health care is going to punish them and encourage them to use more expensive treatment options. the bill we are considering will undo purchase -- the ban on purchasing over the counter medications. it will allow families to cash out up to $500 in their unused f.s.a. balances at the end of the year as regular taxable income. and it will repeal a 2.3% tax imposed on the sale of medical devices. with thill make -- this tax will make health care more expensive, be passed down to the consumer and it's already costing innovation and jobs in the medical device industry. we applaud, i applaud, the ways and means committee for their work on this legislation and encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass not only the rule but support the underlying legislation. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: if we defeat the previous question i'll often an amendment to the rule to make in order the connolly amendment which says members who appeal federal benefits for their constituents must forget benefits themselves. why should members of congress get special benefits we deny to our own constituents? to discuss our own proposal i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend for jeeling. chairman church bernanke is on capitol hill today warning if the congress doesn't get the debt and deficit under control we could be facing a fiscal collapse, clam mitt. he's right, and -- calamity. and he's right, and i think one of the ways to avoid this is to move americans from unemployment lines to payrolls. this is another day when the house will not consider legislation that would cut taxes for small businesses that hire people. this is another day when the

house will not consider legislation to rehire police officers, firefighters, teachers. this is another day when the house will not consider legislation to rebuild our roads and our bridges and our electronic infrastructure. there is going to come a day when the house, i fear, will consider reductions in medicare, social security, and medicaid to deal with the deficit problem. we need to consider these kind of issues because they are an important part of the deficit. but when we do, i think most members would agree with the proposition, i think all members would probably agree with the proposition, that we should live under the laws that we write. if the congress is going to consider a change to social security, we should live with that change. if the congress is going to consider a change to medicare, we should live with that change. we say this to our constituents, when we go back to our districts. let's vote for it today.

we propose to put on the floor as part of today's legislative agenda, legislation that would say pure and simple, if there is a change to social security, members of congress will live under the same change. if there is a change to medicare, members of congress will live under the same change. if there is a change to medicaid, members of congress will live under the same change. i think we probably get a unanimous vote for that proposition. let's put it on the floor and affirm to the people of this country who pay the bills and serve the country, we live under the same laws that we write. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, dr. roe. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for three minutes. mr. roe: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the rule and underlying h.r. 436, the protect medical innovation act. this bill will make a positive impact in two critical areas,

jobs and innovation. for 40 consecutive months now, unemployment has exceeded 8%. just last week received the unwelcomed news that unemployment had increased in may from the prior month. we are on the wrong track and the medical device tax included in the aforeable care act will make a bad situation worse. according to one industry study, the 2.3% medical device tax could result in the loss of 43,000 american jobs and this is just outrageous. we should be taking steps to create good-paying american jobs not preserving a tax hike that would shift these jobs overseas. let me just put this in perspective, mr. speaker. i have a unique observation point as a physician in practice for over 30 years. let me take you through some innovations i have seen. in 1974 i learned how to do la pros i ask where you place a scope inside the abdomen and look and observe. that's about all we could do. i remember 1986 my partner and i did the first atopic pregnancy,

that's a tubal pregnancy, and we were in there trying to get this pregnancy out through a scope. we did not have the equipment to do it. today you can take an ultrasound, diagnosis before rupp turing, before most of these were diagnosed after rupture, required blood transfusions, and days in the hospital. today i'm happy to report that we diagnose almost all of these before they rupture. we take a simple scope with the new equipment and devices that have been discovered and utilized and developed, remove this and send the patient home within hours. i have watched now this go from just a rudimentry observation to incredible surgery with a da vinci device. we are able to do very complicated pelvic surgery, prostate cancer surgery, other abdominal surgeries, heart surgeries that have done many things.

have reduced suffering, lowered morbidity, mortality. let me give awe very personal example that happened to me just eight or nine months ago in september of 2011. i was walking through the airport in charlotte, north carolina, when a gentleman arrested. if it had not been for an a.e.d. medical device, this gentleman would not be here with his family today. we were able to resuscitate him and send him successfully home to his family. we do not need to decrease this innovation and i have seen absolutely spectacular things that have occurred over the last 30 years. also, this legislation is very simple. it requires two other things. it allows and individual to use their h.s.a., which i have, to buy an across the counter medication. instead of going to my office, most expensive other than the emergency room, to get a prescription. that's counterproductive, it wastes time for the patient and their families. also would certainly support the f.s.a. agreement for the --

letting someone keep $500 of their money. i thank the gentleman. letting that individual in that family roll it over so they can use it the next year. three very simple things. i will close regardless of what you believe in the affordable care act, or how you believe, i urge my colleagues to support this. i find it lail bit comical that we are -- a little bit comical that we are talking about a closed rule on these three simple items. and we discuss add 2,700-page health care rule on a closed rule. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: in response to my colleague, mr. roe's, discussion of very expensive medical devices and equipment, part of the justification for looking at revenues from medical devices is through making sure that more americans have access to insurance we are able to increase demand and compensation for procedures that involve

costly medical devices. this is a way that can actually drive business and job growth for the medical device industry by having more people covered by insurance. the affordable care act will cover millions and millions of more americans to ensure that they have access to medical devices, driving consudges and purchase of medical devices -- consumption and purchase of medical devices as well. there are plenty of ways we can pay for this bill. unfortunately this closed rule allows for no discussion other than the extremely partisan middle class tax increase, which the republicans have proposed to pay for this bill. personally, i have always supported and continue to support looking at a soda tax. rather than tax something that makes people healthier and improves public health like medical device, why not tax something that makes people less healthy? like corn syrup with food coloring and water? a little bit of caffeine added? no nutritional content.

increases diabetes. increases obesity. tooth decay. even been shown to hurt kids' performance in schools. and a study by health after fairsings -- affairs, a nationwide tax of 1% on sugarry drinks would go a long way towards being a pay for repealing the medical device tax. these are decision that our constituents send us here to make. how do we want to pay for things? if we don't want to tax medical devices, are we going to tax the middle class instead? as this proposal will do. we talked about a family of four in ohio, family of four in new york, they would pay over $5,000 a year in extra tax just because the mother went back to work. just because one member of the family might have passed away in a year. sticking them with an enormous tax bill. this tax and spend republican

majority continues to advocate tax after tax after tax increase directly targeted to middle class and working american families. look, let's evaluate how we want to pay for health care in this country. health care is important. health care is expensive. if you have better ideas in the affordable care act, better ways to reduce health care costs for businesses, help families access health care, let's get them on the table in an open process and talk about what we want to do. to help drive down costs. but this cobbled together set of bills will only decrease access to health care in this country. it will undermine the very demand for the medical devices that are so important to job growth and creation in this country. it will undermine the incentive of middle class families to try to improve their station in life, to take on a second part-time job, to seek a promotion at work. it's very contrary to our american values, hard work, gets

you ahead in this contry. you work hard, play by the rules, you have a shot in this country. and this cobbled together set of bills is an affront to that very concept that makes me so proud to be an american. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. scott: i yield one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. dent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. dent: thank you, mr. speaker. i just heard the previous speaker say that the affordable care act is going to provide so much opportunity for medical device manufacturers that they can simply eat this device tax. that's not the case in my district. there are three principle reasons why we must repeal the device tax. it increases health care costs for consumers on everything from wheelchairs to bedpans, prosthetics, to tongue depressors. this is going to kill jobs, more than 400,000 jobs in the u.s., 22,000 in pennsylvania, are directly employed by medical device industry. this tax would put up to 43,000

american jobs at risk. three, this will stifle innovation in r&d. this is a health care trifecta, higher costs, lost jobs, lost innovation. this tax is going to have a profound impact in my congressional -- congressional district in a company like olympus, and precision medical instruments and others. if you don't believe me, a small business that manufactures custom orr thodics, explain the tax -- may i have another 15 seconds? mr. scott: 15 seconds. mr. dent: this tax they manufacture custom orthodics, they ultimately force the employer out of business, and i quote, the medical device tax would simply destroy what's left of our company. after giving our all we would simply have to turn out the lights, lock the doors, and send 45 employees to the unemployment lines, and many of our soldiers

returning from combat -- i'd like to submit this for the record. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: i'd like to request unanimous consent to enter into the record an executive summary report. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: the report is entitled medical device industry overstate tax impact put together by health care policy analysts. this study calls into question the assumption that several of my colleagues on the other side have indicated that the medical device tax results in a loss of 43,000 jobs. that figure was based on, after infacing the bloomburg government officials found this out, based on hypothetical assumptions of a 10% reduction in domestic employment resulting from manufacturing, moving operations offshore. it was just based on guesswork. how many jobs do we want to say

this would cost? let's say 10%. they put it down. there is no analysis. it was simply based on a guess which i can just say with the same amount of backing, it could eliminate 5,000 jobs, or create 20,000 jobs. you can say whatever you want. but there is no scientific analysis that leads to that conclusion. in fact, throwing 350,000 americans into the ranks of the uninsured as this cobbled set of bills would do, reducing the number of insurance americans by 350,000 is certain to reduce demand for medical devices. it's certain to reduce job growth and to hurt many of the companies that are complaining about the medical device tax.

again, if we can find a way to pay for it, that doesn't throw over a quarter million americans out of health care insurance, that doesn't increase taxes for a family making $72,000 a year by over $5,000, let's do it. and we can. we can look at taxing things to make people less healthy rather than more. we can eliminate tax loopholes and subsidies for the oil and gas strifment we can discuss eliminating agricultural subsidies. there are a lot of great ideas the republicans are never going after to help replace the revenue. but under this closed rule both republicans and democrats are prohibit interested bringing any ideas forward, any ideas forward, about how to pay for this bill other than an enormous tax increase on the middle class, throwing americans off the insurance rolls and actually reduces demand for medical devices and cost jobs in this country under this bill. i reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina. mr. scott: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lankford. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. lankford: it's interesting to discuss an open or closed rule when we're talking about the affordable care act, we all know how open that was. let's talk about basic economics. if you tax something more, you get less of it. that's simple economics. apparently somehow there is a desire to getless medical innovation. if we go to the medical innovator the people with the latest device, the best devices, getting americans healthier, providing a better quality of life from infants to senior adults, and tax them more, we are discouraging them from future innovation and creating the next products that create the next big medical wave. currently the best medical innovation in the world is happening in the united states of america. we want to keep it that way. we talk about why we are losing manufacturing jobs. i'll tell why why -- tell you why we're losing manufacturing jobs. every time you turn around,

you've got a federal work for the your building checking out your paperwork, your process, your people, and we have a very high corporate tax structure. the highest in the industrial world. now we're going to the medical device folks and making it higher and making it harder. we need the best medical innovation in the world here and we don't do that by punishing those companies for doing it here. if we want companies to go overseas and do the best innovation in the world somewhere else, we should continue to raise taxes on them this solves that. this keeps it here. it keeps the companies here, keeps them from he oh -- relocating andoff shoring, keeps premiums from going up as medical device costs go up, insurance premiums go up, dental costs for dental device. this is just another example of picking winners and losers and finding an industry that's successful and saying, let's tax them more so we can move that money somewhere else. let's just have the best medical innovation in the world

continue to be here. let's take care of that medical device tax and clear it out as of today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: my colleague from oklahoma state if you tax something you get less of it. under this bill, we tax work. we tax middle class families taking a second job, getting a promotion at work. this bill will force families to stay on the government payroll. it will force people to continue to get their benefits because if they try to work harder, you're increasing their taxes. yes, if you tax something you get less of it this bill will result in people work less, less of an incentive to work, less of an insent toiv lift yourself up and get off government subsidies. less of an incentive to take a sec job, to get a promotion. why would we put, carely, the burden of paying for this on people who just want to work harder to get ahead? if you tax something, you get less of it. this bill in its current form

results inless work, less jobs, less chance for middle class families to stay in the middle class, less chance for aspiring middle class families to get in the middle class. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina. mr. scott: we keep hearing that somehow a tax that isn't a tax is somehow considered a tax. so the notion of recapturing overpayments from health subsidies shouldn't be considered a tax, it should be considered being honest and fair. requiring people to return money not correctly giving -- given to them is not a tax increase, it's being honest. i yield two minutes to mr. mulvaney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mulvaney: i think something has gone overlooked here. this is a bill that has bipartisan support. so often back homes, folks want us to do things that have bipartisan support. we've seen several members speak in favor of this bill

today, but there's something else overlooked, the president should support this. this should be a bill that the president of the united states supports. he was the one who said, when he was campaigning, and i'm quoting now from candidate barack obama, cain make a firm pledge under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 will see any form of tax increase. not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes. end quote. by the way, mr. chairman, it's very rare that we speak that boldly in politics. often times we give ourselves space to walk things back but that's about as unequivocal a statement as you can get. i imagine since that statement was made in 2008, it's by accident we have at least 13 taxes that violate that pledge. we have a new tax on cigarettes a tax on nonqualified h.s.a. distributions a tax on self-insuring health plans, a tax on tanning services, a tax on brand name pharmaceuticals and of course this tax on certain medical devices.

