Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me begin my closing by reminding people that we are about to vote on the rule. The rule defines how we are going to consider this legislation. This is a closed rule. This is a Putin rule. This is a rule that allows no opposing viewpoints to be brought before this Chamber to be debated and voted on. It is completely closed. On top of that, it didn't go through regular order. Now, I know my colleagues will say, well, it went through regular order in the previous Congress. But there are 55 new Members of the House in this Congress, and I think they have a right to expect regular order from the leadership of this House when legislation is brought to the floor. The rule should be rejected because it is closed. I would urge my colleagues, even those who may be sympathetic to the underlying legislation to, at some point, stand up to your leadership and say, ``Enough of this closed process.'' Open this place up a little bit. This is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world, and yet we do everything but deliberate. At some point, I hope some of my Republican colleagues will be brave enough to stand with us who are calling for a more open process. I also urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill. I also include in the Record an article from Politico entitled, ``Study: Abortion Rate Falls to Record Low.'' [From Politico, Jan. 17, 2017] Study: Abortion Rate Falls to Record Low (By Brianna Ehley) The U.S. abortion rate dipped to its lowest level on record in 2014, according to a new study by the Guttmacher Institute. The abortion rate dropped 14 percent between 2011 and 2014 to 14.6 abortions per 1,000 women, researchers said. During the same time period, the number of abortions dropped 12 percent to 926,200 in 2014. Researchers suggested two main reasons for the decline: a combination of greater access to contraception and less access to abortion services in states that have enacted new restrictions. The number of clinics providing abortions dipped 6 percent between 2011 and 2014, with the largest declines in access in the Midwest and the South. ``Abortion restrictions and clinic closures mean that patients may need to travel greater distances to access services,'' Rachel Jones, the study's lead author, said in a statement. ``Some of the abortion rate decline is likely attributable to women who were prevented from accessing needed services.''

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez), who is the vice chairwoman of the Democratic Caucus.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to yet another closed rule. Last night in the Rules Committee, there were three thoughtful amendments that were brought forward. They were all germane and all complied with the rules of the House. Yet, once again, the Republicans in the Rules Committee denied each and every one of them. There is no opportunity for any amendments to be heard here today and no opportunity for there to be a real debate, and I regret that very much. Again, that is the trend that we see in this Congress. Madam Speaker, I also oppose the underlying bill. I have a fundamental belief that politicians in Washington should not have the right to interfere in the health decisions of a woman; and this deceptively titled bill will do just that. It continues this Republican majority's never-ending crusade against women, and it is an attempt to take away the constitutionally protected right to abortion services for millions of women, especially middle class and low-income women. That is wrong. Madam Speaker, these healthcare decisions should be made between women and their doctors, not politicians in Washington. Who the hell are we in this Chamber to make these private and oftentimes painful decisions for women? Republicans claim that this bill is about codifying the Hyde amendment, which has been around for four decades. That is 40 years too long, in my opinion. But this bill isn't really about the Hyde amendment. Despite what Republicans claim, this extreme and sweeping bill would go even further by placing unprecedented limits on women's access to reproductive health services even if they want to pay for abortion coverage out of their own pockets. Placing restrictions on how women with private insurance can spend private dollars when purchasing health insurance would radically change our Nation's longstanding policy. It is deeply troubling and must not become law. Madam Speaker, just days ago during the nationwide Women's March, millions of people gathered all across the country and around the globe to defend women's rights. These marches were likely the single largest day of protest in American history. More than half a million people took to the streets right here in our Nation's Capital; and I was proud to march with these dedicated men and women, along with my wife and my daughter. My son, I am also proud to say, joined the march in Boston. The marches were peaceful. Not a single arrest was reported in Washington, D.C. And they were also clear, sending a message to each of us that women's rights are human rights. But far from respecting those rights, the majority is here today attacking a woman's constitutional right to make her own decisions about her health, her family, and her future. Despite this dangerous bill passing the Republican-controlled House in previous Congresses, it has traditionally died in the Senate; and I hope the Senate keeps with that tradition. The ultimate goal of congressional Republicans and of Donald Trump is to overturn Roe v. Wade. Make no mistake about it. They want to take us back to the days of back-alley abortions where women lost their lives. That would be an awful thing to do. I hope people who believe in upholding a woman's right to choose are watching this debate, and I hope that they are just as outraged as I am by this attempt to roll back women's healthcare rights. I hope they call their Representatives in Congress today to speak out. This is a time for action, and we need all of you to make your voices heard. