that? >> i'll take a shot at it. i think that the issue here is what is your vision for the future of health care in america? and what i think the law represents is it represents a very specific vision of health care policy. we know our colleagues very well who disagree with us and frankly this is their vision of what the health care system should look like. they believe, many of them, very strongly, that health insurance plans should be public utilities and should be very heavily regulated by the federal government anti-federal government should make the key decisions in allocating resources in the health care system and making decisions about what will be covered and how it will be financed. now, that's not my view and i think my colleagues here share my views on this. but the bill does represent that point of view. having said that, i would say that in answer to your question that you actually cannot build a

system based on free market principles of consumer choice and competition on a foundation which is fundamentally incompatible with that vision. . a foundation which is built primarily on central planning and bureaucratic regulation. that's not personal opinion, that's what the law does. i understand, our friends on the other side, they have a very different vision on this let me make one observation before i stop. in the early 2000's, the idea of a health insurance exchange became very popular among health insurance analysts. the idea behind that was competition among private health care plans. but at the university of california, a number of analysts got together and said, this is a great idea, what we should do is have a health insurance exchange

with a taxpayer financed public option. and what was the purpose of it? well, it was very, very open, very, very publicly celebrated, it was a way to get to a single payer health care system by basically undercutting private health insurance. that's the image. that's the vision. we have a different one. >> this was a package ideal, it was not all you can eat, it was all you can stomach before regurgitating. you can always talk about a few appetizers char tasty, but the problem is, you have to have the entire meal. so the same way that pulling one part out of this means you have to co-the rest, you can't say, i'll have one of column a and one of column b and that's it. the problem is, we're in the game playing for time. the designers of this

legislation want to institutionalize and make inevitable the further seeds that are growing further and further and buying off the health insurance industry in that regard. that's why we need to get right away onto what we need in its place. it doesn't mean nothing remains, it means we have to find things that make place after we first pull up the weeds. >> this is for the entire panel. after the repeal vote, the house is set to vote on a resolution that sets out a list of goals. are you guys confident that that list of goals, directing committees to come up with replacement legislation, will make the serious structural changes you're talking about to the medicare program or how health care is paid for? >> i think there's good reason to be optimistic on that front. what people now forget, given the events of the past few years, is if you dial the clock back to the health care debate, there was a tremendous amount of bipartisan consensus about the need for reform, there was a

tremendous amount of consensus about what reform should look like, how it should provide incentives to root out low value care, decentralize and equalize across the states the sort of cost differences that we've seen, provide people with better insurance options. none of that was in dispute. so there's no reason to be at all skeptical about the notion that you could go out and find common objectives, it was also the case that there was a tremendous amount of bipartisan agreement on a lot of delivery system reforms that would improve the quality of care in the united states. where there was great disagreement was in the nature of the insurance reforms and how to cover more people and this legislation is by and large about the latter at the expense of the former and so we could go back and do much better on a bipartisan basis by concentrating on the real problem, which is the u.s. delivery system, and not a massive expansion of check writing capacity at the federal

level to cover people in a bad insurance market. >> given the likelihood that there's going to be political gridlock in terms of repeal over the next two years and there's going to be a lot of forward movement at the state level creating exchanges as they look forward to 2014, does it make sense for one state or multiple states to try experimenting, i think the law provides for some of the models you've outlined here, like, for instance, competing chpp model that would allow not just private insurers but also medicare to participate in that. >> the law doesn't allow enough of that experimentation. states will have to be more aggressive than what are going to be the rules sent down from h.h.s. there's some lee way, but you get into this plea bargaining game where you have, give me just a little more slack, can i have a few more minutes of

exercise time in the prison yard and it doesn't turn it around. i'll be speaking tomorrow at the congress on health care reform, states have to put something on the ground which doesn't fit the parameters of what washington says to do. they need to get some examples that work in the next two years and see what we can do at the federal level. >> the administration seems desperate to me to get something to work and i think that's why they gave waivers to a million workers, including 30,000 mcdonald's workers, they don't want to be embarrassed by bad thicks happening, they want to see good things happening, so that makes me think they might be willing to be flexible.

>> you alluded to the medicare physician cut, if they're not going to get paid anything, who would want to be a doctor anymore, and how are we supposed to fix that and how are we supposed to have more doctors? >> anybody want to take that one? >> let me take a shot at it. i think that, i honestly think that one of the most serious problems facing the country is the demoralization of the medical profession. physicians are dispirited. many of us have an opportunity, and it's a great privilege for me, to have an opportunity to address and talk at professional medical meetings where, you know, members of the medical profession are gathered and they talk among themselves a lot about the profession and how they can function in this environment. the environment for independent medical professionals is becoming increasingly hostile. you're expected, now, to go to work for a hospital.

you're expected to join a large group practice. at the same time, you're expected to absorb a massive number of people who are going to be getting care under medicaid. medicaid, if you want to talk about the big, big change in this bill in terms of insurance coverage, roughly half of all the people who are going to get health insurance will get it through medicaid. talk to physicians, for example, about what that means. it means that every single time the patient walk into the room, the patient is going to incur -- you're going to incur a financial loss. it also means that more and more people will end up in hospital emergency rooms. this has been overlooked in this past health care debate. the degree to which medicaid is a driver of hospital room overcrowding. so i think the situation is very serious. now the only way to really change that, it seems to me, is to change the fundamental,

underlying, financial structure of our health insurance system, where we basically have an opportunity for people to buy the health insurance which is best for them and enter into the kind of relationship with the a physician that used to be the norm. what i'm saying in effect is pretty radical here. i'm saying what we ought to do is make one of the goals of health care reform the restoration of the traditional doctor-patient relationship for those who want it. not all people want it. but many of us do. and that's why the president has spent so much time saying, in forum after forum if you like your relationship with your physician, you'll be able to keep it. the problem that you and i are -- we are stuck with, is that you may want to deep your relationship with your doctor, but your doctor may not be able to keep his relationship with you. >> i think the goal is a one-to-one relationship between

the physician and patient, and we're moving toward that, you're just your own physician. >> dr. burr sess ask here, there are 20 physicians in the house of representatives? is that correct? >> of the 80 new members in the house, 20 are doctors. >> i hope we'll hear from all of you in the debate that starts later today. >> that tells you more about how the medical practice has become, we've moved to politics where the problems are solveable. >> you mentioned several things, including the class act no requirement for reserves to have two protected classes that have to pay $5 in premiums, others have to pay $240 to make that up. can you talk about the sustainability of a program like that? >> the class act is a new

long-term care insurance program whose basic structure on paper is pay premiums in while you work, once you pay for five year, you're eligible for benefits. we've seen this kind of structure before. social security, medicare, they're in deep trouble given the way they are structured and you know, just to quote someone who would know a lot about this, senator conrad, chairman of the senate budget committee, called it a ponzi scheme. i think that's an optimistic read. the way the program is set up, it looks like it will have enormous amounts of adverse selection so those who want to claim benefits will have well above average cost, the benefits will come nowhere close to paying those cost and we'll get into what in the private sector would be a death spiral but the government never lets death spirals play out, so we'll be

shovel manager general revenue into it. so this is, i think, the quality of the policy, one of the worst parts of the bill, not one i see any way to redeem. if you get back to the question, do you try to fix this or just repeal, you've got to repeal the class act, it's utterly unworkable and dangerous. >> the surprising thing is, we have this commission set up by the president to tell us what to do about unfunded entitlement programs and then we pass a bill to create another one. >> the president's own commission in its final report recommended repealing the class act. i think that's a very, very telling recommendation that came along quickly after the bill became law. >> one of the debates that congress has had over the last few years has involved earmarks and one argument is that lobbyists come up and get special treatment for an earmark. now we have hundreds of waivers

being sought through the department of health and human services. is this another prescription where political fave resultism and the granting of favors, much like we have seen in perhaps the corrupt plaqueties with earmarks. >> i find this troubling. the 220-odd waivers we've seen are prima facie evidence of the unworkability of the law. it's troubling. more troubling is the you can not figure out the grounds by which the waivers are being decide. they can affect the competitive balance within industries, waiving the requirements for some employers and not others. there appears to be no particular transparent process by which large groups could get waivers simultaneously. this is one of the really troubling aspects of the implementation of the law. >> we have time for one last question. anybody want to ask it?

>> i want to ask about -- there's a lot of focus on coordinated care and i'm curious whether you think that focus is good and if so, can a consumer-directed approach deal with those issues? >> coordinated -- coordinated care, evidence-based medicine, pilot programs, any of this going to work? >> randomly, yes. in an organized, political fashion, no. if you throw enough ideas and money at something, a few things will seep out. however, it's organized in a way which tends to stunt innovation because you don't have toe type of feedback loop with real parties determining what works and what doesn't. so you're trying to manage this from on high and thinking that you're calling it innovation. can you get some incremental gains? sure. we also have markets, though, with incentives with people spending their own money which is the fastest route to innovation. >> i want to second that one brief way.

the fundamental problem with our government health programs is we send a message to consumers that they can have all the highest quality care they want at no cost. when that turns out to be expensive, we tell providers, cut it out, we demonize doctors, we don't pay them, that's why they're discouraged. you can put all the a.c.o.'s in the middle of that, until you break that mismatch between the promise and capability, it's not going to work. g for 25 years we've been doing pilot programs in the field of education trying to find out what works so everybody can copy it. for 25 years it hasn't worked, it's probably not going to work in health care. thank you all for coming. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> you have been watching a discussion on the proposed health care law repeal. u.s. house plans to take that up this afternoon, less than two

hours away, as a matter of fact. the members will gavel in at 2:00 p.m. eastern a couple of noncontroversial bills up first, including one that would eliminate the practice of printing and distributing copies of all introduced legislation to all members of congress. the health care debate, the repeal debate, should get under way around 3:00 p.m. eastern, seven hours of total debate, a final vote expected tomorrow. senate majority leader reid said he won't schedule the repeal effort for senate consideration. on the senate side, north dakota senator kent conrad announced today he will not seek re-election in 2012. back to that health care debate in the house. you'll see a number of new faces, one of those california republican jeff denham, he debeet -- he defeated elaine goodman to take congressman

radanovich's place who retired. also new, karen bass, who worked as a physician's assistant and community organizer before coming to capitol hill. >> it's a new congress and new way to use c-span. "congressional chronicle" is a comprehensive resource to follow congress your way. view session timelines and view video and text of all committee and floor appearances. congressional chronicle at c-span.org/congress. >> u.s. house coming in at 2:00 eastern, about 45 minutes away, health care debate at 3:00 p.m. until then a discussion of lobbying and congress from this morning's "washington journal." s the proposed changes to federal lobbying laws. our guest is trevor potter, a former sec chairman from 1994,

sec commissioner from 1991 through 1995. let's begin with the task force. why was it set up? guest: good to be with you. the bar association in particular, the administrative law section, they felt it was time to take a look at where we were with lobbying disclosure. particularly with some of the problems that have come up over the last few years. we have had a couple of well- publicized scandals. like the jack abramoff scandal. spending money without disclosure. campaign fundrsing and gifts. a lobbying group was accused of raising sums of money illegally for members of corp. -- members of congress they were lobbying, been getting your marks. favorable access because of campaign contributions to get legislative sults that were not available to other people

that were not the insiders. so, the bar association task force look at this issue of disclosure of lobbyi and the collection of campaign finance, as well as enforcement. the thinkin was that, given the obama administration's restrictions that they placed on themselves and the executive branch in terms of hiring or access to lobbyists, it was important to see if congress should do something for the rest of government. the task force concluded that it should. host: you will -- you mentioned recent headlines our viewers saw this in the paper, the judge agreed to a three-year sentence. is this related to at case? guest: the delay case is slightly different as it relates

to texas laws, preventing money from being given to candidates. the judge found that he had sent corporate money to the national committee, which turned around and nt it back to the state candidates that he had given the national committee list for. the judge found it was a very direct violation of texas law. less lobbying and more. campaign finance violations. obviously, it is all money and politics. if you did not have the expense of elections, you would not be out there trying to figure out how to prevent illegal money fr getting into thelections. host: the relationship between getting campaign contributions from lobbyists -- what are you recommending? guest: that was an area that members of the task force felt strongly about. i should note that this task force has made recommendations

and the bar association will look at those recommendations formally. obviously congress is the one that passed the windup listing this area. the concern that we hav, and it was a group of conservatives -- such as president reagan's solicitor general -- as well as registered lobbyists, an entire range of people -- everyone felt that we had a problem if fundraising for candidates becomes the way the to get access and legislation. we have a constitutional right to lobby our case to congress, but we do not have a right to buy the result. the concern is that someone could go out and raise $100,000 for a candidate by soliciting money for other people. bundling. and you wind up getting that kind of inside access that normal citizens do not get. if you are a registered

lobbyist, you are being paid by someone to get a particular result -- or to stop a result -- that that was too much power for an individual and that the member of congress would be too indebted to that individual. the example we have used, and this is a roomful of lawyers, you have every right to argue your case before the judge. but you do not then have a right to make a cash payment for the judge to influence the rest. we found that lobbyists should be making their case on the merits, not whether they had raised $50,000 for a candidate. host: what is your recommendation for changin the rules? guest: the tk force found that lobbyists should be allowed to continue giving personally, limited to $2,400 per year, per

election. but if a state lobby has a particular member they may not raise money specifically for them. they cannot go out for two years after they have lobbied in the bundle money, hold fund- raisers, serving on that members finance committee. and if they have done that, if they have been in finance chair, they cannot lobby that particular member for two years afterwards. host: what is the impact on the lobbying industry? how mh is able to come from companies to argue the case? guest: the vast majority of lobbyists are making their case on the record. they are engaging in grassroots

objectives, explaining why the bill is good or bad. they are arguing in intellectual case on its merits. the concern is that there is small group, as illustrated by these recent scandals, or using other tools that we think are basically unfair, using the campaign finance fund-raising tools to get somewhere they caot get on the merits. it does not affect the ability of people to make their case. it does not affect the amount of money that people spend a lot being. but it does remove the possibility of a small subset of bad apples going out there and lobbying in a way that we think isoth unethical and wrong in terms of how the system should rk. host: taking a look at the books -- the laws on the books,

starting with 1995. there is a host: what about the one about part-time lobbyists? in your recommendation you tk about lobbyists that are not considered lobbyists because only 20% of their work or less is considered lobbying. correct? guest: yes. one of the important things to make note of is that over time people in the legislative process know that there is no perfect answer. you are right, we have major reform in 1995. in 2007 we had additional changes. one of the things that we learned is that my definition in

your definition of a lobbyist, someone paid to go to capitol hill, this does not make that person a lobbyist on the wall. the law establishes a standard and it was the best thing to do at the time. it said that you had to use 20% of your time as a client, law firm, or in-house, to become a alleges -- registered lobbyist. if you want to gain the system and get around that, you can. you could wind up in a situation where you are walng the halls of congress in getting paid to do so without being registered lobbyist for having to report your activity. th is something the week -- that we addressed. we did not want everyone walking into the buiing to registered, but we needed a more inclusive registration.

host: what kind of lobbyist typically falls into that category of not registering? guest: there are a certain number of public examps that will not name because i do not think it is relevant, but they are former members of congress that have been hired to influence legislation without being registered lobbyists. they do not spend 20% of their time for that client doing it. or they spend all of their time but they do not actually make any direct phone calls to congress. instead they coordinate with congress. which is fine, people have a constitutional right. >> trevor potter -- host: trevor potter is the co-chair of the federal task force for lobbying laws. looking at the one passed in

