Richard Neal

Mr. NEAL

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

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

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

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to make sure that the American people understand the impact of the underlying bill that H.R. 2372 intends to amend. The bill purports to make a fix to the Republicans' harmful healthcare bill, but the fix is inadequate for the harm the underlying legislation would cause. We have independent verification from both the CMS actuary and the Congressional Budget Office to reinforce our position. The Republican healthcare bill would cause millions to lose health insurance, face higher premiums and out-of-pocket costs, and jeopardize the health security that Americans with preexisting conditions have today. We should be working to improve our healthcare system, not making it more difficult and unaffordable for America's families. If this is such a great policy, let's not tie it to a bill that is doomed in the Senate. In fact, if anybody can find out where it is even being discussed or authored in the Senate, they should inform us. It clearly is not being done in the open. Let's not tie it to that simple provision, and pass it as it stands alone today. Middle class Americans can't afford this recipe. I urge my colleagues to work over the next few months to educate the American people about the Republican health plan and how harmful it is to our Nation's health. Hospitals oppose it, doctors oppose it, and patient groups oppose it. The bill needs to be scrapped. We should instead be helping the middle class, not giving giant tax cuts to the wealthy. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to express again, as I did earlier, the support we have for the Capitol Police and others for the good work they do every single day and extend our best wishes to Majority Whip Scalise. My friend, Mr. Tiberi, who is managing time on the Republican side, said he was, I think, 17 years old. If he were here and had supported the Clinton healthcare bill, that never would have happened. That would be another way that we might want to look at. Mr. Speaker, as I said a bit ago, this is an unusual procedure. We are being asked to amend legislation that left the institution. Heaven knows where the Republican healthcare bill rests today. The President calls it mean; the Senate won't tell us where they are, as they write the bill, and when it might emerge; and we find ourselves offering amendments to something that is not going to happen. H.R. 2579, the Broader Options for Americans Act, would allow premium tax credits to be used for unsubsidized COBRA coverage under TrumpCare. Unfortunately, this does nothing to fix the AHCA, the underlying measure this bill intends to amend. Older Americans are likely to rely on COBRA, and the AHCA would allow insurers to charge older Americans up to five times more than they charge younger Americans. The tax credits in H.R. 2579 would not make COBRA coverage any more affordable for the American people. In addition, it could potentially weaken the risk pool coverage because it would encourage older and sicker workers to remain on COBRA that could hurt small businesses. This is simply a backdoor way for States to discriminate against existing conditions. Because of weakening essential healthcare in the underlying TrumpCare bill, COBRA is going to be needed again to help people who leave employment for health reasons or have preexisting conditions. Let me remind the American people how we got here in the first place. Last month, Republicans brought TrumpCare to the House floor and passed it without a single Democrat supporting it. The measure, as passed, would take away health insurance for millions of Americans, raise premiums for working families, and place an age tax on older Americans. The bill is just one of the many promises the Republican leadership continues to make in an effort to twist arms for votes from their caucus to pass TrumpCare. I am also concerned that the House ignored important procedures when considering bills that are on the floor today. First, since the Republican bill passed, the CBO numbers confirmed the measure would force Americans to pay more for lower quality healthcare coverage. That is not in dispute. Second, this bill is not appropriate to consider now because it amends TrumpCare, and it hasn't even passed the Senate. Even if this bill was incorporated into TrumpCare, it would not undo the terrible cuts included in the measure. It would leave 23 million Americans without health insurance, cut Medicaid by $800 billion, discriminate against individuals with preexisting conditions; and will drastically raise premiums for older Americans. It would unravel important consumer protections or cut programs designed to address the opioid addiction crisis in my State of Massachusetts, and throughout the Nation. I am quite certain everyone here and watching this debate has someone close to them dealing with a drug or alcohol addiction. In addition, many middle class Americans rely on Medicaid for long- term care. That is beginning to resonate with the American people. This bill does nothing to fix the Republican repeal measure, as I have noted, and it is likely to create more and new problems. I encourage my Republican friends and colleagues to go back to the drawing board, craft a bill with us, and fix the problems in the Affordable Care Act. There is a chance to do that. Twenty-three million more Americans have health insurance because of the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Now is not the time to retreat. In times like this, we should be advancing these arguments in this institution for hardworking Americans and their families. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, on June 1st, I had the honor to address Springfield Technical Community College (STCC) class of 2017 as their commencement speaker. In my speech below, I explained to the students, faculty, and families assembled that a quality education and working together toward a common purpose, you can accomplish great outcomes even in challenging moments. I want to thank President John B. Cook for his gracious introduction and commend him on his outstanding leadership as STCC celebrates their 50th anniversary. I also want to particularly recognize the over 1000 students of the graduation class of 2017 on completing this important step in their education. I wish them all the best in their future endeavors. ``Good evening President Cook, parents, friends and guests. And of course Springfield Technical Community College class of 2017. Or as you are affectionately known in our community in the highest regard--STCC. We define community as a place where no one is to be abandoned and no one is to be left behind. I am honored to have been chosen to deliver the commencement address for STCC's 50th commencement--or as your neighbors on Federal Street, Merriam-Webster, would say, your `quinquagenarian.' The story of STCC begins with the decision of Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara to close the Springfield Armory. In history, it was known as the arsenal at Springfield. Established by General George Washington and administered by his trusted aide General Henry Knox. The college is located on at least three historic sites--the Knox Trail, Ben Franklin's mail route, and the site of Daniel Shays Rebellion which helped bring about the establishment of the United States Constitution, of which the convening is 230 years old as of last Thursday. However, when Secretary McNamara announced his decision to close the Armory, he waived off the emotion and sentiments of the day and stood firm in his determination. Consternation, and some even predicted, calamity, would be the result of the Secretary's decision. A sense of despair settled in with the loss of hundreds of manufacturing jobs. A polarizing debate began over whether or not to use the site in an attempt to secure a different commercial purpose or to use the site for education. Today, coincidentally, both missions have been accomplished. A reminder, once again, that in every crisis there is opportunity. The dream began with the vision of Edmund Garvey, who had been the principal of Springfield Trade High School. A decision was reached to build an addition to Trade High School, which would be called Springfield Technical Institute. Edmund Garvey's concept would be championed by other notables in our community including then- Springfield Mayor Charles V. Ryan (who actually handed me my high school diploma), Joseph Deliso, a prominent titan of industry, and Representative Anthony M. Scibelli, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. Refusing to be turned back by the usual voices and forces of pessimism and doubt, with alacrity and unyielding determination, they created the only technical community college in Massachusetts. Recall that it was also another native son of Springfield, Governor Foster Furcolo (whose father's doctor's offices still stand on south Main Street) to create the community college system in Massachusetts. This evening, we acknowledge their conceptualization. How simple but how important--provide education to students in the community so that they might see beyond themselves and give back to humanity. They predicted the best way to accomplish that goal was to provide a quality education that can translate into opportunity and the dignity that comes with a good job. And not just any job--one that supports our security, our healthcare, our infrastructure, and our social needs. Although their focus was to create a technical community college, they did something else along the way: they knew how to get a big idea accomplished. Opportunity is still the theme that is much woven into the fabric of this college's culture. The grounds the community college stands on today has been part of our community for more than two centuries, where it once housed soldiers, guardsman and industrial might. Today it is home to optimism and determination. There were strong disagreements at the time among community members as to what to do with this historic site. Persistence, patience and positivity was the foundation of STCC's birth. In hindsight, the founder's unwavering courage was both warranted and wise. Compromises were reached and with the help of Congressman Edward P. Boland, my predecessor, the decision was made to establish next to the Community College a national historic site, ``The Springfield Armory'' which today is visited by tens of thousands of people. It is the home to the famous gun rack immortalized in Longfellow's poem. This 50th anniversary is a great example of how we work with our colleagues, community leaders and peers to accomplish extraordinary outcomes that help to lift the clouds of despair. Much of this