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney) for the customary 30 minutes. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article that appeared in The Washington Post: ``Does Obamacare provide federal subsidies for elective abortions?'' It talks about the GAO report, and it basically says that those who claim that it does, they earn three Pinocchios. [Jan. 26, 2017] Does Obamacare Provide Federal Subsidies for Elective Abortions? (By Michelle Ye Hee Lee) ``The president's health-care law authorized massive subsidies to assist millions of Americans to purchase private health plans that will cover abortion on demand. In other words, hard-earned taxpayer dollars are now being used to pay for elective abortions. This is simply unacceptable.''--Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), House debate, Jan. 22, 2015 The argument that the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, provides federal subsidies for abortions came up several times during the House debate on an antiabortion bill. The bill would prohibit using federal funds for any abortions or for any health plans that cover abortions. Under Obamacare, federal funds can be used to cover abortions for pregnancies caused by rape or incest, or that endanger the mother's life. But no federal subsidies for premiums can be used for elective abortions. The House debate centered on whether this restriction is being enforced, and whether additional protection for taxpayers are needed. There often is overheated rhetoric in the abortion debate that cannot be fact-checked. (The Fact Checker previously examined Democrats' claims following the Hobby Lobby ruling.) The bill's opponents, who support abortion rights, say the system works and that the measure would unnecessarily restrict women's private insurance choices. Lawmakers who oppose abortion rights don't buy it; they say the system is just an accounting gimmick. The goal of this fact check is not to relitigate the debate but to examine evidence to support the above statement, which was repeated throughout the debate. Foxx, one of the lawmakers arguing for the bill, was among several Republicans who claimed federal subsidies are paying for elective abortions. Does this accurately portray how abortions are covered under Obamacare? The Facts The House passed H.R. 7, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2015, on the anniversary of the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. The bill was a watered-down measure that the House took up at the last minute after GOP leaders pulled an initial, more restrictive bill. Public funding for abortions is intricately structured. Under the Hyde Amendment, federal funds can't be used for elective abortions under Medicaid-funded plans. Some states do pay 100 percent of the cost of elective abortions without passing on any cost to the federal government. Under Obamacare, health insurance plans could cover some or all elective abortions, but they can't use federal tax credits and subsidies to offset the cost. Insurance providers that cover elective abortions must charge consumers separately and deposit the money into a separate account that contains no federal money. Providers need to bill enrollees separately for elective abortions by itemizing them separately in monthly bills or sending separate bills. States can pass laws to ban or restrict health plans from providing coverage for elective abortions. In 2014, 23 states restricted coverage for these procedures. There were 1,036 plans in 28 states that provided some or all coverage for elective abortions. In a speech to Congress and a subsequent executive order, President Obama gave assurances that federal subsidies would not be used to cover elective abortion services. He ordered Health and Human Services and the Office of Management and Budget to issue a guideline for states so they can comply with billing and funding segregation requirements. Obama's not keeping his promise, say supporters of H.R. 7. Staffers for Foxx and two of the other lawmakers who made similar claims--H.R. 7 sponsor Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and Rep. Ana Wagner (R-MO.)--pointed to a September 2014 Government Accountability Office report. At the request of GOP leaders, the GAO examined whether health plans were following the elective abortion billing requirements. GAO picked 18 plans in 10 states with no laws restricting abortion coverage as a non-probability sample representing a quarter of all health plans that cover elective abortions. GAO found 17 of 18 issuers were not separately billing consumers. The one remaining issuer said its bills show there is a charge ``for coverage of services for which member subsidies may not be used.'' These issuers did not give blanket coverage for all abortions. One covered abortions that a health-care provider determines necessary, and two limited coverage to no more than one elective abortion a year. All 18 issuers had payment requirements such as co-pays, deductions and out-of-pocket costs. The report did not examine whether the providers were illegally using federal subsidies to pay for elective abortion services. In response to the report, HHS released a new set of regulations to clarify billing and funding segregation requirements. Experts say the GAO's findings do not necessarily mean insurance providers are inappropriately using federal subsidies to cover abortion services. There is no government or industry agency tracking insurers' compliance, making it impossible to know whether providers are following the law, they said. ``It's really not clear how these different plans are being operationalized,'' said Alina Salganicoff, Kaiser Family Foundation's director of women's health policy. The GAO report found premium amounts collected from elective abortion services ranged from 51 cents to $1.46 per enrollee per month. To put this in context, the national average premium for a 40-year-old person purchasing coverage through the marketplace was between $224 to $270 per month, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. (An earlier, non- age-specific average monthly estimate was $241.) Even if the maximum charge ($1.46) was added to the cheapest health plan ($224), the elective abortion surcharge is less than 1 percent of the monthly bill. The key point made by lawmakers and advocacy groups who oppose abortion rights is that money is fungible, and that it doesn't matter exactly how the money is being collected. A dollar is a dollar, they say, and every dollar paid to an insurance provider in the marketplace ultimately goes into collective risk pools that are used to rim government- subsidized health insurance, so taxpayers are effectively paying for elective abortions. ``The point is the federal subsidies provided for those 1,036 plans are funding abortion just as much as the private funds contributed by the individual. That is consistent with the commonly held understanding that money is fungible and the funds received by the insurance company are used to pay all benefits,'' Sheridan Watson, Foxx's communications director, wrote to The Fact Checker. The Pinocchio Test The GAO's report found that the insurers it studied were not following billing requirements. But experts say that does not necessarily mean the providers were illegally using federal subsidies for abortions. Even if they were, Foxx's statement that Obamacare authorized ``massive'' subsidies is an exaggeration. Based on the estimates above, abortion charges would range from 0.2 percent to 0.65 percent of an enrollee's monthly bill. The claim that ``hard-earned taxpayer dollars'' are paying for abortions ``on demand'' implies that taxpayers foot the abortion bill for any woman who requests one. But in reality, some providers still imposed their own restrictions on which abortions to cover, and all 18 issuers had payment requirements, such as out-of-pocket costs and co-pays. Lawmakers like Foxx who oppose abortion rights discredit the billing and funding separation requirement for elective abortion services. Billing doesn't matter, they say, because federal tax dollars used for subsidies pay for everything in a health plan. This is an opinion, and something that can't be fact-checked. But to say that massive federal subsidies are paying for abortions on demand is not an accurate portrayal of this complex issue, and the facts in the GAO report do not support this argument.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just clarify for the Record that there is no Federal funding for abortion. All you have to do is read the Hyde amendment, which has been in effect for 40 years. I don't support it, but that is the law of the land. The majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal. So if you want to talk about polls, the overwhelming number of Americans believe that abortions should be safe and legal. I also would like to say that while my colleagues are working overtime to try to defund organizations like Planned Parenthood, it is because of Planned Parenthood, the counseling that is provided, and the reproductive services that are provided at their clinics, and contraception, that the number of abortions have decreased in this country. Madam Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question. And if we do, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation, which I am happy to be a cosponsor of, along with Ms. Eshoo, that would require sitting Presidents and Presidential nominees to disclose their last 3 years of tax returns. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. McGOVERN. Despite the long tradition of Presidents and Presidential nominees of disclosing their tax returns, Donald Trump has refused to release his, and his spokesperson recently said that he has no intention of doing so. The American people expect and deserve transparency, which this legislation would ensure. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, between his refusal to release his tax returns and all these business conflicts of interest, this Presidency is on a collision course with corruption. Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support our effort here. To discuss our proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I just would like to assure my colleague from Wyoming that we are not trying to distract when we bring up the issue of the President's tax returns, but we have no opportunity here to be heard. The bill before us, as I mentioned in my opening statement, is a closed rule. It is a Putin rule, if you will, where it is their way or the highway and where no debate is allowed on alternative ideas. We had three thoughtful amendments brought before the Rules Committee last night, all germane, all in compliance with the House rules. They rejected all three of them. On the issue of the Presidential tax returns, yes, we are bringing it up because the American people want to know whether there are conflicts of interest. They don't want the White House to be known for being a place of corruption. They want our Presidents to follow the rules and the laws of the land. So people want to know, but we have been given no opportunity to do that. So forgive me if we take procedural motions to try to make our point, but my colleagues on the Republican side lock us out of any opportunity to be heard. The Rules Committee has become a place where democracy goes to die, I am sad to say, and I hope that changes. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago, this Republican leadership brought to the floor a budget resolution that paves the way toward repealing the Affordable Care Act and taking health care away from millions and millions of American families. Repealing the Affordable Care Act would cause over 30 million Americans to lose coverage, and millions to see an increase in healthcare costs. It would deny those with preexisting conditions access to quality health insurance. It would do away with Medicaid expansion, which is working to cover the most vulnerable people in 31 States and the District of Columbia, and would once again put insurance companies back in charge of our health care. Repealing the Affordable Care Act would also have a detrimental effect on efforts to end hunger in our communities. Not only do we have a moral imperative to address food insecurity, but we have a financial incentive as well. Health costs attributable to hunger have been estimated at $160 billion annually. As Catherine D'Amato, president and CEO of The Greater Boston Food Bank, pointed out in a recent piece in The Boston Globe, the community health needs assessments now required by the Affordable Care Act have led health centers across the country--from Massachusetts to Oregon--to develop partnerships with local food banks to address the food insecurity revealed in their assessments. I am proud that Massachusetts has been a leader in addressing food insecurity and in treating hunger as the public health issue it is. Across the Commonwealth, health centers have used the community health needs assessment to identify challenges in accessing healthy foods for vulnerable populations. UMass Memorial Medical Center, located in my hometown of Worcester, has identified access to healthy food as a community health need in its two most recent community health needs assessments. In response to the findings, UMass Memorial worked with the city of Worcester and the Regional Environmental Council to establish an urban agricultural program within an underserved area of the city. The program employs kids from the neighborhood and teaches them how to grow produce. The Veggie Mobile farmers' market then distributes the local produce to neighbors in food deserts across the city. Residents using SNAP dollars are given extra incentive to purchase the nutritious vegetables from these sites in the form of ``double up bucks''--they receive $2 worth of produce for every dollar spent. The assessments have also led to the creation of another community garden project within a public housing development, and the creation of a backyard gardening program that teaches local residents how to grow food and eat healthy. The Worcester County Food Bank has worked to sustain and expand these urban agriculture and anti-hunger measures in the city of Worcester, and has formed the Worcester Food Policy Council to support these efforts. In western Massachusetts, the community health needs assessment is having similar results. A 2013 community health needs assessment conducted by Holyoke Medical Center identified uncertainty in food access and the presence of food deserts as two priority areas that need to be addressed to improve community health. In response to these findings and in recognition that hunger is a serious health challenge among residents in western Massachusetts, two dozen organizations formed the region's Task Force to End Hunger. Out of this effort came a collaboration between The Food Bank of Western Massachusetts, Holyoke Health Center, and other stakeholders to establish an innovative pilot that will connect food-insecure pediatric patients and their families with nutrition and other social services. The Holyoke Health Center will institute pediatric food insecurity screenings, and hungry families will be referred to the food bank for food assistance, including connections to food pantries and meal sites in their neighborhoods, nutrition education, and for help in applying for SNAP benefits. These families will also be referred to specific social service providers for other resources like stable housing, financial literacy, employment services, and much more. In the Boston area, as Ms. D'Amato pointed out in The Boston Globe, The Greater Boston Food Bank is partnering with community health centers to screen for food insecurity in their patients, provide toolkits of available food assistance and resources for families, and operate free mobile markets that distribute fresh fruits and vegetables to hundreds and hundreds of people a month. The community health needs assessment, which came out of the Affordable Care Act, has required collaboration among public health experts and other stakeholders to identify the health challenges of communities across our country. It has forced these groups to look holistically at measures that can be taken to address the most pressing health issues facing families in these areas. It is just one example of the positive impact the Affordable Care Act is having on our constituents. Mr. Speaker, if we repeal the Affordable Care Act, as my Republican colleagues are trying to do, there is no guarantee that these innovations and collaborations will continue. We need to focus on ending hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to allow for the consideration of Representative Pocan's amendment, of which I am a proud cosponsor, to create a point of order against any legislation that would cut benefits under Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid or that would attempt to privatize Social Security. All are things that my Republican friends have advocated for in previous budgets. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the text of the amendment, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to this restrictive rule, and I rise in strong opposition to the underlying legislation. Because of Republican in-fighting, Congress was unable to do one of its most basic jobs last year, passing a full budget for FY17. So now House Republicans have brought this budget bill to the floor, but we all know that this is just a vehicle for them to repeal the Affordable Care Act and take away health care from millions and millions of Americans. For nearly 7 years, my Republican friends have railed against the Affordable Care Act. Their well-funded allies have spent billions of dollars distorting the ACA and lying to the American people about what it actually does. And for nearly 7 years there has not been a single comprehensive healthcare bill brought to the floor by Republicans as a replacement for the Affordable Care Act. Not one. We have voted over 60 times to repeal the ACA on the House floor. I will be the first to admit that ACA