china. i'm honored and fortunate to have congressman porter's support and valuable mentorship as i begin my career in this body. for the past decade and following in congressman porter's footsteps, the people of the 10th congressional district have been tremendously fortunate to enjoy the representation of mark kirk. in congress, mark kirk set the standard for thoughtful, independent leadership. and his centrist pragmatism mirrored the values of our district. his success is no secret to me or anyone who followed his career. mark kirk worked tirelessly in allers of our district. -- in all areas of our district. the 10th district is a unique area that demands independent leadership. . congressman kirk knew the people and their concerns and he knew how to translate that into action and legislative successes. to look at his record of

accomplishments in the area of foreign policy, defense, environmental protection, human rights, transportation and on the economy is to see a representative who knows what his constituents value most. his record as a fiscal conserve and a social moderate, -- conservative and a social moderate, to serve across the aisle for the best ideas, these are the qualities i hope to carry forward as i begin my career. i am honor and fortunate to call now senator kirk a close friend, a valued mentor. we are comforted by the fact that senator kirk continues to represent the state of illinois and all americans in the united states senate. and the communities of northern cook and eastern lake counties are privileged to share his talents with the rest of the state and the country. like congressman porter and congressman kirk, i too will represent our independent-minded congressional district by working in a bipartisan fashion, by listening to all people for

the best ideas and by governing in a pragmatic, sensible manner. the american people demand solutions. and i will always remember that all of us are here to improve the lives of all americans. while we can and should disagree at times, i am committed to the principles of open debate, the free exchange of ideas and to charitabley interpreting and considering other positions. all with a common objective, improving the lives of america. to that end i will be a strong and independent fiscal conservative and social moderate. that i believe matches our communities' values and so accurately and valueably represented before me by congressman porter and congressman kirk. i ran for congress because i wanted to get this nation back to work, to me that centers on three things. jobs and jump starting the economy, iranianing -- reining

in the out-of-control spending here in washington, and making sure that our country remains safe and free. our first priority in this congress must be to help ensure that the best conditions exist to create good jobs, high-paying and secure jobs for all people across this country. and to preserve those that already exist, it's jobs first and foremost. as i've so often been reminded, the unemployment rate nationally is 9.4%. in illinois it's even higher. and in certain communities within the 10th district, the unemployment rate is higher than 20% to. me this is simply unacceptable which is why -- 20%. to me this is simply unacceptable which is why i will support the institutions that provide training to the unemployed. on a more fundamentally level, however, we need laser-like focus on job creation. this means establishing certainty across america for

employers, keeping taxes low, maintaining vigorous oversight on federal regulations and expanding opportunities so that business men and women can do what they were meant to do, to innovate, to prosper, to grow, to invest and to hire. we need to ensure that the federal government is not making it more difficult and more costly for businesses to put the key in the door and open up their businesses each and every day. as a small business owner myself, i'm here as part of a wave of people who know firsthand what it takes to run a company, to meet a payroll and to meet a budget and to create jobs. this is not theory but rather this is commonsense, proven, practical approach which will guide my philosophies in this congress. this is a great american priority. and we must get it right. next we must tackle federal spending and get it under

control. to get our fiscal house in order . there can be no greater example as to the urgency of this matter than what happened in my home state of illinois this last week. during the final hours of the state's legislative session last wednesday, illinois state lawmakers passed a massive state income tax increase to make up for the state's rampant, unchecked spending. with a 66% increase in personal income tax rate and corporate income tax rates also rising dramatically, families and businesses in illinois are being punished because the politicians cannot control themselves and the spending. this acts as a huge additional burden with no meaningful state commitment to cut spending. this is devastating for job creation in a state that so desperately needs it. we need to encourage job creation and this will only increase the trend of employers not hiring, laying off and potentially even leaving the

state. i will work hard to make sure that the 10th district, american families and businesses are not put in a similar position, crippling themselves here at the federal level. and that work begins immediately. tomorrow afternoon this house will vote on health care reform. an area where i think last year we missed a golden opportunity. last year's health care overhaul addressed access to insurance but it failed to address cost or quality of health care. earlier today i held an event in my district in vernon hills to highlight yet one small very small section in this legislation, one that will have a devastating impact on businesses. the new 1099 rules. this provision will unfairly burden small businesses with mounds of paperwork and compliance fees and will certainly hinder the economy at

the worst possible time. fortunately i believe that most in this body see the wisdom in correcting this terrible legislative mistake. i am proud to be a co-sponsor of this bill, to repeal these unworkable and unnecessary and unproductive 1099 rules. i look forward to working with both republicans and democrats to keep this legislation simple and to pass it as soon as possible. now when we look at health care there are certainly some good as expects of this law. the coverage of pre-existing conditions, for one that should be strongly considered. going forward there is also keeping children on your insurance until they're 26. but there's a lot, plenty, that needs to be corrected. and we need to put a better system in place. i firm pli believe that affordable and -- i firmly believe that affordable and accessible health care is a vital issue and we need to make sure it's available to all americans but we need to be taking -- talking about

meaningful malpractice reform, interstate competition, consumer-driven care and tax breaks for individuals to purchase insurance on their own, just like businesses have today. the american people deserved better, they deserve health care reform that passes the house with broad bipartisan support. one of the reasons for the major plaws -- flaws in this health care law is that broad, bipartisan cooperation did not happen. rather than the -- rather the law came out of a process where ideas were ignored. we cannot afford another missed opportunity. as such i invite all members of this congress, republicans and democrats, to reach across party lines so that we can produce the best bill with the best ideas for the american public. in that spirit in s my intent to introduce a practical intern to the current heament care law. it will reduce health care costs

and will guarantee that the government does not come between a decision you make with your doctor. it will address malpractice reform and allow any individual who finds a plan that better suits them anywhere in our nation to be able to purchase it. it is critical that we move forward in this -- in this area of health care reform so we can have the best system possible. one that works for all americans. this is a sentiment that i have consistently heard in communities all across the 10th district. another concern i hear all over our district and a major priority of mine is to keep our nation's -- our nation safe and free. the 10th district is fortunate to have a tradition of congressional leadership on national defense and foreign affairs. and i look forward to stepping forward in this area. i will always be focused on keeping our nation strong and free. and it will be an honor to work to support the incredible men and women who wear our nation's uniform in service.

on a more local level, i will be an advocate for our veterans as they return home and become acquainted with the beautiful captain james a. level health center in north chicago. this is the first fully integrated federal health center between the v.a. and the department of defense and we owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to senators kirk and durbin, along with many others, for bringing it to the o'to our community. this facility shows our commitment to those who serve but it also shows and serves as a reminder of the sacrifice required to protect american freedoms. currently i believe iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon to be the biggest threat to our national security. and to our democratic allies abroad. the sanctions that congress passed last year are clearly having an impact on the iranian regime but i believe that we cannot rest until the iranian nuclear threat is affirmatively and effectively dismantled. i pledge to aggressively monitor

developments in this area and search for ways which i can help in congress because a nuclear-armed iran is simply unacceptable. in my mind, one of the best ways to combat this iranian threat is a strong u.s.-israel relationship. i traveled to israel this past year in order to see firsthand the security challenges the united states and israel currently face together in the middle east. as such i fully understand why a strong u.s.-israel relationship is critical for the united states and i look forward to using my voice here in congress to continue to advocate for its strengthening. finally i'd like to turn to two areas that are particularly important to me and to the people of my district. education and the environment. i believe that education is a building block for a prosperous america of tomorrow. we must encourage schools to

prepare our students for success in the jobs our modern economy demands. and i'm confident in the ability of our local school districts to prepare our students appropriately. i do believe a one-size-fits-all model sometimies innovation and -- stimies innovation and education. we must give more authority and control to local school districts. however we must not allow unfunded federal mandates and programs to get in the way of our local school districts providing high quality education. as a scout, a boy scout and a scout master, i was taught by my scout masters, lee, charlie and artie, to love the out of doors and nature. in northeastern illinois we are fortunate to have stewards of one of the greatest natural resources in the world. lake michigan. with 26 miles of lake michigan

shoreline, the 10th congressional district enjoys tremendous benefits from its precious resources. we have an important obligation to preserve and protect this great natural resource that is vital to the 10th district and to the entire united states from drinking water to recreational opportunities i will work diligently to protect the lake, to improve her water quality. i will also work with local, state and federal parties to clean up waukegan harbor and delist this wonderful resource as an area of environmental concern once and for all. focusing on jobs in the economy, reining in federal spending and keeping our nation safe and free and working to strengthen our nation's health care system, our education system and our environment, these are major legislative goals for the 112th congress and in the tradition of those who would serve the people of chicago's north and northwest suburbs before me, i look to be a voice of pragmatic, centrist

ideas, someone who listens to all people on both sides of the aisle and lookses for -- looks for ways that we can work together to best serve the american people. as a fiscal conservative and a social moderate, i'm a firm believer in smaller government. this will guide my service in this house. i have some very large shoes to fill but it is my promise that i will represent this office with dignity, distinction, honor and above all integrity. i thank the people of the 10th district of illinois for the opportunity to serve them, i will never forget why i am here or who i am here to represent. thank you. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.

mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, thank you for this opportunity to discuss this evening health care. but before i get to health care, i was notified early this afternoon that a very unique, iconic american had died today. sergeant shriver is no longer with us. this individual has had an impact on america and the world around us that will last for centuries. he literally created the united states peace corps. the idea was developed by he and his brother-in-law, j.f.k., and put into effect in the first

year of the jack kennedy thousands of americans have joined the peace corps in the ensuing years. for my wife and i, it changed our life and the path upon which we traveled. we were the third iteration of the peace corps. we served in a village out in southwestern ethiopia and put in place in our lives the vision that we could and should continue to serve. we're not alone. thousands affected by peace corps here in this nation found that same mission of being alive of service. in the 1990's, he returned once again to assist the peace corps as the clinton administration took the rebuilding and

expansion of the peace corps. my work was working as the society director. they and the other staff opened the peace corps to the former soviet union nations, eastern europe and beyond and also to south africa. it was a period of growth and once again it was a period in which the shriver enthusiasm and determination to reach out to everyone in this world so they could have a better life was created -- these opportunities. we mourn his passage. our prayers go out to his family and to remind all of us that we, too, and in any way possible, should be serving our fellow man. we miss you. and we know that america and millions of people around the world that were affected by your programs will miss you also.

let me now turn to another issue that affects every american, there well-being, their lives, their ability to get the care that they need when they have health care problems. on this floor today, we began the debate of the repeal of the affordable health care act. an extraordinary law that will affect each and every one of us in this nation and as it affects us, it will affect people around the world because it will finally join the other industrialized nations in the world and provide health care to all of our people, not just those who are fortunate enough to be employed by an employer who has found it useful, wise or even correct to provide health care for their employees, but for those individuals who are not so fortunate to be with an employer that does not provide health care and for those who

are unemployed. this is an extremely important debate going on here on the floor of the house. it's a debate about all of our lives. it was estimated before this law, some 30,000 to 40,000 americans every year lost their life because they did not have health care. it was too late for them to get their blood pressure under control, it was too late for them to deal with a diabetic situation or their cancer had run its course so it was not treatable. 30,000 to 40,000 americans every year. that's not the way america should be. we should be providing insurance to all americans. on the floor today, the debate commenced and i was pleased and a bit curious to hear my colleagues on the republican side talk about the repeal and replace. and as they talked about what they would replace, i began to

say, excuse me, wait a minute, what you're replacing is already the law in america. the health care bill that became law this year deals with every american from birth through their school years, through their years as building a family, in their employment and through their retirement. it deals with the entire cycle of life by providing the opportunity for health insurance, improved health insurance at every stage of life. let me show you how it works. it's the patients' bill of rights. which he apparently, our republican colleagues, want to repeal. the patients' bill of rights is a fundamental reform of the insurance industry. i was insurance commissioner for eight years in california and i

understand the insurance industry very, very well, and it's about profit. all too often the health insurance industry puts people before profit -- actually the way around, profit before people. so in doing so, they deny coverage. the patients' bill of rights goes directly to this issue of insurance companies putting profit before people. let me show you where this works. children, my very first speech on the floor as the health care debate came up in 2009, in november of 2009, i spoke to an individual, a friend of ours who lives here in washington, whose child was born with a very serious kidney problem. the mother was covered by insurance through the pregnancy, through the delivery. the child, the moment it was discovered that this child had

this pre-existing kidney ailment, they dropped the coverage on the child. the family struggled and continues to struggle to provide care for that child. limping along, trying to get the money together for the next procedure to provide the services that are necessary ks -- the transplant, all of those things should have been covered by insurance. with the insurance company putting profit before coverage, they denied coverage. the patients' bill of rights stops that and says every child has the right to coverage, no longer discrimination that took place here with my friend's family. young adults, i happen to have six young adults, all of whom passed the age of 23 and when their coverage stopped was the scary time for us and it is for every family.

at the age of 23, insurance companies were allowed to drop patients' coverage. and if you are a 23-year-old and you have any kind of a pre-existing condition, you're out of luck. the patients' bill of rights guarantees that that young man or woman will get coverage until the age of 26 and if they have a pre-existing condition, that can no longer be a reason to deny coverage. patients' bill of rights would be repealed by the piece of legislation that will be brought to this floor tomorrow. if you are a woman, you have a pre-existing condition. it's called being a female. and routinely and i have seen this during my tenure as insurance commissioner, routinely, they would deny coverage because you are a woman and might get pregnant or any number of conditions. that will no longer be the case.

if you happen to have cancer, you cannot be denied coverage. the patients' bill of rights protects every single american when it comes to getting insurance and keeping insurance. many other provisions are in this bill. and i find it astounding that our colleagues on the republican side would repeal the patients' bill of rights and literally open every single american up to the gross discrimination that the insurance companies have hoisted upon americans for decades, putting profits before people. there are many other parts to the patients' bill of rights, but i want to take a moment and invite to this conversation my colleague from the great state of new jersey, frank pallone, who has been fighting this fight for decades, both as a member of congress and as a concerned citizen. mr. pallone, if you could share with us your thoughts and experiences and we'll continue

on with this discussion. mr. pallone: i want to thank you for all that you do on this issue. i have seen you come to the floor so many times over the last year or more, talking about the importance of the health care reform and now, of course, pointing out how ridiculous it is to try to repeal it which republicans will try to do it tomorrow. we were just home for the martin luther king weekend and so there was an opportunity to talk to a lot of people at the various martin luther king events and over the three, four days we were home. and the issue is jobs. that's all people want to talk about. everyone comes up to me and says, what are you going to do about the economy? what are you going to do about jobs? nobody talks about repealing the health care reform bill. and what i get basically from my constituents, they know the

health reform bill passed and know it's kicking in, a lot of the patient protections have already kicked in and they want to see how it goes. even those who are not necessarily for it in the beginning think it's a complete waste of time for us to be rehashing the debate and talking about repeal, because they want to see what's actually going to happen with the health care reform. and to the extent they have seen certain things, protections kicked in, they are happy with it. and they say, look, if over the next few years, if certain aspects don't work out, you can go back and revisit it and make some changes. nobody isn't suggesting we can't make changes. but the idea of repealing it outright when it wept into effect a few months ago, no one is in favor of that. they don't think that makes sense. the other thing that i wanted to say and i keep stressing over

and over again, i just have this chart and you pointed to it as well, who is actually going to gain from the repeal? we know that insurance companies keep raising their prices. we know that historically, they tried to discriminate by eliminating people who have pre-existing conditions or having lifetime caps on insurance policies. the only ones that gain from this repeal are the insurance companies, because they can go back to the situation, to the status quo where they can have double-digit premium increases. you know in your own state of california, it wasn't unusual to have 30%. blue cross just announced 50 something percent increase. and they are constantly raising premiums and also by discrimination. if you have a policy, a woman, for example, who has breast

cancer and has a recurrence, if she reaches the cap on coverage for the year or the cap on coverage for a lifetime, then she has know insurance to cover her cancer or the other thing that sometimes -- they will rescind a policy if they can find a way to say it didn't apply to you, they can rescind it all together and you wouldn't have insurance at all even when you had the greatest need for it. this chart says g.o.p. patient rights repeal will put insurance companies back in charge. young people age 26 can't stay on their parents' plan, women patients could be thrown off insurance rolls. seniors pay more for their drugs. the bill, as you know, for those in the doughnut hole, until this bill went into effect, if you reached that, you had to 100%