was accomplished in the crucible of public life. And remember, as these founders understood, democracy is supposed to be noisy. But then we move to the next plane of achievement. Just as Holmes said, it is conflict that is the core of life, but it is cooperation that brought about this outcome. As the Democratic leader of the Ways and Means Committee, I work closely on policies that directly impact our economy and America's middle class: trade, health care, taxes and Social Security. One of our tasks is to take on the issues that will have far reaching consequences on the United States economy, revising the tax code and our nation's trade policies to provide greater opportunity for those of you assembled here this evening. I can assure you that the degree you receive tonight is more critical than ever. While we speak of income inequality, and greater concentration of wealth in America, we also should be reminded that the unemployment rate among college graduates in America today is under 4%. Our economy has undergone major transformations. It has created companies that are highly competitive in the global marketplace. Unfortunately, our workforce has not always adapted and too many workers have been left behind. Globalization, skill-set, decline of private sector unionism and technological advances have been contributing factors in this. It has created what we know today as a ``skills gap.'' Companies have well-paying jobs to fill, but eager workers simply don't have what's needed to qualify for the 650,000 technology jobs available even as we convene this evening. Your accomplishment tonight will be critical to closing the skills-gap and provide incentive to employers for people who want work. And people want to go to work! The education you received at STCC has emphasized the marriage of training and education. It has set you on a course for good jobs that are desperately needed and are an important part of economic policy debates. While state and local leaders hammer out policies that have direct ties to jobs, there needs to be a parallel discussion with community colleges and employers so we can make these policies a reality. Whatever the education challenges we face--economics and socialization--community colleges will be a profound part of the answer. We can pass all the infrastructure and health packages in the world, but if there aren't workers to carry out those policies, we would have accomplished little. Right here in New England, a recent New England Council/Deloitte Study estimates that over the next decade 20,000 precision manufacturing jobs could go unanswered. There needs to be a serious discussion--not excitable language-- between employers, community leaders and our workforce. Community colleges can provide the bridge between an eager, willing, gifted workforce and employers desperate for skilled employees. A commitment from them to invest in technical and community colleges and apprenticeship programs is an important first step. Institutions like STCC can design curriculum and internship programs to ensure students can receive the skills and education they need that employers are seeking. But in order to provide these classes, internships and apprenticeships, the private sector and Congress need to work together to provide incentives similar to the Community College Partnership Tax Credit, which would provide employers with a tax credit for hiring community college graduates. This would encourage business engagement in the community and provide students with opportunities to find good paying jobs upon graduation. Experience always informs our judgement. It will help shape your understanding and ultimately encourage others to enter the world you plan to thrive in. On a personal note, let me tell you bluntly, the world responds more to aspiration than it does to grievance. Be proud of your accomplishments and your work. I tell you this: your talent, skill, and achievements are as important if not more to federal, state and local policy discussions. Let me acknowledge the faculty this evening. You lend experience and teaching talents to help students reach their potential. And as I have always noted, when you reach your potential, your potential expands. Today's economy is certainly complex. The conversation between our workforce and employers requires serious commitment to our community college system. As you move forward into the next step of career choices or additional education, accept the challenge you so proudly have earned to see your ambition as central to the new economy. Stay engaged. We need your voice and your talent. Have a dream, but have a plan. The STCC founding and experience was born in doubt. But on this 50th anniversary, STCC has risen to become an extraordinary achievement because the founders had a dream and they had a plan. I mentioned earlier the site on which STCC sits has been home to events that have shaped world history. General Washington shaped history; General Knox shaped history; Ben Franklin shaped history; Daniel Shays shaped history; the Springfield Rifle shaped history; John Garand's invention shaped history. STCC has shaped history and tonight your pledge should be to shape history, too. Thank you President Cook, the Board of Trustees, the faculty, and the students at STCC. And of course, your families who helped make this evening possible. You say it best--STCC works. Congratulations from the United States of America.''