my guess is, that was done by mistake and we need to fix that so the president can keep his promises. i encourage my friends across the aisle, as well as my own colleague, vote for the rule and to vote for the bill to help the president out. to help the president keep his promises so that we do not raise taxes on anybody. anybody in this country who makes less than $250,000. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: my colleague said don't raise taxes on people making under $250,000 this bill increases taxes on people making $40,000, $70,000, even as much as $90,000. it's a huge middle class tax increase. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. crowley. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. crowley: i thank my friend from colorado. i think. i'm teasing. i rise today, mr. speaker, to encourage my colleagues to vote no on ordering the previous

question so we can consider mr. connolly's amendment that would give our constituents a chance to see whose sign their representative is on. since the republican majority took office, they have repeatedly focused on chipping away at the protections afforded by medicare, medicaid, social security and the affordable care act. yet many of these same members are happy to claim these benefits for themselves and their families even as they vote to deny access to the benefits for the very people who put them in office. the american people deserve better. we're saying to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle if you're going to force your constituents to give up the right to access affordable insurance or retirement security, then you should do the same. last year, i introduced a resolution that will require all members of congress to publicly disclose whether they participate in the federal employees health benefit program. the reasoning was simple.

if republicans wish to take away quality, affordable health care from americans, then they can no longer hide their benefits from the taxpayers that subsidize their own care. the taxpayers are our employers. and they deserve to know which members are keeping taxpayer subsidized health benefits for themselves and their families while they vote to deny those same health care benefits and rights to all american families. for all their talk of transparency and accountability, my resolution was met with silence from the other side of the aisle. today, they have a chance to try again. and say to their constituents, i won't take away your benefits unless i am willing to give up mine as well. how many will take that promise? everyone should. but i fear that their party's political promises will trump the promises they should make to help their constituents. i will vote to stand on the side of the american people and

encourage every one of my colleagues to join me. vote no on ordering the previous question. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields pack. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. rene see. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. renacci: this recession has proven more stubborn than previous ones in part because it has hit solid middle class jobs the hardest. the medical technology industry, however, is one area where america remains a global leader in manufacturing. there are more than 35,000 medical technology industry jobs in ohio alone, well paying jobs, too. unfortunately, the president's health care law wants to punish this industry's success. his overhaul of the health care

industry created a 2.3% tax on medical device sales in the u.s. which will be implemented just six months from now. as a small business owner myself, i understand this tax will have a huge negative impact on this industry, killing american jobs, slowing medical innovation, and harming america's global competitiveness. that is because this tax is on revenues, not profits. some in the halls of congress and this administration who have never worked in the private sector and may not realize it, that is an important distinction, placing a tax on the revenue side makes it much more costly for small device makers to pay for it because many of them have high revenue levels but much smaller profit margins. you are taxes them based on how much business they do, not on how much money they make. an idea only career politicians could dream up and attempt to implement. over 75% of medical devicemakers are small businesses with fewer than 50 employees.

as such it's been estimated that this tax will lead to somewhere between 15,000 and 50,000 lost jobs. i will not stand -- between 15 and 50,000 lost jobs. that's why i stand in strong support of the health care cost reduction act which would repeal this tax and i thank representative paulsen for introducing it. we cannot be competitively global when we tax our manufacturers and small businesses at a higher rate than our foreign competitors tax theirs. i urge my colleagues to practice some economic sense and join me in voting to repeal this tax. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: why should members of congress get special benefits because they're members of congress that they vote to deny to their constituents? thankfully, if we defeat the previous question, mr. connolly will bring forward an amendment to address this issue. i'm proud to yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. connolly: i thank my colleague, mr. polis. i rise to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. if we defeat the previous question, we'll move immediately to consideration of an amendment that will ensure that members of congress do not shield themselves from changes in health care benefits that would reduce the level of care for our constituents. in fact, we might even call this, what's good for the goose amendment. in fact, the simple, commonsense amendment would add a new section at the end of the legislative branch appropriations act to prohibit any proposed repeal of benefits in the social security, medcare, medicaid or the affordable care act from taking effect until it is certified that a majority of members in this body and the senate are no longer eligible, whether through automatic or voluntary withdrawal, to receive the same benefits being repealed. my colleagues will recall in the health care reform debate, we responded to false claims

about members of congress having gold plated health care by removing ourselves from the federal employee health benefits program. members will soon use their own state-based exchanges to purchase insurance just like any other family in their community. we wanted our constituents to have as much confidence as we do that the exchanges will deliver the care that's promised. in keeping with that spirit, my simple amendment would ensure members of congress stand with their residents in living with any changes in benefits we might legislate. mr. speaker, we can offer our residents comfort of mind knowing that members of congress will share in the same benefits or reduced benefits by adopting this simple, commonsense amendment, proving that what is good for the goose is also good for the grander. i urge the de-feet of the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. scott: i yield one minute to the gentleman from indiana, mr. rokita. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rokita: indiana is a leader in the medical technology

devices, providing thousands of jobs to hoosiers. many of these are small businesses, all working on cutting edge innovation. we need to preserve what is working in america. the medical device industry is working. in fact, it's helping to save the manufacturing in this country, period. one of the biggest threats to the medical device industry is the tax punishing policies put forth by the last congress and the president of the united states. commonly known as obamacare. it will send these manufacturing jobs to other countries so the cost of the tax can be made up. in addition to sending jobs out of the country, this tax, not repealed, will only drive up the cost of health care by shifting the cost onto consumers. medical device jobs provide an average of $60,000 in indiana alone, which is 56% higher than the state average. the economic impact of indiana's medical device industry eclipses $10 billion and job growth has grown 40% in the last few years.

similar numbers can be applied to the state and across the nation. i ask for another 30 seconds. mr. scott: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. mr. rokita: though the tax is not scheduled to take effect until this january, we are already feeling its choking boot on the necks of working people. it's just one more example of this failed presidency. the national unmoiment rate increased again last month. we cannot afford to move forward with this eill-conceived tax on american innovation and companies who add value to this nation and its economy. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on the rule and for final passage of h.r. 4356. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i have no additional speakers on this huge republican middle class tax increase. i will reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from south carolina. mr. scott: i yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois, mr. walsh. the speaker pro tempore: i thank the gentleman for -- mr. walsh: mr. speaker, illinois is hurting. the medical technology industry is one of the only success stories in the state employing thousands and still growing. the district i represent is home to many of these medical technology companies. these are quality jobs with employees earning on average 10% more than their counterparts in similar manufacturing fields. we must act now without hesitation. illinois alone could lose anywhere from 1,200 to 1,300 good-paying jobs thatter support american families. that's why i co-sponsored h.r. 436, rise in support now and will continue to support all efforts to repeal the medical device tax. mr. speaker, the highest level of prosperity occurs when there

is a free market economy and a minimum of government regulations. illinois has suffered enough. we can't stand idly by and watch more burdensome texases prevent -- taxes prevent honest, hardworking americans from getting the quality jobs they deserve. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i'd like to inquire if my colleague has any remaining speakers? i would like to inquire of the speaker how much time remains on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado has 2 1/2 -- 2 1/4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from south carolina has 6 3/4 minutes remaining. mr. polis: i yield myself the remainder of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: mr. speaker, at a time when millions of americans are still out of work, here's yet another bill on the house floor that does nothing to create jobs or get our economy back on track. this house has already passed repeals of the affordable care

act several times, and here we have another bill that takes three bills and run lumps them together with a controversial payment mechanism that's a huge tax increase on the middle class and drives congress further from consensus and sound governance. again we are spending another legislative day repealing various parts of the affordable care act that the president said he would veto with no opportunity for members of either party to offer amendments or substitute. instead of seeking a bipartisan agreement on reducing health care costs or doing anything to further the repeal of the medical device tax, instead the republicans have made it impossible for many to support this bill by combining a number of unrelated bills with a huge middle class tax increase. this is not a transparent one bill at a time bill that the american people desoy. my colleagues are once again passing an opportunity for bipartisan reform in favor of simply scoring political points. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous material

prior to the vote on the previous question. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question so we can make sure members of congress don't receive special benefits that we would deny to our constituents. i urge a no vote on the rule so we can avoid this enormous republican middle class tax increase, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr. chairman. my assumption is my friends to the left truly believe if you say it often enough it might become true. and even if it doesn't become true, if you say it often enough perhaps someone watching will assume that the words being spoken are somehow true. you have heard several times in the last hour things that have been said over and over again because we are obviously once again in an election year, and

after hearing the arguments made by the other side is a request for recorded vote oning -- regarding the previous question, there is no doubt that we are in an election year. to clarify, any future changes and benefits to social security or medicare would also and always apply to members of this body. there are no exceptions, mr. chairman. no, not one exception whatsoever. there are no carveouts in the law giving special treatment to members of congress under social security or medicare. but if you say it often enough, perhaps someone, somewhere watching somewhere in this nation will come to the conclusion that it must be right. so let me say it one more time.

members of congress will comply to the law as it is on social security and medicare. the second thing we have heard consistently over and over again , and this is another part of that alternate universe that doesn't exist unless you want someone to believe something that is not true, that somehow recapturing overpayments of health care subsidies is now considered a tax. i would say that at a time when we face a $16 trillion debt, we cannot afford to not recapture all the money owed to the federal government. but my friends on the left want people to believe if you recapture the dollars that were given inappropriately, then somehow, some way, this becomes a tax increase. let me say it just in case folks listening didn't understand the words i was speaking. requiring people to return money not correctly given to them,

this is not a tax. it certainly is not a tax increase. it is simply a matter of honesty and integrity. mr. speaker, we are talking about the health care bill that took $500 billion from medicare. we are talking about the health care bill that takes $500 billion out of the pockets of everyday, average middle class americans in the form of tax increases. and those folks that own property, $123 billion through a new 3.8% tax. today we find ourselves in the position of repealing a $29 billion medical device tax because the people who need the medical devices will end up paying that tax. i think we are in a motion today

d.d. position today, mr. speaker torques make sure that over 423,000 americans who are employed in this country are able to continue to work. i believe that we are in a position, mr. speaker, to ensure that the health care of millions of americans continues to be a critical part of the discussion. mr. speaker, we are at a place to make sure that new tax, $29 billion of new taxes, don't continue to destroy american jobs. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote not only vote for the rule but vote for the underlying legislation. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time, and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. mr. polis: on that i request a

roll call vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman request the yeas and nays? mr. polis: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. the chair will reduce to minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 240. the nays are 179. the previous question is ordered. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. will members please take their seats. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. will members please take their seats. members, please clear the well. take your seats.

members, please take your conversations off the floor and clear the well. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the house, all of us through our lives meet people, particularly when we were young, and i'm sure this happened to people who were with leaders of our country, thomas jefferson, a young man, i'm sure there were people who met thomas jefferson when he was 25 and they said to themselves, boy, this guy really has his head in the clouds. and then he became one of the great people of democracies in

our world. when i was 23 years of age, in 1962, i was working for a united states senator, his name was daniel brucer 69 -- brewster from our state of maryland. and that summer he hired as an intern a young woman, younger than me, but about my age, close, and we had the opportunity to get to know one another. and we sat approximately 12 feet from one another as a young college graduate and a young law school student. that was 1962. through the years i stayed in maryland and that young woman got married and moved to california.

and just a few years later i came to the congress of the united states and six years later she came to the congress of the united states. after having been the chairman of her party in the largest state in the union. having been very much involved with the united states senate. having been a leader in our country not as a member of congress but in her role as a significant party leader and a member of the democratic national committee. in sally burton died, herself a member of a distinguished political family, this young woman ran for congress of the united states. her father had served in the congress of the united states, been a member of the appropriations committee, been mayor of baltimore city, and been the father of a mayor of baltimore city.