for your prescription drugs. you got a $250 rebate. 50% reduction. and that's going to become zero, so you will have complete coverage under medicare part b. so you repeal it, seniors will pay more for their drugs. and that's the other thing that is amazing. they talk about how -- they aren't using the term killing jobs anymore. what is it now? mr. garamendi: crush jobs. mr. pallone: crush jobs. the fact of the matter is that the bill actually decreases the deficit by $230 billion so you would be increasing the deficit if you repealed the bill. and with regard to jobs, i mean, look, if you think about what's in the bill, because everybody gets coverage, you are going to have a lot more health professionals and that creates jobs. because premiums will stabilize, employers won't have the

double-digit inflation that comes and makes it harder for them to hire people. the fact that your premiums stabilize makes it easier. and we have all kinds of funding for research at labs and hospitals and institutions around the country. so it creates jobs is the bottom line. but i would like to go back to where i started from and then i'll yield back to the gentleman and that is, most people say to me, why are the republicans doing this? let this bill kick in. let us get to the point where everyone is covered and see how it works. we know the senate isn't going to pass the repeal and the president isn't going to sign the repeal. rather than trying to figure out ways to create jobs, we just debate this for another week, for no purpose other than a waste of time. i

mr. garamendi: if it's about jobs then why are we doing all of this? it's interesting to note, and i heard this debate earlier on the floor here, that this is a job crusher, to be politically correct now. and that businesses are going to lose jobs. when in fact since the bill became law, over 932,000 private sector jobs have been created. so there's no evidence in the large job market that this legislation, the health care reform, has harmed jobs, crushed jobs. hasn't happened. in fact, nearly a million new jobs have been created, 932,000. in addition to that, this is an extremely important bill for small businesses. this bill, as you said, actually subsidizes the cost of health care for small businesses. if you have less than 50

employees you can get a subsidy up to 35% for buying health care for your employees. and if you don't want to buy health care, you don't have to if you have less than 50 employees. so i'm going, i don't understand this debate about small businesses being harmed. in fact, the kaiser family foundation has shown that in the last year, probably as a result of this bill, that's their conclusion, the number of small businesses providing health insurance has grown from 46% to 59%. mr. pallone: if the gentleman would yield. one of the things that i wanted to point out and i'm going to certainly talk about, i'll talk about it more a little tonight, my committee, the energy and commerce committee, today put out a report essentially that talks about the impact of repealing the health care reform law in each congressional

district. district by district. and i have the information on my congressional district, the sixth of new jersey, that talks about the tax credits for small businesses and it says in this report that the health reform law provides tax credits to small businesses worth up to 35% of the costs of providing health insurance. there are up to 18,200 small businesses in my district alone that are eligible for the tax credit. and of course repeal would force these small businesses to drop coverage or bare the full cost of coverage themselves -- bear the full cost of coverage themselves. every small business i know wants to provide coverage, it's just a question of whether they can afford to do it. 18,200 small businesses in my district alone would benefit from it and would lose that if we repealed the bill. mr. garamendi: if the gentleman would yield back. that is similar in every district, republican or democrat, across the nation. the number of small businesses

may vary district from district but the point is every small business has the opportunity to reduce by more than 1/3 the cost of health care by simply providing health care. and that will grow to 50% in just three years. it climbs up 35% and then 50% in 2014. and in 2014 every state will have an exchange, an insurance marketplace where small businesses, individuals, can buy health insurance on a marketplace that talks about the quality and the cost so there's competition. once again, why would you want to repeal that? where individuals can't shop for health insurance in a competitive market? we talk about competition here, well, let's let it happen. right now it doesn't really occur because many insurance companies don't compete. there are many, many aspects of this, i notice that our friend from tennessee, the great state of tennessee, has joined us, mr. cohen, if you'll -- what's going on in tennessee? do they want to repeal this?

do they really want to do away with the patients' bill of rights, the preventative care that seniors are able to get under this bill, the closing of the doughnut hole, is that what the tennessee folks want? mr. cohen: thank you, sir. i don't think so. and the tide has been turning. the national polls which i think are reflective of tennessee at least in percentage basis have shown that it's gone from 10 points up on people that want to repeal this bill to where it's even. there's many people -- as many people for it as against it in this country. there's been a 10-point switch in the last two weeks as people have looked at the possibilities of the repeal of the law and seen the benefits. what i thought about, mr. garamendi, i was in new york, new york city about two weeks ago, and i went in the time warner building and they had an exhibit there of salvador dali, surreal. things looking out of space. strange, strange pictures and

thoughts. and it's hard to think of this congress and the republican majority that's come in trying to repeal a bill that's going to become as popular once it gets implemented as social security and medicaid and medicare have over the years that they are so out of touch with america today and its needs and the future because while this may seem to be important to the minority, the tail wagging the dog in that party, the tea party, that's wagging the dog saying, repeal health care, the fact is down the line people are going to embrace this bill like they embraced the great society's medicaid and medicare. and the new deal's social security. and it's going to be a short-term possible victory but a long-term defeat and the my openia of the other side, let alone the hypocrisy of some of

its members, is hard to fathom. but you can only see it through the eyes of salvador dali, because obviously they are salvador dali and they're saying things in a surreal way. the nonpartisan, bipartisan congressional budget office says it's going to cost us $230 billion the first decade and $1.2 trillion thereafter and they say, well they can have their opinion. those are facts. those are nonpartisan facts that people we hire to give us the truth and they don't like the truth so they sum marle dismiss it. they say it's a government takeover of health care, a big lie, just like gobals. you say it enough, you repeal the lie, you repeat the lie and eventually people believe it. like blood liable. that's the same kind of thing -- blood libel. that's the same kind of thing. the germans said enough about the jews and people believe ited

-- believed it and you had the holocaust. we heard on this floor, government takeover of health care. the biggest lie of 2010 was government takeover of health care because there is no government takeover. it's insurance. i look at my facebook regularly and i've got some people i communicate with on it, on different issues on facebook. i respond to them, whether they take my side or not, obviously, and one lady has been constantly talking negatively about health care and i'll respond and she keeps going on with the line that obviously she hears that she's taken as her mantra and that is that this is a government takeover of health care. well, she's drunken the cool aid and that's just not true. we heard in august of 2009 that there were death panels and killing grandmother.

everybody agrees now that is a big lie. just like government takeover of health scare a big lie. -- care is a big lie. and it's amazing the lies denying the effect on the deficit. claiming it's a government takeover. claiming there were death panels. this lady on my facebook page talked about the fact that it was going to take insurance companies out and there was a public option. well, there is no public option. and exchanges aren't a public option but the exchanges are private insurance where people can come together and get better rates that they couldn't get if they were dealing as individuals on the open market. people don't understand and if you read paul clubman today and yesterday, today in memphis, we get it a day late, but yesterday in "the new york times," he talked about the errors in arithmetic, basically the lies that are being put out about how it will effect the budget. and he who is only a nobel prize

winner says it's just not true. what it comes down to the bottom line is there is a group in marc that don't feel like they have a responsibility, a social responsibility, a moral responsibility, to those 32 million americans who can't afford health care and right now are seeing death panels, the death panels that say you won't have health insurance and you won't have health care. as we are just one day beyond dr. martin luther king's holiday, america's holiday, celebrating dr. martin luther king. dr. king was for not only social justice, which everybody embraces today, and talks about consume about aia and integration, but it was -- kumbaya and integration, but it was also economic justice and economic justice involves health care and giving everybody an opportunity to stay alive, to get educated and to get a job. and the first priority i have always believed of government is to keep people alive. it's health care. the second is to get them

educated and the third is to get them a job. now this rhetoric on the other side about whatever they want to call it is not only false, read the nobel prize winner, but it's a third priority and the first thing is keeping people alive. and you ought to tell those 32 million americans, we don't want you to have insurance, we don't care about you, that's wrong. dr. king wouldn't approve of it, i don't approve of it, america won't approve of it and it is as i started with, surreal to think that the first thing this republican congress is doing is trying to repeal what will be known down the years as one of the great acts ever passed by this united states congress. it will be to the fortunate of the democrats because like social security and medicare and medicaid and voting rights and civil rights, they are democratic initiatives that brought america forward, progressive initiatives that have been brought forth by this side of the aisle. and the myopia of the other side is politically welcome, if not

policywise sad. thank you. mr. garamendi: mr. cohen, thank you very much. you pointed out the nature of the debate taking place on the floor. and i listened to much of the debate this afternoon as it was going on and tomorrow it's probably going to be the same. and like you, i was surprised and in many cases disappointed with the rhetoric that i heard. it simply wasn't based on fact. they talked about the government takeover of health care. you used the word big lie. well in fact it is not going to happen. this is not the government takeover of health care. there are many who said we simply should take medicare and expand it to all. now that's a program that sp government collection of the money, but the services are provided by individual doctors, hospitals and other provider groups. it's not a government takeover, it's a government finance program.

