2. 6 . We are counting 1. 5 trillion of that macroeconomic feedback as part of deficit reduction. If you had a policy changes on the mandatory discretionary side along with higher Economic Growth we have 6. 5 trillion in deficit reduction compared to the cbo baseline. I will leave it at that. It has been more than ten minutes but that provides an overview how the balance of major provisions, we would be glad to answer any questions. Our policy director and andy morton is the chief economist in the room. Our other staff members, jim bates, chief counsel and others, and they are available to answer any questions and we are glad to do so. Time for questions, the lady is recognized. I have questions about supplemental nutrition and income security. And 296 billion. Does resolution turn snap into block grants in previous years, to require a state match. Fair to say noticing in the Committee Report that we plan to file sometime on friday there is no report to block grants. The house agriculture committee, they requested they leave that issue to be open and flexible and assuming a number of savings of snap reforms. And using the phraseology of grants. How much does the budget a assume the changes . 150 billion over the next we 10 years. When will that start . About the mid10 year period. Most savings are after the fifth year. How much savings to the work requirements . 31 2 billion. And other policy assumptions made for with respect to the budget . Other changes they are assuming, primarily for the flexibility giving states more authority, socalled old block grant approach or stay flexible with the approach we are using today. How much savings is the budget assume from federal employee or military retirement . Approximately if i could take my glasses off and read, 230 billion. How much savings assumes from changes with income tax credit and child tax credit. 20 billion the child tax credit. Combined. There was misinformation, it does not reduce those benefits assumed in savings, and other committees in the past, requiring a Social Security number for each recipient, there was a need to improve the administration and the waste, fraud and abuse programs. Just assuming there is a dollar savings. As you may recall the testimony from the comptroller general, identified by the irs, the outlays for these programs have been viewed to go to people who are ineligible for tax credits. Thank you for the number. We just have a number, and the school lunch program. Eligibility provisions all of these up dont get to the 896. Assumptions we make. [inaudible] that is a pretty big difference. It is up to the committees jurisdiction to decide how it is fundable. Thank you, i yield back. I now recognize the Ranking Member. Let me say off of your initial comments i want to thank majority staff and minority staff for the work that has been done, a professionalism on both sides. And 487 billion mandatory spending, and the components that make up questions about the medicaid policy described in the blueprint, converting medicaid to premium support system for new beneficiaries. The total amount of savings assumed in the budget. Introduce your self. This is about the premium support system for beneficiary starting in 2024. What is the total amount of savings assumed in the budget from that policy . To break out our savings, all of the savings, and nonstructural reforms, reforms in total, over the budget window. The estimate with the plan, in particular housing, the premium support amount is determined, linked to the averaged plan bid or Second Lowest bid. What happens to premium support payment over time tied to a specific impacts like does it float with do you have any details on that . With that report, there were options. What about the solvency of the Medicare Trust fund or projected date of trust fund exhaustion . The reason that ultimately the authorizing committee, flexibility to determine how these structures directly affect questions that are not solvents. The answers are the same for other areas. You got the medicare policy change promoting plans, and how much, you answered the how much. Savings targeted with republican proposals. Get into means testing for high income seniors, savings assumed from those related premiums and that is the same answer. The proposal by president obama and his budget work, increasing testing. The medical Liability Insurance does the budget assume outweigh a savings equal to the cbo scar of hr 15, and accounts for the difference. Hr 1215. Carrying savings in the medicare functionalism carried in the health function . Madam chair, we dont put that in medicare function but 920. We can provide details to your staff, various components same x number of dollars. Medical liability, medical malpractice reform process, so many things, and that is on top of the 487. What policies accounts for the ones that i have mentioned and assume savings for medicare benefit improvements such as the part d coverage gap. We do not include that in our savings number, and other provisions, the illustrative options. And Social Security gradually over time. Streamlining graduate medical education funding, another illustrative option that we include as part of savings. Let me ask about raising the age, already answered that. My understanding is this is going back to the part d coverage gap. Last years budget 48 billion medicare spending reductions from repealing that policy, is that consistent with this year . We do not specify that as an option. Does the budget