded lovingly by millions of Americans as ``Obamacare.''

March 24, 2017.

Re Changes to the Affordable Healthcare Act.

The President of the United States of America,

The White House,

Washington, DC.

Greetings Mr. President: Today is a very crucial and

important day for the residents of the City of Houston's

District D, where I serve as the elected City Council Member,

which also falls under Congressional Districts 18 and 7. As a

local elected official whose mother is on a fixed income,

this will not only impact her but many other senior citizens

who I represent.

In the news, we see how the Affordable Healthcare Act is

proposed to be changed. Under the new revisions to the

healthcare bill, which is called The American Health Care

Act, about $337 Billion will be cut from the current plan

over a 10 year period causing 24 million Americans, including

Democrats, Republicans, Independents, poor and the middle

class, to lose their healthcare. This proposed health care

bill is receiving criticism from the health care providers,

some conservatives and a united Democratic Party. The

Congressional Budget Office even showed how this current

proposed plan will negatively impact everyone. What is most

concerning to me in regards to this program is the impact

that it will have on our senior citizens.

52% of my District is made up of Senior Citizens who are on

fixed incomes. These senior's will have to pay more for their

health care under this proposed American Health Care Act. In

no way is this acceptable. I am an advocate for my seniors

and I refuse to quietly sit back while this is being

considered.

I have encouraged everyone to reach out to their Members of

Congress to let them know that this isn't something that we

stand for and to work on their behalf to vote this item down

today.

Sincerely,

Dwight Boykins,

Houston City Counsel,

District D.

Mr. Speaker, I think the American people have seen the scrambling and the unraveling today, the seventh anniversary of the Affordable Care Act which allowed more than 20 million people to achieve opportunities and access to health care that many have never had.

Throughout America, the Affordable Care Act provided hardworking Americans access to wellness care, hospitalization, care that they could not have before because it eliminated the barrier for those who had preexisting disease.

Now, tomorrow we will be debating this fast-moving, thoughtless, and devastating legislation that will see, in 2026, some 52 to 54 million Americans without insurance and undermine the opportunity for those in nursing homes, disabled, the blind, and many others, children, that are in great need of health care eliminated.

So I don't know what the purpose of this bill is tomorrow, but we will be here to debate it and hopefully defeat it, because I believe that the quality of life for all Americans truly is based upon their access to good, strong health care. That is what the Affordable Care Act is, helping rural hospitals, providing hospital resources for uncompensated care.

So, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will be debating a bill that, hopefully, will be defeated because it will not save lives.

Mr. Speaker, this morning I came in contact with two mothers of two young boys who are homebound with catastrophic illnesses. My heart broke as I listened to them say: The only way that I survive to see their happy face and I can work is because they have insurance through extensive Medicaid.

And so I come today to ask my friends on the other side of the aisle not to worry about threats about losing your office or your job. This is about patriotism and being an American. Vote against this horrible TrumpCare debacle that will create higher cost, less coverage, and an age tax that will hurt the old and devastate the young.

This is a time for the flag to be waved and for patriots to stand and to be heard across America. Vote down TrumpCare not for self and selfishness, but really to be able to stand with those who cannot help themselves.

I wanted to embrace those mothers as a mother, as a grandmother, because we are giving life to those beautiful children, now 9 and 10, living because they got health care under the Affordable Care Act. Stand as a patriot against TrumpCare.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the House Committee on Homeland Security I rise in support of H.R. 1302, Terrorist and Foreign Fighter Travel Exercise Act of 2017 to require an exercise to terrorist and foreign fighter travel.

This bipartisan bill would expand the scope of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's National Exercise Program by requiring additional scenarios to address emerging terrorist threats.

Among the scenarios to be included are those involving U.S. citizens enlisting with or providing support to terrorists organizations abroad, as well as terrorist infiltration in the United States.

A nationwide exercise would be held within a year of enactment to evaluate the threat of individuals traveling from the United States to join a terrorist organization.

The exercise would also test scenarios involving terrorist infiltration into the U.S. by United States citizens and foreign nationals.

