tv 1.1 Trillion Government Spending Bill Clears the House Heads to the Senate CSPAN May 3, 2017 4:00pm-6:01pm EDT
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 309. the nays are 118. the motion is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. rder
in the house, please. please take your seats. members, please clear the aisle. members and staff, please take your conversations off the floor. the speaker: the house is not in order. the chair would ask that all
members present rise for a moment of silence. the chair asks that the house now observe a moment of silence memory of matthew mcclennahan who died in tragic accident on the capitol grounds on april 18. without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is on suspending the rules and passing h.r. 1678, as amended. the clerk will report the title. the clerk: h.r. 1678, a bill to
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 423. the nays are zero. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the house will come to order. members, please take seats or remove conversations from the floor. he house will come to order.
>> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for the purposes of inquiring of the gentleman the schedule for tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: i yield to my friend, mr. mccarthy. mr. mccarthy: tomorrow the house will vote on h.r. 1644, the north korean sanctions bill. i believe it's important that the house speak with one voice against the recent actions of the kim regime. next, as i said in our colloquy on friday, additional egislative items are possible. as soon as any items are added to our schedule, i'll be sure to notify members. however, members should be prepared to be here and voting
tomorrow. i thank you and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. can the gentleman -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland will suspend. the gentleman may continue. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i would hope the majority leader might give us some idea. obviously everyone in this town and around the country believes the possible legislation that might come forward is a version of revision of the american health care act that has been pending for some time, not necessarily on the house floor but in this house. can the gentleman tell me whether or not members ought to prepare for a debate on that bill tomorrow? and if so, does the gentleman know whether there will be a c.b.o. score on the bill that might be brought to the floor? and thirdly, the timing for
tomorrow so that members might plan on what the schedule would be? and i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank my friend for yielding and appreciate his questions. as has been reported in the press we have made significant progress on the health care bill. when we are ready to bring the bill to the floor, i will make an announcement and relay scheduling information to all members. i thank the gentleman and i yield back. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. leader. i ask the question, though, you did not address. if in fact the health care were brought to the floor tomorrow, would it have a score from the congressional budget office? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. there is a c.b.o. score out there on the bill. we are making progress. as soon as we designate that yes, we will move the bill, i will notify the gentleman and i yield back. mr. hoyer: well, mr. speaker, i
presume therefore members ought to be prepared for that bill to come forward. what we hear, we don't know, is in a revised form. mr. speaker, we hope that if it comes forward in a revised form that it is accompanied with a congressional budget office score so that members on both sides of the aisle might know the ramifications of the changes in the bill. unless the gentleman wants to say anything further, i will yield back but i hope we can get as much notice and information as possible, mr. leader. i yield to you if you want? mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. wooks, five-minute vetting -- without objection five-minute voting will continue. the question is on agreing to the speaker's aproufl of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. >> mr. speaker i ask for a
recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those in favor of the request for a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 236, the nays are 178. the journal is approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i send to the desk a concurrent resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 53, providing for a correction in the enrollment of h.r. 244. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the concurrent resolution? without objection, the concurrent resolution is agreed
to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 9:00 a.m. omorrow. the speaker pro tempore: order in the chamber so the gentleman can be heard. >> mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourn today it adjourn to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: without
objection, the gentleman is recognize for one minute. the house is not in order. please remove your conversations from the floor so the gentleman may be heard. please proceed. mr. poe: mr. speaker, for year, pakistan has provided support for america's enemies with american blood on their hands. pakistan has supported the taliban, providing them safe haven, cash, and weapons. it is no coincidence that the leader of the taliban was living in pakistan when the united states air strike took him out last year. pakistan harbored the number one enemy of the world, osama bin laden, until our seals brought him to justice. pakistan's intelligence services the arm of the terrorist group network. they have cut off supply routes
to our troops in afghanistan. the ambassador said the group supports terrorist groups in pakistan. still pakistan is considered a major non-nato ally of the u.s. this means they get priority for significant benefits in areas of foreign aid and defense cooperation. i'm introducing a bill that removes pakistan from this list of trusted allies. pakistan is playing both sides. it's time to call it like it is. pakistan should not be counted as a major non-nato ally of the united states. nd that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island eek recognition? mr. langevin: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. langevin: mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the life d memory of general amadeo
amadoa, a community leader in rhode island and someone who was proud to call a dear friend. his distinguished military career spanned 36 years during which he served in the united states marine corps and the rhode island national guard. he served as assistant general for the state and retired as the first brigadier general of italian history in the history of the rhode island national guard. as an accomplished attorney for more than 60 years, he provided legal counsel and advice to several public officials, myself included, and maintained a very successful private practice. as a tireless community leader, he served as chairman of the school committee and held leadership positions in local branches of charities and children's organizations. above all, he prioritized his family whom he loved dearly and to whom he devoted his life's work. mr. speaker, it's an honor to onor -- honor him today.
mr. speaker, he made a difference and he will be greatly missed. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. smith: mr. speaker, are we losing our democracy? cnn has censored and refused to air an ad by trump for president, claiming that it is inaccurate. of course, that's their opinion, and they are entitled to it. what they are not entitled to is to violate the constitution's protection of free speech. where are all the editorial boards of the media who rightfully advocate for free speech? why are most silent? to censor a political ad because cnn disagrees with it is to threaten our democratic forum of government. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition?