2007, the lobbying disclosure act of 1995 was amended for full public disclosure of lobbying activity for giving gifts, restricted use of aircraft, a congressional pension accountability, and amended house and ethics rules. where are the gas that aba sees them but guest: bilal aims for full public disclosure. we think that it is clear that we do not have that. we think that we ought to. a couple of examples would be the first one that we were just discussing. people that do not meet the current definition of registered lobbyist but are paid to lobby. we propose a lower threshold. someone that spends 12 hoursn a quarter lobbying or preparing to lobby, they should go in and

register. what is disclosed is equally important in hell. at the moment there is no disclosure of which offices are lobbied. it just says lot leon hr545. it does not say who. and we think that is relevant. additionally, the disclosure itlf is in the stone age. reports get filed with the clerk and the secretary the hill. but it is not easy to search them. it is not easy, through the internet, to figure out who is lobbying on a particular bill. that technology is certaly there. it is a matter of applying the technology to these reports. we think that congress ought to.

st: california, good morning. caller: i have expressed my opinion over lobbying before. at that time i said that i thought that if you wanted to lobby congress, it should be done before congress. and then let them vote on it. if they want to vote on it, if they want to give money, split that down the middle. another thing that i wanted to bring up, they were talking about foreign influence? what about the illegal immigrants? anyone know how much money they are getting? guest: two issues there. the first e is -- do it in front of congress. that is basically what we are recommending.

if you want to lobby congress, which you have a constitutional right to do, it means tell people who do are lobbying against and what you are a lot being done. in terms of the question about contribution from people that are not here legally, not u.s. citizens, that is prohibited by current law. indivials who are not citizens or do not hold a green carday not contribute to federal candidates. host: l.i., new york. welcome. caller: i must say that you have a strong resemblance to tom kean in your mannerisms and appearance. aside from that, 2008, norm coleman and john mccain both contribud high amounts of money to the politicians within my community. he then received a pardon that

was revoked because it was so apparent that there was a conflict of interest. i believe it was $30,000 to the republican party. reesented by fred fielding, whiteouse counsel. i found that that was a conflict of interest. is lobbying not just a form of bribery? guest: thank you for that compliment about governor came. i know the government -- the governor and any comparison to him is an honor. i think that what we all recognize is that there is a balance here. what we are struggling for is to find the proper balance. when the watergate reforms were passed 20 years ago, the feeling was that it $1 million contribution -- which richard nixon had received -- was too much. that it bought something.

congress at the time thought that a $1,000 contribution was enough to raise money for a candidate, make your statement, and not be so large as to bribe someone. that was changed by congress a couple of yes ago and updated with an inflation adjustment to $2,400 per person. we have this balance of interests here. people want to support and elect candidates. members of coness desperately need money for increasingly expensive campaigns. the only people that can give them are individuals. so, you have this tension between the need to raise money and finance campaigns with the danger that you wind up with legalized bribery.

that attention is particularly strong in a situation where someone is a registered lobbyist and they wanvery particular legislative results from specific members of congress. under the current system they can raise money f that member, make them indebted to them, then the clear they need help but bill. -- then they can declare that they need help on a bill. host: what did you say about your marks? --armarks? caller: our concern is that they are the most direct way to benefit an individual or company. it is one thing to do health care legislation that affects an entire industry. another to put something in a bill that says the department of defense shall purchase the xyz

weapons system from a particular company. we have urged congress to do whatever they can to separate those. we have said that lobbyists should not be entitled to raise money or give money themselves to members of congress from whom they are seeking a specific your mark on behalf of a specific client. as you know, one of the principles of the lobbying firm was going out and raising money. in his case he was falsely claiming that the money came from the range of individuals. he was seeking your marks on behalf of their clients. host: we have this twitter comment. host: independent line, california. caller: would it not make more

sense to put the rules on to the members of congress? it would be far easier to have a government watchdog groups look over the accounts and disclosures made by members of congress rather than by thousands and thousands of potential lobbyists. i do not understand why the rules have been made for the loyists rather than members of congress. these rules should be applied to them. they cannot accept gifts in excess of such and such a amount. y are you not looking at the members of congress? guest: there are two answers. first, on the restrictions of campaign fund-raising, you could put that on the members of congressnd their campaign

committees. you could say that if someone has lobbied you within two years, you may not use theas a fund-raiser. you could do that. i think that on the other side of our proposals, which have to do with this closure, we snt lot of time talking about who should disclose. we thought the most practical way was to use the lobbyists. first of all, you are only talking aboutaid lobbyists. if you are paid to lobby, part of what you will be paid for is to keep track of this. that seems fair. on the other hand, members of congress and their staff are not paid to record every single contact that they have with everyone. if you speak to a member of congress they will say they did not want to accidentally violate the rules or the law by passing

someone on their way to a vote at a dinner and then realize that a lot being contact the i should write down and report on, practically speaking it would be very difficult to get members of congress to s that it is their job to report every public contact. we thought the better solution was to have the lobbyists do the reporting period host: michigan, good morning. -- what according. host: michigan, good morning. caller: i do not know if you read the got bad that i put in "the washington times -- op-ed that i put in "the washington times," but are you looking a the lobbying in the administration? congress passes laws to help to

repair this and that for public safety, and a tremendous amount of lobbying with the same kind of pressure and gifts from the administration, i would encourage you to look at that also. guest: the answer is yes. our recommendation is that the same kind of public disclosure needs to occur in the executive branch. you are right, when congress passes a law like this, it is often very broad. people have to make those decisions and they are subject to lobbying. the obama administration has not been focusing on that in terms of requiring more disclosure than past public context. in fact they have gotten criticism for overdoing it him for having loyists from speaking to members of the

administration and stimulus spending to avoid the proposals you are talking about. but lobbyists said if everyone else can talk to the administration, why can not? the key is to have public disclosure of those contacts. host: what is the political reality of these laws? this is the survey from "usa today." what should congress do this year? host: lobbying did not appear to be an issue in the 2010 election. guest: first of all, all of the issues you mentioned, except afghanistan, are huge lobbying

magnets. it is inconceivable that you could have a major tax overhaul without every lobbying interest in the country trying to be in the room. because they are directly affected by it. the tea party argument is that the government has gotten so big, everyone has an interes in what it does. which is true. the energy bill. we drive cars. we have windows. we think about solar panels for the roof. all of those issues, all of those issues are political interests with enormous lobing wer. they are affected by what happens. i think, given the list in front of congress, given the size of government and t amount that it deals with, it i particularly important that people have come for that lobbying is being done in a way that is not unfair.

it ought to be a public priority. i think that i argued that part of the election results and the tea party movement is that pretty much everyone feels they should change the way the business is done in washington. i will not try to change public opinion, but we are looking at a group of professionals who say that it is our view that this is a subject that congress should address to deal with the business before it. i think that you and members of congress feel that there should be some changes. host: more information can be found on the web site abane t.org. jacksonville, good morning. caller: is this expenditure

going to come together? i was talking to karl rove and i wanted to rescue a question. host: go ahead. caller: karl rove, is the lobbyist? he came in with sarah palin to start the tea party. after the election last november they had 200,000 votes for our good man, ted strickland. and they said that karl rove was out bringing in a lot of folks from overseas. i am wondering if that is connected. can he do this and take out ohio like he did?

host: karl rove was reported to be one of the leaders of one of the outside groups that spent a lot of money in this election to have television advertisements in targeted states. i will not know if he was involved in the governor's race in ohio. clearly we know that in 2010 both sides spent a huge amount of money trying to change both congress and the governorships. partly because this is the year that will start with congressional redistricting. they were particularly important in terms of deciding how states like ohio are going to be affected host: michigan, republican line. caller: thinking about this subject this morning, are the

election laws related to lobbying? it seems to me that when a group of people or lobbyists, as we are talking about this morning, it seems like they would be on the front end of their agenda. is there any way to persuade those for to do the people to t into office? they are talking about the 2012 presidential election, talking about $1 billion being spent on that. i hate to say that it seems corrupt, but it does have that feeling that it has gotten so out of hand. guest: those are both good points. something tt we all were about as citizens. in terms of the way that lobbyis interact in campaigns,

my experience is that lobbyists do not want to spend money on challengers. first of all, if they're running against an incumbent, they might get angry. second, they not -- they might not win. the particles have been written recently about major corporate taxes to support incumbents that lewis, turning aund and giving money to the wning republican challenger. which is central -- which is a sensible move if you want to be in the good graces of congress. trying to separate t link between raising money for candidates and lobbyists. a lot of the money will be -- i think the $1 billion

estimate was just for the presidential campaign. it might be simply what is that the loan by president obama. there is a huge amount of money being spent. one of the questions that we need to talk about as a country is making surehat everyone's voice is heard. how do we make sure that members congress do not spend all of their time trying to raise money rather than worrying about the issues we are sending them to washington to worry about. what are the alternatives for spending money in federal elections? as a country we will have to be talking about it. host: as the commissioner chairman from 1991 to 1995, taking a look at federal lobbying laws, in that you talked about oversight over ethics lobbying rule

who has oversight now? who should have it? post of the congress itself, the secretary and clerk of the house, those of the ones that get the reports and are required to put them on the public record. that isll that they cano. if there is someone that does not file or they think that something is wrong, they are required to send them to the department of justice for potential criminal revw. which sounds serious. the problem is that the department of justice is dealing with terrorism in guantanamo, tucson, criminal lawyers do not have time for it. there have been thsands of referrals. literally thousands of referls from congress to the department of justice under the lobbying disclosure laws saying that something is wrong here.

as in absolutely no actions taken by the department of justice. one of the things that we did was talk to the department and ask -- what is going on? they said look, this is not in the wrong place -- this is wrong place. and forcin the campaign finae rules, the proposal is that congress will be giving this to the civil division of justice, which has resources and even focused on the same criminal issues on which they might do a better job. we need an answer. what happens is we're only taking a year or two to realize that nothing happened. and then people forget to file completely.

host: washington, d.c. good morning. caller: my question goes back to foreign actors using lobbyists to influence petitions on congress. looking at these middle eastern countries, what are the specific laws that govern against that. is that not like treason? you're acting as an agent for a foreign country. guest: unless you are at war with someone, my understanding as it is -- is that it is not treason. however, there is another law that directly regulates that. it has an interesting history. it was passed by congress in the 1930's because the concern was that notee germany was spending money in the u.s. for propaganda publishing magazines.

payment to a u.s. citizen to influence legislation, if that is going on those people are required to report to the department of justice. where does the money come from? what are you doing, specifically? in terms of what a client is a muste careful of, you could

buy and practiceery seldom get pursued under this registration. in terms of foreign government activity it is a much simpler wolpe -- simpler lot. host: entered, independent line. -- andrew, in the pan and line. caller: what is your feeling about corporations getting large amounts? guest: citizens united was a decision of the supreme court last year. personally, i thought it was a mistake. by had signed a brief with other people that were active in this area, urging other people not to

do. that the court could have, allowing that particular group, a nonprofit organization without havi to open the floodgates, which they did, to every corporation for profits. but spending unlimited amounts in elections. what we are doing is increasing the amount of money spent, as an earlier caller noted. the question then becomes -- how do you raise the money to counter the upside? that will bring us back around to what we do about our campaign finance system and getting money into the system without members of congress spending all of their time going out and raising into being beholden to donors

>> the u.s. house gavels in in about five minutes to begin their debate. the debate on repeal of the health care law begins at about 3:00 p.m. eastern. we get a preview from this morning's "washington journal." e from "the national journal." what will happen today and the rest of the week in the house? caller: is a busy weekend it will be a real test for this new civility they said they want to have in congress. the vote will occur tomorrow on the republican plan to repeal president obama's health care law. that will certainly spark some back and forth, including a 1:00 hearing by democrats to talk about what that would do to the

parents of young children, small-business owners, and others. host: that will be chaired by nancy pelosi, live coverage at 1:00 p.m. on c-span t2. but this is say that the leader of the democrats is chairing that? caller: that they are more focused on that part of today's activities, underscoring her own desire to say that we might be in the minority right now, but we will not sit on the isle. host: the house is likely to vote on wednesday on this repeal of the health care law. are they likely to win the vote? caller: they will win the vote in the house, but the senate has more or less refused to pick up the bill, and president obama

would likely veto the bill even if they did take it out. what this does say is the republicans have fulfill their campaign commitment and it sets up a second tier process where they will try to pick apart the process bit by bit. host: what are you hearing about compromise? there are democratic house members and senators who are looking at compromise on making tweaks to the health care law? caller: no one thought that it was perfect as past. there have certainly been some overtures in the house to look at some funding mechanisms or other aspects of upset. the specifics of those might start to come up later this week with a resolution that republicans plan to allow the committees to start looking into those details.

host: a lot of people have talked about the symbolism of wednesday's vote in the symbolism of the debate. who should our viewers watching? caller: the key members would be the two leaders. the new speaker and the old speaker. also, some of the freshmen, these 86 republican freshmen who made the repeal of the small the cornerstone of their campaign. of course, also in town this week will be some tea party members who will leave that their movement was inspired by this. lots of factors to watch this week. host: finally, what happens after this health care vote? what will the house republicans bring to the floor next week? caller: things will get hotter as the rules committee takes up

a resolution to actually began slashing the remainder of 2011 non-security spending back to 2008 levels. everyone is looking at the state of the union speech from president obama. he will be having a private hubble with democrats in -- democrats all week. >> thank you for your time. >> it's a new way to follow congress. research members, view sessions -- session timelines and view committee text and all floor appearances. congressional chronicle at c-span.org/congress. >> the u.s. house will begin its legislative week in just a

moment, gaveling in at 2:00 p.m. eastern with a couple of bills, including one that would eliminate the practice of printing -- printing and distributing copies of all pieces of legislation to all members of congress a bill that representative chris lee said would save as much as $35 million in printing costs over 10 years. but starting at 3:00 p.m. eastern we expect debate to begin on the repeal of the health care law. look for a final vote tomorrow. now live to the house floor here on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker.

the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. january 18, 2011. i hereby appoint the honorable kay michael conaway to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by the chaplain, father coughlin. chaplain coughlin: gracious lord, you forgive sinners and accept us as your very own. as they seek to perform works of lasting justice for your people, members of congress realize they are called to be leaders, give them understanding and reconciliation. dr. martin luther king jr. pleaded with this nation to find ways to build bridges of mutual respect within the diversity of this body of people.

lord, help this congress to construct renewed trust and draw together in establishing your beloved community here while calling upon your holy name both now and forever. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge will be led by the gentleman from arkansas. mr. womack: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise?

>> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. womack: mr. speaker, i rise today with a heavy heart to remember the brave service to sergeant ethan c. hardin of fayetteville, arkansas, who died in service to this great nation on january 7, 2011, in afghanistan. he served with b company, second battalion, 30th infantry regiment of the 10th mountain division. an italian affectionately bone as the wild boars. nicknamed easy for his easy going personality, sergeant hardin was also a veteran of the conflict in iraq. sergeant hardin was the product of a loving christian family and a 2004 graduate of fayetteville christian school. his dedication to god and country defined him as both man and soldier.

while we mourn with his parents, tom and ceil hardin, we know he has eternal life of the grace and glory of almighty god. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio. >> request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kucinich: everyone knows that insurance companies make money not providing health care. after all, they are in the insurance business. they are not charities. but as many as 129 million americans suffering from pre-existing conditions, insurance companies want congress to repeal health care reform. the provisions which require covering people with pre-existing conditions would eventually cut into insurance company profit. repeal means americans will continue to pay more for insurance but get less, that is if they can afford health i shurens in the first place. the very idea of health care reform solely within the context of a for-profit system has been more than problematic.

today 50 million americans have no health insurance. what are we going to do for them? rather than waste time on debating how much reform i shurens companies will permit, if any, it's time to change the debate. it's time to end the for-profit health care model. it's time for a not-for-profit health care single payer, universal medicare for all with an emphasis on wellness and personal responsibility. more about that tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, south carolinians are still celebrating wednesday's inauguration of governor nicki haley of lexington as the first female governor in the 341-year history of our state. she is the second indian american governor in american history. in the tradition of louisiana governor bobby jindal, recognizing the growing significance of indian americans in american society. our family is very grateful for

the swearing-in of my oldest son, alan wilson, as america's youngest attorney general. his prosecution experience will serve the people of south carolina well. the inauguration was also historic for being the first all republican inauguration in over 130 years. with lieutenant governor ken art, secretary of state mark, secretary of treasury, comptroller general, the superintendent of education, america's only popularly elected ajewant general. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from north carolina rise. >> ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. butterfield: mr. speaker, today we begin the debate on the republicans' unfortunate effort to repeal health care reform. i pray that this debate today is civil and it is respectful. as you know, mr. speaker, and

many of our colleagues know, i served as the judge in my state for many years and i understand what it means to be objective and to have a fair debate. and i know that there are usually two sides to every issue. but when it comes to repealing the reform the democrats have passed, i just can't figure it out. why would republicans add $230 billion to the deficit when their mantra has been deficit reduction? why would republicans force small businesses to pay higher taxes after fighting for cuts? why would republicans take away a parents' right to cover their adult children? and why in the world would republicans make seniors pay more for their prescription drugs? i just don't understand. it appears to me that this may be partisan politics. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: mr. speaker, it's the

shooter not the gun. not the bullet. not rejection by the army. not the internet. not radio talk shows. not the political climate. not people assembling to protest. not the press. and not bold speech that is to blame for the crimes by the terror from tucson. hold the assassin accountable. he and he alone should be judged. in this frenzy furrow to make excuses and define other causes for the crime, congress itself would do well not to do violence against our constitution. those elite, even those in congress that think they and they alone are now authorized to regulate speech, press, assembly, and the right to bear arms should understand they cannot use this assault and murder as an excuse to steal away the rights of citizens. all under the false illusion of making it safe from killers. the constitution should not be imprisoned for it is the terror of tucson that should be locked in chains.

that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from the virgin islands. the gentlelady is recognized for one mincht. mrs. christensen: thank you. -- for one minute. mrs. christensen: let's be clear the agenda the republican leadership set for this week's floor activity and the committee work that follows is nothing more than an opportunity to field the misinformation about the affordable care act which is a good law that will help over 30 million people be healthier, create millions of jobs, and reduce the deficit. and some urging all my colleagues, especially those on the other side of the aisle, in the name of collegiality and honesty with the public reserve, to drop the charade and let us use the time the people of this country have hired us for to work together to create more jobs, to make -- make sure the health care law is implemented properly, to save the homes of families, and to create an educational system that will once again make our children the first in the

world. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. freight -- pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under clause six of rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken after 6:30 p.m. today. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi rise? seek recognition? >> i move to suspend the rules and adopt senate concurrent resolution 2. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: senate concurrent resolution 2, concurrent resolution authorizing the use of the rotunda of the capitol for an event marking the 50th anniversary of the inaugural address of president john f. kennedy. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from mississippi, mr. harper, and the gentlewoman from california, mrs. davis, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from mississippi. mr. harper: i ask that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. harper: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. harper: i rise today in support of senate concurrent resolution 2 authorizing the use of the rotunda of the capitol for an event on january 20, marking the 50th anniversary of the inaugural address of president john f. kennedy. mr. speaker, presidential inaugural addresses are always historic and are often some of the most memorable events during different eras of our country's history. we can recall identify bra ham lincoln's inaugural address in 1861. president franklin roosevelt's inaugural address in 1933. and of course president ronald reagan's inaugural address in 1981, among many others as address that is inspired this nation at particular moments of importance to our country. in 1961, president kennedy's

inaugural address rightly challenged us to ask what we can do for our country and not what our country can do for us. as people across this land did 50 years ago, so we must continue to do so now. mr. speaker, i, too, believe we should look for inspiration to president kennedy's eloquent address given 50 years ago. i support this resolution authorizing the use of the rotunda and urge all my colleagues to support it. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentlelady from california, mrs. davis. mrs. davis: thank you. mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. davis: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to support this concurrent resolution to allow for the use of the rotunda in recognition of the 50th anniversary of president kennedy's inaugural address. you may have read this morning's "washington post" front page story declaring thattle 2% of americans think the tone of our nation's political discourse is negative.

at a time when the majority of americans hold our political discourse in such low regard, there couldn't be a more timely or necessary opportunity to revisit the inaugural address that inspired our country 50 years ago. the speech calls for unity, for respect of opposing views, and for commitment to public service. all at a time of great change and challenge for the united states. it was a call for everyone to work together. to do their part in making america and the world a better place. the words that were spoken on january 20, 1961, still ring true to this day. in the words of president kennedy, and i quote, so let us begin anew, remembering on both sides that civility is not a

sign of weakness and sincerity is always subject to proof. let us never negotiate out of fear but let us never fear to negotiate. let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us. unquote. mr. speaker, the president's inaugural address sought to challenge our country and it set standards. it set standards that still must guide our political discourse and ourselves particularly with this closing line, and i quote again, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you, with a good conscience, our only sure reward is history the final judge of our deed, let us go

forth to lead the land we love. unquote. i hope all of my colleagues will continue to work together to answer president kennedy's call and i urge all members to support this resolution. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from mississippi. mr. harper: mr. speaker, may i inquire from the gentlelady from california if she has any other speakers on this matter? the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlelady from any other speakers mrs. davis: apparentlyly not. we did have a few speakers but they may have been delayed. mr. harper: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california. mrs. davis: mr. speaker, i yield back as well and certainly urge an aye vote. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to senate concurrent resolution 2, so many as are in favor say aye. . the rules are suspended, the concurrent resolution is agreed to, and

the speaker pro tempore: the current motion is agreed to and without objection, theres. lution -- the motion is laid upon the table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i move to -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: house resolution 292, to stop the printing of all documents for -- the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from mississippi. mr. harper: i ask that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. harper: mr. speaker, i will yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding and for his assistance in bringing this bill to the floor. our national debt just recently

broke $14 trillion. it's well past time for washington to get serious about cutting spending and that effort start here's in our own house. mr. lee: with this in mind, speaker boehner proposed a measure to cut every member's budget by 5% and in a 410-13 vote, the measure saved $45 million and easily passed. it's called leading by example. another simple way to continue this process is passing legislation i brought up in the last congress which became part of the youcut initiative. it gives all taxpayers the ability to vote on what federal spending they want congress to cut. when a member of congress introduces or originally co-sponsors a bill, we automatically receive multiple printed copies of the legislation regardless of whether we asked for them. when the government health care

bill was introduced, the government prointing -- printing office printed 100,000 pieces of paper. at the start of the congress, the small business paperwork mandate act which repeals the onerous 1099 provision of the health care won the support of 245 original co-sponsors, all of which will automatically receive multiple printed copy of -- copies of the bill. for each bill introduced, there are between 300 and 475 copies printed this overprinting of bills is wasteful, inefficient, at a time when we need to be tightening our budgetary belts and looking for greater efficiencies. in the 111th congress, nearly 14,000 bills were introduced, that's a lot of unnecessary and costly printing. that's why i introduced the stop the overprinting act to save both time and money.

this bill is a near mirror image of the legislation i introduced last year in h.r. 4640. keeping with the initial intent to strictly end the wasteful practice of printing copies of legislation for members. however, note this bill will not hinder the daily operation of the house, the archiving process, or affect the transparency that this congress has made a priority. this legislation will lead us to significant savings which each and every year, money that can be used, frankly, for better uses. with technological advancements, we have become a paperless world. it is a waste of taxpayer dollars to automatically print and send multiple, unsolicited copies of something that is readily available online. should a member's office truly need a printed copy, they will still be available in the document rooms and also in the committees.

too many people in washington don't -- mr. harper: i yield an additional four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional four minutes. mr. lee: too many people in washington don't seem to care about the dollar amount unless it has a b or t after it. that's the type of mentality that needs to change here in washington and what's mandated in the november election. we need to be looking for cost savings and turning over every possible rock. with our current deficit, there should be no such thing as spending cuts just being a drop in the bucket. every dollar and every cent count and in the real world, it should -- every dollar and every cent counts in the real world and it should here too. our money is not ours, it's the people's. house republicans have proposed over $155 billion in cuts and savings for taxpayers in the

111th congress through the youcut initiative alone. through this program, americans ask congress to support spending cuts on a wide variety of issues, including the end of the stimulus advertising act which would have eliminated the unneeded highway signs notifying the public of stimulus-funded projects. with no real purpose, tens of millions of dollars could have been saved. also considered were proposals requiring federal employees to pay back taxes, stopping the cycle of bailouts and putting fannie mae and freddie mac back on budget. the american people have spoken loudly, we must get our fiscal house in order. while previous efforts to curb wasteful spending were not successful, i'm hopeful that under our new leadership, we'll have far better results. i'd like to thank the leadership for their support in working to implement laws that will report -- reform flawed aspects of our

government and save taxpayer dollars, be it $1, $1 million, or $1 billion. i'm encouraged by the fact that the new majority is listening to the will of the people to eliminate inefficiency and waste. passing the stop the overprinting act today is an important step in this process. i urge all my colleagues to support this common sense bill and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california. mrs. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. i wonder if you could please clarify which version of the bill is before the house. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from mississippi -- the chair understands the motion is to suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. is that correct? mr. harper: that is correct. we would like to substitute the text for this h.r. 292 as amended.

the speaker pro tempore: will the gentleman submit a copy of what he intends to consider? mr. harper: i will, mr. speaker. mrs. davis: thank you for that clarification, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. davis: i will support this form in the -- this bill in the form now before the house. it bothers me to see multiple copies of bills in our office's recycling bins every day too many copies waste time, trees, and taxpayers dollars. the gentleman is right to examine this matter and try to effect a reduction if appropriate this amended bill represents a vast improvement from the original version. concerns were raised about the original bill's possible adverse effect on the clerk's staff and others in support positions

inside the house and senate. i commend the gentleman for listening to concerns and making sensible changes. as we consider this bill, we must remember that our democracy doesn't work well without transparency in government. nobody wants to disrupt the legislative process inadvertently or to make it harder for any americans to read the bill. although we can forget that while many americans still do not have adequate access to the internet, all congressional offices certainly have the ability to obtain their own bill copies when they need to. so this bill rightly maintains public access to important documents while saving the people's money. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves her time. the gentleman from mississippi. mr. harper: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. harper: i rise today in

support of h.r. 292, the stop act which ends the automatic overprinting of bills and resolutions by the government printing office for distribution to members of the house of representatives and senate. i'd also like to thank ranking member brady and chairman lungren for their support on this matter. mr. speaker, let me emphasize that this bill is in the a criticism of the g.p.o., nor its hardworking employees. the g.p.o. does and does well what congress directs it to do. we're simply looking for ways and opportunities to reduce the cost of government. since its establishment in 1860 the g.p.o. has been the print over record for our congressional record, committee reports, the well-respected constitution annotated, the federal register and many other historic and necessary documents that this institution and our government need to do our collective work. but mr. speaker, in this 112th

congress, well into the 21st century, in an age of ipads and kindles and blackberries and iphones, it is simply no longer necessary to require excess printing and the delivery to our office of thousands and thousands of pages of bills and resolutions which simply end up in the trash. mr. speaker, h.r. 292 is another step in this majority's continued commitment to reducing unnecessary government spending, addressing our deficit and debt, and finding greater efficiencies within our governmental offices and agencies. with over 8,000 bills and resolutions introduced in the 111th congress and multiple copies of each distributed to members, eliminating this unnecessary printing and wasteful spending is a small but productive first step and we

will continue to look at other house operations for ways in which we might further reduce the cost of government. mr. speaker, this bill is a common sense measure which prudently adjusts our mechanisms of government to the times in which we live. i might also add, there will be an environmental benefit as well with reduced energy and paper needs, the g.p.o.'s demand for paper and our resources will be reduced by this act. helping us continue our commitment to be better stewards of our environment, our natural resources and of course our house operations. as we promised in the pledge to america, and as we have promised here on the floor during these initial days of the 112th congress and as we tangibly verified by our transparency-enhanced rules package, our bipartisan vote to

trim congress' budget and now through this bill, this republican majority is committed to fiscal stewardship to having a hawkish and relentless eye toward waste and inefficiency. and a continued commitment throughout this 112th congress to reduce spending, create private sector jobs, and challenge ourselves not just in word and rhetoric, but more importantly in action and meaningful legislation. mr. speaker, this bill introduced by my good colleague from new york should garner overwhelming bipartisan support and i thank him for introducing it and for his commitment to a more responsible and efficient stewardship of taxpayer dollars. i urge all of my colleagues to support this matter and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentlelady from california. mrs. davis: i urge an aye vote

and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi. mr. harper: may i inquire if the gentlelady has -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has yielded back. mr. harper: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 292 as amended? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended -- mr. harper: mr. speaker, on this i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

pursuant to clause 12a of rule 1, the hughes will stand in

>> we take c-span on the road with our digital bus and local content vehicle. bringing our resources to your community. it's washington your way. the c-span network now available in more than 100 million homes. created by cable, provided as a public service. >> coming up in the u.s. house this afternoon, some time after 3:00 we expect debate on the health care repeal bill. we'll have live coverage. also in washington today, chinese president hu jintao arrives for the first of four days of a state visit. he'll be met by vice president biden at andrews air force base this afternoon. we talked about his trip with the washington bureau chief of the financial times. >> "washing" continues. host: richard mcgregor is the bureau chief for "the washington times." "looking at the news related to

the visit." let's begin with what china will want for -- one from the united states. what is the chinese president saying to barack obama? guest: to some extent i think that they would like to cool down the aggravation that has taken over the ties to the u.s. lately. china depends on a stable environment. they depend on trade. ally, the relationship has gotten out of kilter over the last few years. they would like tactical reassurance. china obvious as the once parts of america. we want technology from the u.s.. we get to see a deal involving general of electric, which we could talk about later, which is interesting. they want that tactical reassurance. host: we had one caller that we

were talking to about u.s.-china relations. one calleraid that he wanted to hear tough language from barack obama. caller: i cannot speak to guest: i cannot speak for the administration, but i would guess that there would be some tough language from the u.s. laced with a l of cool them. wherever the u.s. looks in the world, it meets china. iran, climate change, north korea, you name it this conciliatory line towards china has not been reciprocated. china had that moment two years ago, they were in a strong position and to manage of that. host: how have things changed?

caller: -- guest: there has been a backlash. especially in asia. many countries in asia are hustling to get the u.s. back involved in the region in a much more active way. vietnam, trying to be forged ties with the u.s.. -- re-forge ties with the u.s. the same goes for correa, the philippines, taiwan. host: we have heard a lot of discussion about chinese currency that is undervalued by some assessments. what will be said about that issue? we see that some senators, specifically senator sure, are calling on china to let the

currency float. how will that impact of isabella host: -- impact the visit? guest: there is no doubt that china manipulates and controls its currency. you can see that every month. in some see that is a sign of weakness as much as strength. money cannot come in and out of the money freely if they did lift their currency, i do not think that they could handle it. it might plummet rather than appreciate in the short term. currency is appropriate and the u.s. will make tough noises about pat. particularly because capitol hill wants to hear. this is not the number one issue.