assume restructuring part a, cost sharing including establishing a unified catastrophic on outofpocket costs and changing medigap supplemental coverage. Yes. What kind of savings assumed in the budget from these. Associated with that policy, however, the policy solution, and carried this in past model it after positive insurances as opposed to how it currently is. Moving to medicaid and other health questions. I will let another member as close. Actually, recognize you for a question. Let the provide some of those numbers. It is important as steve mentioned, we make a resolution based on a series of policy assumptions we make to meet our number but those are not binding on the committees, illustrative examples, there are many ways, ways and means, energy and commerce and medicare to make it theoretically at some point in the future to meet those numbers. Not so much the fact of a particular policy or policies, simply and outline or footprint as to if we get the balance, these are the savings in a fair and reasonable way in a ten year period. Not trying to hide anything but some of the details are not irrelevant but not a policy driven process come a but a numerical effort to show how to get the balance. Thank you for that. The gentleman mister hall is recognized. More funding for Border Security and construction, does that include Donald Trumps border wall . And if so how much is assumed for 2018 . The same amount being implemented by House Appropriations committee to the Homeland Security corporations bill. It accommodates. It accommodates. I write somewhere, 4. 6 billion. What about years beyond that . It doesnt necessarily make any specific sections. The key number is the reallocation of fiscal year 18, we dont make an assumption for that. It is up to the appropriators how they disperse the 302 allocation. Thank you. Does the gentleman yield back . I yield back, sorry about that. The gentlelady from illinois is recognized. Thank you, madam chairman. The budget assumes 1. 504 trillion savings for medicaid and other Health Programs over its we 10 years. I want to walk through some of that. The budget assumes the house past American Healthcare act making its projections. How much in savings are you assuming from the ah ca . Are you carry all the savings in the health function, these are two functions. How much are you assuming in savings, are you carrying all the savings in the health function or is some carried another functions . It is all in the health functions. How to show you Health Reduction savings. It is a simple mathematical subtraction of revenues. If we are reducing outweighs by approximately 1. 35 trillion, we are reducing revenues by 1. 13 trillion and the net of that is 204 billion so you reduce spending, reduce revenue because of the tax provisions, net spending and revenue. It is 1. 35. Net. That is for all the various changes of subsidies and medicaid savings rolled into that 1. 3335 trillion over ten years. This ends the aca Medicaid Eligibility for samson, converts medicaid to a per capita or block grant and make other changes to the program. How much in medicaid savings are you assuming from the ah ca . Approximately 830 billion. It is approximately 830 billion. We can get you the exact number. We assume what was given. Everything is from the house past version, the cba score extrapolated for one more year like the 11th year is why it may seem unusual because we are used to seeing fiscal year 1726 number which is 119 billion, you are seeing the 204 because we have extrapolated that to the extra year of 2027. It is over a different ten year period everyone is aware of. This is work requirements, the budget goes beyond, supporting mandatory work requirement for certain adults in medicaid. How much savings are you assuming . 110 billion. The budget goes beyond the ah ca and encourages states, and working age adults and medicaid among others. How much in medicaid savings are you assuming from this policy . We dont have that number. The budget goes beyond the ah ca, and how much in medicaid savings are you assuming from this policy and what are the policy assumptions generating the savings . My name is brittany. I handle this function for the Budget Committee. We assume 2 billion in savings give or take. We dont go into particular specified policies associated with that. We work with the committee on energy and commerce to come up with an approximate number. So that we can approximate policies. The idea is to institute parity for medicaid recipients. If you can share the data, that would be helpful in responding to this question. Does the 1. 35 trillion figure reflects savings from other changes to medicaid . How much . Are there savings from things like the Childrens HealthInsurance Program and if so how much . There is no savings in the healthcare American Healthcare act, there are no savings included in that number. No change in policy. Not included in the healthcare reform act. A separate policy. The number, 1. 