ms. jackson lee: i ask to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to support the continued appropriation for 2017 and ask the question, say it isn't so. when the trump was presented the skinny budget, $600 billion was cut out of n.i.h. which would impact a major research in diseases that impact americans. thank goodness that we worked toward a $2 billion increase for n.i.h. in this appropriations bill and equally so how we can announce in houston that the houston housing authority will be able to reissue vouchers for homeless families. because $654 million-plus was in the section 8 vouchers, $40 million-plus was put in for veterans who are homeless, and $10 million were put in for the disabled. in addition, we added to the cops on the beat program and as
well provided additional dollars to enhance the civil 897.5 ivision from million dollars. the budget or the appropriations should be a road map for serving americans, not a nickel and dime approach to undermine. i am glad the resistance remain strong, and that is why we have a budget or an appropriations that listens to the people and the health care subsidies are being paid for so people can have their health insurance. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank you for yielding back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lamalfa: thank you, mr. speaker. this week the natural resources committee, we conducted an important hearing and review on the antiquities act. this is a process for which these days the president unilaterally can declare national monuments thereby
placing acres that is deemed to be preserved into a monument which then cannot be touched by human hands as it is interpreted and enforced these days. under president obama, twice as many acres were placed into that type of monument status as all other presidents combined in the history of the country. now, what this means is that you can't have access for forestry, fire protection, other things you need to do for human activity, even access for hunting, fishing is oftentimes limited. what we need is a process where congress can have approval for this antiquities act. we need that so people will have access to their lands, that can be managed if need be, and the size of the monument. yes, we need areas that we need to declare and protect, but the size of the monument is very important as well because it doesn't need to be hundreds of thousands or even millions of
acres. under the act the idea would be the smallest possible size to preserve the object. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. mr. payne: mr. speaker, i rise to recognize this week as national small business week and to applaud the vast contributions of small business owners and entrepreneurs across my district, the 10th congressional district of new jersey. national small business week is the perfect opportunity to recognize the importance of small businesses, entrepreneurs and the diversity of business
owners. in new jersey, small businesses employ nearly two million of all nd make up 99.6% business in the state. over the last decade, women-owned businesses have increased by 45% and generated over $1.6 trillion in revenue. minority-owned businesses have produced over $1.3 trillion and created seven million jobs. small businesses are truly the backbone of our nation and country. as a member of congress, we must do our part to support all efforts to open the doors of opportunity for small business growth. their success is our success. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for one minute. sorry. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i ask unanimous consent to address the house
for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. kaptur: thank you. as co-chair of the ukrainian caucus, i rise to commemorate the precious life of joseph stone of tucson, arizona. the 36-year-old american was serving as part of an official international peace team, monitoring the border conflict between ukrainian government troops and russian-backed sprittist who is invaded ukraine. mr. stone was working with a german and czech peace monitor when an explosion, likely a mine, damaged their vehicle in ukraine. the two other monitors are hospitalized and ok. stone was killed in that very important mission. stone's career in foreign assistance missions brought him to afghanistan, liberia before ukraine. before entering the aid community, he worked in medical response starting as an e.m.t.
and went to paramedic. e is survived by his mother, brother, longtime companion. the osce has played a vital role in monitoring the minsk agreement designed to bring peace to ukraine after russia's -- this makes clear the brutality of putin's threat to liberty and democracy in ukraine. it also instructs us about the unrecognized, selfless heroes among us who define the meaning and cost to liberty. may our recognition of his selfless sacrifice bring comfort to those bearing this great loss, and may he be remembered always in the protracted struggle of a struggling ukraine. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i am pleased that we found a solution to keep the government open through october and that this deal does not include
funding for president trump's border wall and money for sanctuary services. mr. espaillat: these are several issues i am proud to champion in addition to n.i.h. block grants, pell grants, nutrition programs for seniors, planned parenthood, affordable housing and head start. however, the devil is in the details and after further review, i could not in good conscience support it. this bill will increase funding for homeland security and is essentially $1.2 billion of president trump's originally proposed $3 billion request for border security and interior enforcement. we will fully know that any funding for homeland security and border security will be used to increase raids and detentions, essentially funding the president's mass deportation agenda. in addition, this omnibus bill does not provide a long-term solution to puerto rico's economic crisis. limiting medicaid's funding
with only a third of the funding it needs. finally, the bill comes at the same time that trump and house republicans continue to push to eliminate a.c.a. the devil is in the detail and that, too, will be a nightmare in hell for many of us. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise because evidently in the house of representatives we will be taking up the possible passage of a revised but yet unseen american health care act, and i rise to urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against this. the c.b.o. has not scored it so we don't know how much it will cost. we don't know how many americans will be thrown off their health care and i want to quote dr. andrew garmen, the president of the american
medical association who said this today. mr. cartwright: not only would the ahca eliminate health insurance coverage for millions of americans, the legislation would in many cases eliminate the ban against charging those with underlying medical conditions, vastly more for their coverage. this is a bad bill that has got worse with time. we haven't seen it. it hasn't been scored for many or how many patients will be thrown off their health care. it will hurt patients. it will hurt medical providers. it will hurt hospitals. it will hurt this country, and i urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. raskin: i rise in opposition to the suddenly undead g.o.p. plan to strip millions of americans of their health insurance and medicaid
coverage and dramatically increase our monthly premiums. just when you thought we had actually slain the zomby the repeal and replace -- zombie, the repeal and replace plan comes with no budget score, no policy coherence. it's like the bloody hand emerging from the grave in "carrie" even when the credits are rolling and people in the audience left for their cars. mr. speaker, let's return this so-called american health care act to its own pre-existing legislation condition -- on arrival. what makes -- dead on arrival. what -- the fact that you have a pre-existing condition is why you need medical attention. it's not the reason to deny it to someone. in the last round i heard colleagues complain that under the current system, healthy citizens have to pay for other citizens when they get sick. yes, my friends. that's what insurance is. any member who believes that the currently healthy should not help insure the currently sick must believe no one in his
or her family will ever get sick. that's magical thinking. in america, as bruce springsteen says, we take care of our own. the speaker pro tempore: are there further requests for one minutes? seeing none, under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority eader. mr. schweikert: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to ask unanimous consent that all members be able to amend and revise their remarks with extemporaneous materials for the next five days. the speaker pro tempore: thout objection, so ordered. mr. schweikert: we have a whole order and may use the whole hour and walk through three areas that i care about.