there are others, technological and t like -- competition issues that the u.s. needs to address. host: fir, the chinese president has something to say about the u.s. currency -- calling it a product of the past guest: he called a u.s.-led global currency product that is a thing of the past. the u.s. dollar, the policy of the fed, printing money -- all of which china feels they want to pull over to theirhores to stoke inflation. it is true, but i think that china is exaggerating to put the u.s. on the defensive. the real problem is not the u.s., but chinese military policy. that is a stick that china can

use to be up the u.s. had little bit. and they will do that. host: this is from "usa today." inflation could help u.s. exports? guest: absolutely. if you have inflation in china, e goods automatically become more expensive. it does the job for you. re-evaluation by 3%, putting in inflation and doubling that. host: t's talk about the deal that you brought up between general electric and china. guest: the core of the design is that general lecture will transfer technology to china as part of a joint venture to build their own plant in china. this is a very sensitive thing to be announcing on a trip by

the chinese president to the u.s. -- chinese president to the u.s.. complained about this to the chinese premier recently. saying that we will give you access to the market, we will give you the technology. ge also, in their comments recent, they talked about wondering whether china wants them to succeed in china or if they want to just get that expertise, knowledge, management skills, and technology. so, generally electric is really sticking out its neck. host: let's take some phone calls and talk a bit more.

rodham, a democratic crime. caller: i believe the united states needs to take a much more proactive agenda. like offering tax breaks for anything made in america. taxing the things we are importing. we used to be known as a country that when you bought a car here, it was a well-made car. we have got away from making anything in this country. by shipping those jobs overseas, in america when you want to purchase american blue jeans is more expensive than importing it at a cheaper price. guest: i think that the u.s.

distillate larger manufacturer then china. i also am not sure that tax breaks is the answer. maybe in certain areas but tax breaks on things made in the u.s. may not be a good idea. there is a host of other things that is just as important in the u.s. for competing with china. let's not use military language like combat. fixing, importing its own u.s. house in order. it is about education. basic research. many of these things would be affected as a result. the secondhing is to use global trading rules, which china has signed up for. thehinese used it to attract business from china. i have no doubt that the u.s. can compete with china but peopleill have to work harder.

host: what do you suspect will be the middle ground? that both leaders talk about? from what i am reading in the papers they both get to publicly announce that they have made some progress here and there? guest: in some ways it is the atmosphere. this is one of those too big to fail relationships. in terms of military strategic stability, in terms of economic dynamism, there is a lot at stake. in our lifetime these kinds of struggles will be going on and beyond. this is like a full-time management issue. there will not be a solution this week. there will not be a dramatic change. you will see people working harder to manage their differences. there will always be differences and problems.

host: frank, independent line. you are next, sir. caller: i really appreciate c- span. i have been listening forever but i do not call very often. there are a member of this year -- by m 62, a white male in arkansas. a number of us are concerned about the demonization of the chinese people. we are trying to put all of the chinese in the same box. this is a vastly different culture. they have given us a great gift. i am afraid that our politics, prejudiced, fear and confusion is going to deprive us of this wonderful gift. i would encourage listeners to ojitree.com.g

look at the wonderful gift of traditional chinese medicine that we ha here. have a great day and we wish you nothing but best wishes. host: if you go to the state department website and you look at the population figures, many of you have mentioned the many people there. in july 2010, an estimate was 1.3 billion. education, about 93%. agriculture and forestry ma up about 39.5% of that.

richard mcgregor? guest: i agree, there is no reason to demonize the chinese people. their achievements -- mr. this traditional culture, as you say. millions of people have been lifted out of poverty. we should not underestimate the challenge facing that country. it is a massive task. in many respects, they have done very well. host: what is the state of hu jintao's presidency? when secretary gates went to china, there seem to be a test of military power that they had no idea of. guest: i do not buy that.

when hearing about this test, -- maybe he did t know -- but i do not buy tha his most important title is not president, it is party secretary of the communist party. that puts him above the military. the military is a powerful interest group but the political party is still in control. the second point is, mr. hu himself, compared to past leaders, is something of a week later. he is like your super pure crap. -- a bureaucrat. that makes it hard to get a decision. he has got to persuade everybody. so he is not the strongest

leader and people should not expect him to snap his fingers and get things done. host: 20 you think aboutim joining president obama for a joint news conference this week? reading the papers, he does not do interviews. guest: it will be fascinating. i wonder if it will be a real news conference or just a couple of scripted questions. he is not used to this. generally, he is shielded from the sort of thing. host: he is doing this because of prodding from the unit states? guest: absolutely, d i think it is a good thing one reason why, if, china is misunderstood is because we do not know their peop. we do not have a sense of their personality. we do not know what drives them as individuals. we just have this monolithic

view which allows people to demonize them. that is as much as their own making. host: front page of "in the financial times" -- ey kick off a series looking at china possible global influence. i am curious. your front-page story is, lending to new heights. your third hand line on this is, it is a stark sign of beijing's economic reach. given everything that is happening, what is with the headlines? guest: and the world bank has been the world of's development

lender for the past decade. in fact, china lends more to pour states then the world bank. china claims to still be a developing country itself but it is the largest giver of development aid at the same time. so that just shows you how active they have been in according states that feel like they may have been ignored by the west. chinese diplomacy is not just happening in washington, it is happening throughout the world. host: what is china getting from these poor countries? guest: perhaps diplomatic allegiance, but most importantly, resources. china is growing exponentially. they do not think they can depend on the world market. they want direct access to it. the same goes for coal, iron ore, copper.

they want direct access to these things and theare using the money to get that. host: richard mcgregor is the bureau chief for the "financial times." next phone call. caller: the united states has 1,600 tons of recoverable coal which is enough for the united states. we sell an enormous amount of this to china at this time. if we want to slow down their economy, we could jack up the price of coal and slow down their consumption. guest: i could assure you that that would not work. they have tons of coal coming from other countries. a coal boycott to china would fall flat on its face, i am

sorry to tell you. host: hampton, georgia. caller: thank you for the great job "washington journal" is doing and for giving us an opportunity to voice our opinion. i watch a lot of c-span. i noticed that a lot of people will make their opinions, but nobody will talk abouthe problems of the united states. host: could you stop right there and repeat that? caller: is it possible, through the way that exporting is set up, that the debt that china is

holding, some of it could come from the importing and exporting? host: richard mcgregor? guest: yes, some of the debt has come from funding u.s. consumption. as far as where the u.s. is a creditor, i am sure there are some countries, but i do not have a list in front of me today. host: burlington, vermont. mike, good morning. caller: good morning. richard, the primaries and for china to grow militarily -- the primary reason for trying to grow militarily -- china is simply reassembling a

former empire. china uses money to obtain the resources. the u.s., unfortunately, has used our military to build up the mitary in four natns to exploit the resources. the leadership in those countries traditionally have been fascist, military dictatorships. south america is reacting to that and they are moving to the left. we have a problem in south america and we also have a problem in sudan. they have the largest pool of oil outside of saudi arabia, and china is there. guest: it seems in china there is a deep sense of injustice,

victimization. frankly, i think it is nurtured a little too much by the leadership to keep it going. you are also right that the u.s. and ina were both forged in revolutions, but they were different revolutions. the u.s. had a democtic revolution. china had a traditionally structured communist party still in charge. the biggest gulf overtime has been the difference in their political systems. there are some similarities but the differences are much more important. host: pennsylvania. bill on the republican line. caller: good morning. the chinese people, like all people, are good people, they

are working their jobs. we do not have a problem with the chinese people. as this john indicated, the chinese are communists. what is the united states doing? we are importing a lot of plastic junk, vcr's, computers, and we are exporting cars, gold, iron, metal resources, copper. what else is the united states doing? instead of recognizing the military power of china and trying to strategizing, as you said -- may be a slip of the tongue -- combating china, the

communist regime, instead of doing that we are now fighting a group of tribes in afghanistan. guest: that is an interesting comment. you say that the u.s. is importing plastic, but americans are buying these goods. the military aspect is interesting. china's military might is growg. as it does, it will run up against the united states. one of the fundamental reason why asia has been so successful is because the region has been kept stable by the u.s. military in korea, japan. the career in civil war is not over. japanese tensions are very real. these areas have been able to

boom because of the u.s. influee there. in the next decade, china could begin to bloom. host: on that thought of dominance, a pce in "the wall street journal." a tweet from a viewer -- guest: that is an interesting piece. i think there is some truth to that. as we discussed earlier, i think the u.s. is weak at the moment and they want to take advantage of that. however, in the u.s., i get the sense that the country has stabilized, compared to two

years ago. the u.s. has expertly marshaled its allies in asia. this will be a competition -- come back, if you like -- over the next few decades, and the u.s. has to get it right if it does not want to give up power and influence in the asia- pacific. we should include in that the indian ocean, another area of chinese interest. host: "get it right." how so? guest: you have to nurture your allies, going back to the bush administration and the indian deal. rewater the roots of the relationships of the countries

in asia. but the u.s. will not be strong unless it is domestic problems areixed. that is the biggest problem that the u.s. faces. host: you talked about the currency issue, whether or not that was a real issue. one professor, according to his research, says that that is not the issue. >> i think that's probably right. if you look at the u.s., we tend

to focus very much on the u.s.-china trade deficit. if you look at asia as a whole, you'll see that the u.s. deficit with asia as a whole has not changed in the last 10, 20 years, just shifted to china because the point of last assembly shifted to china. that's the first point. in that respect i think i agree with. so points being made there. where i would not agree is it's not just about the curncy, china, one of the biggest u.s. and most important u.s. exports to china and also japan and not an area where china and the u.s. has to lead is in aerospace, boeing, for example. increasingly airbus and boeing are now building in china and doing deals to build in china because china is basically forcing them to or luring them in. . ul that it does not build a rival industry in china for what is its iconic, global leading

industry. host: bill in new jersey. good morning. ller: and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will read the title. the clerk: a bill to kill the job -- to repeal the job-killing health care law and reconciliation act of 2010. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 26, the amendment printed in part a of house report 112-2 is adopted and the amendment is considered as read. the debate shall be limited to seven hours equal -- to two hours equally divided and controlled, 90 minutes equally divided and controlled by the ranking chair on energy and commerce, 90 minutes equally

divided and controlled by the committee on ways and means, 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on budget, 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on small business. the gentleman from virginia, mr. cantor, and the gentlewoman from california, ms. pelosi, will each control 15 minutes. the gentleman from minnesota, mr. kline, the gentleman from mr. fuller, the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, each will ol control 45 minutes. the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, the gentleman from maryland, mr. smith, the gentleman from maryland, mr. conyers, the gentleman from missouri, mr. graves and the gentlewoman from new york, ms. ve laz quezz each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan. mr. ryan: i yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. ryan: i'm going to begin by saying why we're doing this i want to get into the accounting of all this later in the debate but let me say why we are here. we are here because we heard the american people in the last election. we are here because we believe it's really important to do in office what you said you would do. we said we would have a straight up or down vote to repeat -- to repeal this health care law and that's precisely what we are doing here today. mr. speaker, why do we believe this? because this health care law, if left in place, will accelerate our country's path for bankruptcy. this health care law, if left in place, will do as the president's own chief act wear says will do, will increase health care costs. we're already seeing premiums go up across the board. we're already hearing from thousands of employers across the country who are talking about dropping their employer-sponsored health insurance and we're already hearing from the lack of choices that consumers will get as this new law is put into place.

this new law is a fiscal house of cards and it is a health care house of cards. it does not make our health care system better. i would argue it makes it weaker. there's two ways to attack this problem. . we agree there are so many legitimate problems in health care that need to be fixing. the uninsured. people with high health care costs and high health care risks. those need to be address. but we can fix what's working, what's not working in health care without breaking what's working in health care. with that, mr. speaker, i would simply say this. . we believe we can get to the moment of having affordable being health care for every american regardless of pre-existing condition without having the government take it over. without $1 trillion of a combination of medicare benefit cuts and tax increases. .

i yield myself an additional 20 seconds to simply says -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: we believe thealt care ought to be individually based, ought to be patient-centered. . there's two ways to go. put the government in charge and have the government put in place the rationing mechanisms to tighten the screws and tighten health care or put the consumers in charge and have them compete four us as patients. that's a system we want and with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for fourth down four minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i hope the tenure and substance of the debate we have in this house over the next few days will be worthy of the american people and reflect well on this congress. many of us believe we should focus our efforts here today on measures to help people put back to work rather than on a bill that takes away important patient and consumer

protections. and we don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to debate a bill that thankfully will go nowhere in the senate and would certainly be vetoed by the president. however, the republican majority is entitled to use its time here as it chooses and while we believe we should be doing that focused on jobs, perhaps this debate will clear up many of the myths and misinformation about the health care law that was signed by president obama. i'm interested to hear my colleagues say that they can identify with all the problems in the health care system between the year 2000 and 2006 premiums in this country doubled, health insurance company profits quadrupled and this congress did nothing. why not put your plan on the table first so everybody can see it before you begin taking away the important patient protections in this bill, taking effect just since last march? and within that nine-month

period that law has made an important and positive difference to millions of americans. in fact, we wished our republican colleagues would take a few days, maybe even just a few hours to have congressional hearings, to listen to those individuals and families. the new republican majority said it wanted to listen to the american people but it has not invited a single american outside this congress to a hearing to testify on the repeal bill we are debating today. and as a result we on the other side of the aisle have had to schedule an unofficial hearing. it's going on right now. not 100 yards from where we debate in the capitol visitor center. and i encourage all of to you drop by because if you do you're going to hear some stories, you're going to hear stories from moms and dads of young people who tell you how they're

relievinged that their sons and daughters are no longer kicked off their insurance policies when they turn age 22 or graduate from college. and can now stay on their parents' insurance plan until the age of 26. as a result if their 20-year-old child gets sick or hit by a car or another terrible accident they can get care without the familiar going bankrupt. you will hear from moms -- family going bankrupt. will you hear from momses and dads with kids who have cancer or diabetes or other pre-existing conditions, telling you they're relievinged that finally insurance companies can't deny their children coverage because of pre-existing conditions. and will you hear from senior citizens who were unable to pay for the huge prescription costs of their bills and then as of january 1 of this year they're getting a 50% discount and they can afford to pay for the medicines their doctors say they need. and you'll hear from small

businesses and the number of small businesses using the tax credit has exceeded everyone's expectation. you'll hear from those small businesses saying they can now afford to purchase affordable coverage for their employees and as a result hire more people. you would hear all that and more. and that is why it is such a mistake, it's a historic mistake, to take away these patient protections and throw these individuals back over to the whims and the many abuses of the insurance industry. there's no doubt that the insurance industry will be popping champagne bottles if the health care law was ever to be repealed. let's put the interests of our constituents, patients and consumers first in this debate. i yield myself an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. van hollen: and let's make sure that as we do this we tackle the deficit and the debt. i listen to my colleague talk

about the debts but we all know that the independent, nonpartisan congressional budget office in a letter to speaker boehner dated january 6, 2011, indicated that repealing this bill will increase the deficit by over $200 billion over the first 10 years and by another $1.2 trillion over the second 10 years. now our colleagues have criticized those findings but they're the same people who they applauded when the numbers came back their way. so, mr. speaker, i thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to a new member but a seep yor member of congress, the gentleman from california, mr. calvert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. calvert: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 2, a bill that repeal the disastrous government takeover of health care. the more we learn about the new health care law, the more we understand how devastating it will be to our economy.