35 trillion, nothing in that number related. To get to the savings. We get assumptions that are separate. Something that can be provided to us. That would be helpful. The gentlelady yields back, Ranking Member. Moving to education for a minute. The budget proposes a total of 210 billion in cuts to mandatory function 500 programs over ten years. What functions are behind that estimate . Most of those are on student loan reforms, to provide details, it is primarily on the student loan section. Doing reforms, trying does that touch pell grants . No. This republican budget is transferring pell grant into a purely discretionary program. Not a mandatory program. The budget encourages innovation in education, focusing on investment in career and Technical Education programs. Is it fair to assume the budget increases funding for School Choice and career and technical programs . We dont make specific policy assumptions about School Choice. To the veterans function the budget has savings of 49 billion over ten years in mandatory veterans programs. What policies does that reflect and do you assume the president s policy regarding changes in individual unemployability this does not accept the president s proposal on the employability but we make a number of other policy changes that we will be glad to those numbers or something at the discretion of the fair is Fair Committee how to meet them but it is a whole range of policy assumptions to get to that number. The 16 billion reduction in mandatory Budget Authority in the justice function in 2018 . That is related to a decision, a build up surplus that will likely not be spent anyway. We grab those for deficit reduction purposes. They have consistently used savings in this area to provide offset . I dont believe we grab the whole surplus. There are still some surplus funds in the trust fund. Mister higgins. Mister higgins from new york is recognized. You had indicated your budget blueprint achieves 6. 5 trillion in deficit reduction resulting in a 9 billion surplus in the year 2027, approximately ten years from now. That is correct. How does the budget propose to get their . A great question. It is through the hard work of every member of our committee. We met we have been working two or three times a week since january on this budget with members of the committee so it is a series of decisions, compromises, change in economics, looking at various programs with a lot of reforms. I dont question the work ethic. Projecting budget growth, in your plan deficit reduction, what are the assumptions that go into a bolt statement about eliminating budgetary deficits in the amount of 6. 5 trillion in ten years . What is your Economic Growth projection . I mentioned in my opening overview, we want to improve on the cbo projections, cbo projecting 1. 9 gdp growth, our budget assumes 2. 6 of real gdp generating 1. 5 trillion in deficit reduction. I appreciate that. The last 17 years the American Economy has grown each year about 2 . Your projection over the next we 10 years that you are going to improve the Economic Performance by 0. 6 . How do you do that . I will let my chief economist answer that question. It is doctor morton. Yes. As rick mentioned this is post policy. Is your microphone on . Yes it is. If you could move it a little closer. The committee is taking approach of of post policy budget. What we mean by that is the budget assumes a series of what we believe and expect to be progrowth reforms including house version of the American Healthcare act, welfare reform, comprehensive tax reform, Regulatory Reform and spending based deficit reduction in the amount of which you mentioned, and economists like john diamond and the former cbo director testified before the committee, both feel with policies of this type. Would that be in the realm of characterized by economists, economic feedback from stronger Economic Growth. In addition to those two economists in a new paper released yesterday john taylor, john cogan, glenn hubbard, very distant was to economists who feel this combination of progrowth policies can help achieve higher Economic Growth. What you are proposing to do is take policy actions today theoretically is that will result in future Economic Growth, which is the assumption that you base your deficit elimination on so it is a modern view of supplyside economics, a policy whereby corporations, wealthy individuals, experience tax savings in the money find its way back into the economy and new investment in job growth. Im not sure the committee would agree with that characterization exactly but it is fair to say as the progrowth policies of our budget when implemented will generate more Economic Growth, more job creation, dynamic scoring. Dynamic scoring refers to a piece of particular legislation, spending or revenue world where it is projected that that legislation has macroeconomic feedback affect, we are talking more broadly, more than dynamic scoring, more of a pro growth agenda designed to get more people working and paying taxes and revenue generators the federal government. As a component. We are budget guys, we look from a budgetary perspective rather than broader economic perspective. We are moving in a different direction, not to debate philosophy or policy but to ask questions about the budget. I will close. I respect that but you are making ambitious budgetary projections as it relates to budgetary deficit elimination over a 10year period, a deep understanding of the assumptions on which those budgetary goals are made are very relevant. The opportunity to debate that. We have 6. 5 trillion in deficit reduction over a tweet 10year period. Only 1. 5 trillion of that number is related to this macroeconomic feedback of more growth policies so it is not the whole thing but only a portion of it. You yelled back. A real quick question. Simple yes or no. The budget assumes 700 billion in savings from reducing improper payments across the government. Where do those appear on functional distribution . 