i want to walk through something called math and math in regards to health care and this is to deal with -- and i don't want to be "meet the press" because i'm going to try to do this in a nonpartisan way as possible, but some of the things that we just heard moments ago, that lack basic roots in math and facts. so let me move this back just a little bit so we can get this and do a little bit of show-and-tell here. . rst off, a conceptal problem since 19 -- i believe it's 1986, we in the united states have had statutes that say a sick person walks into a hospital, they have cancer, they're bleeding, they are going to get health
services. this is a really important concept for us to get our head's around. there is no such thing as not receiving care in this country. it may not be the care you want at the place you want, but it's the law and has been the law for 30 years. so if we are going to be brutally honest, much of the debate and discussion we are having here, a.c.a. or disproportionate share within our hospitals or reformed legislation, it's not whether someone gets coverage or doesn't get coverage, but it's who and how it's paid for. because remember, these costs are already in the system. does it go lost on a hospital balance sheet or pushed over to
other populations in an insurance pool, that's the math we are working on. we had members talk about pre-existing condition, if you hear that term, they basically are years out of date. there is functionally no such thing anymore. there is guaranteed issuance of insurance. and we will go through this in depth. i'm a severe as matic. i can grab any insurance today and i get guaranteed issue. whether it be in the current a.c.a., obamacare as many know it, there are variations on what we refer to as community rating. there are age levels. if you are a smoker, you get a different pricing. some of those -- and we will
walk through it and will lower prices because we are trying to get that efficiency of the young healthy to participate in the insurance pool because they are not participating today. ok. this actually -- and we are going to keep this board close by for everyone to understand. i know the chart is hard to see. 5% of the population is 50% of the health care costs. think about this. of our brothers and sisters who have chronic conditions, they are 50% of the health care costs even though only 5% of the population and we did the risk sharing model and going to walk through that. if you start to think about this curve for those who want to do some math, this curve looks like a hockey stick. 50% of our population only use 3% of health care dollars. so 50% of the population uses 3%
of the health care dollars and comes along and explodes up like a hock you ki stick. this population if they are uncontrolled diabetics or other types of great difficulties, that population is 50% of the entire costs. and what happened in the current a.c.a. is let's face it. the model did not work. you remember the whole discussion, keep your doctor, fewer visits to emergency rooms. they have gone up substantially. their model did not work and it is imploding and we will go through data how much trouble we're in. and one of the reasons it has not worked is less than half the population of buying that individual market are buying and particularly if you look at our
healthy -- our 20-year-olds, 30-year-olds, 50% of the population that uses 3% of the health care, they aren't participating in the insurance pool. how do you spread risk when you have millions of americans who aren't participating because it is too darn expensive or because the contribution before you received health care, it is so expensive and the number of waivers and the number of those who are cheaper to pay the penalty. so what happens when you are trying to do the math and you have your brothers and sisters here in this body on the either side who make up facts or say just keep it as it is. and i'm going to make you the argument, the cruelty of that is just stunning. we will walk through where we
can help folks understand. this is the underlying math and this is why we must have a substantial change. let's go back pre-recession. 2007. o back here to we had about 14.6% of our population going uninsured. ok, that's unacceptable. today, after having spent almost -- look, there is on some data there is as much as a trillion dollars but stick with half a of lion, $500 billion losses. if you add up the co-pays that individuals had and the money that has been spent to the bureaucracy, we have dropped after half a trillion dollars. today we are at 10.9%. if you are on the left, is this the grand success of obamacare?
is this the grand success of the a.c.a. and gone from 14.6% of e uninsured and stood it's $10. where is the credibility. let's look at the math. if you divide up how much we spent and we were doing this on the back of a napkin, if you add up the population that has now gained insurance through the exchanges that did not have access insurance before, some of the math comes to around six million people. if you divide that by half a trillion dollars that is $84,000 per life for three years of coverage. we could have bought their health insurance and a really nice car. you understand the current model. i'm not questioning the good intentions, the good intentions
of helping to want our brothers and sisters have health coverage. great. so let's make the coverage work. this is really important and this isn't coming from me. and most of the data comes from kaiser or congressional budget. i want you to understand -- and i'm going to be arizona centric. i'm blessed to represent the phoenix-scottsdale area. and we are going to burn through these fairly quickly. i have 6.7 million residents in arizona. ok. 6.7 million residents in arizona and this is from keizer and let's switch to the next board. of that 6.7 million residents, how many buy their health care on that individual market, because that's what we are talking about? if you hear the world is coming
to an end, how many of my brothers and sisters buy on the individual market, 278,000. if you divide it by our population, 4% of my population and my congressional district, it's around 2% of my population. the elegance of being honest of that piece of math, is that it helps you understand, we can fix this. this is the individual purchasing market. this is -- let's take one step backwards. the majority of americans, we receive our health care from our employers and then come over here, medicare, v.a., indian health services, tricare, a number of these things, what we are talking about in the a.c.a. and our replacement is that our population in the individual market and how to reform medicaid. that's all. but as often when something as
complicated, it becomes ripe for yper bowley instead of being honest instead of serving our brothers and sisters. we come back to arizona, 4% of my population is and my district is 2% of the population. now you need to understand when you hear many of us get behind these microphones and we talk about the system, the current a.c.a., obamacare. let's call it the a.c.a. is imploding. for my state, it is. we are going to show you how few choices that happen in my state. and this is only between 2016 and 2017, you see this blue right here, this is where you in your county, you would have three or more choices. do remember, when this law went
into effect, we were promised dozens of choices. should we hold the left to their own promises? because it hasn't happened. and what is happening, when you see this chart county after county after county after county after county after county has one choice. and see what is happening in my home state. first off, statewide in my state, if you are buying the mean exchange plan, that silver plan, statewide, last year, 116% price hike. , you are in maricopa county and you are buying the silver mean plan, maricopa county is the fourth most populous in the united states, so it's not a my e outliar, it's 64% of state's population in one
county, if there was ever an example that should have have had health care pricing. if you are in that mean silver plan, you had 145% price hike last year. how can i see people get behind these microphones and say this system is working? you understand the crushing you are doing to people in my state? hardworking people who want to say i'm a neighborhood plumber and i would like to buy health care and the deductibles have gotten so huge or the prices have gone up so high, we are seeing something fascinating in the curve. the uninsured curve has moved into the hardworking middle class because they can no longer afford to participate. we'll just say it was one of the unintended consequences of the
a.c.a. we all see the data and how many people tell the truth about how many people we are crushing, crushing from these deductibles to the current pricing and you saw the previous chart, we have gone from 14.6% of our opulation uninsured before the $500 and now 10.9% and billion. that's not counting medicaid expansion. and we have had testimony in the ways and means committee that we believe only about six million were newly insured, newly covered for that half of a trillion dollars. it's great to have coverage, but the math doesn't make sense. we could have done this morel gantly.