you mentioned the uninsured, 42 million uninsured in america. they get sick, who pays for them when they go to the emergency room? they don't have an insurance policy. they certainly are not going to be able to afford the cost of emergency room and any procedure. those people that are uninsured do get sick, they do go to the emergency room, they do get medical care and guess who pays? the taxpayer. mr. cohen: property taxes. mr. garamendi: in tennessee property taxes, in california the general tax base and the federal government and here's the clincher. every insurance health insurance policy in the nation pays for the uninsured. so we have health care coverage. in fact, this law requires that the three of us and all 435 members of congress and 100 members of the senate will get the exact same kind of insurance that every american gets. they don't get a special -- we

don't get a special deal. in fact we get to pay for part of it ourselves. that is a fact. so what about those people that are out there uninsured that get sick? we get to pay for it through our health insurance policies because that cost is shifted over to us or the taxpayer. there's no free lunch here. the question we have is, should everybody participate in this insurance pool? i think it's only fair to say that we all participate. i don't know what i said, mr. pallone, that made you come to your feet, but please. mr. pallone: i wanted to point out, everything you said is absolutely true, i mean, i know that in my state, we estimate that every insurance policy, for those who have insurance and are paying their premiums, there's built into is something like 1,000 -- $1 now to $1,500 per year in your premium that pays for uncompensated care for others. and i actually have aistic in that energy and commerce stud yi

mentioned before that said that in my district alone, repeal would increase the cost of uncompensated care by $54 million annually for hospitals in my district. but what i wanted to point out is that you can actually eliminate a lot of these -- of this uncompensated care because what happens? people don't have health insurance and so they don't see a doctor or primary care db doctor on a regular basis and they get sicker and then they're only recourse is to go to an emergency room. i tried to get the c.b.o., you mentioned c.b.o., to build into in the save thags will come about because of preventative care. in other words, the fact that all these who are uninsured, go to the emergency room, don't see a doctor, now they see a doctor, they stay well because they take preventative care of themselves and they do well and then tche don't end up getting sick and going to the hospital. but that was never built into the is system. the c.b.o. won't score prevention, so to speak. but i would maintain that

there's huge savings. we talked about, what, a $230 billion savings, you know, from the deficit, but i would say, in my opinion it's trillions of dollars because not built into this is the fact that all these people that don't have primary care and end up in the emergency room now will get a doctor, they won't get sick and you won't have to pay for all that care. so the system as a whole saves tremendous amounts of money which is not really calculated here in my opinion. that's what you made me mr. garamendi: you are quite correct and very simple things that all americans understand. blood pressure, high blood pressure, the silent killer, people don't know they have it until they get the stroke and then if they survive, thehehehe well may be paralyzed the rest of their life and take an enormous expenditure, caring for

them in a nursing home or extended-care situation. that is a very simple thing to understand. and this piece of legislation provides pre-preventative care for seniors. is that what they really want to repeal, that free pre-- preventative care? we save money. mr. pallone: if the gentleman would yield. on january 1, there were a whole new set of patient protections that went into effect and one of them was elimination of the 20% co-pay for seniors. they get a one year wellness exam, which they don't have a co-pay, mammograms, all kinds of tests they would pay 20% co-pay and all of that is out now. the reason it was done is exactly what you said. a lot of seniors would not go and have those tests done

because they didn't want to put up the 20%. and now they get it free, and the republicans will say, will that costs money. it doesn't. it may cost money up front, but in the long run because they get the wellness check and have the mammogram, they don't get sicker. we actually recoup the money because they don't get sick. that is an important point that you are making. mr. garamendi: mr. cohen? mr. cohen: i appreciate you leading us. you are an outstanding member. your first vote was on this bill. you were commissioner of insurance, if i'm correct, of the largest state in the country now, california. so you have knowledge here. mr. pallone worked hard on this bill, but mr. pallone was in a senior position. as i think back upon the passage of this bill, i remember back of the criticism and the other side said we didn't take enough time to pass the bill. we took a year, a year

and-a-half to pass the bill. and they're going to take two days to repeal it. take enough time. where are the people who think we should take enough time for the legislative process to work? to have hearings, to have thoughtful discussion, to have analysis of expert opinion today ? two days. it's going to be voted on, that's it. and the old mantra we heard from so many people, read the people. and so many people think it's the government takeover of health care, i say to them, read the bill. and people who say congress people are going to get something special, we get the same thing as everybody else. read the bill. mr. garamendi: if you would yield for a moment, there is a place where the bill can be read, web site.

www.healthcare.gov. it gives the bill and gives a detailed description of every item in the bill and we have only talked about maybe one-third of the bill here today and go into the other parts. it talks about the time line of the various elements going into effect, for example, the senior population. the doughnut hole begins to close last year, $250 rebate check to those seniors who are in the doughnut hole. and then in the next eight years, that doughnut hole is squeezed shut. and as mr. pallone said earlier, seniors would then have all of their prescriptions covered. it also shrinks the cost of prescription zrugs. that wasn't talked about -- drugs. that wasn't talked about earlier. they can talk about the coverage options in every part of

america, in california, tennessee, new jersey, wherever. and specific detail about seniors, about women, those kinds of pieces of information. www dth healthcare.gov. you want to read the bill and understand it, i would suggest our colleagues on the other side, the republicans take a look at the bill itself and what it does. please continue, mr. cohen. mr. cohen: when i came on the floor, ms. slaughter, one of the senior members of this congress, outstanding member and former member of the rules committee, told me of a member on the other side, member in their fourth term who i guess it was in rules committee, but might have been on the floor, expressed for the first time astonishment, amazement, that her insurance provided for members of congress with subsidies by the federal government. she had no idea it was subsidized. she hasn't read the bill. she doesn't even know what her

policy is or her benefits. and the fact is, people should want for others what they want for themselves. and everybody in this congress -- i don't have federal congressional insurance. i don't have it. but nearly everybody else in this chamber does. and yet, they don't want their constituents to have it. and that's hypocrisy. mr. garamendi: if you would yield for a moment, last week on this floor, many of us tried to put an amendment on this piece of legislation that would say if the repeal occurs, then every member of congress would lose their health care. keeping in mind that 31 million americans will not have health insurance if the repeal takes place. and so, 435 of us, the bill is

repealed, we should join the 31 million americans that will not have health insurance if the bill is repealed. seems to be the least we can do if we want to harm 31 million americans, if we want to take away the insurance from 31 million americans. and surely, 435 of us should be willing to go without insurance also. turns out that not one republican voted for that amendment. i wonder why. something they are going to deny the 31 million americans. mr. cohen: what's good for the goose for the gander. and you should care about your brother and your sister. and this is going to be repealed in the same week as dr. king's holiday? i mean it took a while for dr. king's holiday to come about and john conyers' stedfastness for 15 years for it to become a law

and people in the house voted against it and also the senate, but no one has given a better philosophy of life than dr. king. mr. garamendi: mr. pallone. mr. pallone: i was going to ask you to go over that chart for stability for american seniors, because frankly, as the gentleman from tennessee was pointing out, there is a lot of misinformation that the republicans give out in terms of medicare and the benefits of this program. i mean, the bottom line is that all that we have done with medicare is extend benefits and a lot of seniors think that somehow medicare is going to be negatively impacted, which is simply not true. if you could go through that, i would appreciate it. mr. garamendi: i would do my best or if you would like to join in, woy appreciate it. health care reform means security and stability for america's seniors. first of all, despite all the

rhetoric on the floor, this legislation actually improves the financial status of medicare, extends the solvency of medicare -- mr. pallone: if the gentleman would yield. on the first point that you have there, i actually went before rules two weeks, because last week we had the tragedy with our colleague from arizona, but two weeks ago i went before the rules committee, and i had an amendment that actually said that the repeal would not go into effect if it actually negatively impact solvency and it actually is 12 years. in other words, the bill, the health care reform, 12 years of solvency to the medicare trust fund. in other words, with the repeal, solvency would begin -- i should say insolvency would begin in