920 i believe, 930, function 930, savings. In the allowances function, 817 billion in mandatory savings, what do they represent . Mostly from what it is, that is the baseline adjustment for the most part, cbo will take mandatory discretionary side, they provide increases in Discretionary Spending that are over and above the caps. We take that expenditure out of the baseline and most of that is baseline adjustment for the bca. What does the rough hundred billion dollars in savings represent . One of the ways you can get there is to sell Strategic Petroleum reserve, that is an option. Sales in the part of that function as well. In the special discretionary category what does the budget assume for disasters, emergency funding and Program Integrity funding under the budget control act. Any specific assumptions on those numbers, we maintain the allocation numbers we provide. The table of mandatory assumptions we talk through a few functions but significant reductions relative to cbo baseline. In the past we showed a table outlining pragmatic assumptions for mandatory programs. Would you do that again . Does the budget assume funding for the 20 20 census . That is funding it does. The Community Regional development function does the budget assume the president s elimination of Community Development block grants . It does. That proposal has been in every republican budget has been here since the 90s. These are illustrative up to the committees to make these decisions. What else is assumed in the 7. 2 billion cut in 2018 for function for 50 . There are multiple options, one example, 450 mandatory discretionary discretionary. One example is to eliminate fema preparedness nondisaster grants, that could get savings of 10 billion over ten years. The question of federal employees, how many are to be to to cuts to federal Employee Compensation and benefits . Budget includes 32 billion recreation savings from oversight and government reform, what policies does that assume . We will be glad to one example for functions 600, 5050 match, move the contribution rate to a 50 normal cost for the defined benefit plan. Thank you. Related to revenues, the estimate that proposals will yield enough additional Economic Growth to reduce deficits by 1. 8 trillion, 300 billion to offset tax before. Does that mean you will not credit anymore as it moves through the process . That is one of the misnomers has been reported. Im glad you asked question. What that 300 billion represents is simply this. As you just alluded to, if you take 2. 6 gdp growth and apply that to the cbo rules of thumb, projected deficit reduction, it would create 1. 8 trillion over a tweet 10year period. We are calculating 1. 5 trillion as part of the 6. 5 trillion deficit reduction. Not counting that 300 billion not to make a policy decision to say future dynamic affect or macroeconomic effect of tax reform will be 300 billion. We are not saying that. We are simply saying we wanted to avoid any appearance that we are double counting the macroeconomic effect to reduce deficits and theoretically be involved in any potential scoring of tax reform in the future. The number is 300 billion. If we went back and look at public and private projections of comprehensive tax reform and average seemed to be 300 billion. In no way does that imply or create any limitation or any type of reserve for macroeconomic feedback. And some of the comments, we dont know what ways and means will propose, there will be a macroeconomic feedback. Last question, you assume revenue neutral tax. The tax plans that have been out there, 7 trillion embracing tax plans by donald trump. Doesnt make a value judgment. That is why the ways and means committee, if i tell members of this committee what ways and means is going to do i would get a phone call, the chairman would get a phone call, that is not what we do. To prescribe the ways and means committee, we give them a number, they have to be deficit reduction and it is up to them to decide policies. Chairman black, staff, thank you for your responses. We will answer any questions. The gentleman yields back, the vice chair is recognized. I think the chairman and staff. A pleasure to continue working with you and you do great work. I have a series of questions related to assist specific area of the budget but i want to make a record. You are familiar with hr, the aviation reform and reauthorization act, and in this budget. We dont accept that concept. We do provide Deficit Neutral Reserve Fund in the budget enforcement section and that fund is there simply to forgive congress, the house flexibility in regarding budget scorekeeping components of what the house decides to do. You are not providing a proposal for 2997. We are providing a scoring mechanism. The Congressional Budget Office produced a cost estimate on hr 2997 and i mentioned the concept, the budgetary aspect of the concept where provided in last years budget for continuing that so this is not necessarily new but the july 11, 2017, document from cbo cost estimate are you familiar with that . We will give you a copy and i would like to send it into the record. Page 3 of the cbo cost estimate includes direct spending will increase by 90. 7 billion over the 10 year window and concludes revenue will increase by 70 billion creating a net deficit over the window of 20. 70 billion according to cbo. So the costs of this concept according to cbo are 20. 