this is 2014. and if you go before that, it was bigger. look at my county. see those squares, those were health insurance providers that were available to you in 2014 and a couple of years before we had 18 different possible insurance choices, companies who provide. today, 2017, you see one little blue square. and we are being told that we are going to have entire counties in my state and arizona is unique, we only have 15 counties. we will have entire counties with no insurance provider to that individual market. this was a system that is working? take a look at my state. this is one of the reasons we have been working so hard, why we did the risk-sharing model. this is the reality. this is arizona, this is my home. y folks have had massive price
hikes and next year, they are being told, you may have no choice. this is the reality. let's talk about solutions. how do you deal with this and how do you help our brothers and sisters be able to afford insurance and provide insurers to come in and actually participate in providing coverage to that individual market so there is options, there's competition, there's choice. . if you actually think about what drives that price, so why the explosion in price? well, the current kroc, it has the three -- a.c.a., it has the three tiers, you take all the people in the community that's participating in this insurance population and say, you don't all get the same price. there are certain adjustments. some of the adjustments were for age. so the a.c.a., obamacare, the
current law had three adjustments plus adjustments for smoking. and a couple other things. and it made the concentration of cost and risk so expensive that 50% of the population that only uses 3% of health care, they've chosen not to buy which in some ways is a perfectly economically, logical reaction to the current cost to a world where it's so expensive it's cheaper to pay the penalty. so we have to find a way to drive down that cost for that population so they participate. i mean, how many of us -- when you did your -- when you were in school and you would hear the story in your economics lass of, there are occasions where where by lowering the price you make more profit because you sell more units? it's the same in insurance. if we can lower the price for our healthy population, more
participate. we spread the risk over a larger, healthier population, we lower the price for that 5% of our brothers and sisters who are in that chronic category. plus, we're going to overlay a couple other things to help mitigate that cost to get the price efficiency for everyone. it's important and, look, i know some of these slides are a little hard to get our heads available but we've put together something that's called an invisible risk pool. if you are that american who's bought, who's participating in this individual market but has a chronic condition, you never do a traditional risk pool today because what we learned from the data over the last 30 years, 40 years of risk pools, there's been a couple of successes but most risk pools, hey, the cost goes up, you hit that threshold and you dump the person saying, hey, you are now the risk pool's problem or
you're the state's problem. we wanted a continuity of care. we wanted the sick person to receive services where the medical provider, the insurer and the patient themselves all have skin in the game. they all have a need to participate, to manage whether it be the individual's diabetes or some other ailments. and that's the beauty of sort of this risk sharing model that for the population that is our sickest brothers and sisters, as their costs graduates up, they -- there will be participation from this risk-sharing pool. why is this absolutely fair? remember how we talked about how most americans receive their health care in the employer market? well, your employer gets a fairly substantial tax deduction for providing that health care. they get to take it off their taxes. well, we don't do that for when you're in that individual market. when you're in that individual market for you to be able to take it off your taxes so we tried to come up with this
methodology to make it fair. we've come up with this tax credit, but we want you to have the money to help purchase your policy in the beginning so there's this whole term sort of made up new language that says a prefundable tax credit so you can buy your health insurance in that individual market. so that's on the front end. and on the back end to make sure the premiums -- what we call premium efficiency has stayed low and affordable, we are doing this risk sharing up here to help mitigate that spiking of cost so we can lower the prices for everyone so we maximize participation. there's some elegance in the math and i think actually there's a great love for our brothers and sisters who have pre-existing conditions up here because it's an invisible risk pool. they never know whether their cost is being subsidized by this pool nor should they.