DHS would coordinate with other federal departments, foreign governments, state and local governments, and the private sector to conduct the exercise.

The growing complexity of the threat may be creating unseen gaps in our defenses, yet it has been years since any large-scale ``stress test'' has been conducted against terrorist travel.

Federal officials suspect that Todd Wolfe, an American citizen from Texas, planned to fly his family to Europe where he would meet up with an ISIS handler and take them all to Syria.

In March of 2014, Hanad Abdullahi Mohallim, an American from Minnesota, entered Syria at Tel Abyad and recruited other fellow Somali-Americans in Minnesota to leave the United States and join ISIS.

Also in 2014, Abdi Nur left the U.S. for Syria to join ISIS. He was later reported to have attempted to recruit other men here in the U.S. to join the terrorist organization.

We need to be gravely concerned about Americans leaving the country to train overseas with terrorist organizations who then return to the United States as foreign fighters.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1302.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1238, ``Securing Our Agriculture and Food Act.''

This bipartisan bill amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to make the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Health Affairs responsible for coordinating the efforts for the DHS related to food, agriculture, and veterinary defense against terrorism.

The coordination program under the measure would include:

1. Overseeing and managing DHS's responsibilities under the presidential directive;

2. Integrating activities related to veterinary public health, food and agriculture security;

3. Leading the department's policy initiatives relating to food, animal, and agriculture incidents, as well as domestic preparedness for and collective response to agricultural terrorism; and

4. Coordinating with other parts of the federal government.

Agro-terrorism is defined as the deliberate introduction of an animal or plant disease for the purpose of generating fear, causing economic losses, or undermining social stability.

Killing livestock and plants or contaminating food can help terrorists cause economic crises in the agriculture and food industries.

Agriculture comprises the largest single sector in U.S. economy, making agro-terrorism an attractive opportunity for many terrorist organizations.

Attacks directed against the cattle, pork, or poultry industries or via the food chain pose the most serious danger for latent, ongoing effects and general socioeconomic and political disruption.

Food availability becomes a matter of immediate life and death in such circumstances, and significant national and global resources need to be dedicated to emergency relief efforts.

Any attacks of agro-terrorism would be particularly devastating for the citizens of Texas.

In Texas, the largest source of agricultural revenue comes from the sale of beef cattle.

Texas produces roughly 20 percent of the nation's cattle and ranks first in the country in the value of cattle raised.

It is crucial that we have preparedness policies in place to quickly respond to events

threatening U.S. agriculture or food production systems.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1238.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, I rise in support of H.R. 1365, the ``Department of Homeland Security Acquisition Innovation Act'' which authorizes the DHS to expand the use of acquisition innovation.

This bipartisan bill will guarantee new acquisition methods and practices are considered to ensure taxpayers get the most for their money.

This bill would permit DHS's undersecretary for management to:

1. Designate an official to manage acquisition innovation;

2. Test and develop best practices that are consistent with acquisition rules and directives;

3. Measure how innovation in acquisition processes have affected cost, operational efficiency, the timeframe for executing contracts, and collaboration with small businesses and other private-sector companies; and

4. Obtain and incorporate feedback from the private sector.

From fiscal 2018 through 2022, DHS would provide Congress with information on acquisition innovation activities during the previous fiscal year, including:

1. Best practices that were tested, used and distributed, including through web-based seminars, trainings and forums;

2. Effects on the private sector, including small businesses;

3. Criteria to indemnify acquisition programs that would be appropriate for innovation; and

4. Recommendations for enhancing innovation at DHS.

Innovation is the American way and this bill makes sure the Department of Homeland Security finds new ways to do its job effectively and efficiently.

At the Tenth Annual Border Security Expo in Texas, officials from the Department of Homeland Security observed some of the latest innovations that can help to protect our border. This included 3D holographic images, portable biometric testing kits, and underground seismic signal detectors.

In Texas, U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents deter, detect, and interdict smuggling along the Texas/Mexico border through the deployment of an integrated network of detection and communication technologies.