Mr. NEAL

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

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, this procedure that we are witnessing here this morning, based on what happened at the White House for the last 48 hours, has all the charm of a ransom note. The idea that this is put in front of us so that they can provide a tax cut at the expense of middle class Americans is really what we are voting on today. So that child who is born with diabetes across America can no longer be guaranteed health insurance if we turn this option over to the States. Anybody who comes from local or State government knows this: that money will be used to balance the budgets in economic downturns at the expense of those who need it for health care. Another essential point here as I think we go forward, the other side--by the way, there are only two on the other side. What is amazing about this is--when you consider that argument that they had with us yesterday about national defense, understand this: real national defense also includes providing health care for members of the American family. That is a very important consideration. They are about to subtract from guaranteed benefits to the American family for the purpose of offering a tax cut to people at the very top, again, at the expense of middle class Americans.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Fewer covered, higher costs, and fewer protections for the American family. The previous question that Louise Slaughter and I are going to offer is the following: We would prevent any of this legislation that is proposed that would be considered harmful to the consumers, as the Republican bill is. Americans need assurance about health care and, by the way, some predictability. During my time of service here, I have seen how difficult it is to do health insurance. I think there is only one person in Washington, by the way, who said: Who knew health insurance could be this complicated? Well, for those of us who have served here for any extended period of time, I can assure you, we all knew that health care was complicated in terms of delivery and economic consequence. But that is not enough for our friends today. They want to change the basic tenet of the guarantee of ending preexisting conditions. I had a Republican friend I talked to yesterday. He said: I wish I was still back in the House because I would vote against that bill. He said: My daughter had a liver transplant, and now they are saying, with preexisting conditions, it is going to be up to the Governor of a State to decide whether or not she can continue to get care? We need the guarantee of Medicare coupled with the expansion of Medicaid, which has now offered insurance to 24 million Americans that didn't have insurance prior to the Affordable Care Act. I would say this as well. And remember, half of that number, that is private insurance. We kept the private sector alive for the purpose of offering discipline to price. It has accomplished that. Healthcare spending in America has plateaued. But, again, on this occasion, we won't let the facts get in the way of a rigid ideology that says we need to change the Affordable Care Act because Barack Obama offered it. That is what the test is now for the American people: Who sponsored legislation?

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

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank Judge Hastings for yielding. The previous question I offer with Congresswoman Slaughter would prevent any legislation from being considered if the legislation would deny coverage or require higher premiums for preexisting conditions, increase costs for seniors for prescription drugs, or reduce Medicare solvency. I have listened to the previous three speakers on the Republican side talk about national defense. That is understandable, but might we, for the purpose of this discussion, also acknowledge the following: real national defense also means providing health security for members of American families. That is part of the balance that we should be recognizing. The priorities on the other side are the following: they are going to turn the issue of preexisting condition back to a voluntary nature at the State level. As one who comes from local government, we should recognize the following: every time there is an economic downturn, you can be certain that Governors are going to use the money that was intended for health care to balance the budgets, and they are going to call it good management. They are undermining the health security of the American people with their proposal on TrumpCare. They have been threatening to eliminate coverage for millions of Americans for years, and now they are telling us they are on the eve of accomplishing just that. But what does it mean for the American family? They want to go back to the days when you could be denied routine health insurance because you might have been born with diabetes, you might have had a liver transplant in midlife, you might have had a diagnosis of cancer in midlife, and you can no longer be insured despite the fact that you have spent a lifetime paying those premiums? And we are going to make this an option of the States to decide? This is going backwards on the issue of health security. But that is not enough, as we know. They also are going to ask you to pay more for hospital care, more for prescription drugs, more for mental health and substance abuse treatment, more for pediatric care, and certainly more for cancer care. And they are going to call this an improvement in health care delivery? Well, their recent improvements have made it clear. Let's not forget the previous bill had an underlying $1 trillion tax giveaway that would drain $75 billion from the Medicare trust fund and cut $840 billion from Medicaid, all for the purpose of providing a $1 trillion tax cut to the people at the very top.