2017. so that pushes that day of reckoneding back. mr. garamendi: push it back to 2023. mr. pallone: exactly. that is an important point. and again, everything we do shores up medicaid, provides more medicaid, provides more medicaid benefits. mr. garamendi: we have talked about prescription drugs. it's not only the doughnut hole, but there are certain kinds of generic prescription drugs that would also benefit as a result of this legislation. and of course, the doughnut hole issue, which we have discussed in some detail. the doughnut hole is squeezed shut and $250. i don't imagine the repeal would force the seniors to refund the $250 check they had, but nonetheless, the doughnut hole would remain open if the repeal were to take place.

we have talked about the improvement of the quality of senior care and both my colleagues have spoken to this very correctly. preventative care. now, we talked a moment ago about high blood pressure. clearly, the silent killer and major problem for seniors. ok. you are going to get free of charge annually a blood pressure test. and that's a very simple, very cheap and the drugs to treat blood pressure are cheaples -- cheap also, but the cost of treating it is extraordinary. and another disease is diabetes. this is an enormous cost and can be treated and can be taken care of, but if you ignore it, you are in for a world of harm and very, very great expense to all the people and including the taxpayers. this is an interesting one,

primary care doctors, nobody has talked about this much on the floor, but in the legislation, there is a significant increase in medical education opportunities. not only for doctors, but also for other primary care nurse practitioners, physician assistants and nurses, enormous increase. this one happens to be really, really important to me. our daughter graduated from medical school just three days ago, and we go, yes, and she says, i want to do primary care. and i'm going terrific, how about geriatric care and we are looking to the future here. and this is really important. and she has an opportunity under the legislation as primary care doctors who choose to serve in underserved areas and she may well decide to do that, to have their medical loans reduced as they provide service in some of

those underserved areas and some of those in our urban areas. mr. cohen: i represent an urban district in memphis and we have a lack of health care in the urban areas and we need more primary care doctors and need more community health centers and that's something else the bill is going to provide for, more community health centers. there are large areas that there are very few doctors that are available and not community health centers. not just the primary care doctors and we have some of the greatest in memphis, but it's difficult for them. mr. garamendi: if you would yield for a moment, that's not been discussed, but in every part of america, people need to know about the enormous increase in the community clinics that will be available. that is in the legislation. it costs money, but it saves

money, because once again, people will get care early. mr. pallone: this is true in the health reform that there's a lot more money for community-based health care clinics, but we also have that in the stimulus, the recovery act. and actually, i had two clinics that were funded under the recovery act that had not received federal funds before. and just to give you an idea of what they did, one of them is in my hometown of long branch and coordinated with the local emergency room, so that every time someone comes to the emergency room who's eligible for the community health center because many of them are uncompensated, have no insurance, now they go back and coordinate so that that person doesn't come back to the emergency room again, which, of course, is a tremendous expense, and instead goes to the community health center where

they get primary care. that is an example of federal dollars going to community health centers are being used to make it so people don't have to go to the emergency room because they are getting the primary care in the clinic for maybe 1/100 of the cost. you talked about providing continuity of care and you can get that information across from one to another. you talked to me about this some time ago and you had some pretty good notions of what would happen in tennessee.

mr. cohen: the idea of having the medical records on computers rather than having them on the notes, my father was a doctor. i inherited his penmanship. i got a c in penmanship. the teacher was kind to me. doctors don't write real well. if you have to go from written records, it's difficult and don't get transposed well. if you have them on computers, it's easy to see what shots and treatments a person had in the past and makes it easier to render a diagnosis and not to repeat tests unnecessary and costly. and it's so important and that's part of the bill is to see to it the records are put on electronic devices so they're available throughout the worldwide web and everywhere and that saves medical costs in the long run. mr. cohen: some of this, if i might for a moment, sir, already exists. mr. garamendi: i've been with kaiser for three decades and they've put my records and millions of patients on the

electronic information system. i could present myself at any kaiser facility across this nation and in an emergency situation and they'll take my number and immediately call up my entire history so we don't have to start at the beginning with blood tests and all of the other procedures that are common in today's emergency room simply to know about the individual's health circumstances. but all they need to do is enter that number, bingo, they've got my information. that's where the electronic medical records would be found. and it's interesting that my republican colleagues want to repeal that? i don't think so. finally, at last -- ms. jackson lee: mr. garamendi? mr. garamendi: i thank the gentlelady for coming. ms. jackson lee: you know, we worked so hard on this legislation that we probably

have forgotten to articulate all the nuances of this bill. it is unbelievable. and i hesitated to use the term "frivolous" today but frankly, i'm saddened by the fact that we had to engage in a frivolous debate. so i just wanted to say to the gentleman, some years ago under the bush administration i took note of the fact we did not have enough community health clinics. and i'm so glad our collective research caused us to put that legislation in the bill. and last monday i convened, my community health clinics, it was amazing the expanded work they do because some of them receive stimulus dollars and one of my clinics was able to open up 21 legacy and my community health clinics was able to open up 21 new patient rooms because of stimulus dollars. but what i want to say on that point is three things,

community health clinics help seniors and families. and to seniors, this gives you, in addition to the comfort of being nearby your home, but you get in addition a primary home or a medical home, you can use that clinic, that doctor to be part of your medical home. the community health clinics can then multiply themselves or improve themselves by having electronic records where as a senior who has extended medical records, can you imagine in the future what happens with seniors when they can put all the data into electronic records, to be able to track seniors and ensure their good health? contrary to frightening seniors and talking about death panels, this bill provides community clinics, a medical home in the clinic records, and the inevitable closing of the doughnut hole so that seniors don't have to pay -- choose between paying rent and buying

food and getting their brand drugs that are needed. i just wanted to say, there's so much, and then you mention your daughter in the training, that's creating jobs. how do they talk about losing jobs, which i think, by the way, again is frivolous because we created 1.1 million jobs and frankly, i will just say to you this is about saving lives. jobs are very important. we created jobs. but even the title of their legislation, h.r. 2, job killing? this is killing americans if we take this bill away, if we repeal this bill. i would argue maybe my good friends, some of them are new and i appreciate their newness and appreciate their desire to keep a commitment to constituents. but when you come to the congress, you have to govern. you have to look at the whole of america and therefore in looking at the whole of america, you need to look at the crux and the crux is saving lives. so i thank the gentleman for bringing us to this point and i know we'll be getting another

hour that i hope maybe i'll have an opportunity to share some thoughts with but again, i'll yield back my time and say this is about saving lives. mr. garamendi, i thank the gentlewoman for her inside and the way the bill effects her home and community. that's what all this is about is about the community. mr. pallone, if you'd like to take a few moments and wrap and i'll provide the final wrap as we close down this one-hour discussion. mr. pallone: i wanted to mention before, i mentioned how the money that was going to the community health center in long branch in my hometown was being used to coordinate with monmouth medical center so people didn't have to go to the emergency room or when they came once, they were put into a computer and exactly -- it was exactly for the electronic system you talked about. i went to monmouth medical center one day because they expanded their emergency room because they had so many people flooding the emergency room, particularly in these tough economic times and a lot of

people don't have health insurance, more and more people. so they had actually doubled, i think, the capacity of their emergency room, but they coordinated electronically with the community health center with this money that came in, and so they showed me how a person would come in and then they would be put into the system electronically with the community health center and they wouldn't come back to the emergency room. and you know, one of the big issues now across the country, in fact i just did a opinion piece about it in my local newspaper, "the asbury park press" how emergency rooms are being flooded with more and more patients because more and more people don't have insurance. so we have to figure out a way to deal with that and obviously the health care reform does that because once everybody gets health insurance and sees the doctor and gets primary care you won't have the need for as many people to go to the emergency room. when you expand an emergency room and add this additional capacity, it's millions and millions of dollars.

and that money isn't necessary if people see a primary care doctor. emergency rooms should just be for an emergency when people are trauma or something else that happens. it shouldn't be a place where people have to go because they can't get a doctor. so i yield back to the gentleman. mr. garamendi: it's become just that. i think i'll wrap with where i started. the health care reform, the affordable health care act is really about making life better for every american from the moment they're born. that young baby, that newborn baby cannot be denied insurance, from the moment they're born, whatever their circumstance is, that's part of the patients bill of rights and starts right at birthday. this is where a student, when you graduate from college, you're not only getting a diploma, you're likely to be losing your health care benefit your parents covered you. so it extends coverage to the age of 26. and into a marriage, into a family when you're building a family, you know you'll be able to get insurance.