already employers across the country have suffered increases in their health premiums as a result of the health care law. yet we were told that the bill would send or bend the health care curve downward. we were told the bill would reduce the deficit by $143 billion over 10 years. however we know the figures given to the c.b.o. did not ac radly reflect the law's real cost. when you add back the $115 billion needed to implement the law and subtract the bill's double accounting revenue and other budgetary gimmicks, the true cost is a staggering $700 billion over 10 years. we were told the bill would protect the uninsured, yet all it does is roll them into medicaid, a low-performing program that has resulted to more people turning to the e.r. for their medical needs. we were told this bill would help seniors, instead it guts medicare advantage, leaving 50% of beneficiaries on the verge of losing their courage coverage. what happened to the promise that if you like your health

care plan, you can keep your health care plan? in addition to all the false promises, the health care bill will impose $52 billion in new taxes on businesses. our economy relies on the ability of businesses to grow, hire, invest and succeed. the new taxes will devastate our economy, turn the american dream into a nightmare. the bottom line is that we cannot afford this new health care law no matter how well intentioned. we must repeal obamacare, replace it with legislation to decrease health care costs, increase competition in the marketplace, maintain the sanctity of doctor-patient relationships and truly helps those without insurance. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of h.r. 2 and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: at this time, mr. speaker, i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentlelady from pennsylvania, ms. schwartz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. ms. schwartz: thank you and i rise to speak very forcefully, i

hope, about the importance of proceeding with the health care bill, the health care law that we have in place and the incredible protections that it is providing to literally millions of americans in each and every one of our districts. each of us have heard from them. the new health care law reduces the deficit. we're here talking about thing budget committee it is going to reduce the deficit while promoting more efficient and higher quality care. reducing the deficit and slowing the growth of health care costs means real savings to american families, american businesses and to the federal government. and yet their first major act in the majority, congressional republicans want to repeal this law. repealing the protections for americans with pre-existing conditions, we just heard this morning "the washington post" reported on a study that says that one half of all americans under the age of 65 have a pre-existing condition.

this isn't just about a few of us. it's about really almost all of us. we all know someone, we all may love someone who has a pre-existing condition. this -- the republicans got their way and they will probably in the house but fortunately not in the senate, they would repeal the protections for americans with pre-existing conditions, children can already now be covered. they would repeal the new law that says annual limits for coverage, if you have cancer, will be repealed. it will repeal the prescription drug benefits for our seniors. and it will repeal tax credits for small businesses and in doing so they will add to the costs for american taxpayers. let's be clear on this what this means. repeal increases the deficit by $252 billion over 10 years and $1.4 trillion over 20. repeal reverses progress in getting health care costs under control, causing families and businesses and the government to face higher health care costs.

it repeals the benefits for millions of americans, important consumers protections and ensures reform, such as making sure that children with bre existing condition have coverage. over. we're going to hear it over and over again over the next seven hours. what's start -- what starting over means is no consumer protections and months and maybe years of just talk. possibly no action while the cost goes up for american businesses, go up for our families and go up for our nation. can i have another half a minute? mr. van hollen: i yield the gentlelady another 30 seconds. the speaker: the gentlelady is recognize. ms. schwartz: the new rules allow the republicans to do this, but it's going to cause greater suffering for the american people. it's a wrong course of action, let's not repeal this bill, it

will hurt american, it will hurt our economic competitiveness and hurt the fiscal condition of this nation. i encourage a no vote and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i want to yield myself three minute bus first, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 2. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. ryan: i'd like to yield myself three minutes to address some of the charges i've heard. number one, they're sayings that jobs bill. half a trillion dollars in tax increases creates jobs? mandates taxes -- mandates for taxes? that creates jobs? others say, the senate is isn't going to consider it, the president isn't going to pass it, so why bother? if that's the attitude, let's just go home. let me speak to the fiscal house

of cards represented by this law. the minority is saying, this reduces the deficit look at the letter from c.b.o. to speaker boehner, it reduces the deficit by $130 billion over eight years. it does that if you manipulate the c.b.o. i've heard charges of enron accounting. the only enront accounting is the previous majority gave the c.b.o. a bill full of smoke and mirrors and made them score that here's what the c.b.o. says if you take away the smoke and mirrors, the fact that there's $78 million in class act premiums double counting, $a 53 billion in social security taxes being double counted, $153 billion needed to hire new bureaucracy that wasn't counted, cuts in medicare that are being double counted and let's not forget the doctor fix, $208 billion, that we just discounted and ignored. when you take away the smoke and

mirrors this has a $701 billion deficit. if you don't believe me when i say it that way, how about this way. the c.b.o. says this raises the debt. how is that different, where they say on one hand the bill lowers this edeficit but on the other hand, it raises the debt? when a c.b.o. looks at whether or not they raise the debt, they look at everything, the interplay of all fiscal policies to look at its effect on the debt. when they score a bill on its effect on the deficit they look at what you put in front of them, the smoke and mirrors, double counting, noncounting, and account for that. if this lowers the deficit, how does it increase the debt? you have to play a phony trick with double counting to do that. what does this bill ultimately do? it blows a hole through the deficit. when you look at the first 10 dwhreerks bill is a $1.4

trillion increase. that's because you have 10 years of tax increases and medicare cuts to pay for six years of spending. when you actually look at the full 10 years of implementation of this law, $2.6 trillion in spending, $2.6 trillion. now, mr. speaker, let me say that, jobs and the effects on this health care bill, i had an alarming conversation with a large employer in wisconsin not long ago, a privately held company with thousands of employee, she takes good care of her employees. i yield myself an additional 20 seconds to say this the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 20 seconds. mr. ryan: she said to me i believe it's my obligation to offer health insurance to my employees, but my two publicly traded competitors said they're dumping their employees. instead of paying $17,000 a year for employee health care, they'll pay a tchrs 2,000 fine. that's a $15,000 difference her competitor will have as a competitive advantage against you.

she said, i have no choice, i'm going to dump my employees in this exchange and thousands of employers are making the same decision. this should be repealed and with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. van hollen: it is interesting to hear this attack on the c.b.o. numbers that came out when many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle just nine months ago, when the c.b.o. wasry porting deficit numbers and the cost of the bill, were singing c.b.o.'s high praises. now, let's look at some of the items just mentioned. let's look at the doctors fix payment. let's look at the s.g.r. all of us know that that's been an issue that's been with this house for years and years and years and it has nothing to do with the health insurance reform bill that was signed by the president, we're going to have to deal with that issue, whether we had health insurance reform

or didn't have health insurance reform. mr. speaker, they know that. we've also heard, i do not neeled at this time. we also heard, mr. speaker, that they said we front loaded the revenue in this bill and actually -- and disguised the costs. if that were the case, how is it possible that c.b.o. would say that it actually reduces the deficit by more in the second 10 years than in the first 10 years? the fact of the matter is, this bill will increase social security revenue as employers provide more of their compensation in the form of wages that are subject to payroll taxes. double counting is not the issue. the fact is, it reduces the deficit and c.b.o. says that. now c.b.o. is the independent referee that we use in this body. they're like the guy on the football field, the referee who

calls the plays and calls, you know, when there are penalties and no penalties. sometimes we like the calls, sometimes we don't. but it is an unprecedented, it's an unprecedented step to say that we're going to totally ignore the decisions and judgments of the independent c.b.o. and we're going to replace that with our judgment for the purposes of deficit reduction calculations in legislation that goes to reducing our debt. that is a recipe for budget anarchy. it's a recipe for fiscal chaos. and we should not go down that road. the c.b.o. has been very clear that the fiscally responsible thing to do is to move forward with the law in its place. we obviously can fix things as they come up that need to be addressed, specific item, but to repeal this wholesale will,

according to the folks that we rely on, as the independent, nonpartisan judges here, say that repealing this bill, as our colleagues are proposing to do, will add $1.4 trillion to the deficit over 20 years. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield myself 10 seconds to say, if the doc fix should be considered outside, why did the democrats have it in their bills in the beginning. the second thing is, either we're financing this entitlement and raiding the social security and medicare funds you can't do both. with that, i yield two minutes to a new member of the committee depr michigan, mr. amash. mr. amash: the founders were concerned with our freedom.

the debate we're having today goes beyond health care. although there's no doubt that health care coverage is an important and difficult issue. what we're discussing today goes to the core of our constitution's design. it asks members of congress whether we take constitutional limits to our powers seriously. we have all witnessed every americans' renewed interest in the constitution as they ask tough questions about the constitutionality of the law. the law's proponents have tried to dress up their answers in constitutional language. they say congress' power to tax upholds the law but when this bill was first being considered, they claimed the bill contained no new taxes. they tried to find support in congress' power of interstate commerce. if forcing americans to start commerce is the same as regulating existing commerce, it would have been news to the

founders. finally, they claim that congress can do anything that is in the general welfare of the country. if this law is constitutional if congress has such broad power, our limited federal government will become limitless and all without changing our constitution or the approval of the americans whom it protects. it is not just for the courts, it is our duty as a congress to pay attention to the constitution and its limits on its powers. i urge that we repeal this unconstitutional law. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker: the gentleman yields his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. connolly: i rise as a member of the budget committee to oppose this deficit-bust regular peel. i want to speak on behalf of suzanne from vienna, virginia. her daughter suffers from a debilitating disease and before

this reform they could not get coverage for their daughter because she, through no fault of her own, had a pre-existing condition. while others wait to see if their insurance company would deny them, suzanne knew. she was willing to pay extra premiums but the insurance company said no. suzanne had no option until we created high risk insurance pools under health insurance reform. her words to me after health insurance reform passed was, now at least we have hope for the future. this will take away that hope throwing suzanne's daughter off of insurance. i urge my colleagues to remember suzanne's daughter and 129 million other americans like her and stop this repeal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield one minute to mr. mulvaney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

mr. mulvaney: i can't tell you how excited i am to hear the language coming from the other side of the chamber this evening. i'm hearing about the importance of cutting deficits and keeping spending in line. it makes me wonder what's been happening here for the last several years. i think we've been consistent with that message over the course of this debate on this side of the aisle. i don't know where the other side was when we got the information that this bill cost trillions of dollars. i don't know where this attitude about being fiscally responsible was when we got information from the chief actuary that medicare and medicaid who said this bill was unsustainable in its spending. i don't know where they were with this attitude when we heard that this bill raised the cost of health care versus not passing the bill. but mr. speaker, i'm extraordinarily excited to hear this level of discussion. as a member of the budget committee, i look forward to this level of debate continuing beyond this bill, beyond the health care discussion, and into the upcoming discussion on the budget. my guess is, if we have this level of discussion on health

care, the budget will be an easy, easy debate this year and we'll be able to make dra maltic inroads. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cuellar: in the long, rich history of congress, when a prior congress passes a piece of legislation, the prudent step is to look at that legislation and agree on making changes on what doesn't work. i think to come today and look for repeal and not have a health care plan in place is not the prudent approach. we have to see what works and what doesn't work. that would be the prudent step to take today. we have to focus on the deficit and on jobs. deficit is important and i think we can come together and work in a bipartisan approach. this is one thing we need to look at today. jobs, we certainly have to look at coming in. but just to come in and say,

this is something that kills jobs is not the right step to take. if you look at, for example, the nfib research foundation when they looked at this piece of legislation, they say that a number of health care profession jobs will be created by this legislation. this is something that we need to look at. again the prudent step to look at is to look at what works and what doesn't work. mr. speaker, that's what we need to look at. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i'd like to yield 90 seconds to a new member of the budget committee, mr. cole of oklahoma. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 90 seconds. mr. cole: i rise to support h.r. 2, the repeal of last year's so-called health bill. the american people, quite frankly have never liked this bill as they demonstrated last november. you can't find a poll where it's ever cracked 50% in approval. and those wanting to repeal it have generally always been above that mark. the bill itself may be unconstitutional.

over 20 states are now challenging it in federal court. it's certainly likely to be unworkable. the creation of dozens of boards, agencies and commissions with rule making authority, the fact that hundreds of companies have already asked for waivers under the legislation suggest it's going to be a bureaucratic nightmare. but finally and most importantly, the bill itself is fiscally irresponsible and unsustainable. the idea that we would take hundreds of billions of dollars out of medicaid, social security and medicare at a time the baby boomer general riggs ration is beginning to retire is ir-- generation is beginning to retire is irresponsible. we need savings to sustain medicare. so i urge this house to take the fiscalry -- fiscally responsible course, repeal this bill and start over and give the american people the health care bill they deserve and the health care bill they can afford. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland.

mr. van hollen: mr. speaker, i yield got minutes to the gentlelady from florida, ms. wasserman schultz. was was mr. speaker, rise to -- ms. wasserman schultz: mr. speaker, i rise to oppose this. reform has already made a dramatic positive difference for millions of our constituents and small businesses while tackling our ballooning national debt. we in congress must continue doing all we can to support american families and businesses as we emerge from this recession. democrats have pledged to measure all legislation by proposals success at creating jobs. strengthen the middle class and bringing down the deficit. unfortunately the republican majority's attempts to repeal the affordable care act fails on all such accounts. repeal would hurt small businesses, canceling tax credits to help employs afford coverage. it would stall middle class job growth as 1/3 of small business owners told they were more likely to hire new employees as a result of reform and of course repeal would deepen our already exploding deficit, increasing it

by $230 billion in the next 10 years and by more than $1 trillion in the following decade. many of my colleagues across the aisle have rebuffed this analysis from congress' own budgetary referee, the congressional budget office. because it doesn't fit the republican nartific or campaign promise to tackle the deficit. however, while they may be entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts. health care repeal is the epitome of fiscal responsibility and encounters our most basic american values. we lose life when insurance companies can freely drop those who are sick from coverage. we lose liberty when our seniors have to choose between medications and groceries and we lose the pursuit of happiness if we return to the days when only job security guaranteed health security. our fiscal decisions, mr. speaker, must be a reflection not only of our economic future but a statement of our most essential national values. by ensuring that americans have vital coverage, rather than cruelly denying it to them, we can live up to the dreams of liberty and justice for all. thank you.

i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: at this time, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield main to the gentleman from kansas, mr. huelskamp, a member of the budget committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kansas is recognized for one minute. mr. huelskamp: thank you, mr. speaker. as a result of this law, employers across america have learned that onerous reporting requirements will force them to file 10 9 forms for every vendor which they dods 600 worth of business. i visited with an account in our business that indicatesed he would have to expand his staff by 25% to accommodate all the extra red tape and paperwork. mr. speaker, this is not the type of job creation americans envisioned. additionally, business and labor unions alike have realized obama scare a bad deal. at least 222 have sought waivers from having to comply with the law. h.h.s. secretary kath linesy billious has approved waivers. more troubles is that

secretariesy billous has been tarty in --sy billous has been tarty. fortunately rather than selective waivers for the politically connected, we have a universal remedy, repeal the law. i urge my colleagues to heed the call voters made last year during the debate and at the ballot box and i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i would remind the gentleman, this body voted on a majority basis to repeal the 1099 provision. with that i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. doggett: thank you. the choice here is whether to give more money to insurance monopolies or leave just a little bit in the pockets of middle class americans. but for house republicans, putting insurance companies first, putting them always first seems to be a pre-existing condition. this bill isn't repeal and replace, it's repeal and forget.