how proud he would be of this young daughter he raised at his knee not frankly as somewhat caricatured as a san francisco, but as a baltimore city pol. i say that with great affection. who knew how to put neighborhoods together, who knew how to take care of citizens in that city, that's where she learned her politics. and as thomas jefferson had people who attacked him bitterly, she has had the same. we all have that in this game we participate in that we care deeply about. that young woman that i first worked with in 1962 became the highest ranking woman in the history of our country in our government.

and now we note some celebrate, others note, her obtaining of a quarter century of service in this body. and all of us will be able to tell our grandchildren, and i have my grandchildren now, but i have a number of them now, and a number of them are young women, and i tell them how proud they can be of the leadership and trail that has been blazed by this extraordinary woman. and i talked to a number of you on the republican side of the aisle, my good friend, roy blunt, and he says to me, he says, boy, that woman has a spine of steel, and that she does. those of us who have dealt with her know that she's one of the

strongest leaders any of us has served with, whether you agree with her or don't agree with her. and so i rise, mr. speaker, to note this anniversary of 25 years of service of nancy pelosi from the state of maryland and very proud, proud state of maryland, to have a daughter like nancy, and a state that is proud of its citizen servant, nancy pelosi. so i now yield -- so i now yield -- ladies and gentlemen, i now

have the great honor of yielding to my friend, we are both americans, we both love this institution, and he is now himself not quite as historic figure because there have been many men who have been speaker of the house of representatives, but my friend, john baber, speaker of the house. qush -- john boehner, speaker of the house. the speaker: let me thank my friend, mr. hoyer, for yielding. i rise today to commend our colleague, the gentlelady from california, on her 25 years of service to this institution. it's the latest in a series of

milestones for the gentlelady from california. on january 4, 2007, i had the privilege of presenting leader la lowsy the -- leader pelosi the gavel when she became the speaker of the house, the first female speaker of the house, but just as important as this anniversary is, in and of itself, it also represents 25 years of commitment and service to this institution. now, the gentlelady from california and i have differing political philosophies, and we have had some real battles here on the floor over the 22 years that i have served with her about -- many of you know the gentlelady and i have a very, very workable relationship and we get along with each other fine. we treat each other very nicely,

and actually have a warm relationship. but because we all serve in this institution and we all have work to do to protect the institution and serve the institution, and i can tell all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, that i enjoy my relationship with her and enjoy our ability to work together. now, it doesn't mean, all right, that we are going to agree on taxes or we are going to agree on spending, but i know i speak for the whole house when i rise today to say to the gentlelady from california, ms. pelosi, congratulations on 25 years of real service to this institution. thank you.

mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i will now yield back but before i do the gentlelady from california would like me to yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. in the political life that we have here and our service to the american people, i take great pride in always saying when someone says to me were you surprised when somebody did this or this bill did that, i say, i'm hardly ever surprised in politics. because i know what the possibilities are. i am thoroughly surprised today t i had absolutely no idea that -- today. i had absolutely no idea the mischief that mr. hoyer was up

to going back decades i might add. but i thank him for his kind words and all of you for your nice reception and i thank the speaker for his gracious comments as well. . i was remembering, oh, my goodness, we are taking up time on the floor and this is personal and i was recalling it wasn't that long ago when we -- maybe five, six years ago we came to the floor and that then speaker hastert was the longest serving republican speaker of the house and we made much adieu about that landmark. so i comfortably accept your kind words. since we could observe that, i think -- and i said long may his record stand at that time. that is the humor in certain

circles. as the gentlemen were speaking, i was recalling when i was first speaker and sitting in the chair to welcome the president of the united states to the chamber for the first time and it was president george w. bush. and president bush surprised me that day, too, when he opened his remarks by saying to the gathered crowd that many speakers had the privilege of -- many presidents had come to the congress to speak to a joint session, but none of them had ever opened their remarks with these two words -- madam speaker. and he then went on to say, although my father served in congress with president roosevelt and president truman and that was a tremendous honor for him, that doesn't compare

to the idea that his -- he said something like, baby girl, was sitting in the chair as speaker of the house. that was an honor for me. his father honored me for my 25th anniversary. president george herbert walker bush on president's day by inviting me to speak to his library, the bush library at texas a&m. we recalled a time of civility in the congress when he was president and we had our disagreements, as the speaker acknowledged, we still do, but we did so with great civility and that was what we talked about that day. i consider that a great honor. and i consider this a great honor. to serve with each and every one of you, patriots all, representatives, independent representatives of your district, and that word has two meanings. it's your title, it's also our job description that we

represent our districts and bring beautiful diversity of opinion, of ethnicity, of generations, of geography, a philosophy to the congress of the united states. the beauty, i say in my district, is in the mix. while i am honored to serve as speaker of the house, first woman speaker of the house, first italia ran american speaker of the house, first maryland speaker of the house, first california speaker of the house, many firsts, it always is the greatest privilege of my life as i'm sure it is with each of you to step on the floor of the house to represent and speak for the people of each of our individual districts. so i thank you, mr. speaker, for your kind words. while as you said, we may not always agree on taxes we did at one time when president bush was president and we worked together at that time to -- on his stimulus package, which was tax oriented.

you remember that. it was good for the country. and it was a good model for us to go forward. it's an honor to serve with you as speaker. while i with great joy accepted the gavel from you that first time, it wasn't so joyful to hand it back over, but nonetheless, it's all in the chamber and that's where we all serve for the american people. steny, you don't know when, you don't know where but one day, one day i will repay this magnificent honor you have extended to me by taking me totally by surprise. and wait until i talk to my staff about this later. steny hoyer, great patriot, great marylander, great member's member, a person who respects every person he serves with. steny hoyer, mr. speaker, i

know i speak for everyone in the chamber when i say we are proud to call you colleague. thank you so much for this opportunity. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the question is on adoption of the resolution. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: on that i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 241. the nation is 172. the motion is adopted. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, seek recognition? mr. camp: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 679, i call up the bill h.r. 436, the health care cost reduction act of 2012, and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 362, h.r. 436, a bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on medical devices. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 679, in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on ways and means printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 112-23, is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered as read. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, and the gentleman

from michigan, mr. levin, each will control 45 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. camp: and to include extraneous material on h.r. 346. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. . the house will be in order. the house will be in order. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: i come to the floor today in support of h.r. 436, the health care cost reduction act of 2012. this bill would repeal two of the harmful tax hikes contained in the democrats' health care law. the medical device tax and restrictions on using health related savings accounts for over-the-counter medication.

the legislation also includes a provision that will increase flexibility for health care consumers who use flexible spending arrangements, all are fully paid for by recouping overpayment of taxpayer funded subsidies used to purchase health care in the government run exchanges. notably every one of these provisions has bipartisan support. as a result of obamacare, beginning in 2013 a 2.3% tax will be imposed on the sale of medical devices by manufacturers or importers. this tax will increase the effective tax rate for many medical technology companies threatening higher costs, job loss, and reduced investment here at home. one study predicts as many as 43,000 american jobs are at risk if this goes into place. a recent "washington post" piece by george will reinforced the threat to job creation and investment noting that, zimmer based in indiana is laying off 450 workers and taking a $50

million charge against earnings. net tronics expects an annual charge against earnings of $175 million. and zola medical corporation says the tax will inmact the company's investment in research and development stating that means fewer jobs for engineers. plain and simple this tax hike is a job killer and must be repealed. i commend committee member eric paulson for for introducing this legislation. the medicine cabinet tax imposes new restrictions on the purchase of over-the-counter medications through tax advantage accounts used to pay for health care related needs. because of the democrats' health care law, patients must now get a prescription from a physician if they want to use these accounts to pay for over-the-counter medication. the ban affects everyday lives. it prevents a mom from using her h.s.a. in the middle of the night to buy could have med sinn -- cough medicine for her sick child.

a parent can use their f.s.a. to bayh claritin. one study states even eliminating half of these unnecessary appointments could save patients time and the health care system more than 20 million visits each year, reaping a savings of more than $5 million. -- $5 billion. these new restrictions must be repealed and i'm happy the provision introduced by committee member lynn jenkins is being considered today. the last provision a new approach that allows consumers the freedom and flexibility to keep more of their money. under current law, employees' f.s.a. balances must be spent by the end of the year or they will forfeit any unused balance under the use it or loose it rule. such a rule encourages wasteful spending. this legislation would allow participants to cash out up to

$500 in f.s.a. balances and those funds would be treated as regular factionable wages. allowing -- taxable wages. allowing americans to keep more of their hard-earned dollars in these difficult times is a commonsense goal that should be widely supported. this provision championed by dr. boustany is a commonsense one and i urge its passage. finally i'd like to take just a moment to talk about the offset for this legislation. asking those who receive higher taxpayer funded premium subsidies and they are eligible to receive to repay all the overpayments. let me be clear, this is a bipartisan offset. increasing the amount of overpayments to be repaid with a proposal first put forward by congressional democrats in the 2010 compared doc fix legislation which passed the democrat controlled house 409-2. such an offset was used again when the house passed anti-president signed the 10 99 repeal last year and more than 70 democrats supported that bill. health and human services secretary said paying back subsidy overpayments makes it fairer for all taxpayers.

this legislation and the provisions included here are supported by job creators big and small, patient advocates, senior organizations, and physician groups. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these groups by voting for the health care cost reduction act and thank you, mr. speaker. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: this bill is mainly a smokescreen. it is an effort to cover up the failure, indeed the refusal of republicans to act on the key issue facing our nation, jobs and economic growth. as ranking member, i sent a letter last friday to dave camp who chairs the committee with the jurisdiction over the bill before us today urging action on six major jobs bills within the

committee's jurisdiction. extension of the section 48-c advanced energy manufacturing credit. extension of the production tax credit for wind power. and other vital advanced energy incentives. extension of the highly successful build america bonds program which financed more than $180 billion in infrastructure investment. exclusion of the -- extension of the 100% bonus depreciation. creation of a 10% income tax credit for small businesses that do create new jobs or increase their pay control. -- payroll. an extension of the jobs related expired provision such as the r&d tax credit. the answer? silence and continued inaction

by republicans in this house. another bill over which the committee has jurisdiction, the highway bill, remains unacted upon. that bill would mean jobs, millions of jobs, no action. the republican house message on the highway bill is our way or the highway, and that means no highways. it is june, it is now the likelihood of no action or none before the construction season is over in numerous states. that inaction is not an accident. it is deliberate. it is implementing the goal stated 20 months ago by the senate republican leader, and i quote, the single most important

thing we want to achieve is for president obama to be a one-term president, end of quote. it is reflected in the recent interview by the house republican leader, mr. cantor said the rest of the year will likely be about, and i quote, sending signals we have huge problems to deal with, end of quote. sending signals? the american people don't need and want signals. they need to take -- they need for us to take action to strengthen the economic recovery. we will hear today republican efforts to describe the bill before us to repeal the tax on medical devices as a jobs bill. what it really is is another republican effort to repeal

health care reform, step by step, costing in this case $29 billion. we democrats want more americans to have access to medical devices. health care reform helps do this by expanding insurance coverage to over 30 million individuals which inkeyed will -- which indeed will help the growth of and innovation in the medical device industry. and as was true for other health groups, benefiting from increases in health coverage, the medical device industry was asked to help to pay for health care reform so it would be fully paid for, not add to the deficit as so many republican measures, but it would be fully paid for. and they signed a letter with others pledging, and i quote, we

as stakeholder representatives are committed to doing other part to make reform a reality. in order to make the system more affordable and effective for patients and purchasers. we stand ready to work with you to accomplish this goal, end of quotes. the first signature on that letter is from and by the president and c.e.o. of the advance medical technology association. now the republicans are attempting to give that industry a free pass, a free pass contrary to their stated commitment. and the industry has not proposed any alternative whatsoever to meet that

obligation reflected in the letter they signed. there is an effort here to cast repeal of the tax as a small business bill. the 10 largest companies in this supermarket would pay 86% of the taxes relating to nondiagnostic devices, and according to c.r.s. the 10 largest companies that manufacture medical devices had total companywide profits on all of their lines of businesses both devices and other products, of $42 billion in 2010, including companies mentioned here, and $48 billion in 2011. and these companies had gross revenues from the sale of