In 2016, the Texas of Department of Public Safety provided direct assistance to U.S. Customs and Border Protection in the arrest of over 37,000 criminals deemed a high threat risk.

Frontline personnel securing our borders, protecting our airports, and defending our shores must have the tools to successfully accomplish their mission.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1365.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join the Congressional Progressive Caucus, on which I serve as a vice chair. I remember this experience less than a decade ago when we worked so hard to have the Affordable Care Act.

For many, you are seeing this poster for the first time. I think I need to give you a little journey down memory lane as we talk about why we are so vigorously opposing what would seem to be new and fresh ideas.

First of all, let me say the good thing about the Affordable Care Act is that it is not a respecter of economic standing as relates to the benefits of health insurance. We were able to grant every American the right to have insurance that did not penalize you for being a woman, penalize you for having a preexisting condition. In fact, it did lower premiums.

We realize that in certain areas that is one of the beginning aspects of a bill that is only 7 years old, but one of the important points is that we have given you insurance that has more benefits than it ever had 10 years ago, 15 years ago. More importantly, working people who happen to be of low income and who are no less able or dignified or equal in this Nation now have insurance.

It is insurance. The underpinning of it is Medicaid, but it is insurance. It allows families, pregnant women, and children to have insurance, people who are working. Then, on the other side, it has help for the blind, the disabled, as well for those in nursing homes. Remember, people in nursing homes have worked. We give them the ability to live in dignity.

Unfortunately, to the contrary, what I am seeing now, just coming out of the Cloakroom, is a hustle and bustle of negotiations and meetings, going in and out of meetings, going to the White House, trying to corral these last votes. Some of these individuals want it to be made worse, and they are holding their ground.

But I tell you what is missing in all of this. What is missing is that what we did almost 10 years ago was have hundreds, maybe thousands, of hearings or townhall meetings in our districts. We had 79 bipartisan hearings in the House, 453 hearings in the Senate. In the House, we had over 181 witnesses

and 239 considered amendments. We believed in listening to the American people, many of whom did not understand, but we wanted to get it out.

In the dark of night, this bill has come. There are amendments coming by the day. I will be leaving here and going to the Rules Committee to try to understand what is in the bill.

To the American people, what you can clearly see that is in the bill right now is that we are paying more for less. You are getting $880 billion taken out of the Medicaid that is used to keep people whole after they have worked--those in nursing homes, the blind, the disabled, or other things that may have occurred--as well as those who are taking care of children and who are pregnant women. Twenty-four million will lose their insurance right now, today, as that bill is passed. Overall, in 2026, 52 million Americans will be uninsured. You can't be plainer than that.

Then what saddens me the most, besides the $880 billion coming out of your insurance, they give a $600 billion tax cut to 1 percent of the richest Americans, whom I would venture to say, getting $57,000 per family, they would say to you: Take it back and help all of America.

The age tax, if you are 50 to 64, you are paying a penalty--not 85, but 50 to 64. They can't get rid of that. How are you going to pass a bill that penalizes?

I have indicated about $880 billion for Medicaid. Then, of course, the tax relief for people who do not want it.

I say that your patriotism today is letting this see the light of day. Let's debate it and discuss it. Let's talk to States like Kentucky and West Virginia and those States that have taken expanded Medicaid. Let's talk to families, like I have just done today, with children who are only being taken care of with their catastrophic illnesses, with smiles on their face, and homebound, because they have Medicaid as their insurance.

That is why we oppose the TrumpCare bill. No matter how many backdoor meetings President 45 can take care of--I wish, maybe, it started earlier, before he attacked President Obama. But, in any event, with all of these meetings, we are still at a point where we don't know what the bill is doing for people that is good, but we do know what it is taking away from people. I just ask that we stop and do this right to save lives.

I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, am excited to celebrate the signing of the Affordable Care Act signed by President Barack Obama.

In the hearing last Thursday of the Budget Committee, we noted that Medicaid that provided health insurance in this bill, now the TrumpCare bill, will be cut $880 billion for working people, for seniors in nursing homes, for the blind, and for the disabled.