forget the health care needs of millions of americans, forget the hundreds of billions of dollars that they with this repeal add to our federal debt. within a year alison, a 23-year-old in texas who is completing her college degree and caring for her mother who faces another round of breast cancer, alison would lose her health insurance. emily from women berl who is battling cancer herself would now face lifetime limits on what doctor-recommended care her insurer will pay for. and of course if her husband loses or changes his job, she swronet any insurance at all. and charlotte, an austin senior, she would have to pay for more prescriptions and for preventative health care while the republicans reduced the volume sentsy of the medicare trust fund by over a decade. familiar budgets would be crushed by this bill as health care costs remain the leading cause of credit card debt and bankruptcy.

and this same devastating republican bill would also hike the federal debt. that's why republicans have rejected pay-as-you-go budgeting and instead will borrow from the chinese to pay for today's action. yes, repeal is a priority for the insurance companies and their apologists. but neither our family budget nor our federal budget can afford it. i believe that every american is entitled to a family doctor. not to an appointment with a bankruptcy judge because of soaring health care costs. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: at this time, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield 90 seconds to a member of the budget committee, the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. langford. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from -- the gentleman is recognized for 90 seconds. mr. langevin: a few months ago i visited with -- mr. lankford: a few months ago i visited with an employer. when asked about that, the reason they were give season the cost of implementing the new health care law. another business owner told me

they will not hire new employees until they can figure out what the cost of health care is going to be so they will just stop hiring. while some in this chamber talk about universal coverage and cost controls, many people in my district are frustrated with so the called solution. every person should control their own health care options and opportunities. every young student should have the motivation and as our population ages, every doctor should have greater sbintive to take on medicare patients -- incentive to take on medicare patients. we shouldn't just move the costs to the states and put price controls on doctors and hospitals. shared pain is not what america was looking for. america was looking for solutions. the new health care law will create long-term budget issues in the days to come from a budget perspective, you can cook the numbers all you want but this bill will dramatically increase our federal debt again. we need answers. not bigger problems. this is the united states of america. intellectual we can do better than this. it's time to repeal this law and start the hard working of

solving cost care delivery. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: mr. speaker, if i could inquire as to how much time remains. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland has 3 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from wisconsin has 5 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: -- mr. van hollen: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from kentucky. mr. yarmuth: thank you, mr. speaker, tomorrow we will vote on the republican health care bill. this bill is another example of actions speaking louder than words. many of my republican colleagues have said they support certain health care reforms. a ban on pre-existing condition discrimination, allowing young adults to stay on their parents' health care policies, closing the prescription doughnut hole, they could have crafted this bill any way they wanted, they could have guaranteed any or all of just those important provisions, those protections they claim to support. but they didn't.

they could have ensured that by 2016 annual health care premiums for the average american wouldn't be $24,000. and over the next decade, small businesses wouldn't lose more than $52 billion in profits. they could have crafted the bill that this way but they didn't. they can say whatever they want but the truth is that the republican plan is no care, no matter how desperate or how dire your diagnosis, no matter if the alternative saves money, saves jobs and saves lives. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: at this time, mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. garrett: i thank the chair very much. i rise today in support of repealing this simply job-destroying health care bill. and replace it with a piece of legislation that addresses three main tenants. one that will grow our economy, one that will bring down costs and one that is basically constitutional. in the area of jobs, you know, i remember when minority leader pelosi, then speaker at the time, said, this bill would

create four million jons -- jobs. 400,000 of them immediately. all the same the c.b.o. was saying, quote, it was likely to reduce employment. so instead of encouraging american jobs, this takeover of health care on small businesses will give us more taxes, more mandates and higher health care costs on those small businesses. look, we need to do this and work this together with a bipartisan manner will thank will help our small businesses. in the area of costs, additionally, this health care bill is deficient in that it fails to address bringing down costs. now, companies have begun to digest this health care bill, costs have only risen. c.b.o. has found that this will actually increase health care premiums by as much as 10% to 13%. one of the areas that i looked at and i've heard from a lot of people in the medical community and i've asked them, what is one major thing you'd have liked us to put in this bill and that is tort reform. but it's missing in this legislation. it is imperative that any serious reform of the health

care system take a very hard look at the issue of medical liability reform. unfortunately this bill fails in a that regard too. finally in the area of constitutionality, well the constitution -- grants congress the authority to rel regulate commerce among the several states and the supreme court is allowed congress the ability to regulate, prohibit all sorts of economic activity this bill goes even further because for the first time in the history of the u.s. government, we are regulating inactivity. for the first time congress has mandated that individuals purchase a private good approved by the government as the price of citizenship. in the first day of congress i introduced a bill, h.r. 21, the reclaiming individual liberty act, and it would take out that individual mandate because while i believe it's -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. garrett: i do believe -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr.

speaker. i notice the gentleman mentioned c.b.o. what c.b.o. said in that regard is that because of the exchanges there would be some people who would not seek their health care through employment, they'd be liberated to be able to get it through the exchange. i'm glad that the gentleman confirms the importance of c.b.o. numbers. with that i yield one minute to my colleague, mr. ryan of ohio. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mr. ryan: i thank the gentleman. i was going out to dinner the other night and as i was walking in one of the young folks who were working there walked up to me and said, sir, you can tell the new leaders in congress about my story? and story was that he is a 25-year-old kid who is work at a restaurant and has -- who is working at a restaurant and has seizures and could not get any medication, could not get any health care coverage but because of the law that was passed here last year, this young person now could get the medication, could stay on his parents' health care, and now is a productive

member of society. and know my friends on the other side have said things like, well, this employer said their insurance was going up 50%. that's been going on for decades now. especially in the last decade. this is going to fix that and i know my namesake from wisconsin also said, you know, there are some employers who are going to have to let their people go in the exchange because their competition is going to let people go into the exchange. the bottom line is, people were dumping workers for a decade and there wasn't an exchange. now there is an exchange that these people will have some remedy and ability to get health care. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: at this time i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, the central promises -- promises of obamacare were that it would bend health costs down and wouldn't threaten existing plans. we now know that both of these

claims were false. the c.b.o. warns us that the law lynn crease average private premium it's by $2100 within the next five years above what they would have been without obamacare. the administration's own actuary admits that the law bends the cost curve not down but up by $311 billion over the next 10 years. and we now know that many existing plans are indeed jeopardized and that scores of companies will offering their -- that have been offering their employees basic plans have either dropped them or are continuing them only with labors met to the whim of the administration officials. but the most dangerous provision of this law is the federal government's assertion that it now has the power to force every american to purchase products that the government believes they should purchase, whether or not they want them, need them or can afford them. if this president prevails, the

federal government will have usurped authority over every as expect of individual choice -- over every aspect of individual choice. the tragedy is that everyday we continue down this road is a day we have walked to address -- lost the ability to address the real problems, the loss of the freedom to shop across state lines, the loss of freedom to taylor plains -- tailor plans to the needs of individuals and families and the absence of the tax advantages that families need to afford and choose their own health plans according to their own needs. churchill said, all men make mistakes but wise men learn from them. mr. speaker, the american people understand that obamacare was a huge mistake. let us acknowledge that, learn from it and move on to an act -- to enact reforms that will reduce health costs and increase health choices for american families. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland.

mr. van hollen: mr. speaker, i reserve -- in that case, i yield one minute to the gentlelady. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> i thank my colleague from maryland. this past year around june, i was speaking to a woman who is a single mother. ms. sanchez: she has two young children. she's a real estate agent. it's been rough. but she managed to pay the premiums to have health care -- health insurance for herself and her two children. in june, her daughter had an epileptic attack for the first time. she was scared to death. she took her to the hospital. her daughter got better but she

would have more of these. a month later she found out her daughter wouldn't be covered by that health care plan. she's been paying about $1,700 per month for her daughter. i said this is what health care reform is about. it's about taking care of our children and our families. i told her -- told her, her daughter would be covered. if this was your daughter, you would not repeal this health care reform. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. who seeks recognition? mr. van hollen: how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: she gentleman from maryland has 15 seconds. mr. van hollen: mr. speaker, all the charts in the world can't wish away the c.b.o. letter of january 6 of this year which says that the premiums will go down in the employer market that people on average will pay less in the individual market and that this legislation will reduce the deficit and the debt

over the next 20 years. again, that is the call from the nonpartisan experts we have, we shouldn't be substituting our judgment for theirs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield myself the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: i think we've established the fact that when you strip off the budget gimmick, because macare is a budget buster. let's -- obama care is a budget buster. we have a crisis coming in america and the primary reason we have the mountain of debt is because of our health care entitlements which is have a huge liability. so what did the previous majority do? they put two unfunded entitlements on top. a lot of people said, health care is a right and we're giving it to the people. if we declare shutch things as a

right for government to give us, it's government's right to ration these things and to pick winners and losers. health care is too important for that. i want to be in control of my and my family's health care. i want individuals to be in control of their health care and their destiny. we have to ask ourselves when we create these new programs, how much of children's future orb our grandchildren's future are we willing to sacrifice to give them this mountain of debt that's getting worse by the passage and creation of this law? this of all reasons is why we should vote to repeal. i reserve the -- i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. smith. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. smith: i support this legislation that repeals the democrats' job stifling, cost increasing, freedom limiting health care law. this bill would repeal a requirement that every individual buy a certain kind of health insurance. the congressional research service confirms that the federal government has never forced all americans to buy any good or service until now. this mandate violates congress' powers under the commerce clause of our constitution of limited

federal powers means anything. it's a major reason to repeal the health care bill. one particularly costly part of our health care system is the practice of so-called defensive medicine which occurs when doctors must conduct tests and prescribe drugs that are not medically required because of the threat of lawsuits. taxpayers pay for this wasteful, defensive medicine which adds to health care costs. the democrats' health care law goes exactly the wrong direction. incredibly, it contains a provision that prohibits any new limits on litigation from being enforced because it allows lawyers to opt out of any system that limits their ability to sue. this is contrary to the best interest of all americans except trial lawyers. the health care bill can only be read as an invitation to trial lawyers to sue medical personnel. that's another reason to repeal this health care bill. the democrats' health care law will produce more litigation and

more costly health care. those are two good reasons we should repeal it. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. conyers: ladies and gentlemen of the house, i am very pleased to defend what is -- what has been not intended as a compliment but to defend the so-called obamacare bill. obama is going to go down in history for having taken 54 million people, according to c.b.o., off the rolls and giving them insurance.

and i've been looking over my congressional district over the king holiday and talking to a lot of people about health care. i haven't found one parent in the 14th congressional district that didn't like the idea of having someone -- some one of their children remain on their health care policy until age 26. have you found anybody that would like not to have their children extended until 26? please see me after this debate because we've got so much to be proud of. what are we talking about? pre-existing illnesses not being a basis for being denied

insurance or a reason to kick one out of a health insurance policy. these are good things. i am amazed by the fact that people say this bill is going to cost jobs. well, the c.b.o. says it's going to cost us $30 billion to repeal the bill. please, can we be a little more fiscally conservative in this body as we rush to repeal this bill? and the question of constitutionality is very interesting one for the judiciary committee. a matter we're going to go in further. but we found a very good set of

arguments about the ability of this bill to be totally within the framework of our constitution. come on. we already have medicare. who do you think runs that? we already have medicaid. who do you think -- what about social security? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. conyers: i'll submit the rest of my statement. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. sensenbrenner, the chairman of the crime subcommittee of the judiciary committee and also former committee chairman of the judiciary committee itself. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. sensenbrenner: as each of us have traveled back to our districts over the -- over the past several months, we have heard from our constituents from seniors to families to small

businesses speak out convince glism they demanded this new congress focus on legislation that promotes job growth, cuts spending. what better way to start than by repealing the president's trillion-dollar health care law, a massive new government intrusion into americans' health care which promises to skyrocket costs even further. our immediate action today demonstrates that we are listening. this is not to say that reforms aren't necessary. we must improve our health care system. we must enact sensible reforms that address the core problem. the rising cost of health care without increasing the size of government. we must enact real medical liability reform. allow americans to purchase health coverage across state lines. empower small businesses with greater purchasing power. ensure access for those with pre-existing conditions and create new incentives to save for the future health needs. republicans want health care

reform. however, we must reform it the right way. today we take a much-needed first step. america deserves legislation that addresses our health care problems and helps our economy prosper. this bill is the first step to do that and i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it. i yield back the balance my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i'm pleased to recognize a senior member of the judiciary, sheila jackson lee, of houston, texas, for one and a half minutes. the speaker: the gentlelady is recognized for one and a half minutes. ms. jackson lee: there is nothing that one can do when you're debating this bill than to be civil and respect the

american people, who, many of diase, rehabilitation or maybele some have already lost the lives. this repeal of this bill, just a couple of pages, would re-emphasize that they would die. a bill that talks about jobs when we're talking about lives. so i think it is important that we follow what the opponents o this protection and health care bill does. consumer protection. tient protection. and i think it is important for us to be able to hold this constitution and prove that it is constitutional. well, i could say that there are 1.1 million jobs already created, that the deficit will blow up $143 billion, trillion over -- a trillion over 20 years, but i want to refer to the 14th amendment that allows

and guarantees equal protection under the law. if this bill is repeal, ed burke a hemophiliac will probably be questionable because he would have lifetime caps. or mr. land who is on my health care teleconference, where 18,000 people in harris county were contacted. maybe he has a family of schizophrenics and people who have children that have schizophrenia, maybe he would not be guaranteed equal protection under the law. i say the constitution needs to be protect. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. conyers: i yield the gentlelady 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: thank you so much. maybe they would not be able to withstand this onslaught on their rights because the constitution guarantees them equal protection and some who have insurance and some do not are not treated equally. finally, let me say that texas,

the department of insurance has said that this bill helps texas. i hope my colleagues from texas will vote not to repeal this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the chair will remind all members not to traffic the well when members are speaking from the well. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from iowa, mr. king a senior member of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. king: i thank the gentleman from texas, the chair of the judiciary committee. it's a pleasure to serve on this committee and speak in support of the repeal of obamacare. it's something i have worked on every day ince it passed last march, it's legislation i introduced, i asked for the draft the same day it passed. people thought we couldn't get to this point but we are. the bill didn't go through judiciary committee, we didn't address the tort reform that's so essential if we're going to do something to put health care back on track in this country and when i look at this, serving

on the commrk i believe it was 2005, we passed legislation in the house that addressed the lawsuit abuse that drives up the cost of our health care, it didn't get taken up in the senate. here we are with a huge obamacare bill, ready to vote to repeal it and part of the discussion needs to be, why didn't it have tort reform in it? we are prepared to take a look at this as we go forward. when i look at the numbers produced in part by the health insurance underwriters, they and others will tell me that somewhere between 3.5% and 8.5% of the overall cost of our health care goes because of lawsuit abuse and the defensive medicine that's associated with it. i have a friend who tells me that 95% of the m.r.i.'s that he orders, he knows exactly what he's going to see when he gets inside to do the surgery but he has to do them anyway to protect himself from that 5% that miami might end up being in litigation -- from that 5% that might end

up being in lathe litigation. that's an additional -- litigation. that's an additional $1 million a year. we must address that if we're going to have managed costs and then the other component that is judiciary committee component of this obamacare legislation that is about to have a vote on repeal here that we're debating is the components that run constitutional. the individual mandate as the most egregious component of obamacare that compels americans to buy a policy produced or approved by the federal government, vote no on the bill. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from georgia, hank johnson, for 1 1/2 minutes, to defend the obamacare legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. johnson: thank you, mr.

speaker. and thank you, mr. ranking member. i rise in opposition to the repeal of health reform. repeal of health care reform would strip 32 million americans of health insurance including 139,000 residents of my district. repeal will allow insurers to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions and re-open the doughnut hole which would devastate joseph williams, a former corrections officer in my district, who relies on medicare for his prescription drugs. i'll be voting against repeal and i urge my colleagues to do the same. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. coble, who is also the chairman of the courts and commercial and administrative law subcommittee of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. coble: i appreciate the gentleman from texas.