medical devices in 2010 of $133 billion. there's an effort here also to cast the bill as an effort to stop offshoring. but this point needs to be made. it's a fact. the tax applies to all covered devices, including those that are imported. so if anybody thinks they can just move overseas and bring it back here and not pay a tax, they're simply incorrect. the effort to cast this as a jobs bill involved allegations, repeated here during the debate on the rule, which were analyzed by a neutral source and found to

be simply erroneous. a bloomberg group analysis made that clear, and i quote, the study used by republicans cite no evidence for the job loss claim, end of quote. further, the study assumptions, the study's assumptions, and i quote, conflict with economic research, overstate company's incentives to move jobs offshore, and ignore the positive effect of new demand, end of quotes, created by the health care reform law. the four -- before rules yesterday, i asked that my substitute be placed in order to allow debate on two real jobs initiatives mentioned in my letter to you, chairman camp. a tax credit for employers that

expand their payrolls and an extension of bonus greeshation. -- greeshation. -- depreciation. those two provisions would help create hundreds of thousands of jobs, not speculation, but real, including in small business. this has not been allowed. so we have open rules as we have seen the last few days on some bills that often mainly result in numerous amendments, shifting some moneys from one place to another in an agency, not often helping to create a single job, but a closed rule when it comes to bringing up provisions helping to create american jobs and economic growth. this is further evidence of what is really going on here in this

establishment. a deliberate effort now increasingly undisguised to close the door on action to engender job creation and economic growth before the election. november 6 is what is driving the republican congress. politics not people. . it is indeed pernicious. we owe it to the american people to blow the whistle on this. too much indeed is at stake. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i yield 2 1/2 minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, mr. paulsen from minnesota. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. paulsen: thank you very much. i thank the chairman for

yielding and i thank him for his leadership on the committee as well. mr. speaker and members, the medical technology industry is one of america's greatest success stories. this is an industry that has led the global device industry for decades with life-improving, life-saving technologies that help patients and literally save lives. this device industry employs 423,000 americans across the country. some of our states like minnesota have a high propencity because we have a huge ecosystem of medical technology. 35,000 jobs alone in my state. but all that will change, mr. speaker, unless we act to stop a new medical device tax, a $29 billion tax that is going to be imposed in just a little over six months that was part of the president's new health care law. now, this is an excise tax is not on revenue -- sorry -- not on profits. it is a tax that will be on revenue. and what does that mean? we all know the names of the big companies that are successful and do really well

across the country and sell throughout the world. but i will tell you this, almost every week i get a chance to tour a company that has five employees, that has 10 employees, you have never heard of these companies. but they are working on life-saving and life-improving technologies. they are doctors, they are engineers, they are entrepreneurs, they are innovators. and this tax will change all that because it's estimated that this tax will cost 10% of the work force. i talked to a company earlier today, a c.e.o. of a company of a 13-year-old medical device company, employs 1,500 workers here in the united states and he's consistently added 300 jobs a year for the last few years. he said point blank, if this tax goes into effect it will cost the company $14 million, that means 200 people less will be hired this next year. mr. speaker, what is worse to point out, companies are already preparing right now for the impact of this tax. companies are already laying off employees. we heard of companies in michigan that are laying off 5%

of their work force in anticipation of the tax. so, mr. speaker, jobs are clearly at risk. and this will especially hit startup companies hard, companies that are not yet profitable because this is a tax on revenue, not on profits. we have a chance and an opportunity to stop this tax dead in its tracks because it's an opportunity to protect jobs. we passed the bill in committee just a week ago under the chairman's leadership with bipartisan support. we have 240 co-authors of support for this legislation with bipartisan support. i anticipate we will be successful moving forward. i ask and urge support for the legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i now yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from california, a senior member of our committee, mr. stark. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. stark: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. i rise in strong opposition to 436. one more piece of republican

legislation that protects special interests at the expense of working families. this is just mohr message in an attempt to -- this is another message in an attempt to undercut the affordable care act. it repeals a small excise tax imposed on the medical device industry as their contribution to health reform in light of their expanded market. and i might remind you that repealing this tax costs $29 billion in deficit losses. how do they finance? this legislation, like they always do, take out the hides of lower income working families, give it to rich manufacturers. the bill eliminates protections in the health reform law that prevents families from

potentially being hit with an unexpected tax because of unforeseen income changes. according to the joint committee, this change by the republicans would cost over 350,000 people to become uninsured. it's an -- it's important to note that the medical device industry stood with president obama and others in the health care industry in may of 2009 and pledged to contribute their fair share toward making health reform a reality. well, it's time, guys, to put your money where your mouth is. the medical device industry gains more than $30 million newly insured americans through health reform. many of whom will use medical devices at some point in their lives. our analysis shows that the vast majority of this tax would

be paid by the 10 largest device companies, and they're all highly profitable. protecting the very profitable medical device industry from paying a small contribution toward health reform should not be our priority in this congress. we must create jobs, ensure patients maintain access to physicians and medicare and prevent student loan rates from doubling on july 1. those are the priorities facing our nation, and i urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting no on this republican giveaway to special interests. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: thank you. at this time i yield 2 1/2 minutes to a distinguish member of the ways and means committee, the gentlewoman from kansas, ms. jenkins. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from kansas is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. ms. jenkins: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank him for his leadership on this very important issue. mr. speaker, last thursday h.r. 5842, the restoring access to medication act, which i authored and introduced, passed out of the full ways and means committee markup with

bipartisan support. it is now included in this bill that is being considered on the floor today. we all know the president's health care law is full of pitfalls that makes health care more expensive for average americans. while we await the supreme court's ruling on constitutionality of the entire health care overhaul, there is bipartisan, bicameral agreement that requiring folks to have a doctor's prescription to buy medicine is as simple as advil or cough syrup with their health savings account or their flexible savings account is simply wrong. this provision would repeal the unnecessary and punitive obamacare limitation on reimbursement of over-the-counter medication with health f.s.a.'s, h.r.a.'s, h.s.a.'s that took effect back in 2011. given the economic climate where jobs are hard to find, families are struggling to make

ends meet and when every dollar counts, this provision ensures that consumers have the flexibility to use these savings accounts as they see fit to purchase over-the-counter medications they need exactly when they need them. republicans are committed to looking for commonsense solutions that address the chief concerns facing both families and employers, cost. this bill and this provision is about lowering cost so both families and job creators have some of the relief that obamacare failed to achieve. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 436 today and i thank the gentleman for yielding and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: it's now my pleasure to yield three minutes to another important member of our committee, mr. mcdermott from seattle, washington. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is

recognized for three minutes. without objection. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i never cease to be amazed. i think i have seen the silliest thing in the world and then i come out here and they've done it again. sometime in the next 23 days the supreme court is going to make a ruling on whether the accountable care act is constitutional. if they throw it out, as the republican party of prayer is hoping, this tax will have never existed. it will be gone because it's never been implemented. it's not affecting anybody. this is a p.r. stunt for the election. the republicans are helping the device industry back out of a deal they made during health care reform. in may, 2009, the president of advomed, which is the

organization of the device manufacturers, signed a letter to president obama stating, we are ready to work with you to do health reform. the industry later agreed, agreed -- let me underline that -- agreed to the excise tax knowing the costs will be offset by the new demand for devices created by the 30 million new people who would be insured. that was the deal they made. you can't make a deal with a republican and think it's going to last. it surely won't. and all the other sectors of the health care industry made similar deals. unlike the bush-era congress, the democrats insisted their legislation be paid for. we paid for the whole thing. well, guess what, advomed now wants out of the deal. they never meant it. they were a flew flam operation when they came in the first

place. they claimed, oh, my god, we are going to lose 43,000 jobs. you know who did the study? advomed, contracted with somebody to do a study. and lo and behold, they lost 43,000 jobs. bloomberg had an independent consultant look at it and they find that there is no evidence that there will be any jobs lost whatsoever. that was entered in the record during the earlier debate and i won't do it again. the demand for devices will remain steady even after the tax kicks in and the tax does not apply to devices made -- does not only apply to devices made in america and shipped overseas, it applies to every one of them. there's no way you are going to get out of it. so the argument about offshoring jobs is about

political nonsense. they want to call this a jobs bill. we're saving 43,000 jobs that were never in doubt, were never questioned. a company is laying off somebody today in anticipation a tax that goes in in 2013, 2013, folks, six months from now that might be repealed by the supreme court is -- you cannot tell me that the banishment of these companies are that foolish. now, now are they going to pay for this repeal? by having -- one more minute? mr. levin: how much? mr. mcdermott: a minute. having the i.r.s. claw back the subsidies to middle-income families who will be in the new health plans. the treasury will pay these subsidies directly to the health plan so the individuals won't even know it happened. so they will be invisible to the newly insured but at the end of the year these folks will now have to write -- middle-class people will suddenly get a bill from the i.r.s. for something they never knew went there. so we are going to let $100 billion industry pull out of a deal and pay for it by requiring working people across this country to write a check to the i.r.s.

welcome to republican-style health care reform. vote no on this bill. it's simply another way to try and repeal obamacare. mr. obama cares. he passed the bill. the republicans have done nothing since they've been in charge. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield 2 1/2 minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from louisiana, dr. boustany. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. boustany: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank chairman camp for his leadership on this issue. i rise in support of this bill. let's be clear, successful health care reform efforts must be begin by lowering costs, promoting high-quality health care and fostering innovation. obamacare does the opposite. even medicare's own actuary warns that the president's medical device tax will increase americans' monthly premiums. the tax will eliminate more than 40,000 jobs.

passage of this bill will reduce costs and save jobs by repealing this tax. now, mr. speaker, as a heart surgeon i have used medical innovation that have saved thousands of lives, and i want to highlight something. back in the 1950's when we had no treatments for heart disease, a surgeon watched people die helplessly. after eight or nine months, he devised the very first heart-lung machine in his shop, and this led to an explosion in technology that has saved millions of lives the world over. this was an american innovation. now, 80% of device companies today, 80% hire less than few -- have less than 50 employees. these are innovators. these are the people who create jobs. these are the guarantors of american innovation. and without this what are we going to have with our health care system? that's what's made american

health care the best on the planet. we don't want to take a step back. putting this tax in place will discourage these startup innovators. they will not take risk and we will harm patients in the long run because of the lack of breakthroughs. i am very pleased that this bill contains ms. jenkins' provision that will prevent a middle class tax hike, will allow individuals to use their flexible spending arrangements to purchase over-the-counter medications without having to see a doctor for a prescription which is costly and time consuming. i'm pleased that the bill includes bipartisan legislation that i authored with congressman john larson of connecticut to make it easier for americans to save their pretax dollars in f.s.a.'s without losing the money that they don't use at the end of the year. it's their money, they should be able to keep the money and use it for their own health care purposes or whatever

purposes they deem essential for their families. americans need tax relief to help them with the rising out of pocket cost of health care and other costs they have. we should be encouraging and not punishing new medical breakthroughs. i urge my colleagues to support these commonsense solutions in h.r. 436. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i now yield three minutes to another very distinguished member of our committee, mr. pascrell from new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. speaker. ranking member. mr. chairman. this bill repeals the 2.3% excise tax on medical devices used in the united states that was originally enacted as part of the affordable care act.

now let's talk straight to the american people. how many bills do we have to go through when you will admit through the chair or the speaker that all you're doing is trying to bleed the legislation, which is now law in the united states, so that the resources are not there to carry out the mandate. no industry gets a free pass when it comes to health care reform. all sectors of the health care industry, from pharmaceutical companies to hospitals to drug manufacturers, and the medical device industry, contributed to the cost of health reform. we're at the table -- and were at the table during these discussions. how different is that? they agreed to this. in a letter to president obecause many in 2009, the

medical device industry pledged to do their part in lowering health spending by $2 trillion. what made them change their mind? they committed to making health reform a reality. they put it in writing. it's all in. it's all in. to lower health care costs. now we've had some kind of a moral change of sorts. many of these companies were present when it was discussed and they understood the long-term benefits. thanks to health care reform, the medical device industry stands to gain a lot of customers and increase a lot of rev lieu -- revenue. according to the rand corporation, an estimated 33% of newly insured adults will be of the age from 50 to 64, an age group where people will need medical devices.