31 million americans are going to be able to get health care insurance as a result of this legislation. and in the workplace. a lot of talk about this being a job crusher when in fact it actually creates jobs. and for small businesses this is an enormous benefit because they'll get a subsidy reducing the cost if they choose to provide insurance, if they have 50 employees or less they don't have to buy insurance. then later they'll be able to get insurance through an exchange in 2014. california is probably going to set one up next year. and for seniors, i've never heard so many inaccurate, inaccurate statements as concerns medicare and the way in which this bill actually works. it extends medicare. as you said, mr. pallone, for 12 years the financial solvency extended for 12 years or otherwise it would be just seven years and be in financial trouble. so this really helps.

and for individual seniors, they'll be able to get preventative care. their drug costs are going to be reduced. it is a very, very important part. so for the circle of life, and all of us would want to go through that circle of life, this health care reform provides a benefit at every stage. and i'll point out this final thing. this is an estimate that was made in the last year. some 30 to 40,000 americans every year die because they don't have health insurance. what is that? a stain upon america. every other industrialized country in the world would do it. our republican friends talk about repeal and replace. everything i've heard on this floor about replacement is already the law in america. it's already the law. they talk about lifetime caps. they talk about putting in no recisions, they talk about no preexisting conditions.

that's the law, folks. our republican colleagues, read the bill. go to healthcare.gov. read the bill. that is already the law. why would you repeal what is already the law and put this whole thing back at risk? don't forget, americans the insurance industry, the health insurance industry is dominated american health care for decades. and you think for a moment they're going to let the republican majority write a bill that is not in their interest that will force them to provide care, that will force them to pay the bills? that will force the insurance companies to know longer be the death panel? in fact, that's where the death panel is, and this i know, i was the insurance commissioner. i fought the insurance companies for eight years of my life when they denied coverage, when they said you have run out of benefits, when they said your policy is going to be rescinded. i fought them and i know the result when they won that

fight. people died. we need the patients's bill of rights. it should not be repealed. tomorrow our republican colleagues in h.r. 2 without one committee hearing, with only two days of debate on this floor and no committee hearings at all put americans at risk. 31 million americans will not get coverage. that's what this is about. i yield back my remaining time and look forward to tomorrow's debate and we'll see what happens. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

mr. braley. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. braley, for 23 minutes. mr. brailley: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. braley: thank you, mr. speaker. one of the things we heard today is talk about policy but i want to spend time tonight talking about the face of the efforts to repeal the affordable care act and the face could not be any clearer than this young man to my right. this is tucker wright, a 4-year-old boy who lives in malcolm, iowa. and january 2 of this year was an important day for tucker and

his family. because two years ago, this young boy was diagnosed with liver cancer before he reached his second birthday. and some amazing doctors and nurses took care of him after they removed 2/3 of his liver and miraculously he is alive today and his parents had done everything they were supposed to do. they both had full-time jobs. they had the best health care coverage you could get in the state of iowa at that time. and this young boy faces an uncertain future filled with ct scans, tests, medical procedures over his lifetime and just getting started in his life.

before january 1 of this year, his father and mother couldn't change their jobs because if they had, their coverage would have been denied because of a pre-existing condition, his liver cancer. because of the affordable health care care act signed into law last year, as of january 2, his parents were no longer bound to their jobs because they had the freedom to get a different job and not worry about having his health care benefits excluded under a policy called pre-existing condition. what our friends on the other side of the aisle don't want you to know about tucker is that if they get what they want and repeal this health care bill, the very first thing that's going to happen, his insurance company is going to send his parents a notice of recision

that his coverage is terminated because he has a pre-existing condition that would then be subject to excluding his coverage. they could do that because we banned the practice of pre-existing conditions and we banned the practice of recision in the affordable health care act after hearing testimonies from witnesses who experienced those experiences firsthand and talked about the devastating impact it had on their lives. so when we're on the floor tomorrow talking about repealing the affordable health care act, i want you to think about tucker wright and what that means to him. and the millions of other american children who would be discriminated against by insurance companies because of a disease they have no control over. and our friends on the other side of the aisle are telling

us, don't worry, we are going to repeal this bill and then come back and fix these problems. really? you know, i came here in 2006, mr. speaker, and i was proud to be part of that class of 2006. but when i got here, the republicans had been in power for six years. they had george bush in the white house. they had a majority in the house and a majority in the senate. and what did they do during that period to ban the practice of pre-existing conditions? what do they do to ban the practice of recisions? nothing. not one thing, despite multiple health care bills that were presented, none of it concerns about their committing to fixing now were addressed by them.

you hear a lot of talk about this unfair, unconstitutional burden of an employer mandate. well, folks, if you go back to 1993, you'll see that republicans, including my republican senator from iowa, chuck grassley, offered legislation in congress to have an individual mandate because they knew the only way we were going to get costs under control, was by bringing more people into insured plans, spreading the risks and making health care more affordable for all americans. so why do we find ourselves where we are now? well, we find ourselves here because of an unwillingness to face the reality that democrats in the house and senate and president obama faced a problem that had been facing this nation for decades. millions upon millions of

americans without access to affordable, quality health care, and that was a stain on our national reputation and we decided to do something about it and we didn't make any bones about the fact this was going to be a priority. some of these colleagues, and i ran on this issue in 2006, because of the problem of millions of americans without access to health care coverage. we hear complaints about the burdens on small businesses. i was a small business owner in iowa for 20 years and at the end of my career every year, we would fill out five to seven applications for every one of our employees trying to find insurance coverage that was affordable that would take care of their medical needs. small businesses were being priced out of the insurance market, and nothing was being done about it. that's why i'm proud of the fact that democrats took this

challenge head on. we were serious about the problem. we listened to days and days of testimony from people all across the health care spectrum, all across the health care economic spectrum and held days of bipartisan markups to give people on both sides of the aisle the opportunity to offer amendments and improve this bill. and contrary to what you are hearing, we accepted amendments from our republican colleagues. they were included in the bill. they made it a better bill when we brought it to the floor and voted upon it. and yet now, it's like we want to go back and eliminate everything good that happened during that period of time. it's like the movie "men in black yt, where they had that pen like device they held it in front of your head and once it flashed, you would forget everything you just heard. we cannot afford to let that

happen. too many people like tucker wright's lives are depending on what we do here. and that's why when we talk about these important issues, remember the faces of the people whose lives are benefiting from this important legislation. one of the things that we don't hear much talk about is the enormous positive impact this bill has on the lives of young people. one of the things that has changed dramatically when i graduated from college many years ago is that now, many young college graduates are required to perform an unpaid internship in order to get a job. it may be an entry-level requirement before they can take a certification test or only way for them to get access to that employment market. what does that mean practically? it means once those students

graduate from college if they are older than 22, they get kicked off their parents' insurance policies. ok, well, in the past, people would find work and usually that work had insurance coverage with it. not anymore. we have generations of young people out there looking for work with no health insurance and when they get sick and need medical care, if they don't have insurance, they still get the care, but somebody pays for it, and that somebody is us, the u.s. taxpayers and people who buy private insurance who have their premiums increase or taxes increase to take care of people who don't have health insurance. this bill does amazing things for young people. it prohibits discrimination from young people like tucker wright and allows seniors access to care so that they know they are getting the wellness and preventative checkups they need

to get the best care that they can. there is a lot of talk on the floor in support of repealing this bill about the imposition that this bill has on health care providers and the barriers that erects between them and their patients. nothing could be further from the truth. in fact, what this bill does, is it promotes an atmosphere between physicians, health care providers and patients that strengthens that bond, that relationship, that dependency by giving patients more access to their doctor and their health care providers at that time they need it most, when they're making decisions about chronic care, which is one of the biggest cost drivers in health care today, managing their diseases and lowering the cost of health care for all of us and yet, you won't hear one word about that as a critical benefit

