need to have here on this floor, and it's a pleasure to join with our colleagues from virginia and connecticut and texas and vermont, my neighbor to the immediate east. so thank you for your outstanding work. there's nothing more powerful than the faces that put a real-life meaning into the work we've done here. . let me talk about a constituent, actually a family of constituents from albany, new york. elena young is a very young mom and has a 1-year-old son, lee. and she's a three-time cancer survivor. there's a history of cancer in her family. and in the latter half of 2009 her husband bill testified at our health care forum because his wife was having complications with her pregnancy and required bed rest. well, as you can imagine, with

pre-existing conditions she was in and out of insurance coverage. and very often was struggling to find ways that they could get the family covered. her pre-existing condition complicated that severely. the way she found health care coverage was as a ph.d. student, hooking herself and her family to the university plan. they were thrilled about the news of the pregnancy. she was in remission, they had all this hope going for them. she then developed complications with her pregnancy, situations with malnutrition, iron deficiency, severe iron deefficientsy -- deficiency, and, yes, even blood clots, all of which were life-threatening. well, you talk about the pharmaceutical needs. she was given prescriptions for 10 different medications, all

of which were very important. representative welch, she had to choose five of the 10. she tried to pick the five most important. and even then it was an out-of-pocket expenditure of $1,000 a month so that she could stay well and stay alive during this pregnancy. and what made it very difficult as she was working through all of this was that because of the complications of this pregnancy her doctors told her that she would need to undergo a c-section. so now the family is faced with a decision. do i quit at school where i was earning an income and keep my coverage or what is my other choice? because in order to have the surgery, which was going to save her pregnancy and her life, she had to take time off from school, so fell out of the

ranks of the insured. now, let me just quote from elena. as she and her husband debated applying for more student loans or a new credit card, she had this to say. i needed a procedure to save both my life and the life of my baby and i was choosing between interest rates. is that not a powerful statement? and this is what this reform is all about. and why it is so aggravating to see the repeal voted on here in this chamber today. because the hope that was brought by our bill, applied to a case like that of the young family, is a very, very powerful statement. the affordable care act bans both annual and lifetime expenditure caps. and that health coverage that is limited annually or lifetime

is very disrupting and can deny when you most need health care, it can deny the coverage. and so with all of this outcome here's a reallife example where this family -- real life example, where this family, with their 1-year-old child, had to struggle to find the insurance coverage, but why are we putting people through this sort of difficulty? and this is not unusual. it's a powerful story but there are countless episodes, anecdotes that arero through floor and we're here to be leads that are provide hope and opportunity for the people we represent and then to repeal progress, just as it begins to reach the very households that we have addressed across this land, is a very sad statement. and we have to continue to work, to make certain that the beneficiaries, the millions of people who prospered from this sort of activity are not let

down. i think this is a very important time in our nation's history for us to use our resources wisely, to respond to the constituents with compassion and to understand that these real life stories are exactly that, real and profound and deep and meaningful and they ought to help us decipher what the best policies are and i really thank elena and bill and lee for the opportunity to share their story. it's a painful story and a very generous to allow us to share it here on this floor. i thank you again for bringing us together. the pre-existing condition, the annual and lifetime caps, the filling the doughnut hole for our nation's seniors so they can, you know, move forward and live comfortably and maybe even save their lives with the appropriate medication and affordability, accessibility, these are all the dynamics for which we have fought and it's a shame that they're being taken away or attempted to be taken

away at a time when they're just beginning to have their presence felt. and i thank you for bringing us together tonight. mr. welch: does the gentleman yield back? mr. tonko: i will. mr. welch: i thank the gentleman. how much time do we have left? the speaker pro tempore: time has expired. mr. welch: in that case, i yield back and i thank my colleagues for joining us for this hour tonight. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. smith: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, it is my privilege to yield to martha roby, a new member who was just elected, and i would like to -- and an outstanding pro-life member of congress. mrs. roby: thank you so much. mr. speaker, two weeks ago i

took part in a reading of the u.s. constitution in this chamber. it was a fitting tribute to the great social contract between the american people and our government. the constitution is an exceptional document and we have all taken an oath to defend it. and defend it we must. too often our constitution is under attack by the liberal activist movement that seeks to achieve through the courts that which they cannot achieve at the ballot box. on the frontline are the unelected judges that disregard the words and meaning of the constitution in favor of their own political and social views. they decide cases not on law and the facts but on the outcome that they alone believe to be the best policy. roe v. wade is an example of this sort of judicial activist at its worst. together with other cases, the court created a funnel mental -- fundamental right to abortion, even though a single reading of the constitution reveals no such right. as a result unimaginable harm

has occurred. in the short time that i have talked tonight, another baby has been aborted. that equals one abortion every two minutes, 3,300 abortions a day or 1.2 million abortions a year. mr. speaker, i am unapologetically pro-life. i believe that the miracle of human life begins at conception. i believe that we are fearfully and wonderfully made, knit together by god in our mother's wombs. i believe that every american is entitled to basic right and i believe i have an obligation to do everything i can to fight for the unborn, to prevent taxpayer money from funding abortions and to protect our democratic system for the encroachment of an all-powerful judiciary. let us use this 38th anniversary of roe v. wade as an occasion to reaffirm our beliefs and redirect ourselves to that cause. mr. speaker, i yield the floor. thank you. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i do thank the gentlelady for her powerful and eloquent statement in defense of the innocent,

unborn child. mr. speaker, earlier today an abortionist in philidelphia was arrested and charged in the death of a mother and seven babies who were born alive but then killed by severing their spinal cords with a pair of scissors. according to the cbs affiliate in philadelphia, the district attorney said that, in one year alone, the doctor made approximately 1.8 -- $1.8 million performing abortions. the abortion industry, mr. speaker, is a multibillion-dollar business. planned parenthood boasts that in 2008 alone their abortionists killed over 324 babies while raking in approximately $1 billion in fees and local state and federal government subsidies. the ugly truth is that abortionists often get filthy nurturing or curing, but by dismembering and decapitating

the fragile bodies of unborn children. by starving the child in the womb with lethal agents or by other means of chemical poisoning. the ugly truth is that women are victimized by abortion, wounded and hurt, physically, psychologically and emotionally. women deserve better than abortion. the only thing the multibillion-dollar abortion industry has produced in america and worldwide is victims. wounded women and over 52 million dead babies in the united states alone since 1973, more than six times the entire population of my home state of new jersey. the multibillion-dollar abortion industry systemically dehumanizes the weakest and most vulnerable among us with catchy slow -- slogans, slick advertising, clever marketing and very aggressive lobbying, particularly here. they have made the unacceptable

to the prejudiced and bigoted against a child in the womb acceptable to some. this acceptable bigotry has been promoted for decades despite breathtaking advances in fetal medicine, including microsurgery, underscoring the fact that an unborn child is a patient in need of care, diagnosis and care. just like anyone else. and despite the amazing window to the womb, ultrasound imaging. in 1976 a doctor then with the centers for disease control in atlanta presented a paper to a planned parenthood meeting entitled, and i quote this directly, abortion as a treatment for unintended pregnancy. the number two sexually transmitted disease. these two abortion doctors reduced the child in the womb to a disease. to a parasite. to something that had to be

vanquished. as far as i know no one at planned parenthood objected to this dehumanizing language and obvious bigotry toward children. mr. speaker, the evidence of significant harm to women who abort increases each and every year. abortion hurts women's health and puts future children subsequently born to women who are aborted at significant risk -- who aborted at significant risk. at studies show significant psychological harm, major depression and elevated suicide risk in which will who -- women who abort. it is reported that senior psychiatrists say that new evidence has uncovered a clear link between abortion and mental illness in women with no previous history of psychological problems. they found that, quote, women who have had abortions have twice the level of psychological problems and three times the level of depression as women who have given birth or who have never been pregnant.

in 2006 a comprehensive new zealand study found that almost 80% of the 15-year-olds to 18-year-olds who had abortions displayed symptoms of major depression as compared to 31% of their peers. the study also found that 27% of the 21-year-olds to 25-year-olds who had abortions had suicidal idealizations compared to 8% of those who did not have an abortion. abortion isn't safe for subsequent children born to women who have had an abortion and this fact is so underappreciated in the united states and really around the world. at least 113 studies show a significant association between abortion and subsequent premature birth. one study by researchers showed a 36% increased risk for preterm birth after one abortion and a staggering 93% increase risk after two. same goes for low birth weight. similar percentages. so what does this mean for the

children? preterm birth is the leading cause in infant mortality in the industrialized world after con genital anomalies. preterm infants have a greater risk from suffering chronic lung disease, sensery deficits, cognitive impairments and behavior problems. low birth weight is similarly associated with neonatal mortality and morbidity. abortion causes great harm to children, to mothers. a doctor, niece of the great doctor king, has joined the great coalition of women who have regretted their abortions and who are, as they call themselves, silent no more. dr. king has had two abortions herself and the other women of silent no more challenge us to respect, protect and tangibly love both the mother and the child. the women of silent no more give post-abortive women a safe place to grieve and a road map

to reconciliation. more than 125 members and i will introduce the no taxpayer for funding abortion act. and conscience protections with durable recommends. abortion is not health care, we know that. and polls show that taxpayers strongly oppose publicly-funded abortions. 67% according to a recent university poll. our bill is to make permanent to end federal government financial support by tax credit or any other subsidy. last year, a nurse at mount sign a's hospital in new york was compelled despite her objections to participate in an d and e

abortion where doctors literally tear apart the unborn child. the child feels pain and done later in pain. she sued asserting her right to conscience had been violated. her case was dismissed however due to the lack of prescribed remedies. this protects conscience rights of individuals and institutions by empowering the courts of the authority to prevent and redress actual or threatend violations of conscience. mr. speaker, it is my honor to yield to my good friend and colleague, doug lamborn, who has been a great defender of life. mr. lamborn: before i begin my prepared remarks, i ask unanimous consent congressman

mike ross from the state of arkansas be removed from h.r. 68 and h.r. 69. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. lamborn: i appreciate the leadership of my colleague of representative chris smith and he is a leader in this area of life. all of us look up to him. mr. speaker, my heart breaks when i think about the children who are now a part of a missing generation, a generation whose contribution to society we will never fully know, a generation whose lives could be inspired their families, nation and world had they been allowed to live. our society discriminates against these human beings who should receive the same protections as other persons. not only does abortion strip the world of human lives but affects the lives of mothers, leaving them to deal with the emotional aftermath. i commend the work of pregnancy

care centers that provide needed services. i mourn the 50 million american lives cut short and pray that god continues to heal those touched by this tragic practice. i will remain steadfast in the fight of the unborn. e deserves to live and protect the unborn. like the majority, i made good on a campaign promise and voted to repeal obamacare. there were many reasons for my vote to repeal but the bill did not adequately protect life. president obama signed a well intended but ineffective executive order saying no tax dollars could be used for abortions under obamacare. we need that written into law. that is what i will fight for.