7 billion over ten years. Do you agree . Great question. You are nodding your head. Whether the Budget Committee agrees or disagrees we have been working for several years on this, scoring of is related to cbos determination, new mandatory spending, Budget Committee has been involved in making a reduction in discretionary caps in the future to do the shift from governmental cbo is assuming it is the governmental omb believes it is not governmental. Under this document in cbo they are extrapolating faa costs over 10 years coming at 90. 7 billion, the reason i asked is the infrastructure for the record, no one saying in that bill that this will save money, i giving control over airspace to interested parties who use the airspace. It is not savings reform. What cbo did is calculate regular costs coming up to 90. 7 billion and the revenues out to be 70 billion and they dont start calculating increased revenues until halfway through because the new board cant start collecting taxes, fees until you are sick so that is why there is a deficit under cbos logic. My question, the question is for clarification. At the beginning of your statement a reserve fund. We have cbo saying 20. 7 billion in deficit and this budget document does not reflect any deficit. We need deficits. Because of this concept called the reserve fund. Reserve funds, the budget capabilities or provisions and things that are yet to be determined, havent been making any assumptions. From a budgetary standpoint you policy neutral. Evidence that 27 billion, we are going to ignore that in this budget document and just assume 0. We are not making any assumptions. Anything regarding the atc. We dont assume savings or that it is a deficit increase. With regard to other concepts and bills not made into law do you do the same thing . The same way. That we are adopting in this budget. Treated as a reserve fund. The president talked about the budget regarding infrastructure program, a lot of uncertainty how that is going to work and the Revenue Streams or spending, is it discretionary . We have infrastructure as well. Just cant define something. Final question, why is it a budget thing . Committee of jurisdiction asked us to provide scorekeeping flexibility. Why is it in the budget . If you are not going to score it. It is a reserve fund because it facilitates the ability of the committee and the chairman of the committee to try to address budgetary issues relating to policy. It is a scorekeeping mechanism, policy neutral doesnt make value judgments. I thank staff for their quality of work. Gentleman yields back. Any other questions . The vice chair. Madam chairman i ask unanimous consent that the following letters supporting a budget resolution in our efforts today be entered into the record including letters from the us chamber of commerce and americans for tax reform. Yelled back. If there are no additional questions that concludes the walkthrough of the chairmans market. I thank all the witnesses. We now proceed with the staff walk. We will now proceed with consideration of fiscal year 2018 concurrent resolution in the budget under Committee Rule number 9 considering adopting and containing budget aggregates, functional categories and other proponents of the budget resolution. Amendments may be offered subject to the agreement between the majority and minority. After this, the document has been approved, it will be incorporated into the text of the current resolution of the budget for the final vote on whether to report the measure to the house. The committee will proceed to the consideration of budget aggregate functional categories and other appropriate matters. This is identical to the tables distributed to the minority and on our website on tuesday morning. The Ranking Member and i reached an agreement to assure ample opportunity for members to offer amendments. We will conclude markup no later than tonight to include floor votes and other markups. And any requests for a rollcall vote. Without objection . So ordered. We will debate seven amendments and hold a series of rollcall votes when each amendment for which a rollcall vote was requested. That will be for those that are requested lose we will repeat the process three times until all 28 members all 28 amendments have been considered and voted on. Consistent with that i ask unanimous consent that the document will be considered as read and open at any point. The amendments considered by committee will be submitted pursuant to the agreement with the Ranking Member. The amendments be organized into two tears, tier 1 and tier 2, debate time for each tier 1 amendment will be limited to 14 minutes and tier 2 will be to eight minutes. Debate time will be evenly divided between the sponsor of the amendment and the member opposed. The proponent of the amendment will have one minute reserve to close. They must reserve that time for their close if that is considered in their total. Without objection so ordered. We will now proceed to the amendments which are considered in numerical order on the list in front of you. I have an amendment. The clerk will designate the amendment, staff will distribute copies of the amendment. Does everyone have one . Amendment number one offered by representative Wasserman Schultz to reject the American Health care act. Recognized for six minutes. I am offering an amendment on behalf of our seniors, children, the disabled and hardworking americans across the country, two and i to go Senate Republicans dealt a deathblow thankfully to the cruel trumpcare plan to take healthcare away from millions of americans, yet