mr. speaker when we debated health care reform during the 111th congress, i made the statement that we need to fine tune the edge and not overhaul it. i reiterate that theory today. president obama in my opinion elevated health care to the number one issue facing america, mistakingly so in my opinion. i think the number one issue facing america then and now involves jobs or more precisely lack of jobs and reckless spending. there is agreement from both sides of the aisle that we need to improve our health care system. these improvements must enhance the quality and accessibility of care in a fiscally responsible manner. the law implemented last year failed to meet this criteria, particularly the onerous 1099 tax incede on small businesses, that is just one glaring example. by repealing obamacare, we will have the opportunity to take more prudent approach of fine tuning our health care law to

ensure that it encompasses sound principles. mr. speaker, this will likely be an obvious partisan vote. but it also serves a purpose. it sends message to the american people that we are serious about fixing our broken health care system. physicians do this daily. they make a diagnosis and fix the problem. i support the passage of h.r. 4 because congress should take the same approach. fix the problem. much energy and attention was directed to this matter when it probably should have been directed to jobs and reckless spending. too late for that now. but we need to address it and i look forward to the vote i guess will be tomorrow and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i recognize dr. judy chu of california, a very valuable member of the judiciary committee, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california

voiced for one minute. ms. chu: thank you, mr. chair. the health care repeal act will hurt many people but especially seniors. it raises costs for prescriptions and preventative care, it weakens medicare and it takes away your freedom to make your own decisions, returning your health back to the hands of insurance companies. at the start of this year, seniors began receiving free preventative services such as mammograms and an annual example. if repeal succeeds, goodbye free checkups and free life-saving tests. today seniors in the medicare doughnut hole are getting half off many brand name drugs. but if repeal passes, your prescription drugs are going to double and those who get a $250 check to help cover high drug costs might even have to pay it back. the original health reform bill extended medicare's life until 2029, but if we repeal it, the medicare trust funds become

insolvent in six short years. the patients right to repeal act hurts seniors. it's dangerous for america's health. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, who is actually a member of three subcommittees of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. poe: mr. speaker, never before in the history of our great country has the tax been levied on individual americans by the federal government with the purpose of forcing citizens to do something the government wants them to do. and never before has the government self-righteously ordered americans to buy a product or pay a punitive fine. in my opinion the constitution does not give the federal government, even well-intentioned government, the authority to make citizens buy any product, whether it's a car, whether it's health insurance or even whether it's a box of chocolates. the individual mandate provision of the health care bill is unconstitutional.

the author of the constitution, james madison, said, the powers delegated by the constitution to the federal government are few and defined. those that remain to state governments are numerous and indefinite. the health care bill is a theft of the individual freedom to control one's health, to have it now controlled by government. big government doesn't mean better shutions -- solutions. in fact, as someone has said, it you think the problem's government -- if you think the problems government creates are bad, just wait until you see government solutions. government is partially to blame for the health care yy sis and the nationalized health care -- crisis and the nationalize health care government solution is unconstitutional. if you like the efficiency of the post office, the competence of fema and the compassion of the i.r.s., we will love the nationalized health care bill. certainly what we do here in congress should be constitutional and we should repeal the health care bill and come up with constitutional solutions for health problems.

and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i want to take this opportunity to congratulate lamar smith on becoming the chairman of the house judiciary committee during the 112th session of congress. and i turn now to the former chairman of the constitutional subcommittee, jerry nadler of new york, and i recognize him for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. nadler: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the republican effort to deny 32 million americans health care, to deny millions of middle class americans the ability to get health care insurance if they have can pre-existing conditions and to drive up our national debt by an additional $1.4 trillion over the next 20 years. the affordable care wast act with a stave off the 55% of bankruptcy caused by health care emergencies. by banning rescissions, banning

pre-existing conditions, banning lifetime coverage caps and capping annual out-of-pocket expenses this law ensures nobody will go broke if they get sick. this will save lives of the approximately 45,000 americans who die every year because they lack health insurance. for american seniors, the affordable care act strengthens the medicare program. seniors no longer pay out of pocket for preventative services and the dough null hole will be closed. the notice to small businesses will get billions of dollars in tax credits to help them provide health coverage to their employees, unless of course the republicans are successful in enacting a massive tax increase on small businesses by repealing the law. we did all this and more while reducing the deficit by what c.b.o. now estimates will be $230 billion in the first 10 years and $1.2 trillion in the next 10 years. the republicans say the bill is an unprecedented or unconstitutional expansion of congressional power. they are wrong. there's nothing radical, dangerous or unconstitutional

about the act. we have the power to enact this comprehensive plan including its minimum coverage requirement under the commerce, necessary and proper general welfare clause of article 1, section 8 of the constitution. similar attacks were levied against the social security act of 1935 saying it was unconstitutional for the same reasons. those arguments were unsounded a rejected then and will fair no better today. indeed, leading republican lawmakers championed individual mandates as part of their health equity and access reform today act of 1983. the requirement of individual participation was valid then and it is valid now. for all of these reasons i strongly encourage my colleagues to vote no on this misguided repeal bill. i thank you and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. lungren swhorks a chairman of the house administration committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. lungren: thank you very much, mr. speaker.

mr. speaker, in the scope of the american constitutional system of governing, the congress is a body whose power is defined within the context of imnumerated powers and this is more than a matter of structural mechanics because it goes to the heart of the issue of governmental power. or of if one prefers the slip side of the coin, personal freedom and responsibility. if government has the power to require that you buy item a, it means that you are less able to buy item b, c, d or anything else. now economists would call this the opportunity costs or foregone goods or services. but the fundamental question is the question of freedom to choose how we as individuals will spend the fruits of our labor. certainly the commerce clause lax the elassitiesity that would accommodate a requirement that

every american buy health insurance which conforms to the dictates of the federal government and the federal government would change it on a yearly basis. such an interpretation would render the nation articulated by james madison and federalist 45 that is one of limited government anality. i know we have smart people here. i know we have those in the administration who believe that this is totally constitutional. but frankly, mr. speaker, my bet goes with james madison. he did say that the powers delegated by the proposed constitution of the federal government are few and defined. he did say that the federal government will be exercising their responsibilities principally on external objects as war, peace negotiations and foreign commerce and the states would do much else. then we have the 10th amendment, later adopted. which said again that this is a

government of limited, imnumerated powers. now either the 10th amendment means something or it means nothing and either james madison knows what he was talking about or he does not. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to recognize and congratulate the gentleman from maryland, the ranking member of government reform, elijah cummings, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cummings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise before you in opposition to the bill we are considering today. i've heard from many of my constituents and small business owners who are grateful for the benefits of this law. children with pre-existing conditions are no longer being denied access to private health insurance. mafrlede small businesses offering health insurance to their employees are eligible for a 35% tax credit. further raverpbinging member of committee on government -- further, as ranking member of committee on government and oversight reform, i know that

this would eliminate the private health plan providing coverage for many uninsured americans with pre-existing conditions. i find it repugnant that republicans want to strip americans of this law's protections that will save the lives of our fellow citizens. i urge a no vote on this bill and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. less we forget, this is the disaster that we're told would be repugnant it started out as an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986, first time home buyers' credit of the u.s. armed forces. we took a bill that was designed to help veterans and the senate stripped it all out and stuck in

this disaster of a health care bill, just as we heard in the late 1990's that you can't pass welfare reform, you'll leave women without anything, you heartless, mean people. it was because people here had hearts and wanted to see women with children doing better that welfare reform had to be done. it was sent to the president and wouldn't sign it and finally he signed it. and for the first time since the great society legislation came about, after 30 years of flatlining when adjusted for inflation, single women with children, after welfare reform began to have increases in income. we heard all the naysayers then and we are hearing them now. it's because we want people to have the best health care. it's because we don't want what the president said when he told the democratic caucus before it

passed, gee, you go to the doctor now and have five tests, after this bill, you'll go and get one test. my mother had to have six days to find her tumor. i want health care to be legislated the way the president promised it would be and once we get this disaster out of the way, no matter how many times we have to send it, it will be time to pass a bill that gets real health care reform. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i recognize representative sewell from alabama for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. sewell: i rise in opposition to repeal this legislation that has helped so many constituents of mine. nearly two weeks ago, i was honored by being sworn in as a

representative of the 7th congressional district of alabama. on day one, i received numerous calls from my constituents urging me to oppose this repeal and i heard from countless voices that the health care that has been enacted has helped them. let me tell you a story. both are on medicare. mr. cheetham have suffered several heart attacks. during several of the provisions in the affordable health care act has helped them to get their prescriptions. now they don't have to choose between putting food on the table, gas in their cars or paying for their medication. the affordable care act is the first step towards strengthening our health care system and is saving the lives of many many in my district. i urge my colleagues to vote know on this resolution.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield two minutes to the the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. goodlatte: i thank the chame for yielding. i rise in strong support of this legislation, which repeals the sweeping health care reform law rammed through congress last year. this new law amounts to a big government takeover of our health care system, one that will lead to fewer choices, higher prices and rationed care and creates more than 150 new government agencies and programs at a cost of well over $1.2 trillion. it includes over $560 billion indefinite stating new tax increases and cuts medicare by over $500 billion. americans are frustrated by rising health care costs. we must repeal the new health care law that kills jobs, raises

taxes and causes seniors to lose the coverage they have and increases the costs of health care coverage. we must replace it with commonsense reforms that lower health care costs and empower patients. for those who argue that somehow this is going to save the taxpayers' money, think of the mandates that are not covered by the federal government. think of the fact that it is not credible at a time when senior citizens and baby boomers are going to retire in unprecedented numbers to takes $500 billion out of the medicare program and think of the jobs being lost because the taxes on this are already being put into place. yet the benefits don't occur for four years. that legislation was smoking mirrors. this legislation repeals it. we should sort it and then start anew on commonsense reforms and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i recognize the gentleman from iowa, mr. braley, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. braley: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to show the face of the repeal of health care. this is tucker wright from iowa, he is four years old and two years ago before the affordable care act was passed, he was diagnosed with liver cancer and had 2/3 of his liver removed and he faces a long and uncertain medical future. but on january 2 of this year, because we passed the affordable health care act, tucker's father brett was able to change jobs because he no longer had to worry about the stigma of pre-existing conditions. now, when you talk about repealing this bill, i tell you why it's not a good deal for tucker wright, because even though our friends talk about wanting to fix some of the

problems that they now think are important, the first thing that's going to happen to tucker wright and his family as soon as this bill is repealed is his family will get a recision letter from the insurance company because they will no longer be able to provide insurance to this young boy because he has pre-existing conditions. that's why this bill is a bad idea and i urge you to vote no and think about tucker wright. i yield back. mr. smith: madam speaker, how much time remains. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has 5 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from michigan has 8 1/2 minutes. mr. smith: i reserve our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. walz of minnesota is recognized for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for one minute.

mr. walz: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to state my strong opposition to the repealing of the affordable care act. it will eliminate consumer protections, raise taxes on small businesses, explode deficits and put insurance c.e.o.'s between americans and their doctor. i represent mayo clinic. they are a symbol when we deliver the world's highest quality care at the most efficient and effective costs. when we passed this law last year, they said it was a good first step and i agree. now is not the time to step backwards. folks in my district are seeing the benefits of this law. seniors have help for getting prescription drugs and saving money and just a few weeks ago, i received a letter from a dad in my district named paul. his son is 21, works part-time and has diabetes. joe couldn't get the insurance he needed to pay for the expensive equipment he needs to stay healthy and alive.

paul said thank you for passing the affordable care act. because of the law, joe got back on his parents' insurance. a vote to repeal this legislation pulls that card away. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield one minute to the the gentleman from new york, mr. reed, new member of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. reed: i rise today in support of the repeal of the job-killing obamacare legislation. this bill is a whopping 2,500 pages of of new spending and government bureaucracy. rushed to approval after only 48 hours of arm twisting and deal making. unfortunately, just as republicans predicted, this legislation did absolutely nothing to address the real problem in the health care, its costs. republicans have advocated for tort reform to be included in

any legislation, for just as long those who have wrote this legislation have ignored the need for tort reform. the congressional budget office estimates tort reform initiatives could save $54 billion. i will say that the other side attempted to reform tort reform by providing $50 million for states to consider the concept of tofert reform. here we go again, another example of what's wrong with washington, spending $50 million how to figure out how to save money. republicans have a better plan, which one which reduces health care costs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. smith: i yield to the jar 30 seconds. reed reed american -- mr. reed: gets lawyers and bureaucrats out of our lawyers. let's repeal the bill and focus on bipartisan initiatives like fixing the doughnut hole and

without spending an additional $50 million. until we do so, jobs will continue to be lost. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: we recognize for one minute the gentleman from missouri, rust carnahan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. carnahan: i rise in strong opposition to this bill that would hurt small businesses in missouri who are finally imagining access to affordable coverage for their employees. the health care coverage for small firms has increased at more than 12%. those small business owners will lose tax credits that are providing up to 50% of their health care costs and will have to drop the very health insurance they have now been able to provide employees and their families. these are real people. people like michelle barron, who

owns a book store. she used to provide health care, but over the years, couldn't keep up. she had to drop employees and finally drop her own coverage because of pre-existing conditions. last year when the health care bill was signed into law, new options opened up for issue ell and other business owners like her. if we repeal health care, it will turn back the clock for small business owners. insurers will go back to denying coverage for pre-existing conditions and small business owners would lose tax credits to make health care coverage affordable. we can't go back to insurance company control. this is not the time to step backwards. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield one minute to the the gentleman from arizona, mr. quayle. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. quayle: i rise in support of house resolution 2. last year, behind closed doors and against the will of the

american people, the democratic majority of the 111th congress passed a bill that fundamentally changes the doctor-patient relationship and passed the bill that will increase the cost of health care and explode our national debt. they passed the bill that expands the scope of government well beyond the parameters set forth in the constitution. the genius of our constitution, that this will document didn't set forth what the government must do for us but rather the government can't do to us. to require every individual to enter within a commercial contract falls within that category. the people of my district understands this, just as they understand our health care system needs reforms that will reduce costs and increase access. unfortunately, the health care bill that was passed will increase costs and increase our national debt. those who drafted the bill will try to conceal the true costs from the american people, but if you look beyond, that bill increases our debt by $701

billion. it is time to get our country back on the right track and h.r. 2 is the necessary step to fulfilling that mission. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i recognize the distinguished gentlelady from florida, debbie wasserman schultz for two minutes. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you madam speaker. it's important to address the notion of job killing versus job creating. we have heard a lot of talk about the title of this bill and the jobs that it supposedly kills. let's look at the facts here though, of the 1.1 million private sector jobs documented that were created last year, 200,000 of those were in the health care sector or 1/5. we had an average of 20,000 jobs per month created in the health

care sector alone over the course of the last two years. there have been no job losses in the health care sector, none. and i challenge our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, on the republican side of the aisle who are advocating the repeal of health care reform on the premise that it is a job killer, to name one area of health care, one, where there had been job losses. i would suspect that we would hear crickets chirping because there are none. there isn't a single area, not before and not since. and also, i think it is important to address the comments from the the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, who stated president obama told the democratic caucus that health care reform would allow us to shrink five tests performed on a patient to one. that is not true. that never happened. he never said that and at the end of the day, we need to make sure we are entitled to our

opinions, but not to our own facts. i suspect that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are making up their own facts, because their arguments don't stand on the strength of their ideas and aren't strong enough to stand on their own. i thought it was important to clear that up, mr. speaker. and i yield back. . mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to mr. griffin, maybe of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for one minute. mr. griffith: mr. speaker, i thank -- mr. griffin: i believe we need health care reform badly. but the law we got isn't what we need. this is why i rise today in support of h.r. 2, to repeal the current health care law. the health care law provides for an increased government role and will ultimately lead to decisions made by the government instead of doctors and patients. it ignores the issue of cost.