the house will vote on a resolution directing the appropriate house committees to start working on resolution to replace obamacare with commonsense reforms. i want to sigh health care reforms that includes statutory language prohibiting taxpayer funding of abortions and provide conscience protections for health care providers. during my time in congress i have sponsored, co-sponsored or voted for bills. one such bill was h.r. 227 the sanctity of human life act which declares the right to life declared by the constitution is vested in each human being and life begins at conception. h.r. 212 was just introduced. i'm a member of the values

action team and pro-life caucus. i work with my pro-life colleagues to advance legislation and initiatives that support life and family. one day in the future and i don't know how soon or how long it may take, i believe with all my heart that this country will have a renewal of respect for life, including for the unborn. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: -- mr. smith: i would like to yield to jean schmidt, gentlelady from ohio. she has been out in front speaking on defense of the unborn and their mothers. mrs. schmidt: thank you for those kind words. mr. speaker, when we talk about abortion, we think of this as a 40-year-old movement. we think about 1973 in roe v. wade and that was the catalyst

to move this movement forward. pioneers and leaders have coined the phrase right to life. mr. speaker, we forget that this is not a 21st century issue. this is a century's old issue. it was actually the suffragists who talked about women's rights, the right to vote, the right to own property, the right to speak, the right to run for public office, to also talk about the right to life. to these women, the very concept of femnism demanded the basic rights be extended to everyone without exception including the unborn and rejecting the use of force to control or destroy one

another particularly among the most vulnerable and defenseless of the population. so to them, the act of abortion was much more than harm imposed on a woman and her child. it was a frontal assault on womanhood and new assault to the cause -- of the underpinnings of their cause. how do we know this? all we have to do is look at their writings and look at people like susan b. anthony who wrote extensively about abortion who called it murder. and she wrote, guilty, yes, no matter the motive or the woman is guilty who commits abortion. it will burden her conscience in life. it will burden her soul in

death. the first female candidate for president stated that quote, every woman knows that if she were free she would never bear an unwishful child nor think of murdering one before its birth. and sarah norton who challenged cornell university, would there ever come a time for the right of the unborn to be born will not be denied or interfered with. and alice paul, the author of the equal rights amendment. she stated, abortion is the ultimate exploittation of women. you know, i could talk all night about this, but we have women's history month in march and i hope to speak more on the history of women and the human rights pro-life movement, because it's not just about human rights for one individual,

it's about human rights for all individuals, the unborn, the born and the elderly. and so i thank my colleague from new jersey for hosting this forum tonight. i appreciate his leadership in the pro-life movement. and we're going to forge ahead until everyone in america has the right to life. i yield back. mr. smith: i thank my friend for her statement and leadership. i would like to yield to two who took the baton from jerry moran. >> i would like to recognize representative chris smith. i have watched from afar for many years and real treasure to speak here tonight and join his efforts and in my opinion and opinion of many americans one of the greatest tragedies in the

history of our nation. the direct death and murder of more than 50 million americans since 1973. and far too often, too many families turn to abortion as the only option when they discover they are unspeckedly pregnant. situations exist that they are overwhelming to say the least. but abortion is not the only option available to these women and to their families. my wife and i had the joy and privilege of adopting four children. and two of those children are from the country of haiti and two of the others were americans. incidentally, my oldest when she was young she didn't believe that babies arrived via stork but arrived on airlines because our second two were picked up at the airport.

but that reminds me of another story, daddy, can't we tell them to do adoption, not abortion. yes, we can, and that's the message i would like to make sure we support because it is the unreported side of the pro-life coin. if we are going to encourage women not to abort babies, we need to support other alternatives. there are tens of thousands of men and women that are adopting children and offering their services particularly through emergency centers and offering opportunities for the children and women and families and there are millions of americans today that are awaiting a child. they are awaiting a child and i would encourage more americans to consider adoption. let me speak directly to those who might be considering abortion, there are alternatives. there are opportunities.

there are caring americans that would love, would love to participate in adoption and would love to provide assistance and i'm a proud co-sponsor of no taxpayer funding for abortion. the leader abortion provider in the country and these are stark statistics. in the last year available, planned parenthood of america in 2008, they performed, they committed, they slaughtered more than 324,000 girls and little boys across this country, 324,000. they participated in 2,405 adoptions. 324,000 abortions, less than 2,500 adoptions. there are other opportunities. there are other options. adoption is the option. and i would ask that we consider to defund an industry that is

not concerned with the women, not concerned with the families. but let's turn our attention towards those across america that have give cren their hearts and homes and open them up to our youngest members of society. with that, i yield back. mr. smith: thank you for your statement and emphasis on adoption, alternative that is often forgotten and provides a means of building a family. i would like to yield to the gentleman from indiana. mr. stutzman: thank you to my colleagues of bringing this important issue to the house floor this evening and appreciate all the other comments that have been made. having the opportunity to serve as the chairman and public policy back in indiana, i do remember the time when my wife and i were expecting our second-born. and when we were dealing with pro-life legislation in indiana

and having the opportunity to go home and to see the ultrasounds of our second-born was quite the experience. and i know that with the anniversary of roe versus wade coming up, this is an issue on the hearts and minds of americans across the country. so, today, as we remember 38th anniversary of roe versus wade and the millions of innocent lives taken since 1973. in 2008 alone, there were over 1.2 million abortions, that is 3,315 innocent children born per day, about two every minute. while i have no doubt that future generations will play alongside the dred-scott decision, there is work before us. all of that begins with a single

inquiry. a simple question forms the cornstone of the national debate, when does human life begin. without that, we are left with empty rhetoric. when does human life begin? this is not a philosophical endeavor. science has given us the answer. they underscore the fact that it is from the moment of fertilization and it is human and valuable. those who ignore reality ought to remember john adams, that facts are stubborn things. because unique human life begins at the moment of fertilization, it is our duty to defend the unborn, speak up for the weak, to continue with firmness and the right. i proudly support house resolution 212, sanctity of human life act, which defines human life accordingly and affirms that each state has the

the authority to protect all human we are still dedicated that all possess the inalienable right to life. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. smith: i thank you for your fine statement. and very strong commitment to the sanctity of human life. i'd like to now ask or yield to ann marie buerkle who is both a nurse but also got her law degree so she brings the -- both the law and the medicine to this equation. i yield to her. burke burke thank you, thank you to the gentleman from -- ms. buerkle: thank you to the gentleman from new jersey. mr. speaker, this coming saturday marks the 38th anniversary of roe v. wade. a decision that fundamentally altered the moral landscape of america. for much of those 38 years i

have been very involved in the pro-life movement. both as an advocate for the unborn and a counselor of troubled women and teens, the unspoken second victims of abortion. as we reflect upon this sobering anniversary and the tremendous loss of life that it represents, i see reasons for hope. attitudes are changing and more and more young people are rejecting abortions as a choice for their lives. technology has opened remarkable windows to the womb. so much of the early pro-life movement emerged from a frustration of the time. no one seemed to be listening and we tried to get people to care. now technology such as the 4-d ultrasound imaging has aided us in our requests to preserve life, showing women that their unborn is not a clump of cells but a child that they can see rubbing her eyes or sucking his thumb. as we continue to fight for the unborn we must not cede the

ground we have lost. the patient protection and affordables care act circumvents the hyde amendment by allowing government subsidies in medicaid, federal employee health benefits and international aid to be used to cover abortions. for over 30 years the democrats and republicans have worked together each year to ensure that taxpayer dollars do not subsidize abortion. the affordable care act represents a departure from that compact. specifically this law will allow $11 billion in taxpayer funds to be used for abortions in community health services. in addition to the federal subsidizing of abortions through the affordable care act, i join other pro-life members of this congress in expressing my concerns about the use of technology to perform abortions. planned parenthood of iowa is dispensing the abortion-causing

drug through a tell conferencing system resulting in more than 1,900 abortions. our forefathers understood that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. among these the most fundamental rights is the right to life. i yield back. thank you. mr. smith: i thank the gentlelady for her statement and her leadership. you know, this class, and i think the american public really would appreciate this, of 87 members elected on this side of the aisle, overwhelmingly pro-life and more pro-life women than ever now sit as members of congress. it is really very encouraging. i'd like to yield to my good friend and colleague from illinois, bob schilling. mr. schilling: thank you, representative.

thank you, mr. speaker. for the opportunity to speak during this special order, the subject of life. today i stand to speak for those who can't speak for them selves. as a father of 10 life is a big issue at my house. after the presidential election my daughter rachel came to me and my wife and looked at me with tears in her eyes and said, hey, daddy, who's going to protect the unborn children? that was a big part of why i chose to run for congress, along with all of the other things. today i was a proud -- i was proud to become an original co-sponsor of the no taxpayer funds for abortion act. when we look at the taxpayer funds that are going to be available for abortion, you know, even some of my pro-choice friends disagree

with taxpayer funding of abortion. this bill is very important, it makes permanent the hyde amendment, the helms amendment, the dorner amendment. and one of the things that one of my colleagues spoke about earlier is, you know, speaking about looking at adoption as an alternative to abortion. you know, a story that sticks in my mind today is i went to a crisis pregnancy center in illinois and these are folks who encounter crisis pregnancies and the lady was telling me the story of a young lady who was going in for an abortion and she thought she'd come to get a little bit more information and they did a sonogram and the baby was laying still and it was down toward the end of the sonogram and all of a sudden that baby just came to life and put on a

show for mom. and that brought a tear to my eye when i heard that story. when you look at life, without life we have nothing. and, you know, a big reason that i am pro-life is that when we look at all of the doctors, all of the people who could invent something for this greatation that -- great nation, you know, i remember growing up and in 1973 when this became legal it was considered a blob of tissue. today we pull them out by their feet first to save the life of the mother when the mother's life is in danger and, you know, i just can't even imagine what transpires there and sometimes don't want to. but i believe as americans we need to defend life to its fullest. i believe life begins at conception and it ends at our

natural death. you know, families and friends and i've talked to people who have had abortions, the hurt that goes through with women who have had abortions, you know, i think we need to if he cuss in on educating folks and giving them that alternative and maybe every planned parenthood out there should have to do sonograms maybe even in a 3-d series. but i really do appreciate an issue that is near and dear to my heart and i really do thank the congressman here for putting this event together and look forward to serving in the house of representatives with him. thank you. mr. smith: thank you very much for your great statement. your comment about your child saying, who will defend the baby? i remember a woman of the name of gene garden who was preparing a slide show of actual abortions which are hideous to behold, but it is a reality that has to be understood to know what abortion really is. and a young child walked in and said, mommy, who broke the

baby? looking up at the shattered bodies of unborn children. from the mouth of children, the truth is spoken. i'd like to welcome back to the house, as we all do, steve pierce, a member from the new mexico -- a member from new mexico, we're so glad to have you back. mr. pearce: i thank the gentleman from new jersey and appreciate his constant leadership in this issue of life. you know, our founding fathers told us that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were treasured values in this country. i think that it was no accident that they placed life at the beginning of that order. it's easy to believe that any society is judged for its quality, based on its willingness to be a force for those who are most fragile, those who have the least standing in that society and in this society and all societies

none are with a quieter, less obvious voice than the unborn. so our willing tons stand up and support them -- so our willingness to stand up and support them is a mark on the quality of our culture and we need to do more. today in santa if he, elsewhere around the country, pro-life citizens joined in a march for life. while my schedule for votes here today prevented me from being there, i'm happy to associate my voice with them tonight and in the months to come. since roe v. wade was decided, over 50 million lives have been terminated through abortion. great strides have been made legislatively, now wrong to take a minor across a state line, the partial birth abortion process has been banned. some states have passed laws requiring a 24-hour waiting period.

but much is left to be accomplished. ultimately the question comes up about when does life begin? the supreme court justices decided the case actually expressed that concern themselves, about when life began. but that was a discussion of decades ago. science today leaves no doubt that d.n.a. is established on day one and never changes through the baby's life. the sonogram is evolving our nation's view on abortion as we speak. for many who have been educated in our universities they believe life begins at birth. but the young who are looking at the sonograms and seeing that heartbeat within the first few days recognize that they can no longer believe that this is some mass of tissue with inconsequential matters at

risk. and so this nation is beginning to become more pro-life day bidet. and that's a blessing because in the end every society will be judged by its willingness to speak for those with no voice. again, i thank the gentleman from new jersey and i'm proud to add my voice to those who speak for the most fragile, the unborn, may god bless this country and may god bless the mothers of this country. thank you. mr. smith: mr. pearce, thank you so very, very much. i'd like to yield to my good friend and colleague. one of the things we have in the congress or a large number -- are a large number of medical doctors, ob-gyn's and others who are overwhelmingly pro-life. dr. roe from ohio is among them. mr. roe: i thank the gentleman from for yielding and, mr. speaker, as an obstetrician and gynecologist, i've delivered close to 5,000 babies and strongly support the sanctity of life.