is not perfect, but rather than work together to tweak it or to make it better, all we get from them are repeal bills, repeal bills, repeal bills. Let me again point out that not once, not once, was there a replacement bill offered. Not only do Republicans not have a plan to replace the Affordable Care Act and protect access to health care for more than 20 million Americans who gained coverage, they can't even agree on a timeline for when they will pass their replacement. President-elect Trump says repeal and replace will be done on the same day, and he wants it to happen now. Representative Steve Scalise said Republicans will replace the ACA over the course of the next few months. Senator John Thune said it could take 2 or 3 years for the replacement to be implemented. Representative Chris Collins said Republicans have 6 months to work out the replacement plan, and Senator Mitch McConnell refused to even give a timeline, just saying that it would happen. Well, while the Republicans fight with each other over timelines, I think it is appropriate to ask: If they did have a replacement, what would that replacement be? Well, President-elect Trump has the answer. When asked what we should replace ObamaCare with, he said: ``Something terrific.'' When pressed for further details, and more specificity, he said: ``Something that people will really, really, really like.'' Mr. Speaker, you can't make this stuff up. It would be laughable if it weren't so tragic. It is tragic because what Republicans are trying to do is take healthcare protections away from millions and millions of families. Now, no one in this Congress has to worry about health care if the Affordable Care Act is repealed, and the Donald Trumps of the world certainly don't have to worry about health care if the Affordable Care Act is repealed. If someone in their family gets really sick, they will just sell some stocks or close down another American factory or not pay their workers, as our President-elect has been known to do on many, many occasions. But for millions of Americans, it will be a different story. Repealing the ACA would mean over 30 million Americans would lose coverage, including nearly 4 million children. More than 52 million individuals with preexisting conditions could have coverage rescinded or see their premiums dramatically increased. Millions of young adults would be unable to stay on their parents' plans until they are 26. Over 14 million individuals enrolled in Medicaid under the expansion would lose coverage, and nearly 140 million individuals with private insurance would lose access to preventive services without copays and deductibles. And millions of seniors would see their prescription drug prices increase because it would reopen the so-called doughnut hole that the ACA has begun to close. Republicans want to slash Medicaid, a healthcare program that does a lot of good stuff and enables mothers to work their way out of poverty by providing affordable coverage for their children. As someone who represents Massachusetts, this is especially personal because Medicaid is one of the best tools we have in the fight against opioid addiction, providing real care for the addiction and underlying conditions that drive the opioid epidemic in our communities. Repealing Medicaid expansion under the ACA would rip coverage away from an estimated 1.6 million newly insured individuals with substance use disorders. That is what is at stake, and that is what my Republican colleagues are so happy, giddy, and excited to do. It is sad. It is pathetic, but they are moving forward anyway with no replacement in sight. I suppose they can roll out their oldies but goodies, like health savings accounts or their other healthcare prescription, take two tax breaks and call me in the morning. But that doesn't do it. Mr. Speaker, we have a complicated healthcare system, no doubt. I wish it were simpler. That is why I have always favored a single-payer system and that is why I favored a public option. But the problem with our system before ObamaCare was that it left all the decisions up to the insurance companies. Do you remember the days when insurance companies could charge women more for health insurance because they said being a woman was a preexisting condition? They can't do that anymore. Why? Not because of my Republican friends. They can't do it anymore because we passed the ACA. This budget bill would also give Republicans a green light to defund Planned Parenthood. To my colleagues who are so anxious to defund Planned Parenthood just to satisfy their rightwing base, let me ask: Have you ever visited a Planned Parenthood clinic? Because if you had, you would understand why what you are doing is so wrong. The fact is that Planned Parenthood plays a critical role in protecting and providing access to critical health services for both women and men. One in five women has relied on a Planned Parenthood health center for care in her lifetime, and Planned Parenthood serves 2.7 million patients each year. One of the most important statistics that my Republican friends like to ignore is that more than 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does nationally is preventive care, including cervical cancer screenings, breast cancer screenings, and family planning, not abortion services. Add to this fact that Planned Parenthood clinics are often one of the few affordable healthcare options available for many women. Nearly 80 percent of women using Planned Parenthood clinics have incomes at or below 150 percent of poverty. It is easy to see why a majority of Americans don't think Federal funding should be eliminated. In one recent poll, 63 percent of voters, including 72 percent of independents, do not agree with my Republican friends that Federal funding for Planned Parenthood should be eliminated. In fact, we also heard very little about the consequences that defunding Planned Parenthood would have for families across the country. One of the biggest myths perpetrated by Republicans is the idea that our Nation's community health