of this bill. and that's why, as the american people, mr. speaker, listen to the debate tomorrow leading up to this important vote, they need to ask themselves what's this all about and whose lives are going to be impacted if we repeal health care. it's time to talk reality. it's time to talk about the tucker wrights of this world and what this will do to them, because rather than seeing this as a patients' bill of rights that finally preserves protection between patients and their insurance companies, we are talking about going back to the battle days when those protections didn't exist, when patients were playing against a stacked deck and were cut out of the addition-making process. the risk is too great. we need to think of who is going

to benefit from this bill and who will be harmed if it is repealed. and i call upon all of my colleagues to search in their heart and their souls for the real impact that this bill is going to have if it's repealed. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from from virgin islands, ms. christensen for 34 minutes. chris: it's an -- mrs. christensen: it's an honor to talk to the american people about the importance of the provisions of the affordable care act. for african americans and people of color and rural americans who make up more than hatch of the uninsured, we cannot allow the law to be repealed, not just when we have just gotten one foot in the health care door. some of us for the very first time. for african americans who have higher death rates, the

preventative services, the strengthening of the health work force, the expanded health work force, the community health workers, community health centers, offices of minority health, those equity provisions cannot be repealed. it's a matter of life and death for us. the leadership calling for repeal won't say they want to take away those benefits of the law to make sure that sick shirn can be ensured, and people who can't get jobs right away and make sure that your insurance will be there when you need it most when you get sick. they won't tell you they want to take it away because that's what will happen if they unravel this very carefully protected law. every person in this country, two of the very first acts of this congress have been taken to

take away rights, benefits. they took away in the vote from the committee of the whole from representatives sent here by over five million americans and the leadership is trying to take away services and benefits that would take away the right of everyone, the right to health care. whatever the leadership tries to take away next, people must stand and speak to prevent them as we must not let them repeal the law now. dr. king, who we remembered yesterday, spoke about the silence of good people. my fellow americans, we cannot be silent. and i know it must be difficult for your constituents and employers to know what the affordable health care act does and what it doesn't do, because there is so much distortion of the facts. to explain what the law does and

how devastating the repeal would be, i want to yield to my colleagues and i begin by yielding five minutes to the the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson. mr. johnson: i thank my colleague for yielding to me. and i must admit that i feel gsh gosh, it seems like only yesterday that the republicans were accusing us of not taking care of what was the business at hand, which was job creation and what they call reckless spending. they accused us of wasting our time in the 111th congress where we should have been dealing with jobs and spending.

and they're doing the same thing. they are wasting their time first month of the 112th congress -- they are wasting their time trying to repeal health care for americans, the affordable care act. it's mind woggling -- it's mind-boggling to me in the first month we dealt with jobs. and there after we went through a long process of putting in place a measure that will create four million new jobs in this economy that they ran into the ground. we pulled a car out of the ditch, got the car running, ready to create four million new jobs, health care, four

million new jobs to accommodate the 32 million more americans who would have access to the health care system in this country as a result of our passage of that act and the republicans, the first thing they do is want to kill a job-creating act that will enable their constituents and mine to have affordable health care. it boggles the mind we'd want to turn the clock back or walk in the opposite direction, taking away benefits that have already gone into effect under the health care act that we passed. they want to hurt small businesses which are able to receive a 35% tax credit when

they spend money insuring their employees. i saw a report earlier today indicating that hundreds of thousands of new policies have been issued by insurance companies based on these small businesses of his than 50 people that are choosing to offer health care insurance to their employees. that is significant, the health insurance industry is making a profit by offering fair coverage to americans, preexisting conditions were something that young people, children were denied insurance for under the old regime of

insurance regulation. under our act that the democrats pass, no more can you ban children from getting insurance based on preexisting conditions. and that is something that is good. my colleague from iowa was just talking about a young child in his district who would be denied coverage for preexisting condition if his parents had to go back into the market to purchase insurance due to loss of a job or whatever, move, whatever the case might be. so this is quite significant. we don't want to take that health care coverage away from the children who have received it even though they have

preexisting conditions. the $250 rebate for seniors who had reached the dreaded doughnut hole. seniors got a $250 check in the mail in 2010 to help them with that and in 2011, they will get a 50% discount on all brand name, all brand name and generic drugs, 50%. that is going to help so many americans with their drug bills. and this is what they want to repeal. they want to cost you as a consumer more money for prescription drugs, and i'm

happy to stand on the side of those who say no to a repeal of the health care legislation that we passed. they want to be able to repeal provisions in the law that prevent and prohibit insurance companies from canceling your insurance when you get sick. that's a common sense regulation to protect american consumers. and my friends on the other side of the aisle would -- at the behest of those in the insurance industry who spent about $100 million to defeat health care legislation, and that was unsuccessful, so they

went out and spent hundreds of millions of dollars more to defeat the democrats who voted for it, and so now we're at the point where they want to reciprocate to those who elected them at the expense of the very american people who voted for them. it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, mr. chairman, mr. speaker, it really does not. lifetime caps on coverage. already in effect. they would repeal that. they would allow the sale of insurance policies that would have a cap on them, a lifetime cap. so you would pay

ever-increasing premiums with an ever-lessening amount of lifetime insurance coverage, where we've taken that cap off, we've taken the unfairness out of that equation by mandating that those clauses in insurance contracts are void and unenforceable. so no more lifetime caps on insurance. these are some of the things that enable the insurance companies and their corporate bosses, officers, shareholders, and the like to attain millions and millions and billions and billions of dollars of profits every year, going up every year , and your premiums going up, also. just reckless, no regulatory

impact, no care about what that's doing to america. it's actually costing the taxpayers a lot of money, mr. speaker, because if people don't have insurance, that is not immunize them from getting sick. we're all going to get sick one day. we're all going to need medical care. we're all going to at some point need the care of a doctor or a nurse, and it costs money. and if we don't have insurance, it can't be paid for. so people without insurance don't get access to the health care system until they get so ill that they have to go to the emergency room and at that point taxpayers have to

subsidize that cost. and so it stands to reason that with 17% of our gross domestic product being spent for medical care in this country, and the fact that that has an impact on our interstate commerce, it means that the federal government certainly has a role to play in regulating the health insurance industry. and that's exactly what we did. and i want to now recognize or flip it, if you will, back to

my good friend from the virgin islands. mrs. christensen: i want to thank you, mr. johnson, for helping to clarify some of the important areas that were -- that are provided for in the affordable care act. you know, everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not everyone is entitled to creating their own facts. i think what we're hearing tonight are the facts. i'd like to yield now five minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, congresswoman sheila jackson lee. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentlelady. it's a pleasure to be able to join my colleagues on the floor and including congressman gregory meeks of new york, who we'll have the opportunity to hear from and i thank dr. christensen for your continued leadership and my colleague on the judiciary committee, we have the opportunity to contribute to the debate today. the judiciary committee has at its jurisdiction the

constitution and our friends on the other side of the aisle keep talking about this is unconstitutional. it baffles me. and almost frustratings me -- frustrates me because i'm trying to grab hold of the argument, particularly since we've had medicare by the federal government since 1965 and has withstood any constitutional challenge and that was implemented under the commerce act. but frankly, if we have an argument to make on the constitution, i will share with you why this is clearly a constitutional bill because we are actually denying people both due process and equal protection under the law under the present system because we have a nation that is divided between the haves and have-nots. 44 million plus, now i hear 32 million persons were uninsured and that's what grbed -- grabbed our attention. those people did not have access to health care. clearly, if you look at the constitution that says the 14th amendment says equal protection

under the law, or all people treated equally and the fifth amendment says can't deprive someone of life or liberty without due process. well, i can tell you, over the time we debated this bill, we saw the numbers of people who actually died because they could not get access to health care. we're reminded of our good colleague, congressman cummings, who told the story over and over again of a young teen abler, 12 or 13-year-old boy, african-american boy, who had an abscess, a tooth abscess, and clearly could have been saved, his life is before him. but he died because his mother did not have insurance and really did not have access to go anywhere to have this particular health matter taken care of. it became a crisis and he died. so i want to say to my friends, these are the basic points that i want to raise today while i discuss this question of the 14th amendment and the fifth amendment. first of all, you hear the question of how offended people are, i don't want to be told to buy insurance.

