Tom Price

Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia

Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Speaker for the recognition and the opportunity to address the House on this the final hour of the final day of the final week of the final month of this year in Congress. It has been a remarkable year. The Congress--the House especially-- has seen some remarkable changes. I would like to share with you a little perspective on where we find ourselves now from a budgetary standpoint. For the last year, I have had the privilege of chairing the Budget Committee in the House of Representatives. That is the committee that deals with all of the spending that occurs in our Nation from the Federal Government standpoint. I would like to start by saying: What is it defining the goal that we have at the Budget Committee and in the Republican Conference here in the House of Representatives? That goal is broadly to create the greatest amount of opportunity and the greatest amount of success for the greatest number of people so that the greatest number of American Dreams can be realized in a fair and a compassionate system. That is kind of the 60,000-foot view that we have here in the House of Representatives at the Budget Committee among Republicans who have allowed me the privilege of chairing the Budget Committee. So from that point of view, in terms of the perspective of where we find ourselves and what our goal is, what does that have to do with the budget? What does that have to do with the numbers that get crunched in this town all the time and that we just finished a remarkable week talking about how to get the progrowth policies that are so necessary to get our economy growing and how do we move forward from a spending standpoint? Folks all across the country have differing views about how that ought to be done. But I think it is helpful to kind of step back and to look at the overall picture, the big picture. From a spending standpoint, the Nation understands and appreciates that Washington spends a lot. $3.8 trillion is the amount of money that your Federal Government will spend in this fiscal year. That is 3.8 with too many zeros after it. It is hard to get your arms around the amount of money that that is. But it is important for all Americans to appreciate kind of how that breaks down. The point I want to begin with is this point about mandatory spending and discretionary spending. Folks tend to think mostly, if they don't know how Washington works, that this $3.8 trillion is the money that Congress deals with every single year. Right? It is the spending that goes out the door here in Washington every single year and that continues to grow and grow and grow. We will go over some of those numbers. The fact of the matter is that this spending is broken down into two major categories. One is called mandatory. I prefer the word automatic because it really isn't mandatory. That is the spending that has occurred and continues to occur because Congress, along with the President, at some point in the past has defined a certain amount of spending or certain programs that need to be continued year after year after year, regardless of what Congress does or until and unless Congress changes those programs. These are programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. There are a lot of other mandatory programs. These are important programs. There is no doubt about it. The money that goes to those programs goes to them based upon an individual in this country qualifying for those programs based upon either their income or their age or some other circumstance. The amount of money to be spent on those programs doesn't change at all unless the House, the Senate, and the President agree to change it. That is the mandatory side or the automatic side. I prefer, again, to call it automatic because it is automatic spending that occurs. It is only mandatory in that Congress in the past decided that that is what ought to be done. It doesn't bind us to it, but we have to come to some agreement, as a Congress and President, the legislative and the executive branch, in order to change that. When you look at this chart here, what we see is that the mandatory programs--or the mandatory spending, automatic spending, is in red. All other spending, which is the discretionary spending, is in blue. This is 1965, 2014, and 2040, the three different pie charts. We see that, in 1965, 50 years ago, the amount of mandatory spending--that is the automatic spending that occurs year after year after year unless Congress and the President agree to change something--the amount of mandatory spending as a percent of spending was about a third. About a third of all spending for the Federal Government 50 years ago was mandatory spending. So two-thirds was discretionary. Now, what is discretionary spending? If you think about all of the spending that occurs in Washington, everything that occurs in Washington that people like and want and desire, some people want to change some of it and some people want to raise some things and lower other things. But if you think about everything that Washington does with the exception of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and some other more minor mandatory programs--those are the ones on the automatic side--if you think about what Washington does, all of the rest of that is the blue that is the discretionary spending. What is that? You can just march through the agencies of the Federal Government and define what those are. It is transportation. It is commerce. It is justice. It is the court system. It is roads. It is highways. It is infrastructure. It is education. It is energy. It is all of the things. It is defense. It is a remarkable amount and needed amount that we spend in the defense arena. All of those things--all of those things--are the discretionary money. That is the blue on this graph. Remember that, in 1965--50 years ago--that was two-thirds of the Federal budget. Now fast forward to 2014. They are, essentially, the same numbers as today; although, the blue has decreased a little more. The mandatory side, the automatic side, is now two-thirds--not one-third but two- thirds--of the spending that comes out of the Federal Government, which means those programs have continued to grow. Again, those are important programs--Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security--and we will address the challenges that they have in a moment. The spending there has grown to two-thirds of Federal spending, which means that the blue portion, the discretionary portion--that portion that people think about when they think about what the Federal Government spends money on, which is, again, defense and infrastructure and education and energy and all of the things that the Federal Government does--has been squeezed, if you