by bringing so many new people into the insurance market, the affordable care act will provide patients the opportunity to access medical devices that save and improve their lives. this bill is not about patient care that you have before us. it is not about saving money in our health care system. it's just another attempt among the majority to dismantle health care reform. piece by piece. repealing this provision from the affordable care act once again undermines financing for the law and will unfortunately do more harm than good. unlike what happened the previous eight year well, want to pay for things. so that we don't get ourselves deeper into debt. you don't get it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. levin: i yield the gentleman an adecisional minute.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pascrell: and once again the majority returns to this provision which only hurts the middle class who receive needed subsidies to enter the health insurance market. so here's what's going to happen in the health care bill. insurance companies gain a lot of customers, adding to free enterprise. year not against that. medical device companies are going to get a lot of new customers, particularly in the age group which i mentioned before. we're not against free entire prize. but they agreed at the table, since they were all in, and they put it in writing, that they were willing to provide those lowering of costs of close to $2 trillion. you can't go back on a deal, let's call it that, an agreement. let's make it better. i urge my colleague to protect the affordable care act, vote no on this legislation. it will not bring us any closer to health care reform in this

country. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from california, mr. herger. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. herger: i rise in strong support of the protect medical inrow -- innovation act. it's a well-known principle that if you increase taxes on something, you get less of it. the medical device tax is a tax on innovation. it's a tax on creating good-paying american jobs, and it's a tax on the development of potentially life-saving medical treatments. because it taxes sales instead of income, it will be especially harmful to new startup businesses that aren't turning a profit yet. my friends on the other side object to the offset in this

bill even though it merely requires that people pay back benefits they make too much money to qualify for. their view seems to be that we should make it as easy as possible for people to sign up for taxpayer funded benefits, and if that means we waste some money along the way, so be it. mr. speaker, at a time when we're borrowing 32 cents of every dollar we spend, i suggest we should be doubly careful to ensure that benefits go only to those who truly need them. the ke before us today is simple. do we want less innovation? less entrepreneurialship? less high tech jobs?

andless medical breakthroughs? if you think america has too much of these things, vote no. but if you want to see more jobs, more startups, and more health care innovation, vote yes and repeal this damaging tax. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from minnesota, ms. mccollum. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. mccollum: i thank the gentleman from michigan for the time. mr. speaker, i want the affordable care act to be fully implemented for the benefit of all americans. i also support a healthy, growing medical device industry. minnesota and across -- in minnesota and across america. i support eliminating this medical device tax, which should never have been included in the affordable care act. but at the same time, i strongly oppose the offset in this bill. this tea party republican congress controlling the house has voted over and over again to eliminate health reform protections and benefits.

denying millions of americans access to life-saving care, including medical devices. the republican goal is to kill health care reform, my goal is to strengthen it. today, i will vote to send this bill to the senate where i know a responsible offset can be found my two minnesota senators are committed to repealing this tax and they will find an offset that does no harm. eliminate this tax and strengthen health care for all americans, that's my goal. i yield back and i thank you very much for the time, sir. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: thank you. at this time, i yield two minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from washington state, mr. reichert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. reichert: i thank the gentleman for yielding time. mr. speaker, we have been here before. we are here today to talk about the health care cost reduction act and it's an act reducing costs from a bill that's called

the affordable health care act. so let's bring a little bit of context into this, mr. speaker. this isn't the first time, as i said, we've been here. 1099 reform. language included in the so-called affordable health care act, more commonly known as obamacare. a burdensome tax on small businesses, the democrats agreed it needed to be removed from the bill. the president agreed and signed it into law. the class act. was announced by the secretary of our health, secretary sebelius. we can't afford to implement the class act. that was designed to help with long-term health care issues. can't do it. can't afford it. under the affordable health care act. the independent review board, we've passed a bill here in the house to eliminate that. what does that -- what does

that do? it takes away choice from the american people, especially seniors and veterans on what you want to do with your own health care. so time after time -- so time after time after time, we're finding language in this bill that is not affordable, that does not give americans the opportunity to choose for themselves. it takes away choice. it takes away freedom. today we're talking about a 2.3% tax. that will cost thousands of jobs. about 10,000 in the state of washington. and it will increase the price of medical devices on things you may not even think about. for example, a filtration device on a dialysis machine. that's going to be a medical device that will be taxed. who is going to pay for that? the claim is that these company -- companies that are making so much money, they'll be the ones to pay for it. this bill is paid for through those companies. those costs are passed on to the customer, to the patients.

mr. camp: i yield the gentleman 15 seconds. mr. reichert: thank you. i would say that this bill does not have a good track record and we should vote for this health care cost reduction act and i encourage my colleagues to do the same. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i have the privilege of recognizing the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. critz. two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. critz: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you for yielding. mr. speaker, the medical device industry is a unique american success story, both for patients and for our economy. within the last two decades, we have seen a rapid growth in medical technology companies in my home state of pennsylvania. providing tens of thousands of jobs, billions of dollars in revenue and contributing to better health outcomes for millions of americans and patients globally. these are good-paying jobs that help sustain the middle class in our country and we must

create an environment that encourages innovative industries like medical device manufacturing. as our economy continues to struggle, an additional 2 ppt 3% excise tax would be a burdensome charge on an industry that's growing and creating jobs. one medical device company that employees hundreds in my district told me, we're at full capacity and need to expand. this excise tax will prevent any plans for growth in the near future. we cannot allow the potential for -- potential for job growth and innovation and american competitiveness to be lost in today's economy. i co-sponsored the original protect medical innovations act. there is bipartisan support to repeal this act. there has been politics muddying this bill. i support the repeal of the excise tax on medical devices and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield two minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from illinois, mr. roskam. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. roskam: thank you, mr. speaker, thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to reflect for a minute on some of the promises around president obama's health care law. you remember he said during the course of the debate about the health care law, mr. speaker, that if you like what you have, you can keep it. what we found is some estimates say up to 30% of employers will drop their health care coverage so those folks that have that coverage they don't get to keep that coverage, mr. speaker. there was also a promise that the law would actually lower premiums and yet family premiums are already increasing by as much as $1,600 per year. but there was one promise that was made that was actually kept. it was a promise, mr. speaker, from the gentlelady from california, who as speaker of the house said, in a nutshell,

we've got to pass the bill so that you can know what's in it. well, she did, and we do. what's in it was a cascading group of mistakes. one was the 1099 bill. big mistake. wasn't found the first time around. we were able to fix that. the second was the class act, recognition that it was a failure and inoperable hasn't been dealt with by the administration, but at least they put the white flag up and said it's ridiculous. two other things now have come to our attention. the first is well-discussed, the medical device act, the medical device tax. and even the gentleman from washington, from the other side of the aisle, makeance argument criticizing the study but at best he creates a hobson's choice, at best he says, well it may not kill jobs but then the alternative, mr. speaker, it's going to raise health care costs. that's what that study says. and the irony is, now we have the chance under the leadership of the gentlelady from kansas, ms. jenkins, to make it so that

working moms don't have to have the hassle of going to see a physician when their child is sick in order to buy an over-the-counter medication. this is well thought out. it makes perfect sense. we need to support this. i urge an aye vote. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, in levin. mr. levin: i now yield three minutes to another distinguish member of our committee, mr. doggett from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. doggett: well, mr. speaker, our long wait is over. a year and a half after their move to repeal the affordable care act, the republicans are back with the replace part of their repeal and replace slogan. and rather than offering an answer to comprehensive health care for 30 million more americans who need it, all they have to offer today is a tax break for tylenol. well, i tell you health care in this country is more than a two-tylenol headache and it

needs a more comprehensive response. of course, the real purpose of their action today is just this week's attempt to wreck the affordable care act and to protect health insurance monopolies. some of these are the very same health insurers that demand more than 20 cents of every dollar for their overhead. 20 cents, 10 times the administrative cost of the medicare system. but our republican colleagues never let reality get in the way of ideology. when they question most any government initiative that is called public as in public education or social as in social security, as usual they continue to demand legislation that offers more comfort for the comfortable while actually increasing the number of uninsured by 350,000. understand that. if this legislation becomes law, instead of decreasing the

number of uninsured american families, we'll have 350,000 more americans that don't have health insurance. that's their plan. our country continues to face a real health care crisis. too many small businesses and individuals are paying too much for too little health care. millions of families are just one accident on the way home from work this evening or one illness, one child with a disability from facing personal bankruptcy. that has not changed. the affordable care act, i believe, is too weak. it should be much stronger, but it is so much better than the system we find ourselves in today with so many lacking so much and it's far superior to the republican do-little or do-next-to-nothing approach. give america half a life preserver is their approach. as always, when there is a need

for public action, whether it is building a better bridge or more bridges or providing an opportunity for more young americans to get a college education or health care, be it affordable, preventive care, school-based care, long-term care, the republican answer is always the same. no. no. and their excuse is always the same too. the deficit made me do it. i'd like to do something about long-term care but we just can't afford to do it. what a contrast when it comes to bills like today because whenever it is about -- mr. levin: i yield an additional one minute. mr. doggett: whenever it is about depleting the treasury's ability to fund those affordable needs for our country, they don't worry too much about the deficit. $46 billion earlier in the year. this is part of a package of almost $42 billion of additional revenue depletion. later in the summer we are told they'll come up with $4 trillion much bush tax cut

extensions. what this will ultimately lead to if we pursue the irresponsible path of which this is just another step is that vital public programs that work -- medicare and social security cannot be sustained. they cannot be financed. there is no free lunch to retirement and health security in this country. it requires that we invest in a responsible way, and that's what the affordable care act does. reject this legislation today which will undermine it and set us back in our efforts to provide health care security to millions of american families and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield one minute to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from virginia, mr. cantor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. cantor: i thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the gentleman from michigan, chairman camp. mr. speaker, i rise in support of the legislation before us to reduce health care costs and

expand patient freedom in health care decisionmaking. speaker boehner and i made clear yesterday that the house will not act to raise taxes on anyone. the bill on the floor today is one step of many that we will need to take this year to ensure that end. even though the medical device tax has not yet been applied, the tax has already led to job losses and threatens to reverse america's role as a global leader and innovator in the life sciences industry. we know if we want to encourage innovators, we cannot tax them. mr. speaker, with all of the bipartisan action in the house and senate on legislation to improve the approval process for drugs, biologics at the food and drug administration, it would be reasonable to assume that congress could find common ground on issues that are core to promoting jobs and innovation. unfortunately, don't expect this bill to reach the

president's desk in a timely fashion. even with members from both parties calling for the repeal of this harmf tax. the medical device tax was created as part of the new health care law, and for that reason alone the administration continues to defend this tax which was only created to fund an unworkable law. in fact, mr. speaker, the president has threatened to veto our bill because the tax will pay for his health care law. we should not be increasing taxes to pay for a law that a majority of americans want repealed, a law that even some ardent supporters admit will not work as intended. mr. speaker, the real price is being paid by the american people. a tax on medical devices will harm patient care, not improve it. with this tax, it will now be more expensive for patients to walk into the exam room because

the bed itself can be classified as a medical device. the tax will automatically alter the research budgets of medical device companies. mr. speaker, just yesterday a constituent of mine from richmond requested that congress recognize the vital importance of research funding and the direct impact it could have for her son, joshua, who was born with a rare and serious heart defect. only 8 years old, joshua has already braved three open heart surgeries. there's no medical procedure today that can help this little boy. we need to encourage the medical innovations, not stifle them with taxes. so that there can be hope for kids like joshua. further, the taxes directly costing job losses and could direct -- hurt job growth as medical device companies start with a few employees. this could result in the loss

of tens of thousands of american jobs in an industry that is key to economic growth. mr. speaker, the president's veto threat is notably silent on the other two provisions of this bill. provisions championed by representative lynn jenkins and representative charles boustany to give patients more control over their health savings accounts and flexible spending arrangements respectively. are these provisions acceptable to the white house? will health savings accounts even be permitted if the president's health care law remains in the books? the uncertainty caused by the law highlights once again how truly flawed it is and why all of the president's health care law must be repealed. mr. speaker, there are many difficult issues that congress must address to ensure america remains a country of opportunity, innovation and growth. supporting this bill should be

easy. i'd like to thank representative eric paulsen in advancing this -- erik paulsen in advancing this to eliminate a harmful tax and i'd like to recognize the leadership of dave camp who is looking to pro-growth tax reform that will result in a growing economy and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: could you please indicate how much time there is on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, has 17 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, has 26 wirt minutes remaining. -- 26 1/4 minutes remaining. mr. levin: it is the republicans who combined these three bills. the republicans. and the leader talks about jobs. i wish he would give instructions to the ways and means committee to consider and bring up jobs bills that are just languishing from inaction.