we made a societal decision 30 years ago that someone walks into an emergency room, someone walks into a hospital with a condition they get services so the cost is already in the population. what we've been debating now for years is how do we pay, how do we move the chairs around. but if we're going to get efficiency in lowering premiums for everyone, remember, we need our healthy population over here to participate in and then there's a couple other things we'll talk about. so functionally what we've done with the risk sharing, it actually accomplishes a couple really great things. one is the obvious part. if you're the insurer and let's say you're the actuary at the insurer and you're doing your math, you actually know what your risk exposure is on each life. why that's important is you don't have to build what is often referred to as a shock absorber in your rates saying,
dear, heaven, what happens if i get tomorrow a handful of folks with chronic conditions that blows the costs off the charts? i have to build cushion within my rate. they no longer need the rates padded for when that happens. and it becomes this multiplier effect where if i don't have to put that in the rates i have lower costs over here and if i have lower costs over here, the model says i get a lot more participation in the health care pool and everyone benefits. so that's what we're trying here. so what do you actually do if the argument i'm making, whether it be the a.c.a., our replacement, the discussion is how to pay for the health care that's already in our society? because, remember, as we're talking, there's no such, if you're going to be completely honest, as a pre-existing condition denying you coverage. there are some cost stratus but
that's in the current obamacare, a.c.a. some of that is if you smoke or other things. so how do you actually lower costs? and some of that comes in the next piece of legislation, because as you all know in the bill we're trying to move now, we have to deal with the rules of we have no one on the left in the senate who's going to work with us. we're on our own. so we have to find a way to get -- do this with 51 votes in the senate -- 52 votes in the senate. we don't have eight democrats that are going to work with us. so that means we have to do it through reconciliation. if you do, as those of you interested in this stuff, you've read how reconciliation limits the things we can put into a piece of legislation. if you'd like us to have more things, go find us eight votes on the democratic side in the u.s. senate. what do you do to lower costs? first is information. how many of you can grab your supercomputer you carry in your pocket right now, log on to the
hospital, surgery center, doctor and immediately hit a button and say, hey, the retina detachment, the cat rack, the dney -- catirac, the kidney, here's the cost for the procedure. we need that information. that is going to come i believe later this year. the next thing is with that information you create competition, incredibly important, and competition in health care comes from as much the price as it does the quality. we have done some great things in collecting quality data. with quality data and price information, we're hoping this becomes now this incentive to actually compare and move around. but what's the next revolution? and i'm going to make you the argument -- and this is one of the elegant things i believe what also is now happening on the medicaid side of our piece of legislation and that is to allow creativity at our state levels.
look, arizona may have one of the most creative medicaid systems. we call it access in arizona. we buy functionally cap tated h.m.o. policies for our indigent population. but every time we he want to make a change, every time we want to try something new to service our brothers and sisters in arizona, we have to march over to the federal government and get a waiver. we have to get permission from the federal government. well, here's my question to you. does a poor person -- as a matter of fact, anyone if you're in the individual market, medicare, medicaid, do you have the right to talk to your primary care physician on this? of course you do. do you have the right to wear the sensor on your body that helps you manage your high blood pressure? how about this contact lens that will be out probably next year that will actually sit in your eye and manage your blood glucose? no more punching your finger to
check your blood sugars, blood glucose, it will be constantly talking to your phone, talking to your pump. if that keeps our brothers and sisters from crashing, it's great for all of us, it's great for society, it's great for them, it's great for health care costs. there is a revolution coming technology-wise. one of the things i found fascinating, you can put your finger on it and it does a full e.k.g. there is disruptive technology that is now available and is rolling out. how many of us now wear a fitbit that helps you manage parts of your health care? this right here is about to bring a revolution in health care. and a simple example, just a thought experiment for anyone that actually cares about these things. in arizona, the majority of abies are born in our medicaid
system. even my little girl that we adopted a year and a half ago, i believe she was born in my state's medicaid system. most perfect little girl ever. we know we have a problem in this country and in arizona. a substantial number of the moms don't show up for their prenatal visits. when we have surveyed them, we get information back that says, it's hard waiting for the bus. it's hot out. dial a ride makes me wait. why wouldn't you allow that poor person to hit a button on their phone and have ride sharing pick them up? there are solutions. if we can get our brothers and sisters on the right and the left here to actually talk to each other about solutions, but instead right now health care is such a potent, political issue, i can show you article after article after article where the facts that are being disseminated to the american public are completely wrong.
and we heard some of that just minutes ago behind these microphones where the facts are actually made up and it's just incredibly cruel. let me explain the cruelty. a couple weeks ago we were doing just coffees with residents, and a group of my constituents who are on the left brought a woman and she has tears running down her face. and she's standing in front of me wanting to know why we're about to take the health care away from her husband that's across the street in the hospital. left have to the be to lie, to say something like that to someone because none of that was true? that l, their bill --
just can't happen in the language. if you're already in the hospital, if you have a pre-existing condition, these things are covered, whether it from the right and the left's language, but to manipulate someone who's already suffering like that, what sort of cruelty is in someone's soul to get a political advantage, to manipulate a wonderful woman who's already suffering with her husband ies of in the hospital? i beg of you, whether you be on the right or the left, actually ead the amendments, actually read the language, understand what reality is, understand we ive in a society now where all pre-existing conditions have coverage. we already live under a law that has age brackets if you smoke variances but very small variances, even in the latest
amendment. the discussion is if your state wanted to do a statewide prenatal program, or my state where we have a disproportionate share of our population with diabetes, particularly with my native american population, if they get together with indian health services, medicare, medicaid a tem wanted to put together program with my sisters and brothers with diabetes, that may be wonderful. that would be an occasion where my state would reach over to the h.h.s. director and say, can we have a waiver? we no longer need to have this type of coverage mandated in these individual policies because we're going to do it at the statewide level. . beg of you, think creatively how do we cover our brothers and sisters? how do we deal with the reality that a huge number of our
population right now is choosing not to buy because of price or had been able to receive waivers essentially because of price? and if we succeed here at driving the price down by our act wearl efficiency, the risk sharing up -- actuarially efficiency, the risk sharing up here, and spreading out -- a couple years from now we are going to be standing behind thighs microphones saying math -- behind these microphones saying math was above hyper bollic. i am blessed to be on the ways and means committee. so why is tax reform so incredibly important to all of us? understand those of you who want to see medicare, those of you who want to see social security stay solvent, do you understand what's happening with economic growth and the pressures right now and what's going on?