We note that this meaningless TrumpCare amendment, for which the President is now rallying his troops, coming up to the Hill two and three times--maybe he will be here tomorrow--is as meaningless as the first part of it was: 24 million Americans will lose their insurance-- TrumpCare will double that amount in 2026; 52 million will not have insurance--giveaways to billionaires, 1 percent of the rich people in America; and destroying 2 million jobs.

But what I am most concerned about is my constituent in the Heights who could not take her medicine before the Affordable Care Act. Tragically, a young woman had a stroke and a heart attack and now is in a nursing home. She uses the health insurance of Medicaid, $880 billion, to provide for her lifeline, but yet TrumpCare comes to destroy that.

I want to celebrate the Affordable Care Act because it saves lives.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman very much for his leadership. I acknowledge the chairman of the committee for his, as well.

I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and although I will make the points that I think are important, I wanted to take the time to thank Mr. Conyers for the thoughtful legislation that he has introduced over the years.

This leads me to call this the Conyers bill because of the important contributions it makes to ensuring that our health care is competitive, our health insurance is competitive, and his thoughtfulness in this legislation. As it comes to the floor, I am reminded of Mr. Conyers' influence on this legislation. It is an interesting time at which it comes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the importance of H.R. 372, the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of 2017, a proposal to remove the antitrust exemption in the McCarran-Ferguson Act as it applies to health insurance.

Overall, the proposed legislation, as well as previous attempts by the Judiciary Committee to repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act's antitrust exemption for health insurance, does not raise new or pressing issues.

Opponents of repeal assume problems that cannot be documented, unlike the very tangible and real economic and competitive costs that will be incurred if the exemption is allowed to continue.

As the Justice Department has explained, where there is effective competition, coupled with transparency, in a consumer-friendly regulatory framework, insurers will compete against each other by offering plans with lower premiums, reducing copayments, lowering or eliminating deductibles, lowering annual out-of-pocket maximum costs, managing care, improving drug coverage, offering desirable benefits, and making their provider networks more attractive to potential members.

That sounds, of course, like the Affordable Care Act, which we will celebrate tomorrow, for that was the day it was signed. That is what health insurance should be for the American people.

This legislation is a very thoughtful legislative initiative, and I am hoping that its coming to the floor is not like trying to put lipstick on a pig. That, of course, is the latest configuration of the meaningless TrumpCare, and which the amendment that will be coming forward will, again, in essence, throw people off health insurance. It will take away all that we are intending it to do, but this legislation has reason.

Other current enforcement tools and regulatory policies already in place address competition issues at the State and Federal level to police health insurance competition. In this and numerous other ways, effective regulation can promote improved healthcare delivery and improved cost control by ensuring that all insurance companies are required to follow certain basic consumer-friendly rules of the road.

Again, wouldn't it be great to have this very thoughtful legislation with all of the points of the Affordable Care Act: it eliminates preexisting conditions, has lowered premiums and continues to lower premiums, and is lowering or eliminating deductibles. All of those were thoughtful of Mr. Conyers, and they would have been the right complement to the Affordable Care Act.

However, the additional risks of adding new regulatory uncertainty, increasing boundary-testing litigation, and distracting policymakers from more important ways to reduce healthcare costs and improve healthcare competition suggest that further caution and delay on this front is inadvisable, given present circumstances and conditions.

But let us not fool ourselves into thinking that the legislation before us is a panacea that will lead to affordable, accessible, high- quality health care for all Americans. If that worthy goal is the objective sought, the best way to achieve it is to retain and strengthen the Affordable Care Act and abandon the misguided effort of House Republicans to repeal this landmark legislation and replace it with the pay more for less act masquerading as a healthcare bill.

The Affordable Care Act works. I think we in the Judiciary Committee know it full well. We held hearings and briefings; we heard from the victims of those who did not have insurance, who had lost insurance, did not have enough insurance, or the insurance would not cover them.