will, to one-third of overall spending at the Federal level. What does that mean? That is the genesis. Is this important to anybody out there across this great land? It is the genesis for the battles that we have had on the level of spending for defense--yes--or for highways or for infrastructure or for education or for anything that we debate and discuss so as to try our best to represent the American people in a positive way about what kind of money and the number of resources--hardworking taxpayer money--ought to go for those programs. That money is getting decreased. The Federal Government's challenge is to be able to figure out how to turn this around because, in a few short years, the mandatory side will be three-quarters of the spending out of Washington, which means that that discretionary part--that part that people count on to try to grow the economy and make it so that, again, the greatest number of American dreams can be realized by the greatest number of folks in a fair and a compassionate system--will get further and further and further diminished. So there is the challenge that we have, and the difficulty is getting folks to address the mandatory side. Now, someone might say: Well, those programs are important. And they are. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security--those programs--are important. So why not just leave them as they are? People are doing just fine. They think things are rolling along relatively well. Why not just leave them where they are? Here is the dirty little secret about those programs: They are all going broke. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security--all of them--are running out of resources over a period of time. What does that mean? That means that the promises that the Federal Government has made--to seniors regarding health care, to individuals who take utilization of the Medicaid system, to seniors who have access to Social Security resources to try to make it so that their retirement years are more secure--will not be there. All of those benefits to those individuals that the Nation has promised to them will not be there. They will not be there at the level that has been promised. You get some folks who say: Well, the length of time that it will take for us to have any real challenge in that arena is just too long. You don't have to worry about it. We have got more than enough time to take care of it. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, it is right around the corner. From Social Security's standpoint, the disability program was destined to become insolvent next year. What did we do recently? We plugged the hole. We didn't solve the problem. We plugged the hole, but that doesn't make it so that it is any less likely that it will be a greater problem as the years go on. Medicare. As a physician, I can tell you that the Medicare system is incredibly important to seniors across this great land. The Medicare system will run out of resources in 2030 to cover the services that have been promised. That is 14, 15 short years away. When you think that 15 years is too far in the future, just think about the challenge that we had during Y2K, when the millennium turned over. That was just 15 years ago. Most folks remember that. Most folks remember the challenge that we had during that period of time. The fact of the matter is that 15 years is not a long time; so Medicare's going broke in 15 years is something that we ought not ignore. Social Security. When does Social Security go broke? In 2034, which is 4 years after that--a very short period of time. Again, what does it mean if Social Security goes broke? It means that the benefits that have been assured and promised by your Federal Government are not going to be able to be provided to seniors. We think that is wrong. We think that is reckless and immoral to not do anything to fix that. We think it is important to save and strengthen and secure Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. You ask: What does that have to do with the budget? That gets us to what the Budget Committee did this past year, and I can't tell you how proud I am of the work that was done on behalf of the Republican majority here in this House of Representatives. What did we do? We put in place, adopted a budget that would solve the challenges that we have in a way that gets us to a balanced budget, that gets us on a path to paying off the debt, that puts us on a path to solving, saving, strengthening, and securing Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, and that defines what the role of the Federal Government ought to be for all of the discretionary programs in that blue area. Where does the spending occur from the Federal Government level? This is a pie chart that defines, again, the mandatory side and the discretionary side of our spending. Remember, about two-thirds of spending at the Federal level is the automatic side. What are those programs? It includes Social Security. In 2014, which is the last full year that we had full numbers, there was $845 billion for Social Security. Medicare: $505 billion for Medicare. Medicaid: $301 billion for Medicaid. Other mandatory programs--which are the others that I have talked about, which are things like food stamps and the like--are at $448 billion. Interest on the debt, which is this one, is about $221 billion. Let's talk about interest on the debt for a moment. This is money that is spent to cover the interest on the debt that we already have. The United States has a debt of about $18.2 trillion; so the interest that we pay on that annually now is about $221 billion. It is destined to increase enormously over the next few years, and that has huge consequences, again, on trying to find the greatest amount of opportunity and the greatest amount of success for the greatest number of folks so that the greatest number of American dreams may be realized. How much is it going to increase? This is looking at just 10 years. The amount of interest--and that is if interest rates stay relatively reasonable--on the national debt, on the Federal debt, will be $800 billion. It will be close to $1 trillion that is going to be spent just on interest. That is more than on defense. That is more than on Medicaid. That is more than on Medicare. That is more than on education. That is more than on transportation. That is more than on science and space and technology. Again, all of those things that the American people say that they want and desire are going to be crowded because of the mandatory spending--the automatic spending, yes--but the interest on the debt is approaching $1 trillion a year. Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do on the Budget Committee is to say to our colleagues and to say to the American people that that is an irresponsible use of hard-earned taxpayer dollars to have that level of debt. It means that $1 trillion a year of that hard-earned money by the American people, who send it to Washington and expect that it is going to be used in a responsible way, is going to go toward interest on the debt. That doesn't do a thing to send a kid to college, to buy a house, to pay the rent, to start a business. Any of the kinds of things, again, that the American people say they want are harmed by that level of spending on interest on the national debt. That is why this is so important. These numbers mean that the amount of opportunity and the amount of growth in our economy that will be available to make it so that those American dreams can be realized get lessened, and that is why it is so imperative that we address the challenges that we have from an economic standpoint. Some people would say: Well, that really isn't a problem. All we need to do is to raise taxes--right?--to take more money from the American people. That is how you solve this problem. Mr. Speaker, as you know, the level of revenue--the amount of money-- coming into the Federal Government now is at its greatest point ever in real dollars. There is more money being sent to Washington by the American people and by businesses and folks all across this great land to fund the government--more money than ever--than in the history of our society. That is a phenomenal statement because what that means is that, if one believes that one just ought to raise taxes on people and take more hard-earned money, then what is the limit? What is the goal? Our goal, again, is to create the greatest amount of opportunity for the greatest number of individuals and to create the greatest amount of success so that the greatest number of American dreams can be realized in a fair and a compassionate system. That is our goal. We don't believe that that goal is furthered by taking more money from hard- earned American taxpayers. The challenge is how you solve that. How do you make it so that you don't get to a point at which $1 trillion a year is going to cover interest on the Federal debt? Here is a depiction of how that is solved. This is what I call the smile chart. You can see the smile. The fact, however, is that the smile is the blue line there and not the red line. This axis here is the level of debt held as a percent of the gross domestic product. On the lower axis, on the X axis, it goes from 1940 to 2040. Then the dark color here is the graph of what level of debt we had as a Nation from 1940, which was at the beginning of World War II, until now. You see that it goes up and down. The largest amount of debt that we had in this area was just after World War II, which was when we covered the expenses for the war. It tended to tamp down, and it got into the 20 to 30 percent range of the gross domestic product. That is kind of the range at which economists tell you is the sweet spot for how you get the economy growing and rolling and expanding and creating jobs and opportunities. You see over there, just after 2010, the incredible increase. That was this President and the Federal Government's response to the economic challenge that we had. What did they do? They printed a lot of money and increased the amount of debt--a huge increase in the amount of debt. Now, the red line is where their projections go. It is where the President and his party's projections go with current programs. Again, those are the programs that we have discussed. That is where their line goes on debt, which expands incredibly. We don't get to that point on that line because the economy won't tolerate that. It won't accommodate that in a way that makes it so that people are going to be able to even find a job, because you can't take that much money out of the economy and expect the economy to work. So what we did was put in place our budget, adopt a budget, along with the Senate, that is the blue line. And that means that what we would do is figure out how to solve these challenges, get us on a path to paying off the debt. You have got to have a surplus before you can begin to pay off the debt. But we have got to get on that path to paying off the debt so that we aren't utilizing the incredibly hard-earned taxpayer money simply for the kind of things that don't benefit anybody at all; and that is, interest on the debt. You cannot continue to have this level of spending. We are incredibly excited about the opportunities that we have. We have got a lot of challenges in terms of having our colleagues come onboard and the American people recognizing that these problems are real and they are real right now. We began a program in the Committee on the Budget called Restoring the Trust for All Generations. Mr. Speaker, if you had an interest, you could go to our Web site at www.budget.house.gov and look up the program that we have, Restoring the Trust for All Generations, an effort to try to build the critical mass of individuals necessary to say: Yes, we want that greatest amount of opportunity and success for folks so that American Dreams can be realized in a fair and compassionate system. We recognize that in order for that to occur, we simply must address the mandatory, the automatic spending issues that are so challenging for us. In order to do that, we have got to make certain that we save and strengthen and secure Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other mandatory programs in a way that makes sense to the American people and put us on a path to being able to solve these challenges. I am extremely excited about the opportunities available to us. I am frustrated that we haven't been able to get to them sooner than now. But I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that your Committee on the Budget and the individuals on that committee and the individuals in this Conference, I believe, recognize the challenges that we have and are looking forward, with great anticipation, to 2016, to the leadership from Speaker Ryan and the admonition that he has provided for us to say: Look, we have got to make certain that we define what the legislation is that solves and saves and strengthens and secures these programs. We have got to get ourselves on that path to make it so that we can get to a point where we have, indeed, balanced the budget without raising taxes and get ourselves on a path to paying off the debt. If we are able to do that, Mr. Speaker, then we will, in fact, be able to stand proudly before the American people and say: What we have done is provided that amount of opportunity and that amount of success for the vast number of the American people so that American Dreams can be realized. Mr. Speaker, I wish all a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and look forward to that new year, again, with great anticipation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia

Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (S. 2425) to amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act to improve payments for complex rehabilitation technology and certain radiation therapy services, to ensure flexibility in applying the hardship exception for meaningful use for the 2015 EHR reporting period for 2017 payment adjustments, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia

Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, today the House is scheduled to consider H.R. 308, the ``Keep the Promise Act of 2015'' which would prohibit gaming on property near Glendale, Arizona that is owned by the Tohono O'odham Nation and held in trust by the United States. The Tohono O'odham Nation is currently constructing a resort and casino on this property and expects to begin operations within a year. The Congressional Budget Office expects that if this legislation were enacted, the tribe would pursue litigation against the federal government to recover its financial losses from foregone gaming revenue. For this reason, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that possible compensation payments from the government could range from nothing to more than $1 billion. However, the Congressional Budget Office concludes that it has no basis for estimating the outcome of the future litigation. Budget enforcement is among my top priorities for the 114th Congress. It is my intention to ensure compliance with the Congressional Budget Act and House Rules as they apply to budget enforcement on the floor. However, given the considerable uncertainty of the budget impact of this legislation as concluded by the Congressional Budget Office, it is my position that a definitive score for this legislation cannot be determined.

Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia

Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to speak about the unfortunate passing of a good friend, Paul Jennings. Having known Paul for years, including back in my time in the Georgia General Assembly, I know personally his hard work ethic and the legacy he will leave behind with those he's influenced. After a successful marketing career in Manhattan, Paul came to the state of Georgia in 1970 to work for Decatur Federal Savings and Loan. During his two decades with the company, Paul helped Decatur Federal become a leading mortgage lender in Georgia from his position of Senior Vice President of Marketing. Paul was a leader of local and national marketing organizations, where he was able to be a mentor and role model to students and young professionals alike. From 1998 to 2002, I was able to serve alongside my friend, Paul, where he served in the Georgia State House of Representatives. A man of Paul Jennings' integrity and compassion is hard to come by. In his free time, Paul served on the boards of the United Way, DeKalb Medical Center, arts groups, and other local nonprofits that continue to serve the people of Georgia, just as Paul did. On behalf of the Sixth District of Georgia, we extend our thoughts and prayers to Paul's wife Edna, his daughter Jan, and his sons Danny, David, and Tommy.

Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia

Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, today the House is scheduled to consider the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 which would increase the discretionary spending caps for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 set in the Budget Control Act of 2011 and would include offsets over 10 years. While the legislation would provide funding certainty for discretionary programs in fiscal years 2016 and 2017, it has some concerning provisions as explained below. The bill provides additional resources for base discretionary non- defense spending far in excess of the levels in the fiscal year 2016 budget conference agreement (S. Con. Res. 11). The amount of base nondefense discretionary increases for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 are $30 billion and $15 billion, respectively, above the levels approved by Congress just over 5 months ago when the budget conference agreement was adopted. The bill also provides an additional adjustment through the Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism (OCO/GWOT) category of $14.9 billion for the State Department and International Affairs budget category, which is $7.9 billion--more than double--what the President requested in his FY16 Budget. If this adjustment becomes law, it will allow non-defense budgetary resources to be shifted from the base discretionary category, which has spending limits, to the OCO/ GWOT category which has no spending limits. When both the base and OCO/ GWOT increases for non-defense are considered, the total non-defense increase for 2016 and 2017 is $37.9 billion and $22.9 billion, respectively, above the budget conference agreement. The bill also includes language that directs the Senate to file budget allocations in fiscal year 2017 at levels consistent with the discretionary amounts included in the bill and at the Congressional Budget Office baseline amounts for all other spending, unless a budget conference agreement is reached. This provision makes it highly likely that regular order for the budget process in the Senate will be circumvented and that the Senate will not offer a new budget in fiscal year 2017. If this outcome occurs, it will further erode the integrity of the Congressional budget process by preventing a fiscal year 2017 budget from being adopted that reflects the will of the Majority in the House and Senate. It also means reconciliation will not be available for fiscal year 2017 and Congress will no longer have a balanced budget agreement in place.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman. Mr. Speaker, this is a difficult and an important issue. With all due respect, I urge my colleagues to proceed with caution regarding a reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, particularly under the procedural motion that has been used to get this bill to the floor today. Many Members, including myself, have real concerns that we are sidestepping the important work of our committees, in this case, both the Financial Services Committee and the Rules Committee. This leaves no room for amending or altering the legislation to better reflect the overall will of the House. This bill is, in fact, not even a product of the House. It is the exact same text that was taken from the Senate, and, just like this one, it bypassed the committee procedure over there as well. By shortchanging the process, this effort is shortchanging the debate that we should be having about legitimate disagreements over the Export-Import Bank, and, thereby, we are shortchanging the American people. For example, we know that, by statute, 20 percent of the Export- Import Bank's authorizations are supposed to go to small businesses. Yet, today only 1 percent of 1 percent of small businesses are actually aided by the Bank. We also know that, when the Ex-Im subsidizes foreign corporations, it runs the risk of undermining American business. It is estimated that the Export-Import Bank has led to the loss of 7,500 jobs in the American airline industry alone and a loss of over $684 million in revenue. These are serious concerns at a time when we should be fostering a climate of healthy economic opportunity and growth right here at home rather than a system that effectively chooses winners and losers. It may not necessarily be the intention of my colleagues who supported this discharge petition effort to undermine the legislative process or to diminish the importance of our committees or, above all, to limit what we can and should be having here, a healthy debate over legitimate policy disagreements. But, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what is occurring. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this process and to stop this dangerous precedent from taking root.

Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia

Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, what the American people have heard and seen today is a real contrast. There is no doubt about it. On the one hand, those of us on this side of the aisle are fighting to protect the American people from the harm that ObamaCare is doing to our healthcare system and to our economy. On the other hand, most of our friends on the other side of the aisle are doing everything that they can to protect a broken status quo. They are defending a law that is contributing to higher healthcare costs, to less access to care, to lower quality of care, and an economy that is leaving too many Americans behind. Interestingly enough, many of the provisions in the bill that we are talking about today have enjoyed bipartisan support in the past. When our Democrat colleagues bemoan the fact that we are actually trying to provide folks relief from the individual mandate or the employer mandate or the punitive taxes on medical innovation and the onerous provisions within ObamaCare, their protestations simply ring hollow. I don't doubt their sincerity. I am sure that our friends believe that, with enough Washington bureaucratic engineering, they can craft a healthcare system that will effectively serve the American people, despite the evidence that proves otherwise. We fundamentally disagree. We think a healthcare system that is responsive to the needs of patients and families and physicians will not come by way of Washington decree or mandates or tax penalties. We think that if you want to increase quality, affordable health care, if you want to improve the responsiveness of our system, then you need to trust the American people, trust them to make decisions for themselves and for their families rather than try to force them into some Washington-created definition of care. The legislation we have been debating today will provide strong relief from the most coercive components of the President's healthcare law. It will pave the way for the sort of patient-centered healthcare reform that we ought to be implementing. In doing so, it will save the American taxpayer $130 billion over the next 10 years by lowering the amount of deficit spending we see here in Washington, and it will expand economic growth and opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues so very, very much. I want to thank the chairs of the Committees on Education and the Workforce, Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and their committee members. I want to thank my colleagues here in this Chamber for this spirited and important debate. I look forward to the American people having the opportunity to learn more about who is really fighting to protect and promote the ability of patients and families and doctors to make medical decisions, not Washington, D.C. I urge support of this measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia

Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. May I inquire, Mr. Speaker, of my friend from Maryland how many speakers he has remaining?

Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), the chair of the Education and the Workforce Committee, and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control the next 10 minutes of debate time as my designee.

Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, so we heard about Benghazi. We heard about the debt limit. It sounds kind of like a political speech, doesn't it, Mr. Speaker? The gentleman knows that there is nothing in this legislation that would keep families from purchasing coverage for their children-- nothing, nothing at all. The reconciliation package before us only provides tax relief to working families and individuals. It gives them the freedom from government coercion in the area of health care. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), a wonderful and productive member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita), the vice chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 483, I call up the bill (H.R. 3762) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 2002 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2016, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3762, the Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015.

Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this year, for the first time in over a decade, Congress adopted a 10-year balanced budget agreement. The House and Senate were able to agree on a plan that would reduce spending by over $5 trillion, save and strengthen important health and retirement programs, provide for a strong national defense, and support a growing economy with greater opportunity for more Americans to achieve their dreams. It is a bold plan at a time in our Nation's history when we face tremendous fiscal and economic challenges, challenges that are being fueled by an ineffective, inefficient, and unaccountable government bureaucracy right here in Washington. It is this bureaucracy that is interfering in the daily lives and livelihoods of the American people. The most prominent example of how intrusive Washington has become is the President's healthcare law. ObamaCare imposes taxes and onerous mandates on individuals, families, and job creators. It undermines the sacred doctor-patient relationship. It is driving up the cost of health care with higher premiums and higher deductibles, while destroying access to quality, innovative healthcare choices. It is discouraging work and making job creation and economic growth more challenging. All this, Mr. Speaker, at a time when we are experiencing the worst economic recovery in the modern era. Now, when Congress passed our bicameral budget resolution earlier this year, we initiated a powerful process called reconciliation. Under reconciliation, we are able to move legislation through the House and the Senate in an expedited manner and put a bill on the President's desk. So with the legislation before us today, the Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act, we are using this powerful budgetary tool to help end ObamaCare's attack on Americans' health care and its attack on our economy. We are doing so to pave the way for a more appropriate, responsive, patient-centered healthcare system that puts patients, families, and doctors in charge of health care, not Washington, D.C. Under the guidelines of our budget and the rules governing reconciliation, three committees in the House--the Education and Workforce Committee, the Ways and Means Committee, and the Energy and Commerce Committee--produced individual pieces of legislation to repeal major components of ObamaCare. The House Budget Committee then took those pieces and combined them into a single bill that we have now brought to the House floor today. The Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act repeals the individual and the employer mandates. It repeals the onerous Cadillac tax, it repeals the medical device tax, and it repeals an ObamaCare slush fund, as well as undue demands on employers and employees. Additionally, it prohibits, for 1 year, taxpayer dollars from being used to pay abortion providers that are prohibited under the legislation, while dedicating additional resources--that is, more money, Mr. Speaker--to community healthcare centers across this country for women's health care. Taken together, the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that this legislation will lower deficits by $130 billion over the 10-year budget window. Roughly $51 billion of those savings would come from the positive macroeconomic effect of what we are proposing. CBO and JCT estimate that this bill will lead to an increase in the labor supply, an increase in economic growth, an increase in capital investment, and an increase in total compensation. That is take-home pay, Mr. Speaker. It would also eliminate work disincentives while decreasing Federal borrowing. The major components of ObamaCare that are repealed under this legislation represent the core of the coercive nature of the President's healthcare law, policies that are forcing people into a healthcare system that Washington is simultaneously making more expensive, less accessible, lower quality, and with fewer choices. Nothing in what we are proposing would take insurance coverage away from Americans or their families or preclude anyone from purchasing coverage. What we are doing is freeing Americans from government coercion. The provisions included in this legislation also share another important distinction, and that is that they all fall within the limited scope of the reconciliation process. This is vitally important. Reconciliation is not a silver bullet. There are limitations. And if a piece of legislation breaches those limitations, it runs the risk of derailing the entire process. Ultimately, however, Mr. Speaker, this discussion is not about process. It is about people. It is about the men and women, the families that we have the privilege of representing who know that the only folks who should be making personal healthcare decisions are individuals, their doctors, and their families. This debate is about the millions of Americans who have seen their premiums go up and their deductibles go up and their out-of-pocket costs skyrocket after being told that the law, in fact, would bring those costs down, which it has not. This is about low-wage workers, Mr. Speaker--2.6 million, according to the Hoover Institution--who are at risk of seeing their working hours cut because of ObamaCare. This is about those Americans, particularly the one in four Americans living in rural parts of our country who found that, in many cases, their healthcare coverage comes with such narrow provider networks that they have to travel long distances to find the treatment that they need and run the risk of even higher costs. Mr. Speaker, we can do better. We can do better by these Americans and all Americans who long for a healthcare system that is responsive to their needs, that is accessible and affordable and not contributing to the decline of economic opportunity and job security. There are positive patient-centered solutions that would advance the cause of quality health care in this country, and none of them require handing more authority over to Washington. ObamaCare puts Washington in charge. We want to put the American people in charge of their healthcare decisions, and an important step in that direction is this legislation that we have before us today. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation. I look forward to this debate and moving forward on this effort and putting a bill on the President's desk. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Hyperpartisan, Mr. Speaker? Hyperpartisan? Let me show you a chart here. These are four items that are included in this piece of legislation, that are packaged in this piece of legislation: Reducing, repealing the Prevention and Public Health Fund. When that bill itself came to the floor of the House, 147 Democrats voted ``yes''--147. Delay the individual mandate. When that bill came to the floor of the House, 27 Democrats voted ``yes.'' Delay the employer mandate. When that bill came to the floor of the House, 35 Democrats voted ``yes.'' Repeal the medical device tax. When that came to the floor of the House, 46 Democrats voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, these are mostly--mostly--bipartisan issues. The American people are for repeal of these portions of ObamaCare. Democrats even in this House have recognized the wisdom of it. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Moolenaar), another good member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentlewoman who just spoke to read the bill. In fact, the bill increases funding for women's health care through the community health centers by $235 million in both fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2017. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), a wonderful, contributing member of the Committee on the Budget and a member of the Committee on Rules as well.

Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have one additional speaker from the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time remaining on each side?

Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the understanding of the chair here was that we were going to divide the time equally between three committees at the beginning in 15-minute segments. May I inquire of the gentleman from Maryland if that plan has changed?

Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), the chairman of the Health Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, be allowed to control 15 minutes, as my designee.

Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, may control 15 minutes as my designee.

Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to do that. Yes.