this pie chart is nine years from now. 22% of the spending will be called that is discretionary, stuff i get to vote on. 11% will be nondefense. everything you sort of think of is government, park service, f.d.a., education, money that comes from the federal government is only going to be 11% of our spending. 11% will be defense. and everything else is either social security, medicare, medicaid, interest on the debt are some of the other entitlement programs. this is substantial because we are grained. you've heard of baby boomers, but the reality of it in less than nine years, every dime of federal receive thuse and we will be taking in trillion dollars more, every dime of
federal revenue will be consumed by entitlements. military, every other part of overnment is going to exist on board money. so if you are someone that really likes education or thinks that drug research is important or someone who thinks that nasa is important or the parks are important, you should care about this. look, the reality of it is the math curve, even with a substantial growth in the economy, we are going to have to look at entitlement reform. and i know that sets people off because they are fearful, but it's a lot better than hiding from it. but the thing that makes it so much less painful is a growing economy. tax reform we know is the single greatest engine, the lever, we have here as members of congress to get the economy growing.
fixing the health care issue will help. dealing with regulatory, dealing with immigration, embracing technology can all be powerful for economic growth. because our future does not have to be one buried in debt. but without a revolution in the way we think around here and the tax reform is going to be really hard, but without it, you are basically sentencing my little 18 month old girl to a future burr queed in debt, buried in slow growth. and for those of you who may be my age to receive medicare and social security, you are putting those programs at financial risk. we can fix this, but you got to move it from the politics and own a calculator and look at the math. and why it is so important, as
you get down here, 2027 is actually nine years from now and eight budget years from now. every dime, every dime is consumed by social security, medicare, medicaid, interest on the debt and handful entitlements. this is your future, happens in less than a decade. it's here. dynamic tax old, reform is the first thing we can do this year and we will have to continue to move on to technology and everything else to do whatever is necessary to get this economy is growing. this is a little more difficult but we wanted to hold it up to understand how fast we move from right now today in 2017 about 7% of our total spending is interest. and in a couple of decades we
get up to 20%, a quarter of all of our spending and this chart is easier to read. i'm sorry for the quality of our printer. think of this. in nine years, interest is 19% of the budget. ok. in nine years, medicare, it's 223% of our budget of -- 22% of our budget. social security is 29%. just add that up. think of that, interest, medicare, social security, the three of those start to consume the majority of this institution's spending and then you add in what we call mandatory spending, other entitlements. and you start to see in nine years it consumes every dollar of tax revenues. and that's really, really important to understand why we need to have this two-phased
approach. right now we do everything we can to maximize growth and activity. this isn't just for the top-line big corporations. we need people to pay the fica tax. our brothers and sisters that pay social security and unemployment tax and pay into medicare, we need their jobs to pay more. we need more of them and need to have more options in the workplace, this is a tax design of how you maximize economic growth not just for big corporations but for everyone. remember when we were all in school, that velocity of economic opportunity, you have mobility. we have been stagnant for decades and must bring it back. this chart is a little hard to understand at first, these are the predictions of what economic growth was going to be this
year. to understand how much we are in. in 2013, the brilliant -- excuse me, the economists around this town said it's 2013, but by 2017, all the stimulus, all the spending and debt you are going to get a 4% g.d.p. growth. you saw last quarter, .7%. they had distortion in the numbers. but do you think we are going to hit 4% because that's what the budgets were projected on. we will be here in a debate and saying well it's 201, we will be just fine and you start to realize we are going to be lucky to hit 2%. so much of what we have shared
with the american people in the previous decade, the numbers were blatantly wrong and not to the good side, to the much more difficult side. when we look at this chart and once again, 2026 isn't that long from now. and you start to realize, we are $30 to be approaching trillion of debt. and why this becomes incredibly important, once again for all my economists out there who think we should go more into debt and get stimulus, but now we have built up so much debt that the ratcheting, if you start to raise interest rates and half of your debt needs to be financed, all of a sudden, all of the revenues you may be getting are being consumed by interest.
every day we wait to deal with this, we lose options. on how we can protect medicare and protect social security and our economic future. the sooner we do, what's necessary in tax reform and all e other reforms and stop the squabbling, i'm sorry the left lost but maybe come to the table and prove to the american people that you are being honest with the math. hold up a calculator and demonstrate what we are doing is right. that, too, to the last part and do this slide over again because this is really important. remember we said this is just math. the economic growth, the part of our society that uses 50% of the health care dollars is 5% of our
population. it's all fixable. so two themes here on the first parts of this. in health care, the expense, the cost is already in the system. whether it be our reform, whether it be the a.c.a. or before the a.c.a., the total cost is already there. what we have been working on is two things, how do you move the costs around so we can actually lower the costs for 50% that uses 3% so they participate in the insurance market instead of what is happening today where they don't participate. you saw the slide. 10.9% of the population is not buying health insurance today. they don't have coverage. they are uninsured. some of that is because of the costs, some of is because of the waivers. only way you get them in, you have to drive down that cost.