we need more than just signals. we need action. i yield now three minutes to the gentleman from california, a distinguished member of our committee, mr. thompson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. thompson: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker and members, i rise today in opposition to this bill. and this is not a tax that i like. as a matter of fact, i don't like this tax at all. the medical device industry has been on the forefront of creating jobs, pushing medical innovation and keeping all of us healthier. but we didn't pass this provision in a vacuum, and today we're not voting to repeal it in a vacuum. we didn't pass it to be vindictive or mean or because we just felt like it. this provision was passed as part of a larger bill that was a response to a national crisis in health care that works in our country. in order to do this we had to make some real hard choices, so

our grandkids and our great grandkids were stuck with a bill for this response. like they were for the drug benefit for seniors or the tax cuts that our grandparents enjoyed. this was -- wasn't done lightly, and the device industry isn't alone in sharing in some of this responsibility. but the device industry will also see the benefits of having 30 million additional people covered by health care. many of those will be customers of the device industry. i'd vote to repeal this provision today, yesterday or

tomorrow if we were having a serious discussion about the provision with a serious pay-for. instead, we're repealing a tax on an industry that had over $40 billion in profits in 2010, and we're paying for it on the backs of middle-class people, some of whom for the first time in their adult lives will have access to quality, affordable health care. this is probably the 10th time in this congress that we have repealed orwell vote to repeal part of the -- or we will vote to repeal part of the affordable care act. in addition to that we have voted to repeal the entire act. this is not honest debate on policy but rather another political cheap shot at the affordable care act. for these reasons i urge a no vote on this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: at this time i yield two minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. gerlach. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. gerlach: i thank the chairman for his leadership and recognition. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of this legislation and urge my colleagues to vote to stop now a $30 billion tax increase on medical innovation. this tax means higher costs for doctors and hospitals, less investment in finding new ways

to improve treatments for patients and fewer jobs for american workers. what's at stake in pennsylvania are an estimated 20,000 high-tech manufacturing jobs. approximately 600 medical device manufacturers have helped our commonwealth's work force transition from a rust belt economy to a high tech leader in life sciences, biotechnology and medical device manufacturing. however, this looming tax on innovation threatens to bring a little bit of rust back to our manufacturing base. some of the manufacturers in pennsylvania have said -- forced them to write larger checks to the internal revenue service would cut back on research and development or raising prices. cutting research and development would mean patients wait longer for groundbreaking treatments and products, rising prices would put americans at a disadvantage compared to europeans. now i realize the president's in full campaign mode.

he's traveling around the country talking about the importance of working together to create jobs. respectively submit then that this would be at the top of the to-do list that we keep hearing from the white house. mr. speaker, we should be providing incentives that spur innovation rather than the federal government taking more out of the private sector that will threaten to drive these manufacturers out of business or overseas. i ask that all members support this legislation today so we can stop a $30 billion tax hike in 2013 and prevent putting new -- prevent putting up new barriers that will cost american workers their jobs. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin: it's my pleasure to yield to another member of the committee, mr. neal of massachusetts. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. neal: i want to remine people that this is about repealing the affordable care act. this is not just a debate about

the medical device tax. this is an effort to repeal the entire action. this is a tremendous industry. i worked with them for years. 400 medical device companies that employ 420,000 people and 82,000 people indirectly. it's critical to the massachusetts economy. we're detpwhathe same issue we debated two years ago when i worked closely with colleagues. by we -- by the way, the way congress once functioned to work with labor and respective industries and both sides of the aisle that everybody, even if they didn't love, could say they liked. i am committed to reducing that tax from 5% to 3%. and the big request from the industry was that they wanted devices that were imported to be subject to the same tax and they were absolutely correct.

we reached a compromise with the industry. they bought into this suggestion because they knew they would benefit from the expansion of insured individuals under the affordable care act. i should note something that's very important today. the industry receives medicare payments indirectly via payments from hospitals. now that being said, i worry about the impact of the tax on the medical device industry. if we had a good pay-for today and everybody agreed we'd try to hold on to the basis of the affordable care act, count me in. one medical device company recently said to me, if we're going to get hit with a new tax that's going to hit with a tax increase, we have to look at cutting jobs. i understand that and i'm concerned about the push for companies who are going to cut back on research and development but i cannot support this piece of legislation because of the offset which would repeal the protections for middle and lower income families that use

the affordable care act's premium tax credits. according to this act, 350,000 fewer individuals would be insured if this is repealed. this is another political stunt to chip away at the health care reform act. i'm open to working with chairman camp if we can find a path forward, as i've indicated, count me in. this is not the path to pursue or the way to do it. and a reminder, this is not the way the congress functioned when i came to it, particularly at the ways and means committee, when you work with industry and labor to accomplish extraordinary things. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield two minutes to the distinguished chairman of the energy and commerce committee, mr. upton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognize. mr. upton: thank you, mr. speaker. last year, the house passed

387-5 major legislation that impacts thousands of jobs by allowing the safer medical devices and drugs. rather than sending those jobs overseas, they're staying here. and the impending tax on medical devices is a ticking time bomb for manufacturing jobs and innovation across the country, especially many in michigan, which is why -- especially in michigan, which is why we need to repeal it. i visited stryker, a major device manufacturer. they reinforced the harmful impacts this tax will have on our corner of the state. stryker employees about 2,500 workers in kalamazoo county and tell me the tax will cost their company alone $150 million. and that number does not include the millions of dollars and thousands of man hours that they're going to have to expend

on ensuring that they're in compliance with that tax. these are dollars that could be better spent on wages, research, development, and investments in life-saving technologies, not only helping the employment sect you -- sector but obviously patients as well. stryker also recently announced the elimination of 1,000 jobs worldwide. a 5% reduction in its global sales force. the cause of that reduction, making up the cost for this impending tax. you know, the president said earlier this year, he said he would do whatever it takes to create jobs in america. he needs to sign this bill because without it, it's going to cost jobs as proved in michigan alone. i yield -- i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i yield myself 30 seconds. we very much favor the medical device industry. they agreed to pay for health

insurance coverage. stryker had revenue of $8.37 billion on these products. with a net income of $1.3 billion. everybody is going to have to participate as they promised to make health care work. if everybody ducks out, people will go uninsured. it's now my privilege to yield three minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. kind. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. kind: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my ranking member for yielding me this time. mr. speaker, the wayning days of the work -- the waning days of the work we were doing to get the affordable care act in shape for consideration before the entire congress, i wasn't an enthusiastic supporter of

the medical device manufacturing tax as one of the pay-fors. i, however, afreed with the president whole heartedly that health care reform had to be paid for. the idea was to pay for it and then some so we had the ability to start reducing budget deficits. because of the work that was done, because of the hard negotiations, the tradeoffs that were made, the congressional budget office, in their analysis of the affordable care act when it passed said it would reduce the budget deficit by over $1.2 trillion over the next 20 years that is a significant achievement that we're able to start reforming a health care system in desperate need of reform, pay for it at the same time, work to improve the quality of care and access to care for 133 million uninsured americans and start reducing the cost curve to it. but i was concerned about this as an el ofment the pay-for because of the vital role the medical device industry has in our economy.

they play an important role and enjoy competitive advantage here's in the united states market. i was concerned about the tax applying to the sales of the product insthofede profit because of the impact on smaller manufacturers operating on a much closer margin. that's why i support the legislation before us today. i do so under the proviso and understanding that the pay-for being used is controversial on our side. i don't think it's the ideal pay-for. i don't believe it's going to be the pay-for the senate would consider if they take this measure up. it won't be the pay-for the president will feel comfortable signing into law. there's going to be additional work that we're going to have to do to try to find an acceptable bipartisan pay-for if we're going to repeal this tax on an important industry in our country. i would also submit to my colleagues on the other side that there are many proposals under the affordable care act that have enjoyed wide bipartisan support in the past. that can help bend the cost curve. whether it's the build out of the health information technology system that our health care providers desperately need that will not

only improve the fibtcy of care delivered but will finally start collecting that crucial data so we foe better what works and what doesn't work in the delivery of health care. there are delivery system reforms in the health care reform bill that's more proving effective. that leads you to a system that's more integrated, patient focused, producing much better outcome of care at a better price. ultimately we have to continue working together to change the way we pay for health care in this country so it's based on the value or the quality or outcome of care that's given and no long they are volume of services and tests and things that are done, regardless of results. these have been bipartisan issues where there's been wide ageement in the past which is included in the affordable care act but you would never guess it listening to the terms of the debate today. while i support the legislation -- may i have 30 seconds? mr. levin: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. mr. kind: while i support the legislation, what it's trying

to accomplish here, i think that following today's debate, there's going to be a lot more work we need to do in dealing with the other side of this capitol work the senate, as far as coming up with acceptable pay-fors in their mind and working with this administration, so hopefully we can reduce this tax burden on an important industry that i think we all agree about but doing it in a more reasonable and commonsense fashion so we don't jeopardize the health care access of over 350,000 americans which may be adversely impacted with this provision that's being used to pay for the repeal of this revenue measure. i yield back the remainder of my time and thank my colleague for the time he yielded me. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield two minutes to the distinguished member of the ways and means committee, mr. schock. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. schock: thank you, mr. chairman, for your leadership on this important piece of legislation. i rise in support of the repeal

of the 2.3% medical device tax created in the health care law this tax will have a devastating impact on jobs, estimated to be over 1,200 job losses -- losses in the state of illinois which already has an unemployment rate higher than the national average. instead of working on policies to incentivize economic growth this tax will stunt it while adversely affecting small businesses and local communities. not far from my hometown is canton, illinois. an example of what can happen when device manufacturers partner with small communities. in may of 2011, cook polymer technology a raw material manufacturer, announced plans to open a second plant in canton, illinois, a town with a population just under 15,000. this jump started canton's economy, leading to the creation of over 100 new good-paying jobs and it led to a full percentage drop point in canton's unemployment rate. according to canton's mayor, private developers are now

building more homes than any time in the last 15 years combined in this town's history. but unfortunately for canton, the looming medical device tax has already resulted in cook's decision against building a new factory in the united states. this tax will lead to future job losses as companies decide to close or cut back on their operations in r&d work. communities like canton will see their recent economic gains stall and that is why it is imperative that congress repeal this device tax before job losses are realized and america finds it's no longer the leader in medical device technologies. i urge passage of the bill, the repeal of the tax and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. walsh. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. watt: thank you.

i walked in on the last two speakers, neither of whom said anything i disagree with, except i can't support the bill because of the pay-if in the -- pay-for in the bill. i'm convinced we should repeal the medical device excise tax. i think it's driving jobs and innovation offshore and a lot of that is happening in my congressional district. but i also think it's counterproductive to talk about doing it and paying for it in the way that's been proposed in this bill. and i will therefore unfortunately not be able to support the bill as it's written today and introduced because of the manner in which it's being paid for. i don't think there's anything complicated about this. we need to find a more acceptable way to do what i

think a lot of us agree needs to be done, which is to repeal the medical devices tax. but this is not the way to pay for it and we must find an acceptable pay-for. i thank the ranking member for yielding time and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield two minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. black. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. mrs. black: thank you, mr. chairman, for yielding. i hope in the coming weeks the supreme court strikes down this disastrous piece of legislation but rereality is no one know what is the court is going to do. so we must continue to do everything we can to get rid of this law. today, as co-spon so far this health care cost reduction act of 2012, i continue to fulfill my pledge to defund, repeel and replace obamacare with common sense solutions. this bill defunds obamacare by

getting rid of job-killing taxes, the 2379% medical device stacks would cost the taxpayers almost $30 billion and the cost to the manufacturing industry would be around 43,000 -- 43,000 jobs to force them to close down or ship the jobs overseas. it also repeals the over the counter restrictions on flexible spending accounts. obamacare's government must know everything takes the flexibility out of the flexible spending accounts. most importantly, we're replacing it with real reforms that promote consumer choice, quality care, and reduce health care costs. this is what the good people of the sixth district of tennessee expect me to do and why they sent me to washington and why i'm continuing to fight every day to defund, repeal, and replace obamacare with common sense solutions. i yield back the balance oif -- balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, has six minutes

remaining. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, has 19 minutes remaining. mr. levin: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from illinois, mr. doyle. 130 up the gentleman is recognized. mr. doyle: i hear time and time again we have to -- mr. dold: we need to be focusing on growing our economy. this special tax increase on medical device manufacturers would do quite the opposite. it would cost jobs. in the 10th district of illinois, thousands of individuals are employed by manufacturers that provide medical devices. frankly, we need to create an environment here in washington, d.c. that promotes innovation, promotes medical device companies from all around the globe to come here to our clint.