somehow the republican budget still with the insidious repeal of the Affordable Care act. My amendment would change that and force colleagues to face the reality that repeal of the aca isnt going to happen. Time for this chamber to say once and for all we will not go back to the days when Health Insurance companies could discriminate against people with preexisting conditions, will not go back to a time when Insurance Companies could put annual and lifetime the amount of care basic person could receive and we will not bring outofpocket costs for preventative Healthcare Services or strip the ability of young adults to stay on insurance until they are 26, to do otherwise would be unconscionable. Time for the president who warned us all we would win so much that we would get tired of winning to acknowledge that this bill is not a winner and as the American People sent us that strong message it is time for republicans in congress to drop their plans to give massive tax cuts to completely gut medicaid and give out tax breaks to the wealthiest and most fortunate. Instead my republican colleagues to work with us to update and improve the Affordable Care act so we can come together and truly make sure we expand, not decrease access to quality Affordable Health care. We are ready to get to work on behalf of the American People. Every american deserves access to quality Affordable Health care. Now that donald trump and his friend in congress have been forced to stop this cruelly i hope they will work with us towards achieving this goal and i yield one minute to mister jeffries. I think the thing was gentlelady from florida. On trumpcare every day americans will pay more and get less. Trumpcare will increase costs, increase copays, increase premiums and increase deductibles. It will deprive 23 million americans of Affordable Healthcare coverage. Trumpcare will impose a draconian age tax on people between ages 5064, causing them to pay up to 5 times more and it will strip people of protection from preexisting conditions. The Affordable Care act has worked for the American People. We should focus on strengthening it, not destroying it which is why i support this amendment. I yield one minute. I am pleased to support the amendment. It is long past time for the other side of the aisle to drop threat of repeal and start working with democrats on solutions to give People Better coverage at lower cost. The dangerous republican healthcare repeal which is included in this budget would make people pay more for less and devastate middleclass families across the country. It would move our countrys Healthcare System backwards, leave tens of millions without coverage and saddle millions more with skyrocketing costs. Restoring annual and lifetime care, decimating medicaid and getting protections for preexisting conditions is not the way forward. We can and must do better. Lets Work Together to strengthen our Healthcare System, reduce costs for Small Businesses, expand access to care in Rural Communities and lower the cost of prescription drugs. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. I have shared many times and i will share again the experience that i went through when i spent a year battling Breast Cancer, diagnosed at 41 years old, one day i was the picture of health, the next day i was a cancer patient. Getting diagnosed with cancer is like getting hit with an anvil or getting diagnosed with any serious lifethreatening illness is devastating. What is also devastating is the realization that you not only had before the portal carac to fight for your life but before the Affordable Care act you had to fight your Insurance Company to make sure you got the coverage you had paid for. Too many stories i have heard where women struggling with Breast Cancer had to choose before the Affordable Care act to either get the chemo or the radiation because they couldnt afford the copays and deductibles on both. That is a choice no one should have to face and now that we have the Affordable Care act as the law of the land no one does have to do that. The language in this legislation and this budget would take us back to the nightmarish days too many people, 129 million americans living with preexisting condition in this country live with every single day. Madam chair, the American People were sent a strong message, they believe healthcare should be a right for all, not a privilege enjoyed only by the wealthy see you. Now that efforts to repeal the Affordable Care act of come to an end, once and for all it is time for republicans to work with democrats in an effort to update and improve it, not scuttle it. Thank you and i urge yes vote and i yield back. I claim time in opposition to this amendment, recognize myself for 7 minutes. What democrats wont talk about is how obamacare is harming millions of individuals. Healthcare costs are skyrocketing. We see patients choices dwindling. In my state of tennessee premiums for those on the exchange have risen by 65 and in some places by over 100 and we see they are dwindling choices, markets in my state of tennessee where not even a single provider left to provide insurance for people who seek care under obamacare and millions forced to pay a penalty. With that penalty many times they dont get anything so they are paying for nothing. Americans have Health Insurance on paper many times but dont have access to Affordable Care because the deductibles are so high they cant afford the deductibles. My state of tennessee making 40,000 a year can afford a deductible of 10,000 and that is where they are right now. If the program were working we wouldnt see these things that are happening, there would be more access to care. Instead of expanding the number of individuals with Health Insurance by making coverage more affordable obamacare penalizes americans who do not buy healthcare plans often because they cant afford to and meets the standard of what washington bureaucrats have set up so lets look at this. According to the irs in 2016, 6. 