why should i have to be forced to buy insurance? well, as everyone knows, there is a 10th amendment that says, what is not left to the federal government is given to the states. states require you to have auto insurance. if you do not have it, you are fined. you get a ticket. because they have calculated that the burden of not having health insurance is too great to bear. and so when we think of people not having health insurance because they don't have access, we are determined that the burden is too great to bear, 14 -- $143 billion if this bill is repealed right away and $1 trillion over 20 years that we will lose or the deficit will be built. i imagine it will be more if you determine the people who are uninsured that will go into the county system. does everybody know in these districts around the nation who are complaining about this bill that your hospitals, your county hospitals that are burdening your local taxpayers

will be actually compensated for uncompensated care? i don't know about anyone here, but i can tell you my hospitals are jumping for joy. so i just want to point this out, children with preexisting conditions are denied coverage, that is a sickle cell child, the individual with heart disease. we determined in our democratic policy and steering committee that children are the greatest who have the possibility of dying because of lack of coverage. so all of these, asthma, parents who have children with asthma, they're born and they are babies with asthma. do you realize they cannot or could not get insurance even on their parents' insurance? asthma. how many children have died with asthma, particularly in the minority community where we have been subjected to poor quality living conditions, maybe the air quality because of where we live, industrial waste or maybe it is because of the quality of the house that

you're in, asbestos, other ailments that create conditions that cause respiratory illnesses in children. a man said he has been working hard and graduated from college, but unfortunately the job he had offered to him has been pushed back because of the economy. he is working to get more experience as an intern with no compensation. his family can't afford to keep him on insurance at this point, but he is constructive and he can be constructive because he can be on his parents' insurance. pregnant women and breast and cancer patients, particularly minority women, have a devastating form of breast cancer. my father had prostate cancer and the age that he was in and medical access he had at that

time, he didn't tell the family and we were uninformed about prostate cancer and didn't know about it until it had spread and he had brain cancer and lung cancer. african americans male over 65 that didn't have proper access to health insurance to catch his prostate cancer. this bill will provide for preventative care. so members, no matter what status you are in, you have the ability to access health care, meaning you can go to a community health clinic or community health centers or you may be able to buy your own health insurance at the rate and amount you can. there is a complaint here as i said about lacking the ability or not wanting to buy health insurance. well, i would argue to that person, the argument i made about the 10th amendment and automobile insurance, but i also argue, would you rather have

these individuals die or burden the massive public health system or would you rather have them access to be healthy as opposed to be sick? then something has been said, job-killing bill and one of the points that the republicans make is 650,000 jobs lost. they are not telling the accurate story. the 650,000 jobs lost are people deciding not to work or to work less because they now have the ability to get their own insurance that is not tied to a job through the exchange. that's the accuracy of it. it's voluntary. voluntary separation from a job because i am independent now to be able to go into business, to be a sole entrepreneur, sole appropriator and have my insurance. they would be thrown off because pregnant women, pre-existing

disease, prostate cancer and you know what else, heart disease, which kills or has 43 million women today living with heart disease, some of whom do not know it because they do not have preventive care. seniors, let me say to you, there will be living panels, because you will get a 50% discount on your doughnut hole process and brand name prescription drugs, but more importantly, a primary care doctor, community health clinics, medical home so you won't have to be worrying about who is my doctor, a consistent dock store, electronic records, seniors in rural areas, where hospitals are not even, but if they could go to a community health clinic so they don't have to go to an e.r. or be hill cop

tered to a city and there is a whole question of the deficit, but this idea of small businesses, let me tell you that small businesses are jumping for joy. a doctor said that she is glad her business will get tax credits for her employees to provide health care and add another nurse practitioner just because this bill provides for small businesses. i can only say that this whole question of job loss is shaky, the whole question of the constitution is shake year. and i conclude by saying this and i will be on the floor tomorrow, the constitution has been misused in this debate. i beg the people to get the constitution. it is quite the opposite. h.r. 2 is unconstitutional because it creates an unequal system in america, a system of jon equalness as it relates to

health care. we live that way but not been able to take this case all the way up to the supreme court. why does my neighbor have insurance and i don't have it. we are equalizing with the equal protection and affordable care act and giving you equal protection to the 14th amendment and 5th amendment of due process and equal protection and there isn't a better way to value america that all of us deserves the dignity of our flag and our constitution. i thank the gentlelady for her leadership, dr. christensen and i yield back. mrs. christensen: thank you, congresswoman. and thank you for showing us the constitutional issues because we will be asked to provide constitutional rempses. there will be legislation that we introduce and the constitutional issue has been raised over and over again and i thank you for addressing that in your remarks.

and i would like to yield five minutes to the the gentleman from new york, congressman meeks. i thank the gentlelady from the virgin islands and the gentlelady from texas on the constitution on the 14th and 5th amendment. on this night when i don't have much of a voice, it is important to talk about what is really going on here. when you think about the constitution, you know, the first thing we were doing when we came back in the 112th was the reading of the constitution. the constitution was really put in place to help and protect americans. it's one thing to read the constitution, it's another thing

to live the constitution. i think the gentlelady put out the facts clearly that under the 14th and 5th amendment it is constitution. i think it is also clearly what the constitution and what the individuals who wrote was the committee at the federal convention that it should remind us that the text employs and empowers us to provide for and protect the american people. what is the most precious thing that one has? is it money? what is the most precious thing? it's called life. without life, what do we have? and what is the most important thing in living a good life.

it's health. so wouldn't it seem that what would be the most appropriate thing to do is that we provide health care for americans? well, it's without question i think we can agree whether democrats or republicans, we believe that we have the best country on the planet in the history of the planet. but look at the blemish that history will record on our great nation if we do not provide or give access to health care for all americans. this is a struggle that we have had for debate after debate after debate from president before president before president. and finally this congress had come together in the 111th congress and said we are going to provide health care to 95% of

all americans. no, we're not perfect. fact of the matter is, i don't know of any bill that has been passed in any legislative body that is perfect. we have to work and in fact we talk about our union to make it a more better union. the health care reform bill clearly does that. now, the logic to come and to repeal all this confuses me, for even the constitution of the united states of america was not a perfect document. clearly those of us who happen to be african americas when the founders wrote it, we were 3/5 of human beings and the document itself and it was initially written, was flawed, but we as a

nation didn't say come and strike the entire the constitution, repeal the constitution. that's not what was done. what we did was say, let's fix it. let's look and see what we can agree upon to amend it. in fact, there was a small debate on the floor which constitution would be read, would it be the amended version, and that's what we talked about, the amended version of the constitution, that's what was read here. where is the logic now where we have the law of the land to come and say, get rid of it all? you clearly heard from the gentleman from georgia and the others who have spoken this evening about making sure that there is no individual who's denied health care because of a

pre-existing condition. this bill assures us that. if you have a child under 26 years of age, not working, they can stay on their parents' health care. seniors with a doughnut hole, we fixed that. so if you have a serious problem that you bant to negotiate and talk about that's in this bill that needs to be amended, i think as a body, we can sit down and work together to get that done. and so, i say when i look at where we are or -- i asked my staff in my little district in new york, 6th congressional district -- let me end by saying this, let's make sure that health care is a -- not a privilege for a few, but a right for the many. let us make sure that we do not destroy this great health care

reform bill that's now law. mrs. christensen: mr. speaker, may i ask unanimous consent to incertificate into the record this statement of congresswoman johnson and unanimous consent to extend and revise our remarks this evening? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's request will be covered by general leave. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that the following members be removed as co-sponsors of h.r. 61, mr. bilbray, mr. cole, mr. jeff duncan, mr. franks, mr. gibbs, mr. tom graves, mr. klein, mr. lamborn, ms. loam is and mr. mchenry. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. so ordered. mr. scalise: also, mr. speaker

-- the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from virgin islands seek recognition. mrs. christensen: ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and add any extraneous material on the subject under consideration this evening. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana for a motion. mr. scalise: i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. accordingly, the house stands adjourne 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. and the repeal means starting 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 feral government has nev 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 to respect the american people, who, many of them are in the jaws of terrible disease, rehabilitation or maybe some have already lost their 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 of this protection and health care bill does. consumer protection. patient 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