using technology like the 3-d ultrasounds has given us windows to the womb that show the unborn child as living, breathing human being. i've looked through that window with my own eyes numerous times and i've seen human development occur from the earliest stages of the tiniest embryo all the way through birth which strengthens my conviction in the right to life. life is a precious miracle from god that begins at conception. its our responsibility and privileged a legislators to protect those who do not have a voice. i will always fight for the right to life because it is my conviction that we are all unique creations of a god who knows us and loves us before we are even conceived. tonight we mark one of the most tragic, misguided supreme court cases in our nation's history, roe vermont wade. since 19 -- roe v. wade. since 1973 more than 50 million babies have been denied the right to life. we must make our laws consist

went our science and restore fully legal protections to all of those who are waiting to be born. if government has any legitimate function at all, it is to protect the most innocent among us. for over 30 years congress has prevented taxpayer-funded abortions. unfortunately this door has been re-opened with the passage of obamacare, the largest expansion since the pick of toll roe v. wade decision. in rouse republicans in the pledge to america vowed for appeal and replaced this legislation. i look forward to working with my colleagues to make sure this promise is kept. it is only by making good on this oath that we can expect to restore the trust that the american people have in their own government and in doing so ensure that the door to taxpayer-funded abortions remain closed. i want to congratulate the hope center in greenville, tennessee, who sponsored by the first baptist ministries who support life. these people do a wonderful job in ministering young mothers

who may be single or married to preserve life. i'm glad to be here on the house floor tonight with my friend and other legislators fighting for the rights of the unborn and i want to thank the gentleman from new jersey who literally someone of the leaders and heros in the pro-life movement. i captain say enough to do what he has promoted the right-to-life movement. i had some thoughts about children i have delivered. and i have seen those children grown up in johnson city, tennessee. and the beauty of it is, you coach these kids in little league ball and watch them grow up and come to your home and graduate. and the people i have seen had been young doctors, nurses and teachers and college athletes and newspaper writers and news directors, all of these young

people i have delivered and seen grown up in the world would not be a better place if they were not here. the world would be a much worse place. and think about how many thousands and tens of thousands and millions of the same people i just delivered that i watched grow up in my community that are not here today because of this terrible law. i do want to mention one thing medley that was brought up about a third trimester abortion to save a woman's life. and let me make this clear. there is no medical indication whatsoever for a third trimester abortion, period. let me say this one more time and i will debate this any time with any doctor in the world, there is no medical indication on this earth for a third trimester abortion. i thank the gentleman. i'm encouraged about the degree that the american people are changing their minds and i think if we keep talking and changing

and explaining, we will change this terrible law. and i yield back. mr. smith: thank the good man for yielding and for his leadership. another ob-gyn who has been there who knows how fragile the life is of an unborn child is. i would like to yield to jim lankford for hk -- being here. mr. lankford: i rise in support of one of the basic functions of any government. 3,000 years ago, a mom taught her son a king to be a wise ruler and she said speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. 235 years ago, our founders wrote a desperate king, we hold these truths and endowed by

their creator with gin alienable rights with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. this truth is so obvious, so clear that they called itself-evident. but in america, millions of people cannot pursue happiness and cannot appreciate liberty because their first god-given right was denied, life. in recent days, the discussion from the left has turned to reducing the numbers of abortion. i applaud this line of thinking, because it admits one thing, abortion is wrong. it destroys the life and deficient states the future of a mom. i ask, why should abortion be reduced if it's just another medical procedure to remove unwanted tissue from a woman? if it's tissue, what does it matter? no one says we need to reduce the number of skin moles or warts that are removed. that is unconscionable.

why? because a wart is unwanted tissue. a fetus, that's a baby. we can use fetus or dividing tissue or embryo or simply gin vens, but no one says how is the embryo. no one hears, excuse me, i just felt the fetus kick. and no one says, here is a gift for your inconvenience. say what you want, we know that's a baby. decades ago, we cannot look into the womb. people were told it was like a chicken embryo, but now we can look in and see a child kicking her feet, sucking her thumb and count her fingers and toes and watch a tiny heartbeat. a at 20 weeks, we can say boy or girl. why? because it's a child, not just an embryo. difference between an adult and

child in the womb is just time and they are a person who must be given their most basic of all human rights, life. i support the finding of life at conception. i support adoption and crisis prosecuting nancy centers that are doing -- pregnancy centers. why in america is it that taxes are mortified at the thought of abortion and required to give their tax money to fund abortions across the world. when a constituent says, why are my taxes so high, i have to say, because your government is spending your money on abortion funding around the globe. why isn't this chamber today, we debated for hours, an infant should be guaranteed health care coverage but some of the same individuals who demand insurance protection find no issue killing that infant when it's in the

womb. earlier today, a clinic in philadelphia was raided where a physician was arrested for fully delivering infants, six, seven, eight months in the pregnancy and stabbing those children with scissors. today. this is the united states of america. this isn't oppressing women or denying choice but protecting that everyone is endowed with inalienable rights with life. individuals in this chamber laid the foundation for a court ruling. for decades since, legislateors in this chamber have protected insects, and rare flowers, but

we refuse to protect children. may god have mercy on our nation and may we awaken what those policies have done to our nation. we would rather protect our fundraising and leadership than protect the unborn child. this is not a difficult choice and we should choose life. i yield back my time. mr. smith: i thank for your powerful statement. and i yield to my good friend and colleague from georgia, dr. paul braun. -- broun. mr. broun: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i believe the greatest small issue we face as a nation is the killing of 4,000 unborn children every single day for abortion. mr. speaker, god cannot continue to bless america while we are killing these children. they're children, they are

babies, human beings. when i came to congress in 2007, the first bill i introduced was the sang activity of human -- sanctity of human life. life begins when the sperm cell enters the cell wall, the egg, and produces a one-cell human being. that is totally different from its mom. it has every function, every bit of genetic makeup to be a grown human being if we nurture it and allow it to grow and allow it to live. i have been involved in a crisis pregnancy center. we had a young lady who was considering an abortion. she came there and she had an ultrasound. she was about 10 or 12 weeks along.

i don't recall. but early on, she found out a few weeks before she missed her period and came for a pregnancy test. when she saw that ultrasound, her ex claimation was, that's a baby and that's what we see over and over again that these moms, expectant moms when they see the ultrasounds, she understood it was a baby. it's a human being. there's no greater freedom, no greater liberty than to live. no greater protection that we as a government can give to protect human beings all the way from the time of fertilization until they have natural death. you see, mr. speaker, god creates those children. we don't have the moral authority to take their lives. we have to protect their lives. in a free society, where liberty

is held in the miest esteem by every -- in the highest esteem by every via in this country, every individual in this country. the right to life is a fundamental, fundamental form of liberty. we have to protect life. that's the reason the first bill i introduced in every single congress will continue to be my sanctity of human life act. my friend and fellow member from california, duncan hunter junior, has re-introduced his dad's bill. it's called the life at conception of act. i'm a co-sponsor as he is. duncan hunter i as duncan hunter ii. we have to stop this travesty, this awful, horrendous attack,

moral attack on our basic life as human beings and that is the right to life. mr. speaker, if we cannot protect life, then we cannot protect any liberty, we cannot protect any freedom that our founding fathers create the constitution to protect, god-given rights. we have had many of our colleagues tonight speak the preamble that thomas jefferson pen ded in the declaration of independence. thomas jefferson is considered the least religious of all the founding fathers, but he believed in life, that's the reason he pened it there. he believed in god. you see, even if you don't believe in god, from a scientific perspective, there is only one place in a person's life where you can draw a line

between no life being there and life and human being and personhood being established and that's at the time of fertilization. roe versus wade, in the decision, was predicated on there being no legislative definition of the beginning of life. that's the reason it is absolutely critical that we define life beginning at fertilization, to protect those one-cell human beings. it is absolutely critical that every person in this country who loves liberty, who wants to protect life, contact their congress person and their senators and say, we have to protect life. we have to protect all of our god-given preems, particularly life. -- freedoms, particularly life. i told my constituents and i tell people all over this

country, contact your senator or congressman, tell them to support the sanctity of human life bill, my bill or duncan hunter's bill. join in in this fight because there is no greater moral issue that this country faces. if we want god's blessings upon america, we have to protect these most vulnerable of human beings, the unborn children. in proverbs, god says, speak for for those apointed to die. speak up for those speechless. those apointed to die, we don't need a constitutional amendment. we need a legislative definition, beginning of life that it occurs at fertilization. and once we have that placed into law, we will stop this

blight upon our society rkts this dark era in the history of our nation that began in 1973, with this awful decision of the supreme court called roe versus wade. we have to protect life, we have to liberty and protect every single human being god-given rights and protecting life is important, from fertilization to natural death and i promise i will continue with every bit of my being and many of our colleagues, republicans and democrats alike will continue to fight for life. so, mr. speaker, if we want god's blessings upon america to continue, we have to end this blight upon america. we have to define life at the beginning of fevert lization and protect the -- fertilization and

protect the life of the unborn child. and mr. smith, i thank you for your tireless fight in this issue because you have been a stalwart in this house for many, many years and i appreciate the great work you have done for years and years in protecting life. thank you and god bless you. and we have to get this -- killing of these unborn children to stop. and i yield back. . i hope my friends who take the other side of the issue begin listening. there needs to be a re-evaluation. america needs to take a second look, a long and sustained look at the appeal arguments of the abortion rights side.

abortion is violence against children. it dismembers a child, it decapitates a child and chemically poisons a child. one of our speaker said abortions being promoted by planned parenthood, ru-486 operates in two ways, the first chemical starves the baby to death. so the child in utero, the child in the womb can't get nourishment to continue living and the second chemical brings about the expulsion of of the baby who is usually dead by then but isn't. if that is not child abuse, i don't know what is. this idea life begins at birth belongs in another era especially with ultrasound technologies available. as several of my colleagues said, the window to the womb. matter of fact, it should be noted even the leading proceed abortion activists in the

1960's and 1970's, dr. bernard nathanson from new york, one of the three co-founders of naral who is one of the three groups in the country, he said he presided over 60,000 deaths to children as he ran the largest abortion clinic in new york city. he went on to become a pro-lifer. and what caused that huge change of heart both in his mind and in his heart? he began doing blood transfusions and began to see that an unborn child is a patient just like any other patient who may be sick, have a disability, that early efforts and interventions can be whatever that anomaly be. and because of that he said how can i be in one room killing a baby with dismemberment or poison and in another operating theater providing this prenatal

surgery. he saw the schizophrenia inherent in treating some children because they're wanted as being acceptable and we welcome them after unwanted or throw-aways. the feminists had it right when they said no woman should ever be treated as an object. we all know that the unborn child of he had or she is unwanted is treated like an object and a throwaway and no human life is a throwaway. let me say abby johnson who just recently, a little over a year ago left a planned parenthood directorship in texas. what caused her to change? she saw an ultrasound abortion in real time and said, i just saw the baby crumple right in front of my very eyes. and you know, if that isn't a human rights abuse, i don't know what is either. she became a pro-lifer and now speaks out very, very boldly. finally, dr. alvita king as i mentioned earlier is dr. martin luther king's niece.

dr. king had two abortions. she was a, quote, pro-choicer. she now is one of the most eloquent pro-life leaders in the united states and even in the world. she has said, how can the dream survive? talking about her uncle's dream of inclusion of human rights, of civil rights for all, how can the dream survive, she writes if we murder the children? she goes on to talk about how the african-american population in this country is so disproportionately targeted by planned parenthood and others and the number of abortions for african-americans is about five times the rate of caucasian and it is because of targeting and there are other reasons for that as one of the main reasons and that's where the planned parenthood clinics are, frankly. abortions hurt women. she makes it so clear. she is eloquent in they are defense as are others in the ministries to woman who had abortions. one thing about the pro-life

movement, and i've been in it 38 years, i've been in congress 31 years. it loves them both. it says to both the mother and to the baby, we want to put our arms around you. we want to help and be of assistance. and to any post abortive woman, we're all about trying to help and assist and provide some kind of pathway to reconciliation and that's where the post abortive women like dr. alveta king play a crucial role in helping women who would feel so disenfranchised and left out. i want to thank our leadership, speaker boehner, our majority leader, eric cantor. we have a very pro-life leadership who recognizes how sacred life is, how this congress, this house needs to defend the defenseless. tomorrow i will join the distinguished speaker as he speaks on the no taxpayer funding for abortion act. we'll be having a press

conference tomorrow. and we have over 125 co-sponsors. i have never seen leadership so dedicated to protecting innocent human life as these individuals in our leadership. and i would hope my friends on the other side of the aisle would take a long look at the carnage, the unbelievable pain and agony and suffering abortion has visited upon women. it is not pro-women. abortion exploits women and is certainly not pro-child either because it decimated unborn children as well so we have a great leadership, we have an excellent group of members, men and women, democrats and republicans, and i do hope we will move this human rights issue forward. the young people are with us. and this is the greatest human rights struggle ever. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. under the speaker's announced

policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, for 27 minutes. mr. ellison: let me claim the time and i do have a few things to set up, so i'll be right back.