I am reminded of a very emotional story of an 8-year-old girl in the office of an insurance company where her family was begging for coverage because she had leukemia; obviously, a preexisting condition. It is sad to say, but I understand that she lost her life.

The Affordable Care Act has significantly improved the availability, affordability, and quality of health care

for tens of millions of Americans, including millions who previously had no health insurance at all.

Americans are rightly frightened by Republican attempts to repeal the ACA without having in place a superior new plan that maintains comparable coverages and comparable consumer choices and protections, not throwing off 24 million Americans who will have no insurance.

It is beyond dispute that the pay more for less plan proposed by Republicans fails this test miserably. The Republican pay more for less act is a massive tax cut for the rich, paid for on the backs of America's most vulnerable: those who work and who happen to be of low income. This Robin-Hood-in-reverse bill is unprecedented and breathtaking in its audacity. No bill has ever tried to give so much to the rich while taking so much from the poor.

One number comes to mind: $880 billion taken away from Medicaid insurance covering nursing homes, patients, the blind, the disabled; again, then giving a great plus and a great refund in tax credits to the richest in America. They will be happy. It won't be health care. They have got private health insurance. But it certainly will be a big check that they get in the mail.

This pay more for less bill represents the largest transfer of wealth from the bottom 99 percent to the top 1 percent in American history. This Republic scheme gives gigantic tax cuts to the rich, and pays for it by taking insurance away from 24 million.

In addition, Republicans are giving the pharmaceutical industry a big tax repeal, worth nearly $25 billion over a decade, without demanding in return any reduction in the cost of prescription and brand-name drugs. That is very important.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, of this bill, it can truly be said that never has so much been taken from so many to benefit so few.

The pay more for less plan destroys the Medicaid program. CBO estimates 14 million will lose Medicaid. In 2026, 52 million Americans will be uninsured.

We know that these combined policies will not help to cure some of the thoughtful deliberations that went into the underlying bill. We want more competition. We want the insurance products to be the kind of products that we can be sure provide health care.

In short, the Republican pay more get less plan represents a clear and present danger to the financial and health security of American families and to the very stability of our Nation's healthcare system.

Mr. Speaker, the healthcare marketplace is complex in how it operates and how it motivates providers, insurers, and consumers.

If I can quote the 45th President, he said: ``I didn't know how difficult this would be.'' Well, we know how difficult it can be, and was.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats held some 79-plus hearings. We had 181 witnesses-plus. We had hundreds of hours of hearings. We held thousands, I might imagine, of townhall meetings. We didn't hold one here and one there. I myself held 11 townhall meetings.

We continue to hear from not only the consumers, but the rural hospitals, the major hospitals, the senior citizens, and particularly those senior citizens on dealing with the cost of prescription drugs.

I am proud to say that we saved the dastardly Medicare part D by closing the doughnut hole, which is closed today, so that seniors under the Affordable Care Act do not fall into an abyss, a deep ocean, and have to, in essence, not take their drugs because they don't have enough money.

An effective regulatory framework is needed to shape this complex environment--and this is a word to the administration--to help safeguard consumers, help keep costs under control, and help make a full range of healthcare services. But our country's long experience shows that we cannot expect a healthcare system to run effectively on market competition alone. Markets can and do fail when proper regulation is lacking.

So the goodness of this bill has to go along with--a good example is recognizing what happens in the ACA's provision, banning insurance companies from denying coverage of preexisting disease--we had to help them along--preexisting conditions. We had to help them along. You have to help them along to be a good steward of the insurance that the American people need.

This is a key consumer protection that the free market demonstrates time and time again that it could produce and needed to do. That is where regulation and the antitrust laws come in to protect consumer choice. Let me go back and say that it could not produce on its own. It is a per se violation of antitrust laws for competing companies to agree to divide markets or to fix prices. The other sectors in the healthcare supply chain are already subject to antitrust laws, and it will be beneficial to the healthcare marketplace and to consumers if the healthcare industry joins them. That is why I said this bill is a thoughtful, important bill to dealing with the complex issues of insurance and health care.