but if we do that, i'm actually pretty optimistic good things are going to happen. i want to take you to things that are really bipartisan solutions and i'm going to make you this argument that technology is the great option and great unifying thing. and i want you to tell me whether this is democrat, republican, right or left. but it's data. and itin maricopa county is a nonattainment county. it spikes up and in the past we would get a phone call from the e.p.a. and one of our phone calls says we are going to shut down our your permit. and we have to pay for our promises. if i came to you and said there is a much morel gant way to keep the air clean and have economic
growth and reward those who are following the rules and catch those who are breaking the rules. and it's data. so right now, here's how we regulate. you want to do a powder coating business in phoenix. you have to get a bunch of permits from the county, and e.p.a. depending on the volcanics and file reports and do a major audit every year. does filling up file cabinets full of paper make the air quality better in your community? we basically have a 1938 regulatory model where we make people fill out papers and hire lawyers and consultants toll fill out these papers and shove file n file cabinets to
cabinets full and make the air quality better. it's an absurd model. there is now technology coming on the market where bluetooth or tual plug-in, you could be walking in with your own air quality monitoring system. if i could have a couple thousand people driving around, traveling around, hiking around my community getting air quality samples at the end of the week i have a couple of thousand data points. and t up on a g.p.s. map catch those. it is a combination of crowd source sourcing citizen science and don't make that company fill out lots of paper because if i
have enough monitors and sensors, if they screw up, you catch them instantly. it's not like today's world where a couple of day's later, you go to the file cabinet and use the file cabinet as a tool to sue them. you have two years of a pollute ant in your air. let's catch the bad guys immediately. and we can do this by this crowd source data model. the entire community gets to participate in the collection of the date ave. and hey we have a hot point and let's find out what it is and clowns in the back of a lot. are they getting air quality permits to do it? the folks down the street that are in the booth, if they are following the rules, they get left alone but catch the ones that are escaping. a use of cloud source data.
we have a whole video of this on our website. we have introduced a piece of legislation that is over at energy and commerce. this should be a bipartisan piece of legislation because that republican or democrat that uses data to let you know about the air quality in your community that uses data to catch bad actors and uses data to let you know that you could leave bad actors alone and so there is more job opportunities instead of filling up file cabinets. it is an elegant solution. i'll make the argument, it's data. . . when you get someone behind the microphones and say, we're
deregulating this. no. we are all walking around with these, with the new sensors you can manage your health care. you can test your water. you can test your soil. you can check the ambient sound, but you can also do the air quality in your community. i'm going to make you an argument, there's actually solutions moving around here. if i can get beyond the hyperbolic rhetoric, make we can start moving some of these solutions forward. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. pocan, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. thank you very much, mr. speaker. i am here on behalf of the progressive caucus, which is the largest values-based caucus within the democratic party. 74-member strong, who are helping to lead the legislative
arm of the resistance in this country. we, every year, put forth a progressive caucus budget, which is really a statement of the values of the progressive caucus and the values of the american people. and this year, this week we released our budget, but before i talk about it, let me just take a step back. one of the things that people have asked us to do, asked so many of our progressive caucus members in this congress to do is to really fight and to lead the resistance here in washington, d.c. and we're fighting many of the bad ideas that get proposed, from the idea of having a wall on the mexican border to the terrible tax plan that's going to cost tens of millions of people access to health care to a tax plan that's going to lower rates for the wealthiest and leave the working people without any benefit. the cuts that the trump administration's proposed in their budget, there's just so
many bad things, day after day, sometimes hour after hour in washington, d.c., happens. it's the progressive caucus that's largely leading many of those fights, saying no to the bad ideas. but it's not enough to just say no. we also have to have a positive progressive alternative so the american people can see there is a true alternative. you don't have to just go by the policies of this administration. you don't have to go down the path that really leaves so many people out so that the top 1% or 2% can continue to benefit. and that's exactly what the progressive caucus is doing. so when we put forth a progressive caucus budget, it is a comprehensive budget that lays out the values of the american people, from everything from education to infrastructure to health care to our nation's security. and it is a document that we use throughout the year to put forth positive progressive ideas to show there is an
alternative. you don't have to follow the ideas that have come forth from the republican majority in this house and the president. let me just start by talking about the republican budget, the budget that donald trump has proposed in his skinny budget that he released a little while ago. he'll be producing a more in-depth budget he laid out the fundamental foundation of what -- but he laid out what the fundamental foundation of what that budget will look like. that budget has no additional revenue. it has a $54 billion of additional spending for the military, and because it has no additional revenue, it has cuts to almost every other program that we see. and these are deep cuts. 20%, 30% cuts to all sorts of agencies. so let me share a little bit about what that budget looks like, and then i'll contrast what the progressive caucus put forward and why it means, i
think, so much to have that budget in place. first off, the $54 billion increase means you will have to have a lot of cuts to a lot of other areas in the budget. let me just point a few of those out. one that means a lot to my district -- and i represent the people of south central wisconsin, du it means a lot to everyone -- but it means a lot to everyone in the country, funding to the national institutes of health, the n.i.h. that funding goes to researchers across the country who are finding cures for diseases so we can live longer and better and healthier lives. and it's essential funding that's so important that in the last congress one of the few things we got done in a bipartisan way is we did additional funding for the national institutes of health. and just today in the omnibus bill to get us through september 30 of this year, we uped funding in a bipartisan way for the national institutes of health because we in a bipartisan way value the work they do. and in president trump's budget, there is a $6 billion cut, almost 20% of that budget would happen, threatening all
sorts of research across the country. the department of education is a 13% cut. that's not just a 13% cut. that cut would be even deeper if you didn't count the hundreds of millions of dollars put into taxpayer funds going to private schools. it will be more like 18% to 19% cut. but it's huge cuts just in higher education alone. pell grants, something i was fortunate enough. i grew up in a lower middle class family. i was able to get loans and work through college and get pell grants to help me attend college. there is a $4 billion cut just in that line item. so clearly there is not the attention to education from the k-12 level or higher education in that budget. programs like head start and others are devastated in the pre-k level. so there's a lot of problems with president trump's budget for education. when you get to transportation, there's a 13% cut, everything