>> mr. speaker, let me thank the speaker for allowing and granting me the time. it is a pleasure to come in front of the american people. my name is congressman keith ellison. mr. ellison: and i want to talk a little bit about the progressive caucus tonight, the message we convey to the american people every week and we want to come before the american people to talk about progressive values and the 83 members of the progressive caucus. the progressive caucus stands firmly in the position of supporting health care for all americans, and therefore we look at this repeal today

conducted by the majority of the republican caucus as quite an unfortunate event in our nation's history. they repealed the health care reform bill but the bill is not repealed. it's important for the american people to know that health care reform is being implemented and it is the law but in order to make the law into the law, you have to pass it through the house, the senate and then be signed for the president. this repeal that they did today stops here. it's not going anywhere. really, it's political theater. but it is an important indication to what they would do if they could. what they would do, and let me -- there's something i would like to describe right now so the american people can get an idea of what republican leadership and republican -- or expansion of their power would mean. first let's talk about the deficit. you hear a lot about the

deficit. and the deficit is important. the impact of repeal of a deficit is that it would increase the deficit by $230 billion this decade and $1 trillion the decade after that. when you listen, mr. speaker, to the speeches of the republican caucus, and they say something about job-killing deficit, always -- it's always important, mr. speaker, to turn your attention back to what the republican caucus did today on the house floor because it independent cailts how they really feel about -- it indicates how they really feel about expanding the deficit. impact of the repeal of the deficit, expand the deficit by $230 billion this decade and $1 thillion the next. what does this say about credibility? what does it say about real intentions? what does it say about who is actually trying to lower the

deficit? health care reform is cost-effective and helps lower the deficit. health care reform actually helps not only lower the national debt in the deficit but individual american people's personal debt and deficit. we can never forget, mr. speaker, that 60% of all of the people who file for bankruptcy file for bankruptcy because of medical debt. a majority of the people filing for bankruptcy file for bankruptcy because of medical debt. this is an amazing statistic. we could talk about the national deficit. we can even talk about the national debt but let's talk about family debt. family debt. being driven sky high because of medical debt. people going into bankruptcy because of medical debt. now, with the health care bill

that we will have exchanges that will compete and have price and quality transparency for people so they can evaluate a good product that's affordable, so people who don't have the income can get a subsidy so they can go buy health care insurance. we have all these important provisions in place. we're not going to see people going into personal bankruptcy because of medical debt. this is something that the republican caucus has not talked about how americans are drowning because of what the insurance industry has imposed upon them. it's important to say that today our republican colleagues repealed health care reform. i hope, mr. speaker, the american people watch with interest where their particular member of congress voted. did the individual member of congress, mr. speaker, vote to say, you know what, we're going to allow the insurance companies rescind your insurance policy if you get a

breast cancer diagnosis because the republican caucus has re peel today says they want that to be able to happen. they want the insurance company to be able to say, you, ma'am, we found out you have breast cancer, your insurance is going to be rescinded. that's what they voted in favor of today by voting for repeal. today they want to tell 25-year-olds, 26-year-olds, and their parents, you know what, we're not going to let you be on your parents' health care insurance policy. you are on your own. yeah, we know it's a tough market. yeah, we know graduating from college or high school now is not easy because there's not that many jobs out there, unemployment is still very high but, you know what, too bad, you have to figure out what you're going to do. we're going to take a benefit away from you the congress has already given to you and snatch it out of your hand. this is what the repeal means. today seniors who can benefit from free preventative care,

they're not going to be able to -- the republican caucus indicated that's not what they want. they haven't taken it away because they haven't repealed the law. they'd like to by their repeal they passed through the house today but the fact is they're telling seniors, no, no, no, you're going to have to pay a big cost in order to get preventative care, which obviously will help -- encourage low-income seniors not to seek that care and then they, of course, will end up being sicker and it will be more costly. but not only by repeal does it hurt seniors and young people, they're telling small business people, you know what, those tax credits we gave you, we're taking them back. those tax credits that the democratic caucus and democratic congress and senate and the democratic president gave to you, us republicans, we don't want you to have that, small business, we we're going to natch -- snatch it out of

your hands even after you have made plans to take into consideration the tax credits available to you this year. they're snatching benefits out of the hands of small business people, snatching benefits from young people who are posthigh school and college, snatching benefits away from our seniors, snatching coverage away from people who can't afford it. . this is what the republicans will do if they could. thank goodness they can't do it, because the president and the senate remain in democratic hands. but if they could, mr. speaker, it's very clear what they would do. now, the democrats' top priority is not repealing anything. it's steppeding more rights, more protections for the american people and allowing the american people to make their

own choice so you can be free as an american and not have to worry about health care because you have health care because the government is protecting you from insurance companies who would throw you into the street, give you an overcost product and rescind you and deny you coverage. the democrats' top priority would not be to undermine health care but create jobs and put americans back to work. that's what democrats are working on right now and would work on more so if we had the majority. the republican majority, they have other priorities other than jobs. their job as they revealed, is to repeal patients' rights to put insurance companies back in charge and to explode the deficit as i already indicated with this particular graphic. the republican priority is to

look out and protect insurance companies, be it the republican priority is to make sure insurance companies have what they need. and they spent $14 million a day to try to defeat health care after they, in fact, were defeated and we passed health care. we were quite confident that they did not take that defeat lying down. here they are back again with the republican caucus, trying to do the bidding of the insurance industry once again. the patients' rights repeal aims to take away new health care freedoms that take us back to a system that favor the insurance industry. the patients' rights repeal bill takes away something that people have already expected to get and takes us back to a system in which the insurance industry is in control.

children with pre-existing conditions are denied coverage. young people aged 26 can't stay on their parents' insurance plans. pregnant women will be thrown off the insurance rolls. seniors pay more for their drugs. in the new health care bill, we are filling in the doughnut hole, which the republican caucus doesn't like because they want to dig out the date of birth r doughnut hole and we talked about exploding the deficits and small businesses pay higher taxes. why would republicans want to do that. that is so unfair but that is what they did. republicans are repealing health care reform instead of focusing on jobs. their aagenda after for america

is not health care, but no care, no care if you lose your job. no care if you or your child has a pre-existing condition. that's what the republican caucus has in mind for you and your family. no care if you are under 26. no care if you get sick and your insured drops your coverage. no care if your insurance company hikes higher insurance premiums. you are out of luck. the congressional budget office does carefully show that the repeal of the affordable care act would add $230 billion to the deficit in first 10 years and $1 trillion and american medical association has recognized and does not support. who is the a.m.a., american

medical association? who is that? america's doctors. they know, because they are in the healing arts. the insurance companies, many of them are in the money-making art, so they have a different take on this thing but the american medical association has come together and said that they do not support initiatives to repeal the affordable care act. insurance market reforms, administration reforms are key to the new law that reflect the a.m.a. priority. so the people who do healing, let me tell you know insurance company bureaucrat ever heals anybody, all they do is dn eye coverage and process claims. but the folks who bring healing, the doctors, the people who the a.m.a. represents, they are against repeal as the democratic caucus is against repeal and it

is unfortunate we had to witness, witness the house effort to repeal health care reform. they're not going to do it. they are going to -- this is political theater and all showing off. this is political theater, but the truth is, it does indicate what they would do if they could and we are bound and determined to stop them, to protect the american people and make sure that we have those important health care reforms in place that we are going to make sure americans go to the doctor and get present vnttative care, offer coverage people to age 26. i was privileged earlier this week to meet two little girls. they were suffering from leukemia. and these little girls, brave as they were, said, look, if we didn't have the affordable care

act, we would be denied or could well be denied health care coverage. these two little girls' father had to take family medical leave to meet their needs as well as other children who didn't have medical leave, they went into bankruptcy because of the piles of debt that were thrown on their shoulders. the affordable care act comes to address these problems, yet the repeal heeps those problems back on those problems. and too bad that it happened they aren't going to succeed and clear by their vote what they would do if they could. now, the aarp which represents our american seniors, they weighed in and they say as the house prepares to vote on the repeal, i'm writing to make clear aarp's position.

while we respect those who do not support the affordable care act, aarp opposes repeal because it includes vital provisions important to older americans and their children. there again, not only represents america's doctors, but aarp says no. and of course, they should, because america's seniors need health care reform, the reforms that are in the affordable care act. seniors were filling in the doughnut hole, making prescription drugs affordable to our seniors. we have a wellness visit for every senior in america once a year to make sure our seniors are healthy. wellness visits, dealing with prescription drugs, free

preventative care means we have health year seniors because they got enough money and more money than we would if we were under the reign of the insurance companies as we were before. aarp is representing the best interests of american seniors. the heart association, this is the association that deals with the association of the human heart. and this heart association comes to make sure that we are protected. the heart association has this this to say about this debate. patients have already benefited from the reforms that have been implemented in the last 10 months. and by the way, the republican caucus didn't even give the affordable care act a chance. 10 months after we pass it, they are trying to get rid of it and not waiting to see where it can be fine-found and want to get

rid of it all. and they said there are certain things about the bill they like, but don't want to fine tune the bill but repeal it. so that to me indicates another key indicator of where the republican caucus' mind is at. but as i was saying about the heart association. patients have already benefited from the reforms that have been implemented in the last 10 months. we believe these reforms and additional patient protections were long overdue. so the heart association says, hey, we didn't get this affordable care act passed fast enough. long overdue and need to be given an opportunity. absolutely, they are right. and if necessary, improve. and nobody on the democratic caucus side says this bill was

perfect. there has never been a perfect bill, never been a perfect bill, but the republicans don't want to say let's make the bill stronger. they say repeal. and i voted no and i was proud to do so. back to the heart association. repeal of the affordable care act will have devastating consequences for patients and their families, that's according to the heart association. an association dedicated to the wellness of people's hearts, people who focus their time, attention and resources on good heart health are opposed to repeal, as they should, because they have good intentions and are operating in good faith. of course, only 18% of americans support full repeal according to the latest washington/abc poll. only 18%. these are the people who believe

have death panels in it. that was never true. massive disinformation around the affordable care act but only 18% support full repeal. and the fact is that i would imagine if you were to sit those 18% of americans in the room and tell them what the bill did, they probably would be significantly lower than that. of course, there was another ap poll says 26% supports full repeal, still a significant, small number. and so the bottom line is whether you talk about your average family, the heart association, aarp and a.m.a., this repeal bill that passed through today, but doesn't repeal the law, make sure, mr. speaker, everybody knows that, was a low point in this

congress. and i look forward to a day when we can return to a congress that says we believe that the american people have the right to be healthy, right to be strong, go to the doctor, seek out preventative care, right to make sure insurance companies don't throw people off coverage when they need it most. and i look forward to the day when that happens, mr. speaker, because on that day, americans will be in a much, much better place than we are today with the majority in the house that doesn't feel that the insurance companies need reform or accountability. now, i just want to talk a little bit because some people mistakenly believe that somehow members of the republican caucus are more pro-business than the democratic caucus. that's not true, never been true and we have proven it's not true. but they say that stuff. but let me share with you some perm stories about people who

are looking at this issue from the perspective of small business, because despite republicans' rhetoric, business groups are speaking out against the republican efforts to repeal health care reform. mr. speaker, i don't want to be the one that goes not to the u.s. chamber of commerce because they are a little different, but to those local chambers of commerce, rotaries, i don't want to go to them and say, you know those tax credits the democrats got for you for health care? we are taking them away from you? i don't want to be that representative. the president of the national business group on health and a former republican senate staffer said about business executives who call for repeal, she said, quote, if they really understood it, they wouldn't. i don't think we'll get a better solution in the u.s. in our lifetime if it gets repealed or gutted, we'll have to start over

and be worse off. this is what the president of the national business groups says about the bill. says that small business people will suffer because of it. now if you are a small business person and get a tax credit to help you with 30% to 50% of the cost of health care, that means you may save the money you need to invest in your small business, maybe hire some more people. when republicans were calling it a job-killing bill and said, what bill are they talking about? the fact is, the affordable care act is a bill that is a job-enhancing bill, a pro-job bill, this is a bill that trains people to go into the health care profession, helps small business and helen knows that because she is the president of the national business group on health.