centers, which I love and adore and respect, could suddenly pick up the slack if Planned Parenthood is defunded. For the millions of low-income women who depend on Planned Parenthood clinics, defunding them would mean the loss of affordable and accessible contraceptive services and counseling, as well as breast and cervical cancer screenings. Simply put, for the many communities served by Planned Parenthood clinics, recklessly cutting funding would wipe out access to vital health services for the people who need them the most. Let me make something very clear. Zero Federal dollars go towards the abortion services provided by Planned Parenthood--zero. The vast majority of funding that Planned Parenthood receives comes in the form of Medicaid reimbursements for preventive care that they provide. Mr. Speaker, it is a cruel thing to do, to take away people's health care. I will say to my Republican colleagues that they need to know that we are going to fight you every step of the way on this. There are some battles on behalf of the American people that are worth having and worth fighting, and this is one of them--making sure that their health care protections remain intact. I came to Congress to help people, not make their lives more miserable. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me comment briefly on the other piece of legislation in this rule, S. 84. General James Mattis has been praised by both Democrats and Republicans, but there is very real concern about civilian control over the military, the language of the underlying legislation, and the duties and responsibilities of the House of Representatives. General Mattis has a distinguished career, but we are talking about changing the law here. Approving a waiver for him to serve in the Cabinet so soon after his military service is a serious decision. It is so serious that such a waiver has happened only once before in the entire history of the United States. Now, we should debate this. Instead, the Trump transition team canceled General Mattis' testimony before the House Armed Services Committee and now expects us to vote for him willy-nilly without us being able to ask him any questions. Congress is supposed to be a check on the executive branch, but if the House is denied the opportunity to meet with and question the military officer who is nominated as our next Defense Secretary, how can we fulfill our duty and blindly just vote for him? I would also say to my Republican friends, this is an early warning sign of the disregard that this new administration has for the House of Representatives. General Mattis was willing to testify, but the Trump team said no. They said no to the House of Representatives. Caving in on this issue will only mean continued disregard for the people's House in the future, and I think that that is regrettable. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out a couple of things. First of all, according to the Brookings Institution, without the ACA, insurance premiums would be 44 percent higher. And the other fact I point out for my colleagues is that healthcare costs are growing at the slowest rate in the last 50 years. Families are spending over $3,500 a year less than they would have because of the ACA. I would say to my colleagues, yeah, we want to do better, but let's work to address some of the shortcomings of the ACA rather than repeal it and put in danger all these healthcare protections that people have. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) is entitled to his own opinions but not his own facts. The facts with regard to the process in which the Affordable Care Act was developed, I think, are worth repeating here. In the House of Representatives, we held nearly 100 hours of hearings and 83 hours of committee markups. The House heard from 181 witnesses, both Democrats and Republicans. 239 amendments were considered in the three committees of jurisdiction, and 121 of them were adopted. The bill was available for 72 hours before Members were asked to vote on the floor. In the Senate, the Senate Finance Committee held more than 53 hearings. The committee also spent 8 days marking up the legislation, the longest markup in the 22 years of the committee. The Senate Health Committee held 47 bipartisan hearings, roundtables, and walkthroughs on the healthcare reform bill. So to say that this was not a thoughtful process is just wrong. Compare that to the way this budget bill is being brought to the floor. There is no committee consideration, no deliberation. It is just given to us. In fact, most of the committees aren't even organized yet in the House of Representatives. So there is a contrast there, and I stand with the way we approached the Affordable Care Act as opposed to the way the Republicans have approached this budget deal. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Soto).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to help the gentleman understand the benefits of the ACA in his home State of Georgia: There are 468,000 individuals in the State who have gained coverage since the ACA was implemented, and now they could lose it if he gets his way. 478,000 individuals in the State who were able to purchase high- quality marketplace coverage now stand to lose that coverage if the gentleman gets his way. In 2016, 427,000 individuals in the State have received financial assistance to purchase marketplace coverage; they are at risk of losing that. 65,000 kids have gained coverage since the ACA was implemented in the State of Georgia. 74,000 young adults are able to stay on their parents' health insurance until they are 26 because of the ACA. That is all in Georgia. So I would hope the gentleman would understand what is happening in his own State before he votes to repeal it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the American Medical Association, a letter from 120 interfaith groups, a letter from the Consumers Union, a letter from the Massachusetts Health & Hospital Association, a letter from a number of labor organizations in my home State of Massachusetts, and a letter from UMassMemorial Community Healthlink, which is a provider of comprehensive health care in my district. They are all opposed to undoing the Affordable Care Act. American Medical Association, Chicago, IL, January 3, 2017. Hon. Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Charles E. Schumer, Democratic Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Leader Schumer, Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi: On behalf of the physician and medical student members of the American Medical Association (AMA), I am writing regarding our ongoing commitment to reform of the health care system and potential legislative actions during the first months of the 115th Congress. The AMA has long advocated for health insurance coverage for all Americans, as well as pluralism, freedom of choice, freedom of practice, and universal access for patients. These policy positions are guided by the actions of the AMA House of Delegates, composed of representatives of more than 190 state and national specialty medical associations, and they form the basis for AMA consideration of reforms to our health care system. (A summary of key AMA objectives for health system reform is attached.) Health system reform is an ongoing quest for improvement. The AMA supported passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) because it was a significant improvement on the status quo at that time. We continue to embrace the primary goal of that law--to make high quality, affordable health care coverage accessible to all Americans. We also recognize that the ACA is imperfect and there a number of issues that need to be addressed. As such, we welcome proposals, consistent with the policies of our House of Delegates, to make coverage more affordable, provide greater choice, and increase the number of those insured. In considering opportunities to make coverage more affordable and accessible to all Americans, it is essential that gains in the number of Americans with health insurance coverage be maintained. Consistent with this core principle, we believe that before any action is taken through reconciliation or other means that would potentially alter coverage, policymakers should lay out for the American people, in reasonable detail, what will replace current policies. Patients and other stakeholders should be able to clearly compare current policy to new proposals so they can make informed decisions about whether it represents a step forward in the ongoing process of health reform. We stand ready to work with you to continue the process of improving our health care system and ensuring that all Americans have access to high quality, affordable health care coverage. Sincerely, James L. Madara, MD, Executive Vice President, CEO.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me respond to my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, by saying that I don't know what he is talking about. The Pocan amendment is pretty clear. It says that there will be a point of order against any legislation that would cut the benefits under Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid or would attempt to privatize Social Security. Now, I know my Republican friends want to privatize Social Security, because they tried that in the past; and I know they want to privatize Medicare and turn it into a voucher system, because that is what their budgets continually do. I mean, that is what we are trying to prevent. If you want to privatize Social Security, if you want to privatize Medicare and turn it into a voucher system, then stand with them. But if you want to protect these programs--and the vast majority of Americans--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents want to protect the integrity of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--then oppose this budget. By the way, this budget, basically, is the green light to go ahead and destroy the protections that people value in this country. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and that would allow us to vote on an amendment by Mr. Pocan which would create a point of order against any legislation that would cut the benefits under Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, or attempts to privatize Social Security. So if you want to protect those programs, and if you are against privatizing Social Security, then vote against the previous question so we can bring this up. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that this is a sad day because what we are doing here by voting for this budget is setting in motion a process to deny millions of people healthcare protections. I can't imagine why anybody would want to do that. Is the Affordable Care Act perfect? No, and we are the first to admit it. We want to work in a bipartisan way to strengthen it, to make it better, and to make it less onerous on certain businesses. But my colleagues don't want to do that. They are determined just to vote for an outright repeal, and that is going to hurt countless people in this country, people who have now benefited from no preexisting conditions, people who have benefited from allowing their kids to stay on their insurance until they are 26, and senior citizens who have benefited from closing the doughnut hole. I could go on and on and on. All of that is about to be eliminated. We are told that there will be replacement someday, somehow. For 6 years--over 6 years--you have been talking about repealing the Affordable Care Act and a replacement, and you haven't brought one bill to the floor--not one. Now, we believe that health care ought to be a right; I know you don't. We believe that healthcare protections ought to be in law; you believe they ought to be up to the insurance company. But this is a lousy thing to do. As I said in my opening statement, we are going to fight you on this. This is a fight worth having. Protecting people's health care is something that we all should be dedicated to, and we're going to fight you on this. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.