from amtrak to dollars going other rail programs and transit programs, investment programs that help people in rural areas, tiger grants for highway projects and more. in energy, we see the nonnuclear weapon portion of the energy budget, a cut by 18% below the current level, and that contains programs like liheap that helps provide assistance to low-income seniors in winter. now, maybe a low-income senior in winter in arizona isn't experience the same thing they are in wisconsin or michigan or pennsylvania or new york or a lot of our states, but it gets cold. and sometimes those heating bills can really sock a senior who's on a limited income. that money is just vital to them being able to live in their homes. it completely cuts the community development block grant program. that's things like housing programs, meals or wheels. you know, i had the good fortune of going around my district and delivering meals
on wheels about a year ago to constituents one day. it's not just you're providing a nourishing meal to seniors who often can't get out of their home, who this is the only place they get that nourishing meal, but it's a check-in to make sure they're all right. some are still living by themselves, and often you don't know if you don't have that visit to be able to check in. it would cut programs like that completely were getting any federal funds. at the environmental protection agency environmental programs, programs would be eliminated, and 31.4% of their budget would be gutted for all sorts of things that protect our clean air and clean water. programs like great lakes restoration, restoration for the chesapeake bay, so many areas would be cut through that funding, and that just doesn't make any sense. in a time where we have the flint, michigans of the world or many have aging infrastructure of their waterways are having lead in
their water and other contaminants, this is not a time to be cutting programs that watches out for this by 31%. and on and on and on. there are so many cuts that affect real people. so while maybe it's good for the defense contractors to get $54 billion because, trust me, that money is not going to be shared with the people that actually protect our country. i was talking to another member of congress recently whose son is in the military making $22,000 a year. i can gurnt that $54 -- i can guarantee that $54 million is not going to be paying for that person who protects our country but go to a bunch of weapons systems. again, that money will go to the top 1% and 2% in our nation. let me offer that contrast. instead of putting $54 billion in new defense and cutting all those programs i talked about by huge amounts, 20%, 30%, our state department, 20%, go down
the list, huge cuts, we actually invest in this country and we invest in multiple levels. so the people's budget, a road map for the resistance, that's what we call it, does a whole lot of different things. let me just highlight some of what we put forward this week. 60 major organizations are endorsing the efforts we put forward. first, we have a $2 trillion investment in our nation's infrastructure. $2 trillion that's going into programs to modernize our roads and bridges, modernize our water and sewer systems. our ports and waterways. investing in our transit systems. investing in our k-12 school reconstruction. investing in high speed broadband infrastructure that we need so desperately in our rural parts of the country. investing in the v.a. hospital and extended care facilities, and investing in the actual workers who are going to do these projects.
this alone is a $2 trillion investment, and loud this budget, it's estimated by the economic policy institute would create 2.4 million new jobs in this country. good family-supporting wages while we're reinvesting in our nation's roads and bridges and broadband and other infrastructure. that's a key part of what we have put out there, and it's what's needed in this country. we have to invest in our country, and this budget does just that. we also look at taxes in a very different way, and we rewrite the rules in a system that seems rigged against the middle class and those aspiring to be in the middle class. we close loopholes for big corporations that send jobs overseas. we stop c.e.o.'s from receiving millions in tax-free bonuses. and we tackle income inequality by having fair tax rates, fair for those who are working and sharing a little more for those who are the wealthiest in this country. and we level the playing field
for the working families across this country. in this budget, also, we have a new initiative that invests $1 trillion into childcare, childcare for everyone who needs it, pre-k education in this country. there's no question we know more people are working more and working more jobs but you can't if you don't have someone watch your children if you're doing that. and having this in place will allow to make sure that those crucial years in education that really develop you for often the rest of your educational experience, k-12 and higher education, we have a plan to truly invest in every single person so that no one is paying more than 10% of their income for childcare. it's not just that. we're funding k-12 schools. we're funding that infrastructure for our schools. we're making sure that people live in rural areas have broadband so they can do the home work that you do in a modern america. at the higher education level, we have several innovative ideas offered in our budget from refinancing of student
loans to the lowest current available rate so you're not ying some of these high 6.6% interest rates to providing for debt-free college. if you work and you do a work study job, you should be able to leave a four-year public institution debt-free and leave with a degree compared to the $30,000-plus on average people are leaving with now. and we also tackle some of the ideas about free tuition in public institutions. so we have got some real ideas from pre-k to k-12 to higher education. we also make sure that we're addressing the cost of prescription drugs because that's one of the drivers, as we have this debate around health care, one of the reasons we've seen the spikes we've had is because quite honestly a lot of prescription drug companies have charged prices that are quite unreasonable by any reasonable person's standards. there's no reason why the same drug you pay for in canada or ireland is substantially cheaper than it is in the united states. and we have measures to make
sure that we can reduce the price of prescription drugs here in this country and that people don't have to make a decision between paying for their medicine or their groceries. we also are looking at health care another way. first off, the affordable care act, as i think now many people across this country understand and now support the concept, while they may not have supported obamacare, they love the affordable care act. same thing, folks. what we're finding is there are things we need to do to improve it, and while we look at some of those, one of those is allowing states to look at going to a single-payer system, and we provide the pathway to do that to reduce costs and increase coverage so that even more people can have that. and we also expand access to mental health care. this is mental health care month in this country, and we're making sure we're doing that and treatment for opioid addiction. we also have a humane and comprehensive immigration reform proposal.
we're not talking about building walls at a time when we should be talking about building bridges. instead, we're having sensible plans that will have a deferred action for childhood arrival program, the daca program. we preserve funding for sanctuary cities, and we prohibit any funding whatsoever to go to president trump's wall. . those are just a few of the things we have in this budget. when uconn draft those deep, deep cuts to programs that help middle class families and those aspire to be in the middle class as cross the country, when uconn draft it with the -- when you contrast it with this budget, i think people will see there truly is a significant difference in why we don't have to settle for something that's out there, that's not going to take care of the working families in this country. a lot of people across the country talk to our members of congress. we see these huge attendances right now at town halls