the small business majority characterizes the appeal bill as an affront to our nation's small business community. of course it is. if you're a small businessperson trying to add another employee, trying to buy some new equipment, and do it all while offering health care to your employees and your business, you've got three, four and you've got 25, 30 employees, of course it's an affront to you if the house majority caucus, the republicans, want to take away your tax credit. absolutely that's an affront. if you're trying to make it, imagine yourself working for some company for years, you say you know what, i don't want a boss, i'm going to be my own boss, i'm starting my own company and you know what, i'm only going to have one or two or maybe four people with me when i get started but we're going to make a go of it. and you know what, you guys, human beings, they get sick sometimes and so we've got to have health care.

the democrats say we'll help you pay for that health care and then the republicans say no, we're not and they snatch it away. of course that's an affront to our nation's small business community. the small business majority is absolutely right in their letter. the tax credits and health insurance exchanges in the affordable care act will help, quote, drive down the cost and offer small business owners more choices, more freedom when purchasing insurance. which will in turn allow them to, quote, spend less on insurance premiums and more on growing their business and creating jobs. now, the caucus that claims to be about jobs and the deficit is actually operating directly opposite to both the deficit and jobs. that means that we've got to read the fine print. we can't just go by what people say because people sometimes say anything, mr. speaker. the small business majority is recently the result of a

november 2010 survey of 619 small business owners, in their survey the key findings highlight, quote, 1/3 of employers who don't offer health insurance said they would be more likely to do so because of the small business tax credit. so there again, the small business tax credit in this bill designed to help small businesses take care of their employees and meet their bottom line and hopefully turn a profit so that they can help grow our community. so i'll yield back my time now, mr. speaker. it's been a pleasure talking about the danger of repeal and the importance of the affordable care act. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. gingrey, for the remainder of the time this evening, approximate 26 minutes. mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, thank

you for giving us the time and in fact we are very appreciative on our side of the aisle of having this opportunity this evening, mr. speaker, on really a historic day in which we finally delivered to the american people a promise that has been made over a year ago, that should this bill, this comprehensive health care reform bill, sometimes referred to as obamacare, but more formally known as patient protection and affordable care act of 2010, should this legislation pass, that if we had the opportunity to take control of this house of representatives to get that gavel away from former speaker nancy pelosi and the prior democratic majority that our first and number one priority

on behalf of the american people would be to repeal this mistaken bill. and today, mr. speaker, is the day that that happened. and certainly i am extremely grateful as co-chairman along with my colleague tim murphy from the great state of pennsylvania, dr. murphy and i co-chair the house g. o.p. doctors caucus. and mr. speaker, we grew our strength in this election november 2. we had about 11 members in this caucus, 11 very active, hard-working members who practiced medicine in one form or another, one specialty or another for many, many years. in fact, mr. speaker, one time we calculated the number of years that we have actually practiced medicine, and it was something like 350 years of clinical practice. as you notice, mr. speaker, there's a little bit of grayness around the temple of

some of us but we are very thankful for this election and the american people, given the republican party the opportunity to right this wrong and to bring seven additional members, seven additional health care practitioners, again, some of them having practiced for many years, dentists, doctors, even some associate members of our group, some registered nurses, to be part of this new majority, and as we voted today on h.r. 2, the repeal bill of obamacare, i can assure you that 100% of us, in fact, 100% of republicans of the 242 on our side of the aisle plus, i think, three or four democrats in a bipartisan way join with us in reporting to repeal this bill. i realize this evening, mr. speaker, that our time slimented. i am very pleased that some members of the house g.o.p.

caucus are with us. i would first like to take the opportunity to yield to my co-chairman, dr. tim murphy of pennsylvania. dr. murphy? >> thank you, dr. gingrey, i appreciate that. let me talk about some of the important aspects of this bill and understand if you have a car and it has a flat tire, you get don't get rid of the car but change the tire. mr. murphy: if you have a great car and is not running and is broken down, you get a new car. what we have here is a health care bill that has a few pages and parts we all agree on and want to work on those together. however, there's also thousands of pages of other problems and tens of thousands of pages, perhaps hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations yet to be written by boards, panels and commissions yet to be appointed on issues we have yet to know what is going to be included in this and that is part of the reason why employers are frightened what

may be in this bill and members of congress shake their heads and say how could something so massive and is going to cost $1 trillion a year to administer this plan, how could this happen without congress really having oversight? let me mention two brief areas of this which i'm deeply concerned about. we know one of the ways we can provide better care and ultimately save a lot of money has to do with disease management or care management. this is when perhaps nurses or other specialists within the doctors offices or working with the hospital work to stay in touch with the patient, patients who have asthma or diabetes or heart dress disease or other -- heart disease or other chronic illness and know if they get that patient to follow up in their medications, their therapies, they can prevent problems from worsening and help make that patient better. they can keep that patient out of the hospital. in the area of mental health, chronic illness has twice the incident of depression when it's not picked up and when depression is present and not

treated, costs double. now, this bill not only znl pay for this but cuts funding in an area that did pay for it and that's in medicare advantage. this bill, in order to try and pay for it, cut $500 billion worth of medicare. and a significant portion of that was in something called medicare advantage which covers millions of people, 7.4 million seniors around the country. one of the clear distinct advantages of medicare advantage is it provided this disease management. here's a couple examples. university of pittsburgh medical center works with -- found they can reduce rehospitalization rates for diabetics by 75%. another hospital, washington hospital reduced heart disease by 50%, another plan reduced asthma readmissions by 28% all by doing this important care management. unfortunately if you like the plan you have, you can't keep

it because this bill guts that and eliminating that portion. and out of this 2,900 roughly page bill to have a couple sections people are talking about as the benefits of why we should keep this bill, these are areas we agree on, maintain preexisting coverage, don't cut people because they're sick. let kids stay on their parents' policy for a little bit longer, all important parts, and things we will continue to work on as a conference. because we understand health care. and particularly this caucus made up of health care providers, we work with patients for many, many decades altogether, hundreds of years, and we understand the bottom line is we must work on health care reform and this bill quite doesn't reform that. so i yield back to the gentleman from georgia and thank you so much. mr. gingrey: i thank mr. murphy for his remarks and now i'd like to yield time to my colleague from the great state of georgia, i represent the 11th district, he represents

the 10th district. and in the athens area and a great friend of mine, a practitioner, dr. paul broun. mr. broun: i appreciate you doing this special order tonight. and i look forward to this opportunity. we had great fun in the last congress and talked about how bad obamacare is. and i'm excited that today the congress, the u.s. house of representatives voted to repeal it. i may ask -- in fact i was on neil cavuto this evening and neil cavuto played had some tapes or speeches of our democratic colleague and said, we've heard over and over again the republicans don't have anything to offer. we heard last congress that the republicans are the party of no. well, we are the party of k-n-o-w because we know how to lower the cost of health care and know how to provide good quality health care at the

lowest price and we know how to create jobs and create a strong economy and those are the things we're going to be doing in this congress as the republican majority. so i'm excited. but where do we go from here? yesterday i introduced my bill, one of two i had in the last congress, i reintroduced one yesterday, the new number is h.r. 299. and what it would do is do five things. number one, is it would repeal obamacare if it's passed into law. number two, it would allow people to buy health insurance across state lines, which is a constitutional thing. actually, we should under the commerce clause expand commerce. that's what the original intent of the commerce clause is so that's what my bill would do. thirdly, it would allow anybody in this country, business, individuals to join the association so they can join a huge pool, and this would mean they'd have multiple insurance products they can buy at a much lower cost than they're paying

today. the fourth thing it would do is stimulate states to set up high-risk pools, many states have already done that very successfully. and then the fifth thing is it would allow everybody to deduct 100% of their health care costs off their income taxes which would markedly change the dynamics of health care financing. i introduced that last time. i introduced it yesterday. my other bill, the patient option act is h.r. 3899 in the last congress and we'll be reintroducing that. but our colleague from georgia, dr. tom price who was the r.f.c. chairman introduced the bill h.r. 3400 in the last congress which was to reform health care financing. we've had multiple bills introduced. why has nobody heard about these things? well, because nancy pelosi is operating in a very dictatorial manner and didn't want our bills to see the light of day and neither did the mainstream

media. but i think you're going to see these bills come forward. we need to repeal and replace obamacare. obamacare itself is going to destroy jobs. it's going to destroy budgets. it's going to destroy the quality of health care. it's going to destroy jobs -- we just had our friend, democratic colleague from florida this year talking about how it would hurt small businesses. the simple truth is keeping obamacare will hurt small businesses. i talked to a small employer and today she has eight employees and desperately needs to hire more but is not going to until we repeal obamacare because of the financial strain it will put on her business and break the budgets with increased medicaid. we've got to repeal obamacare and replace it with something else that reduces the costs,

not just slows the costs but reduces the costs of every health care service and product in this country, and we can do that. my bill would do that. other bills will do that. and dr. gingrey, we're going to repeal and replace obamacare. we'll put it out there for the american people to see so they know the republican party is the party of k-n-o-w. i yield back. mr. gingrey: reclaiming my time. i thank the gentleman from georgia from the 10th congressional district. i would ask you to look at the possible ters we have here, what they are talking about is the plan and the plan is not a plan, but a series of plans, if you will, plan a, plan b and plan c and the repeal as depicted on

this very first and second poster was, at least the house completion of plan a and that is repeal of obamacare. priority number one, we feel very strongly that's what we need to do and that's what we did in this house today. as dr. broun was talking about, republican priority number two, not only to repeal it, but to replace it, but every one of us, particularly the members of the g.o.p. doctorso caucus understand that nothing is perfect. we tried to bring legislation during the 111th congress and gave better solutions to the president. pages 8 and 9 were plans other than a government takeover. the president said, well, i got it, read it and went on to say,

they won't bring me any ideas, if they only would. priority number two, replace obamacare that empower protections and protect our economy and republican priority number three in this poster, repeal and defund, defund provisions of obamacare until full repeal is successful if we're not able to get the senate and the president to go along with us in regard to this full repeal. if they don't do it, they aren't listening to the american people. and they do it at their own peril. i yield back to the the gentleman from georgia for five seconds. mr. broun: the president told us and the american people if anybody has any other ideas besides obamacare, his door is always open. i know i knocked on his door and nobody was home. they didn't answer the door as

they have for other members of our caucus. i yield back. mr. gingrey: at this time, i would like to yield to one of our freshman members, the gentleman from arizona, dr. paul gosar. dr. gosar is a dentist and has been very, very active not only in his own practice in arizona, but in the american dental association, and at this time i yield to our colleague, dr. gosar. mr. gosar: i have been a practicing dentist for 25 years and i have seen how government-run health care works. it doesn't. i have seen what we have done is spilled over into the private sector trying to laden the private sector with the liabilities with the public sector. we have used creative accounting, take revenue to pay

for six years' of treatment. i don't know how that actually works in anybody else's terms. we have to look back at our past to go forward and there were three things i was taught, look at your mistakes, look at your accounts and liabilities and make sure you make an equal playing field. that's what we haven't done here. where is the tort reform? where is the liabilities and assets that we have and make sure we are using those properly. and increase the competition in the marketplace, insurance reform, where we have insurance companies competing for us in the private sector on a patient-based center. and i yield back the remainder of my time and i thank the gentleman from georgia. mr. gingrey: i welcome the gentleman from arizona and i welcome him to the house g.o.p. dock -- doctors' caucus and i

yield to a thoracic surgeon from indiana, new member, dr. bushon. and he was on the floor earlier when democratic 30 minutes was controlled by the gentleman from minnesota and made some remarks against the fact that we were successful in repealing obamacare and i think he would like to comment on some of those points that were made and i yield to our new member. mr. bucshon: thank you for allowing me this time. i was proud to vote for the repeal of the obamacare because as a practicing physician for 15 years, i know the government approach to the health care reform is the wrong approach. it was said earlier tonight that why aren't the republicans aren't focusing on jobs. i would hold that this is a jobs bill today.