I am sad to say that tomorrow, as we celebrate the Affordable Care Act, we will be looking toward Thursday, where we will be, in essence, debating a bill that takes 24 million people off of health insurance, period. 24 million will lose their coverage. Tax giveaways will continue again to the top 1 percent. That will be $600 billion in tax breaks to the rich and big corporations. In fact, the Republican bill gives $2.8 billion to 400 of the richest families in America.

Then to add to the downside, the Affordable Care Act was known to create more jobs. Unfortunately, this will see 2 million jobs destroyed and lost. Families will be paying more for less. Young people will be hit with a millennial penalty. And we don't know if this formula that they have still stops the 50- to 64-year-olds from paying higher premiums. Women lose comprehensive care, middle-aged Americans pay the age tax, seniors see Medicaid and Medicare weakened, preexisting conditions and disabilities may suffer, and it does not reduce the deficit as the ACA does.

My final point, if I can, we are glad to come to the floor and honor Mr. Conyers for this important bill and support H.R. 372. I believe this legislation before us does a lot more good than it does harm, but I hope that we can, in a bipartisan manner--maybe even in a nonpartisan manner--reflect on what is needed to really insure the American people and we can work with the Affordable Care Act, which has all of these positive elements, and move this country forward through competition and health care that saves lives.

Mr. Speaker, overall, the proposed legislation, as well as previous attempts by the Judiciary Committee to repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act's antitrust exemption for health insurance, does not raise new or pressing issues.

Opponents of repeal assume problems that cannot be documented, unlike the very tangible and real economic and competitive costs that will be incurred if the exemption is allowed to continue.

As the Justice Department has explained, where there is effective competition, coupled with transparency, in a consumer-friendly regulatory framework, insurers will compete against each other by offering plans with lower premiums, reducing copayments, lowering or eliminating deductibles, lowering annual out-of-pocket maximum costs, managing care, improving drug coverage, offering desirable benefits, and making their provider networks more attractive to potential members.

Other current enforcement tools and regulatory policies already in place address competition issues at the state and federal level to police health insurance competition.

In this and numerous other ways, effective regulation can promote improved health care delivery and improved cost control, by ensuring that all insurance companies are required to follow certain basic consumer-friendly ``rules of the road.''

It might be argued that increasing the federal government's role in regulating health insurance, through expanded antitrust enforcement, would appear to conflict with proposed reforms to delegate more responsibility to state governments.

However, the additional risks of adding new regulatory uncertainty, increasing boundary-testing litigation, and distracting policymakers from more important ways to reduce health care costs and improve health care competition suggest that further caution and delay on this front is inadvisable given present circumstances and conditions.

But let us not fool ourselves into thinking that the legislation before us is a panacea that will lead to affordable, accessible, high quality health care for all Americans.

If that worthy goal is the objective sought, then the best way to achieve it is to retain and

strengthen the Affordable Care Act and abandon the misguided effort of House Republicans to repeal this landmark legislation and replace it with their Pay More For Less Act, masquerading as the American Health Care Act.

The Affordable Care Act has significantly improved the availability, affordability, and quality of health care for tens of millions of Americans, including millions who previously had no health insurance at all.

Americans are rightly frightened by Republican attempts to repeal the ACA without having in place a superior new plan that maintains comparable coverages and comparable consumer choices and protections.

It is beyond dispute that the ``Pay More For Less'' plan proposed by House Republicans fails this test miserably.

The Republican ``Pay More For Less Act'' is a massive tax cut for the wealthy, paid for on the backs of America's most vulnerable, the poor and working class households.

This ``Robin Hood in reverse'' bill is unprecedented and breathtaking in its audacity--no bill has ever tried to give so much to the rich while taking so much from the poor and working class.

This ``Pay More Get Less'' bill represents the largest transfer of wealth from the bottom 99% to the top 1% in American history.

This Republican scheme gives gigantic tax cuts to the rich, and pays for it by taking insurance away from 24 million people and raising costs for the poor and middle class.