i urge my colleagues to support it as well because we cannot have additional anxiety, uncertainty that's out there in the marketplace. we need to make sure we are growing our economy and we need to do that by providing an environment right here in washington and frankly we're not doing that today. i support the legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: at this time i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from california, mr. bilbray. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. bilbray: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of this legislation that will repeal a job-killing, innovation-destroying tax on medical devices. i want to thank congressman paulsen for introducing this legislation. mr. speaker, california and in particular san diego is the hub of medical device activity. levasa, or edwards life sciences corporation are but a

few of the companies that are located in my district in california, san diego. and while considering this device tax, we got to understand that this -- in san diego alone is a $4.9 billion job-generating, job-creating industry. this industry represents 1/3 of all the life sciences industry in my district with 100,000 employees that average over $100,000 average salary. the medical device job will cost jobs -- the medical device tax will cost jobs and not just in my district but across the country. hopefully we'll see this tax repealed and be able to -- thank you very much. i appreciate it. mr. chairman, in the long run, this tax not only may cost jobs but could cost lives. let's join together and pass a -- the repeal of this destructive tax and move

forward with good legislation that will provide affordable health care while providing job opportunities for our citizens. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: thank you. at this time i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from virginia, mr. hurt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hurt: they know this is costing us our constitutional liberties and costing us american jobs. one of the tax increases that will support this law is the $20 billion tax on our manufacturers that will result in thousands of lost american jobs at a time when our unemployment rate is over 8% for the third year in a row. today's vote keeps faith with the american people as we continue working to repeal this law and to replace it with reforms that will deliver higher quality health care, lower costs and that will preserve american jobs. i urge my colleagues to support

this bill. i thank the chairman for -- and the committee for their work on this. i thank the gentleman for yielding and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: at this time i yield one minute to the distinguish gentleman from illinois, mr. schilling. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. schilling: thank you for your hard work on this. our unemployment is the largest problem we face today, so why would anyone want to punish innovation by forcing more taxes or american medical device companies? that's exactly what the president's health care law does. but we have a chance to repeal this tax today. i hope the senate will follow suit. this tax will hurt the medical device industry, including companies like cook medical, which has two facilities in my district in canton, illinois. cook currently has 100 employees but is looking to expand and provide more jobs for men and women in illinois. support h.r. 436 to promote innovation, jobs and growth across our country. i yield back my time.

mr. camp: at this time i yield one minute to the distinguish gentleman from ohio, mr. turner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mr. turner: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i rise in support of the repeal of the medical device tax. my bill which would repeal first responder devices shares the goal of h.r. 436, the health care cost reduction act. in my district, one that provides services to the medical device center, was forced to lay off 10 employees as a result of this impending tax. another company in my company which manufacturers emergency health care products says this tax will result in reduced research, development and production of new products. mr. speaker, i urge all my colleagues to support h.r. 436 and repeal this burdensome tax. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: thank you. at this time i yield two minutes to a distinguish member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from texas, mr. brady. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. brady: mr. chairman, thank you for your leadership on this issue. the economic news has been pretty grim lately. last month america created a mere 69,000 jobs, the lowest in a year. the job growth has been cut by 2/3 in the last few months. the unemployment rate, the only reason it went down was so many millions americans gave up looking for work. now we learn today, of all the 10 economic recoveries since world war ii, this recovery ranks 10th. dead last. and dead last isn't acceptable to anyone. this bill stops the killing of 43,000 american jobs. 43,000 american jobs will be lost if this new tax on our medical devices, on our stints and pace makers and others go -- pacemakers and others go

into place. it lowers the costs to patients because all those taxes get thrown right back on the patients and carried. in it stops a tax on innovation in america, which we're very good at, key to our economic future. this bill prevents that attack. it allows families the freedom to use their health savings accounts to buy over-the-counter prescriptions which saves them money and allows them to keep more of their health savings account at the end of the year so they don't use it or lose it. in texas we'll lose 2,000 jobs if this bill isn't signed by the president. i know he's vetoed it. but you know, these are jobs, mr. president. these are health care costs. this is innovation. this is what we ought to be rewarding in america, not punishing. i support this bill strongly. i applaud chairman camp, the members of the ways and means committee who are bringing it. and to make sure it doesn't add to the deficit, if you get a federal subsidy in health care, you're not eligible for, we

have you pay it back. we just have you pay back what you didn't earn. that's the right way to do it and that's the way way to pass this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: thank you. at this time i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from washington state, mrs. mcmorris rodgers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. mcmorris rodgers i thank the gentleman for yielding. the 2.3% excise tax on medical devices will go into effect as a result of the president's health care bill. as george will recently wrote, this new tax will tax jobs out of existence. last year i had the opportunity to host a jobs and innovation roundtable discussion with leaders from the medical device industry. one of the c.e.o.'s that was part of the roundtable stated that if you're trying to destroy an industry, you're doing a very good job of it. he was referring both to the

delays at the f.d.a. as well as the medical device tax. in my home state of washington, there's 17 medical device companies that provide over 8,700 people jobs. these are high-paying jobs with an annual payroll of over $500 million. these companies cannot hire new employees because of this job-killing new tax. 900 people would lose their jobs in washington state. nationally it's estimated 43,000 u.s. jobs will be lost directly due to this tax. this is one of 18 new taxes brought to you by obamacare. this one will cause medical device companies to reduce their research and development funds in order to pay for the new tax. who thinks that creating jobs in this economy -- decreasing jobs in this economy is a good idea? americans deserves the jobs that creates medical devices. this legislation will help

preserve what has been a great american success story, driven by our medical device manufacturers that are developing life-saving treatments. i urge all of my colleagues to support h.r. 436, and i yield back. mr. camp: at this time we have no further speakers and i am prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. len levin thank you, i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: in a sense there is much at stake in this debate. if this bill were to become law, it would unravel health care reform. what this industry seems to be asking is a reversal of their commitment to make health care reform work, and if this congress and the president were to say ok, every other industry

that participated in saying they pay their share to make it viable, they'd come in line. and there would be no answer to them. so in that sense, this debate, this issue is significant. but in another sense, it really isn't. this bill isn't going anywhere. the senate leadership already said it's not taking it up. there's been issued a statement of administrative reform or their policy. the recommendation is the

president would veto it. there's a certain emptiness to this debate because the bill isn't going anywhere. the real significance is that it's been brought up despite that, raising the question, does the majority in this house want a bill that goes somewhere relating to jobs? the word jobs has been mentioned here more than any other word. as mentioned earlier, there is no evidence that jobs will be lost as indicated by the majority. the only study says that the 43,000 claim is wrong. so what's really at stake here, the significance of this debate is this. will the majority do more than signal in this session in the remaining months or will it

take up jobs legislation? and i think there's an -- there's an increasing indication that they, the majority, does not want a jobs bill that will go anywhere. i mentioned earlier the letter i wrote to the chairman of our committee. i mention in there six provisions clearly relating to jobs in america. the 48-c manufacturing credit that once had bipartisan support, the production tax credit for wind power. republicans came before ways and means committee and said, extend it, but silence. the build america bonds program , it helped to create hundreds and thousands of jobs.

$180 billion in infrastructure investment. 100% bonus depreciation that both sides say they support but nothing but inaction. proposal to the president for 10% income tax credit for small businesses that would create jobs. not the illusionnary statements mentioned here. then the r&d tax credit that the chairman of this committee and i have championed for years, for years, and all we do is have a hearing. and so this bill raises starkly this issue.

does this majority want bills going nowhere, or will they do more than signal an act to help create jobs that the people of this country badly need? that's the real issue before us today. i urge a no vote on this bill on the merits. i urge the majority start saying yes to jobs bills for the people of the united states of america. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the zwrelt from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i say to my friend from michigan that we in the committee are in the process of reviewing all of the tax extenders. there's going to be about 100 of them that expire at the end of this year, research and development being one of them. one i have supported in the past but given our budget situation and the record deficits run up by this

administration, we're taking a close look at all of these provisions to make sure that they're justified, to make sure they really bring economic benefit and jobs to this country, not just pass them along because that's what's been done in the past but to take our oversight responsibilities and review responsibilities seriously and make sure the things that we're doing are efficient, are effective, and really get to the core of how do we get this economy moving again? we had the jobs numbers last friday. they were abysmal, clearly the economic policies of the administration have been a failure. we're obviously trying to address some of the other policies of this administration that aren't going to work and clearly there are flaws in the health care bill. we've had bipartisan support to fix some of them, like repealing that onerous 1099 provision that would have put a wet blanket over all small businesses as they tried to file reports over $600.

we had strong bipartisan support to repeal it, the president signed it, that is law. we're now looking at other ways to improve this health care ill. one is clearly we need to help people save and allow home to afford the kind of medications they need. for example, they tax over the counter medications by saying you can't use your tax-free savings account to buy cough syrup for your sick child system of what's happening? many people are going to doctors, they're actually having to get a scription, so they can use their flexible spending account, the account they've set aside to save for their medical needs, and don't we want parents to be able to try to find a least cost alternative if cough syrup will fix the problem that their child is having and meet their medical need, shouldn't we do that first before going to the e.r. or before going to get a scription? -- a prescription?

so what we want to do is keep parents in the driver's seat and let them make the decisions that affect them and their children. we believe it's so important that we allow over-the-counter medicines to be purchased out of the f.s.a. it's had strong bipartisan support. the other issue regarding medical devices, clearly the taxes o-- taxing of medical devices is going to do one of two things. it's going to cost jobs at strike -- as stryker corporation in my home state says, it's responsible for about 1,000 layoffs a they plan for the future, or it's going to raise costs. either is a bad choice for those who have needs they need to meet. and the last provision in this, can people keep some of the money in their health care or flexible spending account if they don't use all their -- don't have all their medical needs, can they save some of it. or do they have to use it or lose it, or buy extraneous

things, things they don't need? what this bill would say is you can keep some of those dollars, up to $500, you would pay tax on it that means if you overestimated what your medical needs are, you can get some of those dollars back and wruse those to provide, again, it's your wages you put it in there, it's yours, you should be able to get it back. i think these are all strong provisions, they've all had good, bipartisan support, both for the substance of them as well as for the pay-for in the bill. that has had strong bipartisan support as well. i would urge support for this legislation, i do think it has a lot of support in the senate as well and i think we're going to see this legislation move forward. i urge a yes support and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 679, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended. the question is on engrossment and third read of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it.

third reading. the clerk: a bill to repeal the excise tax on medical devices. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, further consideration of h.r. 436 is postponed. house lays -- the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: senate 292, an act to resolve the claims of the bexarring strait's native corporation and state of alaska to land adjacent to salmon lake in the state of alaska and provide for the conveyance to the bexarring strait's native corporation certain other land in satisfaction of the land entitlement of the corporation urn the alaska native claims settlement act. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: senate 363, an act to authorize the secretary of the commerce to con ray property of the national atmospheric and oceanic

administration to the constituent city of pascagoula, mississippi and other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the chair declares the house in

>> the house is taking a brief recess and will be back shortly. >> macon mccarthy is covering the health care bill. >> this is another attempt by the house republicans to repeal a piece of the health care law, or obamacare, as they like to call it. they are trying to tie it to jobs and the economy. >> what specifically would the bill do? >> it undoes a tax in the health care law on medical device companies. it is not things like eyeglasses or contact lenses, which people would buy retail, but more complicated devices like pacemakers. it is a 2.3% excise tax, so it hits revenues. republicans are arguing that it will cost thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of jobs

if it goes into effect. democrats said that is not true, because the health care law brings in an additional 30 million people to get in health care, so they will make more money based off those customers. >> the 2.3% excise tax -- how much does it generate for the treasury? if it is repealed in this legislation, how do republicans propose to replace that? what will pay for it? >> it is $29 million over 10 years. they are paying for it by basically reducing some of the subsidies that people would get to purchase health insurance if they were low income, on the exchanges in 2014 and beyond. it earned this bill eighth veto threat from the president yesterday. >> two other measures were approved by the ways and means committee. what are they?