Mr. NEAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, I want to make sure the people of America understand what we are doing here in about 1 hour. We heard during the course of a Presidential campaign the promise that everything was going to be covered and we would be tired of winning. If winning means that 24 million Americans are going to lose their healthcare coverage, if winning means imposing an age tax on seniors, if winning means higher out-of-pocket costs for working Americans, and if winning means robbing $75 billion from the Medicare trust fund, we don't want to be part of that victory lap. This isn't about one person making up alternative facts. Our statements today have been based upon the CBO, the National Rural Health Association, the American Medical Association, the American Association of Retired Persons, and the March of Dimes. This bill has fewer covered, weaker protections, and higher costs. Let's call this what it is today; it is a $1 trillion tax cut for the richest amongst us. The Republicans are now facing the art of the ordeal. They have a bad plan, and they know it. They have scrambled for the last week to try to figure out how to stitch it together, and it hasn't worked. For those across this country, think of the following: no maternity care, fewer hospital visits, no mental health services for those families who are struggling with a family member who has an opiate addiction, which is the crisis of our time. This is more of the same: tax cuts for the wealthiest amongst us and healthcare cuts for everyone else. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleague that his vote for this bill will result in 70,000 people in his congressional district in South Carolina losing their healthcare coverage. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), who is a thoughtful member of the Ways and Means Committee and lucky enough to have been educated in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that his vote for this bill will result in 40,900 people from his congressional district in Iowa losing healthcare coverage. I also want to thank the gentleman for being the first speaker on the Republican side to acknowledge that this is a tax cut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Chicago, Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee and my friend.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleague that her vote for this bill will result in 63,000 people in South Dakota losing their healthcare coverage and care. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a visionary, certainly, a forward-looking individual who also helped to write the ACA.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that her vote for this bill will result in 42,000 people in her congressional district in Indiana losing their healthcare coverage and care. I include in the Record a letter from Republican Governor Snyder of the State of Michigan raising his concerns about this legislation. State of Michigan, Executive Office, Lansing, MI, March 21, 2017. Hon. Sandy Levin, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Levin: As Congress considers legislation to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act and reform Medicaid, I want to ensure you are aware of the impact that changes may have on beneficiaries in Michigan who rely on these programs for access to care and overall health. I also want to provide my perspective on priorities for federal health reform and highlight how they have been utilized at the state level to drive meaningful reform that has increased access to cost-effective care. In its current form, the American Health Care Act (AHCA) shifts significant financial risk and cost from the federal government to states without providing sufficient flexibility to manage this additional responsibility. The proposed legislation reduces federal resources that our state relies on to assist 2.4 million Michiganders enrolled in traditional Medicaid and the Healthy Michigan Plan, our state's innovative Medicaid expansion program. The current federal debate has largely focused on the Medicaid expansion population, including over 650,000 childless adults and parents that are enrolled in the Healthy Michigan Plan. However, half of all children in Michigan are served by traditional Medicaid each year and roughly 67,000 of them currently reside in your district. Moreover, more than 338,000 individuals with disabilities receive their health care and support services through Medicaid and an estimated 22,000 of these individuals reside in your district. Altogether, there are 1.75 million children, seniors, pregnant women and disabled individuals served by traditional Medicaid in Michigan, and roughly 119,000 of them reside in your district. As you know, these are our state's most vulnerable citizens, friends and neighbors. The proposed AHCA will adversely impact them. While reforming the nation's health care system is vital, it is imperative that gains in health coverage and access to care are maintained. These ideas are not mutually exclusive. In Michigan, innovative approaches to improving quality and value are being utilized to support each individuals' personal responsibility for their health. This has resulted in significant reductions of nearly 50% in uncompensated care, a dramatic decrease in the number of individuals using the emergency room as a regular source of care, and nearly 85% of enrollees taking part in annual primary or preventive care visits. As drafted, the AHCA would eliminate coverage from the 49,000 individuals enrolled in the Healthy Michigan Plan in your district, as Michigan taxpayers assume responsibility over time for up to $800 million in additional costs. This cost shift will trigger a provision in Michigan law ending the Healthy Michigan program. I believe Medicaid reform is necessary, however, that reform must be approached deliberately to ensure that state flexibility and innovation are valued, Michigan providers remain strong, and our most vulnerable citizens do not fall through the cracks. Ideally, this would be done by removing prescriptive program requirements that require states to seek waivers when implementing innovative ideas. Instead, states would be given performance based outcomes with federal involvement only when performance is lacking. If Congress moves forward in passing the proposed AHCA, which shifts financial risk to state taxpayers, my administration and the Michigan Legislature must possess the flexibility necessary to manage that risk. The Trump Administration may provide additional flexibility to states, however, I am concerned that federal agencies may encounter limitations in federal statute. Ultimately, Michigan cannot rely solely on the promise of future action without seeing all of the tools that will be at our disposal to manage the program. In addition, under the proposed AHCA, I remain concerned about the affordability of insurance coverage in the individual market. I am particularly concerned about the impact this legislation may have on older Michiganders who could see significant cost increases. I welcome the opportunity to partner with you to provide greater federal budget predictability and improve health outcomes of Michiganders, which in turn relieves pressure on other social programs. I have worked with other Governors to develop a proposal to accomplish these objectives while also preserving coverage for Michiganders, and I hope this can serve as a blueprint for you as we work together to accomplish these goals. I look forward to continuing our partnership to help Michiganders lead healthy and productive lives. Sincerely, Rick Snyder, Governor.

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

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleague that his vote for this bill will result in 50,000 people in his congressional district in Nebraska losing their health coverage and care. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), a giant in terms of the morality of our time and a good friend and individual who helped write the Affordable Care Act, as well.