In addition, Republicans are giving the pharmaceutical industry a big tax repeal, worth nearly $25 billion over a decade without demanding in return any reduction in the cost of prescription and brand-name drugs.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, of this bill, it can truly be said that ``never has so much been taken from so many to benefit so few.''

The ``Pay More Get Less'' plan destroys the Medicaid program under the cover of repealing the Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion.

CBO estimates 14 million Americans will lose Medicaid coverage by 2026 under the Republican plan.

In addition to terminating the ACA Medicaid expansion, the ``Pay More Get Less'' plan converts Medicaid to a per capita cap that is not guaranteed to keep pace with health costs starting in 2020.

The combined effect of these policies is to slash $880 billion in federal Medicaid funding over the next decade.

The cuts get deeper with each passing year, reaching 25% of Medicaid spending in 2026.

In short, the Republican ``Pay More Get Less Act'' represents a clear and present danger to the financial and health security of American families, and to the very stability of our nation's health care system overall.

Mr. Speaker, the health care marketplace is complex in how it operates and how it motivates providers, insurers, and consumers.

An effective regulatory framework is needed to shape that complex environment, to help safeguard consumers, help keep costs under control, and help make a full range of health care services available.

But our country's long experience shows that we cannot expect a health care system to run effectively on market competition alone; markets can and do fail when proper regulation is lacking.

A good example is the ACA's provision banning insurance companies from denying coverage of preexisting conditions.

This is a key consumer protection that the free market demonstrated time and again that it would not produce on its own.

And that is where regulation and the antitrust laws come in to protect consumer choice.

It is a per se violation of antitrust law for competing companies to agree to divide markets or to fix prices.

The other sectors in the health care supply chain are already subject to the antitrust laws, and it will be beneficial to the health care marketplace, and to consumers, if the health insurance industry joins them.

For these reasons, I believe the legislation before us does more good than harm and, accordingly, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 372.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to take just a moment.

This is an excellent presentation. I think our constituents should be aware, and our colleagues, of your enormous knowledge as the former State insurance administrator in California, years of service to the people of California, and we are grateful for that analysis because you are right on the money, if you will, on the disaster or the questioning that comes about through two points: the existing bill, and then now an amendment which has been called meaningless that will be on the floor on Thursday, meaning that this bill has been amended by those who want to make it worse.

We sat in the Budget Committee on Thursday with Ranking Member Yarmuth most of the day trying to debate these numbers. So I just want to make points about wellness, about some of the criteria that maybe is misrepresented as making the insurance product more expensive.

To the Republicans, 10, 20 years ago, the product you had may not have been worth what you paid. In the product we have now, preexisting condition, stay on your parents insurance until you

are 26, certain criteria that the insurance companies must have, by the nature of the market, premiums go up to take in the idea that there are ``better benefits.'' I would argue that those benefits should have been there, but they are better benefits.

The other thing is that there was a formula which pushed millennials into the market or into the pool of people and persons that will purchase insurance.

Now, let me be very clear. I think we have not seen the end of the story. I believe that 10 years, 15 years, the young population will buy insurance. It is an educational curve. And so as they buy insurance, they will create that cushion.

Now, let me make this other point. Premiums are raised under this Republican bill, really raised, and then there are smoke and mirrors to say, oh, at a certain point it will go down 10 percent. But it goes down on the raised amount.

If you allow the Affordable Care Act to continue, we have a very large piece of wellness. Talk to your doctors. It is working.

Individuals are coming in, taking advantage of the wellness check. So they are not coming in with metastasized cancer, with thyroid conditions. They are not coming in on a stretcher with strokes or a heart attack because they are getting wellness care. When you get wellness care, on the other side of the curve, premiums go down because you get more well people.

I want to finish on this point of Medicaid that we were just debating.

Over and over again, it doesn't seem like there was any understanding that Medicaid is now part of people's insurance. And it is not a situation where I have seen many of my constituents stand on the street corner with a sign, saying, ``Give me Medicaid.'' You get Medicaid either through the expanded Medicaid.