5 million americans paid 3 billion for a penalty and did not receive care for that. And 12. 7 million claimed exemption from the penalty meaning they didnt feel what they could buy was worth it. That is roughly 20 Million People who decided obamacare is not worth the trouble or the price. The plan passed by the house moves from the topdown government mandate that forces individuals into healthcare that they dont want to a plan that gives them a choice, something that they decide they want, coverage they can afford and a plan that best suits their needs. I will yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mister johnson. I can empathize with my colleague, miss Wasserman Schultz on her health condition. I too am a cancer survivor. My mother is, my brother is, and i have got thousands and thousands of people in my district that are as well. Unfortunately, many of those people have been the victim of a failed law that is no longer protecting them. We talk about coverage for preexisting conditions but i wonder what the people in the 18 counties in ohio who have been informed that and is pulling out and they will have no choice of an insurance carrier on the exchange, i wonder what those people are going to do that have preexisting conditions when they dont have a choice for a Healthcare Provider . The news continues to get more dire, it seems like, daytoday and it is important that we as lawmakers take the important steps to repeal and replace this failing law with one that is going to work for all americans. I can tell you that the cbo confirms as pertains to the American Healthcare act, most of the drop in coverage is attributed to the repeal of the individual mandate and those millions of people that are not going to choose to buy a product that they dont want, dont need and might not be able to afford. That ultimately what were trying to do and what we did with the American Health care act and our budget reflects that, is to give the American People more choice to higherquality access to Affordable Healthcare. Theres a big difference between coverage and access. Because ive heard it mentioned already, when youve got an 18,000 a year premium and a 9000 a year deductible, thats 27,000 out of a couples pocket before the insurance pays a dime. Thats unacceptable and thats what were trying to rectify. So i urge a no vote on this amendment, madam chair, and i yield back. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from georgia. Thank you, madam chair. All too often we hear stories back home about what the Affordable Care act is doing to middleclass families and the go to share with you one quick example. I have a friend of my backup was a consultant. His wife is an educator and they now spend twothirds, twothirds of her salary on Health Insurance. They pay more for Health Insurance than they do their house. And this is not a wealthy couple. This is a middleclass couple. He is an entrepreneur. I hear this from every Small Business owner. I hear this across the board. We have got to keep fighting to repeal the Affordable Care act and we have to make sure we dont continue to grow the mandatory spending in this nation and it unchecked amana. We have two real that in. Went to be fiscally responsible. If not well continue to destroy middleclass families and their incomesbecause of this law. Most importantly we will continue to put the most vulnerable in our nation at risk and that is something we have to recognize because fiscal calamity puts those most vulnerable in the most precarious positions. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Wasserman schultz, youre recognized for one minute to close. Thank you, madam chair. Id like to use my one minute. I think congressman Wasserman Schultz for yielding at a just want to say how strong i support this amendment. We have already seen the mecca people have rejected trumpcare. They rejected attempts at health care that dont actually provide better quality, Affordable Care for millions of americans across the country. Thats why the bill failed in the senate. Thats why republicans in the senate would not vote for this bill because it went going to take away benefits that americans need come preexisting conditions, the ability for seems to be nursing homes, the ability for people to get medicaid thing American People wanted regardless of whether got republican or democrat, whether you live in a red state or a blue state. So this amendment is a commonsense amendment that reflects the will of the American People to get affordable and Quality Health care. I hope we will all pass this amendment so that we can serve the American People. I yield back. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by his Wasserman Schultz. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed. A recorded vote is requested and pursuant to our unanimous consent agreement we will postpone the record about into were finished our debate on this batch of seven amendments. Thank you, madam chair. I offer an ame