the health care bill, obamacare bill is a zoir. i held round tables for large and small businesses throughout my district and i never heard any of the things that i heard earlier tonight in this chamber. what i heard it's preventing them from expanding business or starting new businesses and some businesses are very worried they may no longer be in business. so this is a jobs bill. the other thing i would like to comment on is the physician support for this bill. it was said earlier tonight in this chamber that physicians across the country support this bill. well, the organizations that have been discussed at the last time i look represent less than 20% of the physicians in the united states. in actual fact, most national special medical societies were against the bill. so this is a gross

overrepresentation of the national physicians' support for the bill. the president had physicians at the white house saying physicians are behind this bill, but he brought in a group of physicians that are known people that are proponents of single payer health system. this is a jobs bill. this will hurt jobs in america and then the last thing i would like to say finishing up being a physician, what are we going to do about physician shortages in this country. this bill is going to make that worse. how can i convince my young son to go into medicine when they are looking at no significant financial way to become a primary care doctor in this country with this obamacare in place. i want young people to love medicine to go into medicine to

keep us in strong supply of physicians. but, mr. speaker, unless we do repeal this bill and replace it with things we know that work as a private sector solution, that's not going to to happen. i yield back. mr. gingrey: i thank the gentleman for his comments and before i yield again to my co-chair, dr. murphy., i wanted to make a few mepts as well in regard to some of the things that were said on the democratic side of the aisle just within the last 30 minutes. the gentleman who spoke is a fine, fine member, got a great heart, compassion, a friend of mine and i don't refute him in any way of being being stride ent or any animosity toward him, but the gentleman made a comment about, well, why not give the law a chance, mr. speaker.

the republican majority, the majority wanted to come along with h.r. 2 and repeal the bill, didn't want to give it a chance to see how well it might work. mr. speaker, i would just say on a point like that, we, on this floor right now, republican side of the aisle, we doctors know when you discover a cancer, you don't give it a chance to grow. you don't give it a chance to spread, you cut that sucker out and you get rid of it lock, stock and barrel as our colleague from iowa, steve king said the other day. you pull it out by the roots. and i think, mr. speaker, the speaker, john boehner, said the same thing. we feel very strongly about this, the fact that today, we did the right thing. and i have a number of other charts that our colleagues might

want to remps in regard to specifics about what we feel about this bill and why we need to repeal it and start over and quickly say that also i heard the other side talk about statistics saying that only 18% of people wanted the bill completely repealed. that's not an accurate statistic. 18% wanted to leave it like it is. 75% in the latest poll either wanted it to be repealed, repealed and replaced, if not repealed, significantly altered and that's what we are all about. i yield to my colleague from pennsylvania, the gentleman, dr. tim murphy. mr. murphy: a couple of the brief points i would like to bring up because out of a sense of compassion, we want to continue to practice health care and we want patients to be able to afford it. let me point out a couple of

ways this bill is trying to fund government-run health care to increase costs. the very thing we should be doing to reduce costs will be taxed, pace makers will be taxed, heart monitors will be taxed, artificial joints will be taxed, the knees and hips will be taxed, diabetes supplies, prescription drugs will be taxed. that tax is an increased cost in health care and something to be paid for which will be paid for by increasing costs in insurance. employers have to pay. if they don't have enough insurance or no insurance on employees and if they have too much insurance, their employees instead of rewarding them, this is good, that gets taxed as well.

employees, if they aren't covered, they have to pay taxes or as a way the way it still works, they can get it on the way to the hospital. one other point, part of the funding is to take $70 billion from a long-term health insurance plan, which is the class act. before it even starts, they'll take $70 billion out of this over 10 years but what happens, the premiums will need to be paid. actually, it far less. if any of us start an insurance plan and take the money out, you wouldn't get the license to provide that insurance, one of the many flaws in this program that doesn't have the money to pay for it and another reason the bill had to be repealed before it is replaced. mr. gingrey: i want to make a couple of points before yielding back to dr. broun. republican doctors can help the

repeal, replace effort. and i have four points here that i want to point out, number one, health insurance reforms, yes, but without government health plans. number two, guaranteed access to insurance, yes, but without an individual, unconstitutional mandate. number three, reduce the costs of health care, yes, but without gutting medicare, especially the medicare advantage program and taking something like $130 billion out of that program and i think it was pointed out earlier, 20% of medicare recipients are on medicare advantage or at least they were and number four, medical liability reform and i will have a bill addressing that issue. let me -- refer to my colleague from georgia for final comment. mr. broun: we hear from our democratic colleagues that the budget deficit is going to be increased by repealing

obamacare, but that's just simply not true. the democrats have used some faulty accounting techniques, deceptive accounting techniques to show that. the actual cost, if we keep obamacare over the next 10 years is going to increase the deficit by over $700 billion if we keep it. we cannot afford it. states cannot afford it. in my home state of georgia has a $200 billion deficit and the increase in medicaid to fund it, they can't afford it. we can lower the cost of health care and we can maintain good quality health care so that it is patient-centered and patients make their own decisions with their doctor and that's the kind of health care system that we're going to bring forth to this house. we are going to repeal obamacare

and continue to fight until the 2012 election and get a president that will sign the repeal and replace bill and we will continue to fight for that. i yield back. mr. gingrey: i thank the gentleman for yielding and few closing remarks. i think dr. gosar and dr. bucshon. one thing that is absolutely clear that is across this state and not just republican governors, the democratic governors as well are very, very concerned with the medicaid mandates and the fact that this maintenance of effort requirement that say governors can't be innovative and creative in running their own medicaid programs is resulting in a budget-busting in all these states that have to will ba

answer their budget. they are having to cut education to the bone and cut public safety to the bone because of this massive increase cost of medicaid. we thank the speaker for the time and we appreciate the opportunity to speak to the american people and we will be back here to pass house resolution number 9 so we can get busy on replacing obamacare and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: jabbed. the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. accordingly, the house

>> more live house coverage when the gavel comes down here on c- span.

the president of china is in washington. tonight, he attended a state dinner at the white house. he and president obama held a joint news conference with reporters. we will have that later on c- span. we will also have a house rules committee meeting on 2008 federal spending levels. the surgeon general announced -- senator joe lieberman has announced he will not run for reelection next year. the democratically controlled senate has said it will not take up the health care reform repealed measure. here is part of the house debate.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the majority leader mr. cantor: i now yield one and a half minutes to the gentlelady from new york, ms. buerkle. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one and a half minutes. ms. buerkle: i rise in support of h.r. 2 because i believe the american people deserve health care reform that will actually reduce costs and improve access without damaging the quality of our health care. last year, the enacted health care reform was a victory for big government and an affront to our constitution. this law is so fundamentally flawed it must be repealed. when our founders envisioned this legislative process, it was meant to be a deliberative one, thoughtful and respectful oaf american citizen's free dm. -- citizens' freedom.

that vision faltered and congress fled in its duty ott american people they enacted th affordable care act. as a registered nurse and an attorney who represented a major teaching hospital, i am aware of the problems of our current system, in particular the problems arising from government restrictions on the purchase of health insurance, government regulations on hospitals and businesses and tort liability issues. unfortunately, this afordable re act does not alleviate these problems and will further damage and over-- damage an overburdened system. according to the health care association of new york state, my home state, we will face a $15 billion reduction in medicare, medicaid, affecting our hospitals, our skilled nursing facilities, our home health agencies and hospices over the next 10 years. we need to implement true health care reform. in a manner that preserves

patient choice, protects access to health care and controls cost without hurtg job growth. i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlelady is expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina as the designee of the minority leader. mr. clyburn: i yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. clyburn: 1966, dr. martin luther king jr., whose life and legacy we just finished celebrating, expressed his concerns about health care. he stated that of all forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane. those words were brought home to me last year when a constituent from florence, south carolina, told me that she'd just been informed by her insurance carrier because of her 8-year-old daughter's cancer

treatments, her family had reached their fetime limits. what could be more inhumane than repealing this law of patients' rights and telling that mother that the life-saving treatments for her daughter must end? what could be more shocking than the injustice suffered by the middle-aged woman who called into a radio program to complain that although she'd paid her premiums her entire adult life, she was dropped by her insurer when she contracted breast cancer. how can we repeal the remedy for this injustice. dr. king also taught us that the time is always right to do right. after nearly a century of debate, last march, the time w right. and getting raid of these discriminatory practice -- practices was the right thing to do. that's the reason i called the bill, the civil rights act of the 21st century.

interestingly, today we're hearing some of the same rhetoric about repeal of patients' rights that we heard regarding voting rights. do i feel that changes should not be made? absolutely not. when the civil rights act was ssed in 1964, it did not cover public employees. when the 1965 voting rights act became law, -- i yield myself 30 additional seconds. it did not cover congressional and legislative redistricting. the fair housing law wasn't perfect when it was passed. bipartisan changes were made to improve all of these measures. i sincerely hope that we can develop some bipartisan modifications that increase efficiency and effectiveness and decrease costs and duplication. none of which will be achieved

through repeal. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the majority leader. mr. cantor: i now yield one and a half minutes to the gentlelady from minnesota, mrs. bachmann. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one and a half minutes. mrs. bachmann: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from virginia. obamacare as we know is the crown jewel of socialism. it is socialized medicine. the american people spoke soundly and clearly at the ballot box inovember and they said to us, mr. speaker, in no uncertain terms, repeal this bill. so today, this body will cast a vote to repeal obamacare and to those across the united states who think this may be a symbolic act, we have a message for them. this is not symbolic, this is why we were sent here and we will not stop until we repeal a

president and put a president in the position of the white house who will repeal this bill, until we repeal the current senate, put in a senate that will listen to the american people and repeal this bill. because what has been the result, mr. speaker? it's been this. it's been job loss, it's been increases on cost to the american people, i've seen everything from 26% increases on health insurance, to 45% increases on health insurance. this will break the bank. and we won't let that happen to our country. so make no mistake, m speaker, we are here to stay and our resolve is firm. we will continue this fight until obamacare is no nger the law of the land and until we can actually pass reform that will cut the cost of health care. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleladyas expired. the gentleman from south

carolina. mr. clyburn: i'd like to yield two minutes to the chair of the democratic caucus, mr. larson of connecticut. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. larson: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from south carolina. equal protection under the law is a cornerstone of our constitution. that is why we as a nation strive to form a more perfect union in a common sense way of looking out for one another. no one can prepare for a birth defect, catastrophe or accident of life that may await any one of us. this congress cannot disenfranchise the 129 million americans with pre-existing conditions impacted by this repeal proposal.