>> there are two provisions that are for health spending accounts, flexible spending accounts. one is generally annoying to the people who have these accounts. you use tax-free dollars to buy over-the-counter medicine -- anything from tylenol to halogen medication. after the health care law went into effect, you needed a prescription from a doctor to buy those over-the-counter medicines tax-free. that would undo this new rule. it would also allow people to basically exchange $500 at the end of the year if they still have it in their accounts. right now, if you have money left over at the end of the year, you lose it. >> it looks like democrats are supporting this bill. why is that? >> there are a few democrats who will be on this bill, largely from states that have a large medical device industry

presence, like minnesota, massachusetts, indiana. elizabeth warren, who is running against scott braun in massachusetts, says she supports repealing the tax. one of the things republicans did as a poison pill -- the way they paid for this bill, democrats, even if they are behind repealing the tax, will not want to cut the subsidies again. >> you touched on that earlier. why are lawmakers continually addressing the health care law? >> i think right now they are trying to keep obamacare in the news. the supreme court is expected to rule on the health care law and whether or not it is constitutional, agenda this month. i think this bill -- it was a closer tie to the economy and jobs than other repeal pieces they have passed. conservative groups have put out

studies showing that we could lose at least 14,500 jobs from this. i think this specific bill fits in with the economy and jobs message the speaker has been pushing. >> mega and mccarthy, with national journal daily. thank you for joining us. we should seek a vote on that bill in just a couple of minutes. the house gaveled out for a short recess, but they should come back in shortly. this afternoon, they will pick up amendments on the homeland security spending bill. speaker john boehner said he is not interested in another 30 day extension of the short term transportation bill. he said there should be a six month extension. those were part of his comments this morning during his briefing with reporters. we will show what we can until the house cavell's back in.

-- gavels back in. >> the weekly alligator feeding. the goal here is to feed the alligators' without getting a bit. good morning, everyone. last week's job numbers were more evidence that president obama's economic policies are standing in the way of real economic growth, standing in the way of creating more jobs in our country. unemployment has been higher than 8% for 40 consecutive months. family wages are stagnant, everything from gasoline, to groceries, to health care. half of recent college graduates are either unemployed or underemployed. instead of working with congress to remove barriers to job creation, the president today is at the university of nevada, las vegas, at a rally talking about

student loan rates. he should be working with us to ensure they will not double. instead of our good faith effort being responded to, all we have heard from the white house is silence. that is the story of the obama administration. the democrats gave the president everything he wanted -- the stimulus spending binge, a health-care takeover, and more. it did not work, and his policies have actually made things worse. now that we are here, working to clean up the mess, the president and senate democrats are more interested in give? and they are in real solutions. there is no better example than the 30 house-passed bills that would help create jobs. our plan for american job creators -- most of these bills are sitting in the united states senate. these bills would expand energy

production, eliminate excessive regulations, and stop the washington spending -- spending binge. the would help create jobs for college graduates, who need these jobs to pay off their student loans, and address the high gas prices american families are dealing with. today, we will pass another job bill, appealing the president's tax on medical devices. we will keep working to remove barriers her to a small businesses around the country. one of the biggest challenges small businesses are facing is the have no idea what the tax rates are going to be next year. they are looking at a giant tax increase, come january 1. it will be the largest tax increase in american history. the house will pass a bill to extend current rates for a year. there is a bipartisan agreement between republicans and top democrats. you have seen all the names of

their the past couple of days. they believe you should extend all the current tax rates to provide certainty for small- business owners. it would give congress time to craft reforms that will simplify the code for families and small businesses. we are also committed to fully repealing the president's health care law, which is driving up health care costs for small businesses and making it harder for them to hire new workers. unless the supreme court throws out the entire law, we need to repeal what is left of it, and we need to enact common-sense reforms in a step-by-step manner that will protect the american people's access to the care they need from the doctor they choose at a lower cost. we are looking forward to their ruling. >> do you agree with senator mccain's call for a special counsel to investigate some of the classified leaks that have

been appearing in newspapers? >> i am concerned about the leaks. i think the administration should heed the advice of former defense secretary bob gates. after the osama bin laden raid, when a lot of details were coming out, he promptly went over to the white house and used some colorful language to try to stop any more leaks from occurring. >> do you believe that these are all politically motivated? >> i am not going to apply any motives to this. but when we leak sensitive data , we disclose methods. we disclose activities that put our intelligence officials and our military in a more dangerous position. it should not happen.

>> he had given some indication in his opening statement that there were negotiations, talks going on. he thought there could be a mutually accessible agreement between his side and your side what to do. are there talks going on? do you take such a rosy view of this? >> there are absolutely no conversations going on. the department has not responded to the leadership letter that went down there several weeks ago. the department of justice has not responded to the subpoena issued by chairman issa. we are going to do everything we can to hold the department of justice accountable for what did or did not happen with regard to fast and furious. it is clear, from the evidence

laid out, that someone at the shouldment either knew or have known what was happening with regard to fast and furious. those people need to be held accountable. secondly, from february 4 on, the department refuses to disclose information with regard to their activities that have gone on. we are going to -- we are working closely with the committee, the leadership is. we will continue to work closely with the committee to try to make sure that the department of justice complies and answers the questions that have been outlined to them. >> could there be a movement on contempt or a constitutional obligation if, in this hearing,

you do not get an answer? >> all options are on the table with regard to what may need to be done to hold the department of justice accountable. >> if you break down the health care law, what will republicans do before the election to make sure people with pre-existing conditions are not dropped from insurance rolls, kids under 26 are not dropped from their parents' insurance, and make sure that seniors do not get stuck in the doughnut hole again? >> we will not do is pass a 2700 page bill in the middle of the night that nobody has read. what we will not do is tell the american people that we have to pass a bill before we know what is in it. republicans believe in a step- by-step, common-sense approach to fixing the problems within our current health care system. >> what will happen before the election? >> we will have to wait and see what the supreme court does.

>> it is hard to get 218 people to agree on anything, as you said in the past. doing that stuff will be an uphill climb, even if that are popular revisions. are you concerned about how difficult that will be before the election? >> and will not speculate on what the supreme court will or will not do. we believe in a step-by-step approach, common-sense steps to fix problems within our current system. it is best to wait until the court decides. >> mitt romney said, not too long ago, that there will be a big pile of unfinished business after the election, and he would prefer that congress by a little time so the new administration and the new congress can deal with it, as opposed to having a big line duck session. is that a good idea? what are your thoughts? >> i am concerned with what will happen at the end of the year. >> follow this in our video

library. we take you back live to the house floor. the clerk will report the title. the clerk: a bill to amenled the internal revenue code of 1986 to amend the excise taxes on medical devices. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. bishop of new york moves to recommit the bill to the committee on ways and means with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. page 1, after line 8, insert the following, b, prohibbletting tax benefits for companies that outsource american jobs. one, in general -- mr. bishop: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. bishop: i ask unanimous consent to waive the reading. the chair: seeing -- is there objection? the gentleman from new york objects. the gentleman reserves a point of order. >> mr. speaker, i reserve a point of order against the motion to to recommit.

the chair: the clerk will read. the clerk: in general the amendment made by subsection a shall not apply to any sale of a taxable medical device by the manufacturer, producer or importer with outsourced american jobs during the testing period with respect to such sale. 2, determination of outsourced american jobs. for purposes of paragraph 1, american jobs are outsourced by a manufacturer, producer or importer as the case may be during a testing period, if a manufacturer, producer or importer has fewer full-time equivalent employees in the united states on the last day of the testing period as compared to the first day of the testing period and has an increase in the full-time equivalent employees outside the united states or the last day of the testing period as compared to the first day of the testing period. 3, definitions and special rules. for purposes of this subsection, a, testing period. the testing period with respect to a sale is the calendar year in which the date of the sale

occurs. b, employees outside the united states. an employee shall be treated as employed by the employer outside the united states whether employee directly or indirectly through a controlled foreign corporation as defined in section 957 or a pass-through entity in which the taxpayer holds at least 50% of the capital or profits interest. c, exception for employees separated voluntarily or for cause. the number of full time equivalent employees shall be determined without regard to any employee separated from employment voluntarily or for cause. 4, regulation. the secretary shall prescribe such regulations or other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out this subsection. including regulations or guidance on employer aggregation, mergers or

acquisitions and dispositions of any employer and rules regarding the payment date for taxes owed if the offshoring occurs after the date of a sale. page 1, line 9, strike b and insert c. page 2, line 1, strike c and insert d. the chair: pursuant to the rule -- the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. mr. bishop: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this is the final and only amendment any member has been given the opportunity to offer to this bill. it will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted h.l. 436 will immediately proceed to finals aage as amended. the amendment i offer is a simple, commonsense effort to

discourage american employers from outsourcing american jobs. it conditions the repeal of the medical device tax on an employer keeping jobs in the united states. if a device manufacturer sends jobs overseas during a calendar year, then the repeal of the tax does not apply to that manufacturer for that year. both democrats and republicans want to create conditions that get american families back to work. both democrats and republicans agree that the tax code should discourage employers from shipping jobs overseas and both democrats and republicans want american families to prosper and have the opportunity to achieve limitless possibilities. but we have difficult a-- different approaches to achieving that goal. though we have different approaches, i think all reasonable people can agree that the ultimate job destroyer is outsourcing. i listened very carefully to the debate that took place on the underlying bill. virtually every speaker on the republican side of the aisle mentioned jobs, mentioned employment, mentioned job-killing regulations, job-killing taxes. i think the best way to kill a job isn't a regulation and isn't a tax, the best way to kill a job and to kill american opportunity is to have that job done by someone overseas instead of by an american simply because

it's cheaper to have that job done overseas. this is an issue that weighs heavily on the minds of our constituents. a 2009 harvard study found that half of all americans are resentful of businesses that send jobs overseas and over 80% have concern for their families' future due to outsourcing. no american should be fearful that their job will be shipped overseas and this congress should end those policies that provoke this anxiety. the tax code still gives incentives to employers who create jobs in foreign countries rather than here at home. our republican colleagues rail against foreign aid but isn't providing another country a job that an american could do the ultimate example of foreign aid? i doubt we'll be able to eliminate outsourcing but with this amendment, this congress can discourage it. adopting this amendment is our first step toward reforming our tax system in a way that benefits american businesses and american workers. every time a u.s. business moves operations overseas, we lose

opportunity, we lose economic growth, we lose competitiveness and we lose desperately needed revenue necessary to reduce the deficit. this bill was considered under a closed rule so republicans can't justify their opposition with the usual claim that democrats are trying to subvert an open amendment process. an open amendment process simply didn't exist for this bill. this time there's no hiding. either you support american jobs for

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i withdraw my point of order and seek time in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman withdraws his point of order and is recognized for five minutes in opposition. >> mr. speaker, this motion is nothing more than a distraction from the real issue and that is stopping a massive job-killing tax increase from taking place on the medical device industry. the legislation before us today is a bipartisan initiative to repeal that tax and make health care more affordable for all americans. house republicans want to reduce health care costs and make coverage more affordable for families who are struggling. mr. paulsen: democrats clearly ran through a one-size-fits-all health care law that has made health care more expensive. and now they're back at it again attempting to thwart efforts to bring down health care costs. this is about saving american jobs. this industry is one of america's best success stories that accounts for about 423,000 jobs across the country. it's made up of america's best innovators, entrepreneurs, engineers and doctors and risk takers who are improving and saving lives. this will all change, mr. speaker, unless we stop this tax, a $29 billion tax in just a little over six months that will cost this industry over tens of thousands of jobs according to studies. there's also two other important provisions that are in this legislation, mr. speaker. first of all, congresswoman jenkins' legislation that ensures that all families with an f.s.a. or an h.s.a. account

can use their own health care dollars for their own health care needs for simple over-the-counter medications without having to go to a doctor for a prescription. and we've also got congressman boustany's legislation which would allow flexible spending account participants to withdraw their own unused hard-earned dollars at the end of the year. mr. speaker, this legislation has 240 co-authors, it's bipartisanly supported, i urge rejection of the motion to recommit and support of the underlying legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. those in opposition to the motion say no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. mr. bishop: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are ordered. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise.

a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. this will be a 15-minute vote. the chair will reduce to five minutes the time for any electronic vote on the question of passage. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 179, the nays are 239. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]