it was loaded with gimmicks to make it seem deficit-neutral. but once those are accounted for, we find that it adds over $700 billion to the deficit in the next 10 years. the health care law and especially the unconstitutional mandate handicaps our ability to grow jobs. small businesses will be hit hardest because they operate on the tightest margins and will have the toughest time complying with the onerous regulations. many of the regulations are still not written, creating uncertainty for employers. we must repeal the law and replace it with one that lowers costs, preserves the doctor-patient relationship -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. smith: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. mr. griffin: thank you, mr. chairman. lets americans keep the coverage they have, allows the private sector to create jobs and follows the constitution. thank you, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i

yield rob andrews of new jersey one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, as we meet this afternoon there are 15 million unemployed americans. and no matter where you go in this country, you hear that the number one concern of our constituents is creating an environment where businesses and entrepreneurs can put people back to work. so what is the house doing this week? relitigating, regurge dating, rearguing a political debate about health care again. i believe the people of this country want us to work together to get jobs back in the american economy. the republicans offer us a slogan, a job-killing health care bill. what kills jobs is paral sis in congress -- paralysis in

congress. what kills jobs is ignoring the economic problems of this country. no it's not simply the right vote on the merits, it's the right vote because this is the wrong bill at the wrong time. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: madam speaker, we only have one more speaker on this side and we're prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: how much time have we remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from texas has 1 3/4. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i yield myself a minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. conyers: i'd like -- because this is the judiciary committee and so little has been said about the constitutionality, i am pleased to quote from the

dean of the law school of the university of california who said that opposing health care reform and relying on an argument that it is unconstitutional is an inadequate way to proceed. somebody here must remember that there is medicare, medicaid, social security. please, this is not new that the government would be intervening in this way. maybe we need to revise and revisit the questions of constitutionality. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from texas. mr. smith: madam speaker, we continue to be ready to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i yield to sheila jackson lee of texas, a senior member of the committee, for the remaining time. which is about one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, you're absolutely right. this is a constitutional question that has been raised. as i came to the floor earlier, i mentioned my predecessor, congresswoman jordan, who believed in this constitution without question. i mentioned the 14th amendment. i now mention the fifth amendment. first of all, the commerce clause covers this bill but the fifth amendment speaks specifically to denying someone their life and liberty without due process. that is what h.r. 2 does. and i rise in opposition to it. and i rise in opposition because it is important that we preserve lives and we recognize that 40

million-plus are uninsured. in my own county, harris county, this bill will allow some 800,000 uninsured members of harris county, citizens of harris county, to be insured in texas. in addition, the texas department of insurance, as many other states, have already begun implementing this bill, the patient protection bill, gladly so and saying it will help save lives and provide for the families of their states. can you tell me what is more unconstitutional than taking away from the people of america their fifth amendment rights, their 14th amendment rights and the right to equal protection under the law? i know that mr. lamb, who suffers from schizophrenia, with his family, mrs. betty, when had to go to the e.r. room in texas because no insurance, mr. smith who was on dialysis, or mr. fields whose mother couldn't get dental care, i know they would question why we're taking away their rights. today we stand before this body, we beg of them to ask themselves

whether this is all about politics or about the american people. i'm prepared to stand, extend a hand of friendship. standing on the constitution to enable us to provide for all of the citizens of this country. this bill has been vetted, this bill is constitutional and it protects the constitutional rights of those who ask the question, must i die, must my china child die because i am now -- child die because i am now disallowed from getting insurance? this is about your primary care doctor. this is about closing the doughnut hole that will allow you to be able to get discounts on your prescription drugs that some of you have avoided because you have to pay your rent and you have to buy your food. texas, a big state, has already said through a governmental agency, we need this bill. and we hope that those who come from our state and many other states will not vote against the

protection of patients, vote against h.r. 2 and provide yourself with the protection of the constitution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: madam speaker, i yield myself the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: madam speaker, the democrats' health care bill squanders health care resources and taxpayer money by encouraging wasteful, defensive medicine. it explicitly prevents stage from making any -- states from making legal reforms under its provisions and expands opportunities for lawyers to sue doctors who did absolutely nothing wrong. and it limits the supply of doctors when patients need them most. in fact, one particularly costly part of our health care system is the practice of so-called defensive medicine which occur when is doctors are forced by the threat of lawsuits to conduct tests and prescribe drugs that are not medically required. a survey released last year found defensive medicine is practiced by virtually all physicians. lawsuit abuse does more than

make medical care much more expensive, it drives doctors out of business. doctors who especiallyize in inherently high-risk fields are leaving their practices and hospitals are shutting down because their high exposure to liability makes law suit -- lawsuit shine insurance unaffordable and it can have deadly consequences. hundreds and thousands of patients may die annually for lack of doctors. madam speaker, the democrats' health care law will produce more litigation and less effective health care. that is why it should be repealed. i'll yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri, mr. graves, and the gentlelady from new york, mr. velazquez, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri. mr. graves: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. grave grave thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 2, legislation to repeal the job-destroying health care law that was rushed through congress last year. the american people have repeatedly voiced their frustration over the way the health care law put the american -- or put the government between patients and their doctors. they have protested this law, they have demanded that reform of our nation's health care system focus not on bigger government, not on more bureaucrat, but on targeting commonsense changes that encourage competition and better choices. instead of listening to the people, washington gave them a law that piles more than $500 billion in tax increases on families and small businesses.

this will force as much as 80% of all small businesses to give up their current coverage and could cost our economy $1.6 million -- 1.6 million jobs, one million of which could come from small businesses. all of these new regulations and restrictions included in the law will make it more difficult for small businesses to hire new workers, expand their operations and offer competitive wages. with unemployment still hovering above 9%, families and businesses cannot afford more regulations and red tape from washington. it's going to make jobs more scarce and further slow our economic recovery. my republican colleagues and i repeatedly tried to reach across the aisle to craft a better bill when this was pushed through. and was disappointed that rather than listened to their counterparts and the american people, those in charge when this was pushed through chose to put a completely partisan, wildly unpopular bill through the people's house. we now have an opportunity to give the people what they want by repealing this law and replacing it with meaningful reforms that will cut costs and increase access without creating big problems for businesses or piling more unsustainable debt

on future generations. i urge friends and members to vote in support of this and repeal this legislation and join me in implementing better solutions for improving our nation's health care stim -- system. i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from new york. ms. velazquez: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. velazquez: madam speaker, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. i rise in opposition to the bill before us today. as we begin the 112th congress, it is unfortunate that one of the first bills before this body is more about politics than poim. this bill will not help a single small business secure a loan, open a new market for its products or invest back nits operations. -- back in its operations. the other side acknowledges this legislation is going nowhere.

it is ironic this grandstanding occurs when health insurance continues to be a top challenge facing small businesses. over the last decade, small employers have seen their premiums rise by over 114% with no sign of relief. it is hard to imagine how repeal will help small businesses. in fact, it could do significant harm. the bill before us today imposes a $40 billion tax increase by eliminatinging critical small business tax credits. these have already helped secure costs and reduced and increased coverage rates by nearly 12% in the past year. repeal will also eliminate choices for entrepreneurs. currently in the majority of states the two largest insurers

have a combined market share of 70% or more. by doing away with reforms that establish new health insurance markets, it will limit small businesses' ability to secure coverage. small businesses already pay 20% more than their corporate counterparts and the laws of new safeguards will compound this problem. because of health reform, insurers are no longer able to raise rates arbitrarily without explaining why. they cannot deny coverage based on a pre-existing condition or because an employee gets sick. passage of this bill will also strip new protections that provide small businesses we have heard how important reforms were excluded from the

original legislation. they say for this reason, the house will start from scratch and enact a new health care law. however, when republicans were in control of both chambers and held the other office, they talk about their solutions for nearly a decade and yet, nothing happened. in the meantime, small businesses saw their employees' premiums rise by an average of $700 every single year. small businesses pay nearly $14,000 for a policy that cost $6,500 in 2000. why should small businesses believe they can deliver on a promise this time? while our economy has added nearly 400,000 jobs over the past three months, more must be done. we must continue to confront the

problem of health coverage for small businesses, but voting for today's bill will not do that. i urge members to oppose the bill and i urge the new leadership to find meaningful ways to address this nation's economic challenges. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri. >> i would yield one minute to the the gentleman from south carolina. mr. mulvaney: i rise in favor of h.r. 2 and it's hard to know where to begin when you are talking about how bad the current health care legislation is for small business. the current health care bill that this congress passed last year has an inp senttive for businesses to go from 50 to 49. incentive to go from 25 employees to fewer and disincentive for small

businesses to go. a financial incentive to pay your employees less because the tax credits that we talked about last year goes away as you pay your folks more. it's almost as if the folks who wrote this piece of legislation last year have no idea how small business works or don't care. either way the current health care legislation is a complete disaster for small business and number one priority for small business this year should be repealing the existing health care and passing of h.r. 2. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york. ms. velazquez: i yield as much time as necessary. in the state of south carolina, as a result of this repeal legislation, small businesses in the state of south carolina will see a tax increase of $540 million. with that, i yield two minutes to the the gentleman from, mr.

cicilline. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 2. if we repeal, the following things will happen, children with pre-existing diseases will be denied coverage and people under the age of 26 will be denied. seniors will pay more and small businesses will pay 20% more than their corporate counterparts for providing the same health care coverage. small businesses would lose the incentive for providing coverage to their employees and up to 50% tax credit which has increased coverage of small firms by more than 10% and would use that tax credit to hire additional employees. this law establishes consumer protections, incentivizes wellness programs and establishes cost controls and cost-cutting exchanges. for small businesses, that means driving down the cost of providing health insurance and providing assistance for small

businesses that are struggling to skyrocketing premiums. small businesses pay 18% more than than large businesses for the same coverage and health insurance premiums have gone up three times faster than wages in the past 10 years. i would just -- i ask for 15 seconds. small business tax credits are critical to providing small businesses the opportunity to provide insurance to their employees. we made a promise to those small businesses to make it yees easier to thrive and this is the first good step and i urge to vote against this repeal. >> i yield one minute to the the gentleman from tennessee for one minute. mr. fleischmann: i rise in support of the repeal of obamacare. this is my first speech on the floor as a member of congress and i thought it only appropriate that it be on this

topic, a topic i campaigned hard on and a topic i believe strongly in. we must repeal this health care legislation. as a small business owner for the past 24 years, i know firsthand the kind of damage this legislation would do to american small business if it is allowed to be put in place. the national federation of independent business research foundation conducted a study that showed the employer mandate found in obamacare could lead to a loss of 1.6 million jobs throughout the country and 66% of those lost jobs would come from the small business work force. that same study showed that small businesses would lose roughly $113 billion in output. as a member of the small business committee, i promise to use my personal experience to fight every day for small business owners everywhere. the speaker pro tempore:

the gentleman's time has expired. mr. fleischmann: starting tonight, we must repeal obamacare and i yield back. ms. velazquez: i yield two minutes to the the gentleman from north carolina. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> i rise today to speak against this bill, even before the recession, my state, north carolina, was losing one wave of jobs after another in our traditional industries and we have needed the energy and job creation that comes from small business, from people leaving jobs whether jumped or pushed and starting their own business. half of our economy is generated by small business and even more important, small businesses create 75% of new jobs. by providing access to state high risk pools, the health care reform bill passed last year will make it possible for small businesses to start their own business without worrying they are going to lose health care

for themselves and their families and i know what it's like to buy health insurance for employees. one of the greatest frustrations, trying to find something affordable and trying to figure out what you bought and you won't know until one of your employees gets sick or hurt. the bill passed last year, the legislation will make it affordable. it will provide tax credits to 35% for small businesses to provide health insurance and will go up to 50%. that will increase health care coverage among small business owners and even more important and they will know what they got, insurance that really covers what it ought to cover and not filled with small print exceptions of one kind of care after another, one condition after another. employees are going to get the care they need. reform has freed people to want to start a business, do it without worrying about what kind of shape that's going to leave

them in and their family members in and i urge my colleagues to vote against this bill, to put those small businesses back in the uncertain land. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri. >> i yield one minute to another member of the small business committee, gentlelady from washington. mr. butterfield: i rise in support of this -- ms. herrera beutler: and i rise in support of this bill. this year, we have the chance to correct mistakes made by both parties. the obamacare bill passed by the other party last year was the wrong approach and does nothing to decrease the inflationary curve of health care. it was the wrong approach. and no party is perfect last time the party had the majority, many on our side of the aisle

worked diligently to reform health care, the job was left undone. getting this right is one of the reasons my constituents sent me to congress. solutions exist that can fix our health care system and bring costs down for middle-income families. today, we hit reset on health care reform and i invite my colleagues to join me in advancing solutions, solutions like small business health plans, ending junk lawsuits that drive up the costs of everyone's cost and health savings accounts and buying insurance across state lines. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from from new york. ms. velazquez: i would like to inquire how much time is remaining. the speaker pro tempore: 12 1/4 minutes remaining and the gentleman from missouri has 15 minutes remaining. ms. velazquez: at this time, i

reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri. >> madam speaker, i would yield one minute to the the gentleman from colorado, mr. tip ton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. tipton: thank you, madam speaker. the question is, will we accept what is or are we willing to commit for what to be. america has always been the land of self-determination. our constitutionally-guaranteed rights as individuals, as a people, as a nation, has made us flourish. creativity are hallmarks. i rise in support of house resolution 2. it does not indict inat the present time but it does address outcome. the deeper we dig into the health care act, the more we discover that it is stopping job creation, building more government and placing tax burdens on american families who are already struggling. we can and must do better.

let us commit ourselves to hold these concerns, affordability and ack set built and empower our people to make their own choices and empower private sector solutions that will lower costs and increase the quality of care and eliminate government and not build bigger government. i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york. ms. velazquez: i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the the gentlewoman from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. ms. roybal-allard: many americans have more freedom to choose. in my congressional district, 40% of my constituents were uninsured, thousands more were underinsured and living on the brink of financial disaster when facing an illness or accident. with health reform positive change is taking place for them and for individuals, families

and small businesses throughout the country. young adults can remain on their parents' insurance until 26. seniors not living in fear are thankful for discounts on brand-named drugs. families of pre-existing conditions are comforted by the new high risk insurance pool and those facing serious illnesses are relieved their insurers can no longer drop them. small businesses which abound in my district and mainstay in the minority communities can take advantage of tax credits to offer health insurance to their employees. a 2009 study by an economist found that without reform, over the next decade, employers will pay trillions of dollars in employee health costs, potentially cut 170,000 small business jobs and lose $51.2 billion in profits. that is why the founder and

c.e.o. of the small business majority supports health care reform. madam speaker, h.r. 2 will hurt small business and will repeal the freedoms and protections americans now have and it will return control of their health care to the insurance companies. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from missouri. >> i yield one minute to the the gentleman from louisiana, mr. landry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one mind. mr. landry: >> i -- mr. landry: it is with great enthusiasm that i rise to encourage my colleagues to stand with the american people. the hard-working families and small business owners across our country and vote for repealing the job-killing health care law. in march, they passed a massive