the proposal that is before us is not worthy of the party of lincoln or the tea party. repeal, repeal, repeal is not a plan, it is an empty political refrain. colleagues on the other side of the aisle are honorable people. i cannot accept that they are indifferent to the 129 million americans with pre-existing conditions who would continue to be denied coverage and forced to pay higher rates with repeal. i cannot accept that they are indifferent to millions of children who have once again faced denial of health care coverage. i don't believe they are indifferent to the millions of seniors who would be facing higher prescription drug costs because of repeal. i cannot accept that they are indifferent to the families that face cancer diagnosis and will

once again be subject to lifetime limits on coverage, impossible -- and possible bankruptcy because of repeal. addressing these fundamental issues of fairness was what the health care legislation and law is all about. in this chamber, and clearly down the hall, we are -- we understand the charade of this repeal legislation, but it is not lost on the 129 million americans with pre-existing conditions that -- that are counti on us. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. . -- mr. cantor: i yield one and a half minutes to mrs. noem. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. noem: i rise for the first time on the floor of the house of representatives to make a case for a very important piece of legislation, namely h.r. 2, the health care repeal bill. mr. speaker, there are a multitude of reasons why this

law should be repealed but the most important is because it is a major impediment to job creation for small businesses about job creators in sou dakota and across this country. according to one study, an ployer mandate alone could lead to the elimination of 1.6 million jobs between 2009 and 2014 with 66% of those coming from small businesses. mr. speaker, one of the most important jobs in job creation measures we can do this year is to repeal this bill and replace it with common sense policies that actually lower costs for families and for small businesses, expand accesfor affordable care and protect american jobs. what i heard time and time again on the campaign trail last year from south dakota's small business owners is that they are simply waiting. they're waiting to hiranother worker or to invest in new technogy because of the looming threat of this health care law. whether it's foundry own for

the northeastern south dakota or a motorcycle parts manufacturer in central south dakota, the refrain is the same. get the government off our backs. we'll be in the small business job creation engine that this country so desperately needs right now. i urge my colleagues to listen to the citizs of this great country on this important issue. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: i'm proud to yield two mites to the gentlelady from connecticut, the chair of oucommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. delauro: yesterday, men and women came here to tell us what the repeal of health care would mean for them. one told us how her 11-year-old

twin daughters were both diagnosed with leemia at age four and explained how the affordable care act ensured their daughters could get coverage and the care they need. another from maine told us how health care reform had given her access to critical preventative care, the type of care that saves money and saves lives. burke told us how the prohibition on lifetime caps brought security and peace of mind after years of living with a disease. we hear stories like this every day across america. a report found up to 129 million americans under aged 65 have pre-existing conditions and could lose their coverage if reform is repealed. i understand their fea. i, too, h a pre-existing

condition. i'm an ovarian cancer survivor. the centers for american progress says the repeal would add 2,000 to insurance premiums and destroy 400,000 jobs a year and the congressional budget office said repeal would add $230 billion to the deficit. repeal will take away valuable deficits, destroy jobs, cause premiums to rise and add billions to the deficit. if my colleagues across the aisle will not listen to the facts and the numbers, then listen to the poignant stories of their a our constituents. what will happen to stacey, claude et, ed and millions of other americans if health care reform is repealed? what will happen to children with pre-existing conditions? to seniors in the doughnut hole? to employers? repeal is a mistake. we should not work to further

strengthen our health care system and should do that. health care should not be a political game. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the majority leader. mr. cantor: i now yield 1 1/2 minutes to the secretary of the republican conference, the gentleman from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. carter: i'm delighted to find that the president has finally found common ground with the conservatives. the president wrote in the "wall street journal" yesterday that issued an executive order calling for all agencies to identify job-killing and costly red tape that could be eliminated. we should help him resolve this by eliminating thousands of new regulations that will be dumped on individuals and businesses over the next four years by this d health care law. the federal register contains 6,123 pages of requirements for the new health care rules

created by this law. the center for health care transformation lists 159 new federal agencies created by this law. we can replace this bad bill with bipartisan reforms and let the people keep their job and health insurance. mr. speaker, let's support the president's initiative and reduce bad regulations by repealing this bad law. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: may i inquire as to how many more speakers on the other side? mr. cantor: we have five remaining speakers. mr. clyburn: i continue to reserve. i only have two speakers. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i now yield two minutes to the chairman of the republican conference, the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, let

me offer 1.6 million reasons why we should repeal obamacare. that's the number of jobs that will be lost from just one provision, the employer mandate, according to the nfib, the largest small business organization in america. the half in trillion in taxes, 1099 form, all job-crushing regutions. mr. speaker, when it comes to obamacare, you cannot help the job seeker by punishing the job creator. let me offer 2.6 trillion more reasons we must repeal obamacare, that is the true cost of this legislation. $700 billion more added to the deficit. now i know my friends on the other side of the aisle will contend something else, but somehow in their accounting, they left out the $115 billion to implement, they double

counted lf a trilon dollars in taxes, social security, cutting medicare by half a billion. the slight of hand of 10 years of taxes, six years of spending. mr. speaker, you cannot improve the health care of a nation by i am poffer issuing its children. here's one more reason, mr. speaker. the american people don't want it. it's personal. here's my story, two days ago, i was in san antonio, texas, and my mother had a large tumor in her head. by noon, i was talking to her along with the rest of our family. it proved benign, thanks to a lot of prayers and good doctors at the hospital in san antonio. my mother's fine, i'm not sure that would be the outcome in

canada, u.k. or in europe. when it comes to the health of my mother, i don't want this president or any president or bureaucrat making decisions for my loved ones. let's repeal it today, replace it tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlen's time has expired. mr. clyburn: i continue to reserve. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, it's now my pleasure to yield two minutes to the majority whip, the gentleman from california, mr. mccarthy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mccarthy: i respect my friends on the other side of the aie and i do believe you want to improve america's health care system. congressional republicans and democrats don't differ on that goal. where we differ and differ quite drastically is on how to accomplish this goal. and the american people's

opinion on health care reform differs from president obama and the congressional democrats. americans understand that our health care system is still the very best in the world. we he the best doctors, nurses, hospitals a health innovators in the world. we should be working together to improve the system rather than turning it over to thousands of health care bureaucrats, who believe they can make better choices than patients and doctors. they know that it's different than the debate i remember when this bill was passed, mr. speaker. members are not held over for a weekend ve. they are not protestors outside rallying wanting to have their voic be heard. today is an open, cordial discussion. that's what the american people ask for, a health care system that works, that doesn't deter. a health care system devised by

the patient and doctor. our families deserve better, our small businesses deserve better and to all my colleagues, america deserves better. let's repeal this health care bill. start to replace it with an open and honest debate where the american people are inlved, patients are involved, doctors are involved and the american public can have a health care bill that lowers the cost without destroying jobs and health care system that keeps thinnovation we know so well. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: i yield two minutes to the vice chair of the democratic caucus, mr. becerra of california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. becerra: i thankhe gentleman for yielding. listening to this debate, i can

understand why americans might be confused about the direction of health care in this nation. but let me thank my republican colleagues for producing one important result by debating this misguided republican plan to repea patients' health care rights. millions of americans are now beginning to understand the valuable rights and freedoms they secured when the affordable health care act became law last year. last year, when eric, a self-employed architect in my district wrote toe that he and his wife were in a terrible bind, he explained something, they had insurance, but they could only secure the most costly of insurance with the highest deductible. but the real bind wasn't that. the realind was that their insurance company refused to include within their health insurance policy their eight-year-old son because their son had suffered from a stroke.

now for eric and his wife and his son, health care reform was real. and today, eric and his family can get insurce for their son because today, eric and his wife have a right to be insured and to have their son insured because no insurance company todayan discriminate against any child for a pre-existing condition. that's what health care reform was all abou it was also about making sure that today, america's businesses could afford to offer health insurance to their employees. health insurance reform was about reducing the cost of health care and that's why the impartial referee that we use here in congress, congressional budget office, has said that this health reform that was passed last year will save us money despite the rhetoric that you hear. my republican friends say

repeal. do that today and in the future, we'll restore those rights and make them prettier as well. we have a bird in the hand. we don't want to go after two in the bush. for six years they had a republican president to work with and never did it. keep that bird in hand and move forward for eric and the rest of america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. majority leader. mr. cantor: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the the gentleman from south scoorl, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. this health care bill is a job-destroying bill. shifting who pays simply does not reduce the cost of health insurance. as a matter of fact, when you look at it, c.m.s. says over the next two years, we will see an increase of $311 billion in the

cost of health care. this is $2.3 trillion of new taxes on americans. the deficit, over the first decade, over500 billion of new deficit spending. $1.5 trillion in the second decade. massive bureaucracy. 68 new programs, 47 new bureaucratic entities and 29 pilot programs as a part of this bill. it destroys the relationship, intimate relationship between a patient and a physician. the nfib, national federation of independent businesses says that over the next 10 years, we will lose $-- 1.6 million jobs in america because of this bill by destroying the bill that destroys jobs, we make progress.

finally, we already have a $76 trillion hole in unfunded entitlements. by increasing the number of entlements, we simply increase the hole. another $2.7 trillion expansion in entitlement spending. 10 years' revenue simply does not pay for the six years of benefits. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: i yield two minutes to the chair of the democratic congressional campaign commtee, mr. israel of new york. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recnized for two minutes. mr. israel: mr. speaker, i rise to oppose this bill. this vote establishes who you're for. are you for insurance company profits or are you for the middle class. i'm for hanna of bay shore long island. she had multiple surgeriesnd a kidney transplant before the age of 12.

at 12 years old, her insurance company told her she reached her annual cap and would not pay for additional treatment. thanks to the the affordable care act, she was able to get on her parents' insurance at an affordable rate with no lifetime caps. this health care act was for hannah watson. people are saying, i don't have a disease, why should i care. she did not choose to have that disease. nobody makes that choice. it helped her, her neighbor it helped others. why would you want to look at her and say we are repealing those protections? i'm for ather constituent. katherine had breast cancer and after she was recovering from breast cancer, her insurae company told her it was a pre-existing condition and no longer would pay for her treatment. i hear people say, why should i

care? i'm not katherine, i don't have breast cancer. one out of nine women in america have breast cancer. you know someone who has breast cancer. why would you say to them, that consumer protection is repealed. you are on your own. finally, mr. speaker, i understand the notion that this is not a perfect bill and there are things we can improve. my friends on the republican side are in the majority and if they can think of ways to improve it, we should work with them. this is not improving it, but repealing it, but realing every word of it, repeang every vowel of it, consumer protection of it, for every one of us, hannah and katherine, all americans with pre-existing conditions and ought not be repealed. i thank the gentleman and i yield back. .

mr. can spore texas i yield -- mr. cantor: i yield one and a half minutes to the gentleman from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i believe this health care -- mr. sessions: i believe this health care bill will do for health care what the jobs bill did for jobs. it says it wl have quality health care and affordab heal care. the only problem is it does not increase quality and does not save a dime on health care costs. what is known as obamacare will end up costing every single american more in health care premiums and in taxes to pay for the $1,2 -- for the1.2 trillion health care law. it's about mandate, it's cuts to medicare, job losses, deficit

spending and new federal bureaucracies. the reality is that we cannot pay for health care entitlements we have, much less a new government takeover of health care that adds trillions of dollars to our existing liabilities, driving up costs evenurther and putting the federal government in charge of health care decision making. the path to greater choice for patients and lower costs all must be part of an answer that is about repealing this costly health care bill. i support the repeal today a wi vote tomorrow for the resolution to replace it with a promisof real solutions. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: may i inquire as to the time remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina has 4 1/2 minutes remaining. the majority leader has 2 1/2 minutes remaining.

mr. clyburn: thank you mr. speaker, i yield the balance of the time to the democratic whip, mr. hoyer of maryland. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i rise in opposition to this bill to repeal. last year, we enacted a reform bill to make it easier for small businesses to cover their employees, to take important steps to bring down costs to stop insurance companies' abuses that bankrupt sick americans and deny them coverage. we acted in the face of a crisis. a cost crisis which saw premiums more than double over the last decade. a coverage crisis which saw more than 40 million americans without health care insurance. and a fiscal crisis which saw the cost of health care driving our country deeper and deeper into the red. a constituent of mine from southern maryland recently wrote to thank us for health reform that now lets her carry her