And for our colleagues, that means that you are in a State where your insurance comes through expanded Medicaid; or you are a sick and elderly person in a nursing home or a disabled person; or you are blind; or you are a pregnant woman; or you are a mother with children; or you are on the children's health insurance program, which I was here in 1997 when this miraculous bill came forward and we established the Children's Health Insurance Program, which is a Medicaid-based program that gives millions of children insurance.

But under this bill, all of that will be capped. It will be per capita. So the $880 billion is being cut, my fellow Americans, ladies and gentleman, from your insurance.

Then, finally, this bill could not be more cruel. Besides the ailing that are in nursing homes--and I do want to tell one story of an individual who got into the nursing home, Mr. Speaker, because they didn't have insurance to take their medicine, and it resulted in heart attack and stroke. They are not an old person, but they are totally disabled, and they are in the nursing home on Medicaid now.

But in the Budget Committee, two amendments came up that I was just stunned. You worked very hard on the opioid legislation. Some of it came out of my committee, Judiciary Committee. Many Members have worked hard on this.

They had an amendment saying no able-bodied man or person should get Medicaid. I don't know what that definition is. Are you an addicted young person, wholly addicted on opioids, that needs medical treatment? Are you an able-bodied person because you have all of your faculties and limbs but you are sick and addicted?

And then, don't incentivize Medicaid. I am trying to find out what that means because all of my hospitals--and I think one of the things the Affordable Care Act has done is to question costs and to work hard to bring costs down in hospital care and to have an accountability assessment on that.

But to finish, I have not heard my rural hospitals, I have not heard my public hospitals, I have not heard the Texas Medical Center talk about people being incentivized to get Medicaid. They are sick and they come in for whatever they have.

The last point is someone gave an example that they were able to have a transplant because they were under the Affordable Care Act with expanded Medicaid.

So I want to thank the gentleman for raising these very important points, but it baffles me that there is such a skewing of a very successful legislation, very difficult. It was a very difficult piece of legislation. It took years, the Affordable Care Act, and it is doing what it is supposed to do.

As we have heard before, you can get more insurance companies. We have to do something with the premiums, and that is fixing or improving. But that is not what we are doing here. We are literally cutting people off of insurance.

I will give you the number that I keep using: 2026, 52 million Americans will be uninsured, and that will be our constituents all over the Nation. That is because of the underlying bill, this bill that is coming up now--which there are those who want it to be even worse. I just heard a gentleman say he wants to take away all the mandates. It will be worse on the American people, and I don't want to make America sick again.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the House Committee on Homeland Security I rise in support of H.R. 1353, the ``Transparency in Technological Acquisitions Act.''

This bipartisan bill requires the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to provide more frequent and detailed updates on its strategy to invest in security technology.

The five-year investment plan includes information such as:

1. Transportation security risks and gaps that could be addressed by technology

2. Current and expected trends in domestic and international travel

3. Opportunities for public-private partnerships and collaboration with small and disadvantaged companies, other government agencies, university centers of excellence and national laboratories

4. Resources required to protect technology from cyber theft, diversion, sabotage or attack

5. Potential effects on commercial airline passengers.

This bill would require the updates to be submitted annually and to include information on acquisitions made during the previous fiscal year.

Requiring TSA to provide annual updates on the acquisition plan and to notify Congress and industry stakeholders about any changes to the plan which will provide much-needed clarity, certainty, and transparency.

In 2015, TSA screened more than 708 million passengers, which is more than 1.9 million per day.

Of the 2,653 firearms discovered in carry-on bags, 82.8 percent were loaded.

Houston George Bush Intercontinental Airport ranked 3rd among airports with the most firearms discovered in 2015.

This last January, Esteban Santiago shot and killed five people inside Fort Lauderdale airport using a firearm stored in his luggage.

Terrorism and cyberattacks are likely to remain a reality for the transportation industry for the foreseeable future.

It is absolutely critical that we invest in minimizing transportation safety security risks to keep our citizens safe.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1353.