21-year-old daughter on her insurance. but she wrote that something else was also inspired her to support this piece of legislation. seeing, and i quote, a lot of other people who are hardworking, honest peop, who wereoing bankrupt because of unexpected medical expenses. those were the stories we had in mind last year when we passed the health reform law and today, as we fight to protect it. nonpartisan observers tell us that it will reduce the rise in premiums from millions covering 95% of americans and ctribut to reducing our deficit. the opponents of health care reform have spent more than a year painting it in apocalyptic terms but they can't erase the history that proves that

bringing afordable care to all americans has long been the goal of both parties. just yesterday former senate majority leader bill frist, a republican, said, and i quote, the affordable care act is the law of the land, the fundamental platform on which all future efforts to make that system better will be based. that was senate republican leader of the senate bill frist from tennessee, one of the great medical practitioners in this country a doctor. in 2008, senator john mccain said this, quote, we should have available and affordable health care to every american citizen. there's been no alternative offered to accomplish that objective. 2006, when signing a state bill remarkably similar to affordable care act, governor mitt romney, republican, leading candidate for president of the united states and the republican

party said this, of that bill, almost exactly like this one, quote, an achievement like this comes around once in a generation. well, our republican colleagues in congress failed to take action on health care during a decade of doubling premiums and mounting debt, congress acted last year. now my republican friends have come to the floor with a plan to put insurance companies back in charge of american health care. and to strip americans of their hard-won freedom to make health choices for emselves. once again, families would face insurance companies' unfair caps on their coverage or find their coverage canceled altogether. once again, insurance companies could discriminate against children with disabiliti and pregnant women. once again, prescription drug costs for our seniors will go up. and once again, small businesses

will be without any help to cover their employees in a world of skyrocketing premiums. there's no arguing with the facts. repeal would ct our economy as many as $400,000 per job, not withstanding the rhetoric on the other side. they would be lost under the burden of crushing health care costs and repeal would pile up over $1.2 trillion of additional debt on our children over the next two decades. i urge my colleagues, preserve america's freedoms to control their own care. join together to protect the system that meets the objectives set by generations ofmerican presidents. president truman, kennedy, johnson, nixon, ford, carter, george h.w. bush, clinton and george w. bush as well as president obama oppose this repeal bill. the speaker pro tempore: all

time of the gentleman from south carolina has expired. the majority leader. mr. cantor: i yield myself the remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, america did not become great by accident. we are a great country because we continue to strive toward the protection and expansion of individual liberties in a way that people cannot find anywre else in the world. our system of free enterprise inspires people to pursue opportunity, to take responsibility for their lives, and to achieve success. yet for the past two years, congress and the administration have pushed an agenda that moves america in the opposite direction by eroding individual freedoms. it's part of a philosophy premised upon government. siphoning more money, control, and power out of the private sector. and the health care bill we seek

to appeal -- repl today is the tip of the spear. mr. speaker, let's make something clear. both parties care deeply about health care. likewise, republicans have rejected the status quo. we simply disagree with our counterparts on the other side of the aisle that excessive government regulation and sweeping mandates on individuals and businesses are the right way to go about affecting reforms americans want. e construct of this bill is fundamentally unworkable. instead of preserving the doctor-patient relationship, this legislation we seek to repeal is rooted in having federal bureaucrats come between patients and their doctors, limiting choices. if you go back to the health care debate last congress, the president, then speaker pelosi,

and leader reid often spoke of two goals. one, we should strive to lower costs. and two, ifamericans like the health insurance coverage they had, they should be able to keep it. mr. speaker, we believe in the aftermath of this bill's passage these goals have not and cannot be met. therefore, doesn't it stand to reason that we must repeal this bill? and begin an honest debate about a better way forward. of all the most disingenuous myths in this town, perhaps the biggest is the notion that repealing the health care bill will increase the deficit. let's remember here, we are adding an open-ended entitlement. the new law is riddled with

budget gimmicks that double count sangs, offset six years of benefits with 10 years of tax increases, and rely on cuts to medicare and tax increases to fund a new entitlement. the nonpartisan congressional budget office rks hard to provide accurate accounting. it is only able to score the legislation put in front of them. even if it iludes budget gimmicks and fiscal shell games designed to hide its true costs. the reality is that this trillion-dollar new government entitlement will lead to a one size fits all cure and put our country and our states on a path to bankruptcy. at a time when we need to do everything in our power to encourage job creation, the health care bill hangs around the necks of businesses and serves as a barrier to job creation. mr. speaker, if we want to

deliver real results, the right way to go about health care reform is to lower costs and improve access. that is why after the house passes this repeal of obama care, we will begin a two-step process of first, conducting oversight of the law and the impact it's had on our economy and our health care system, and two,eginning work on a new vision to improve health care without bankrupting our country and taking away the health care that most amicans want and like. this majority is dedicated to achieving results fothe american people. as we've said before, mr. speaker, we are a cut and grow congress. we will cut spending and job destroying regulation and grow private sector jobs and the economy. repealing last year's health care law is a critical step. mr. speaker, we can do better. we will do better.

and i urge my colleagues to support repeal and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. all time for debate has expid. pursuant to house resolution 26, the previousuestion is ordered on the bill as amended. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the opini of the chair, the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to repeal the job-killing health care law and health care-related provisions in the health care and education reconciliation act of 2010. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> i have at the desk a motion to recommit. the speaker pro teore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am. the spear pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion? for what purpose does the majority leaderise? mr. cantor: i reserva point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the point of order of recognized. the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. andrews -- report

back to the house with the following amendment, add to the end the following new section, section 3, health care repeal shall not take effect unless a majority of members of the u.s. house of representatives and the a majority of the u.s. senators waive hebp benefits, section 2, including the repeal of the patient protection and affordable care act, public law 111-148, shall not take effect unless and until the director of the office of personnel management certifies to the congress that a majority of the members of the house of representatives and a majority of the members of the senate have as of the date that is 30 days after the date of initial passage of this act in the respective house voluntarily and permanently withdrawn from any participation and waive all rights of to participate as such a member in the federally funded federal employees health

benefits program under chapter 89 of tie 5 united states code , effective with the first month after such a date of execution of withdrawal and waiver. the speaker pro tempore: t chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey for five minutes in support of his motion. >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> we should begin by speaking speaker can't pelosi for leading us through an important bait in such an hour in our country's history a moment of consequence. one of the consequences this debate is we did not debate what is on the minds of the american people which is unemployment. mr. andrews: and 15 million of our neighbors being unemployed. having said that there's lots

of consequences to the repeal bill and members should be aware of each one of them. if a woman with breast cancer or a man with diates loses his job or her job and tries to get another job, under the law that's in effect, the insurance company can't deny them coverage or charge them more for it because of their preexisting condition. this bill repeals that protection. it makes it legal for the insurance company to say we're soy, we're not going to sell you health insurance because you don't have -- because you have breast cancer. we're sorry, we're going to raise your premiums five fold because you have diabetes. these are serious, unwelcomed consequences. another consequence of serving in this institution is we are the people's house. we are the elected people closest to the people and therefore we're expected to most understand the shoes in which they walk every day.

many of us say these this at our town meetings. i've heard this from publicans, from democrats, from tea party members, from independents. congress should live by the same rules it imposes on everyone else. i don't think you can o to a district in this country people wouldn't embrace that idea. indeed, on the website of our speaker, from the last term in the congress in his biography, you can read the following, it refers tohe congressional accountability act, which i'm quoting requires congress to live under the same rules and regulations as the rest of the nation. bears the unmistakable imprint of speaker boehner's drive to reform the house. live under the same rules and regulations as the rest of the nation. so this motion to recommit says the following. in the spirit of that

principle, members who support the repeal should live with its consequence. this rerepeal will become effective when the majority of this house and the majority of the other body are dismissed om membership in the federal employee's program the taxpayers fund for the members of the house. there are serious consequences of this bill. we believe that repealing it is unfair and wrong. , just plain wrong. but it would be more plain wrong for those who support the repeal to live by a different standard. i would say to the members, the next time you're in a own meeting, the next time you encounter your constituents in your district and they say don't you agree that if you agree to impose a certain set of rules on me, that those same

set of rules should apply to you. this will be the answer to their question. if you vote no, you're saying that the repeal that denies preexisting conditions to others doesn't apply to you. if you vote no, you say that the repeal that doesn't let insurance companies pose lifetime cap on your constituents benefits imposes no cap on your benefits. if you believe that the consequences of our actions should be visited upon those we represent equally and on ourselves as well, then your vote should be yes. in the spirit of the people's house, in the spirit of walking in the shoes of those we're here to represent, the right vote on ts motion to recommit is yes. the eaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the majority leader wish to continue to reserve a point of

order? mr. cantor: no, mr. speaker, i withdraw my reservation. the speaker pro tempore: four does the gentleman rise? mr. cantor: to respond to the motion to recommit. thank you, mr. speaker. i reserve the balance of my time. in begins to respond to the minority's motion to recommit, all i can say is this is an attempt to derail the appeal of the obamacare bill, without question. the depositing of this motion to recommit and the substance of that recommit is almost inexplicable if one could be deemed to be offering a legitimate policy proposal. the notion that somehow the repeal position that the majority has taken -- frankly the majority of the american people desire, the notion that that is somehow connected with

denying a better way forward, again, is inexplicable and i ink again, mr. speaker, i would say it is not a serious attempt to add towards how we get to a better way in health care. now, the question before this body is simple, do you support the new health care law? yes or no? the motion to recommit is simply an effort to protect obamacare from being repealed, period. if you think the new health care law will improve the way health care is delivered in the u.s., then support the motion to recommit. but if you believe, as most americans do, that the new health care law will put america on the wrong path, that the open entitlement line of the new law will contribute to putting us on a path to nkruptcy, that the policies in the law will deny patients access to the care that they

want and need, and if you believe that the new law will increase health care costs, not lower them, that the new law is generating great uncertainty for our businesses, hurting our economy, that the new law is uncotitutional, then vote against the motion to recommit. voting against the motion to recommit is a vote to repeal the health care law, and >> by largely a party-line vote, the house voted to repeal the health care law. one -- 245, 189. all republicans voted for the repeal and were joined by three democrats. the senate will not take up the repeal measure. tomorrow, the house will take up a resolution to draft

legislation to repeal the health care law. live coverage begins at 9:00 a.m. eastern. connecticut senator joe lieberman announced earlier that he will not seek reelection in 2012. the former democratic vice- presidential candidate, it turned and dependent after being defeated in the primary in 2006. he served a fourth term as an independent. from stamford, conn., this is about 25 minutes. [applause]

>> thank you. as i look around this room and as we walked into the hotel, i am over wild to see so many faces and to look into the eyes of so many to go way back. what i want to say to you today is that i am here to introduce a very, very special man. as i stand in front of our growing family and i looked at the grandchildren and say, "oh my god, i hope they are quiet,"

i wanted to introduce to you, joey. [applause] >> thank you. hey. hey. thank you. thank you. thank you very much. thank you dear friends. the room is full of people who stood with me and great memories. [laughter] thank you so much for coming on such short notice. it matters a lot to me. thank you for that characteristically [unintelligible] thank you for sticking with me throughout this period a year

into might senate service, with all the back-and-forth travel -- which is not easy on the she asked me how long always stay in the senate. i told her, "i promise you that when regis leaves and television, i will retire." [laughter] [applause] we wish our friend and neighbor from next door, regis, a great year ahead. maybe we will hang out more later on. it was 23 years ago on february of 1998 in hartford that i announce that would be a candidate for the united states senate. standing with me as i began that campaign was my wife, who was pregnant, and our three children.

today, our children are here again, this time with their spouses, elizabeth, jacob, and [unintelligible] these three couples are now the proud parents of their own children -- 10 children, six of whom who are here today. our youngest child who was born one month after i announced for the senate in 1988 is here with her husband daniel. as you can see, she is now pregnant. [laughter] health --, with god's don's help, she would give birth

to another grandchild. talk about a circle of life. [applause] as i look back to 1988, i know what a lucky guy i am. prickliest through the years since then to be a united states senator and blessed to have this miraculously growing family. first of all and most of all, i want to thank my wife and each of our children and grandchildren for the love, support, and inspiration they bring to every day of my life including this special day. there is a personal reason why i wanted to make this announcement at this hotel. during the first eight years of my life, my father, mother, my one sister of the time, and i live in a cold water flat on the second floor of my grandmother's house at 42