witnesses were allowed and did answer questions by the minority having to do with gun control, an issue they preferred to talk about rather than the cause of brian terry's death. and with that i'd recognize the gentleman from texas for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. >> i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, as a former federal prosecutor at the department of justice, i do not take these proceedings lightly. above all, those at the department cherish their integrity. mr. speaker, that integrity has now been inpuned. this is not about politics. it's about pursuit of the truth and justice. the definition of contempt is the willful disobedience to or open disrespect for the rules of orders of a court or legislative body. mr. mccaul: this definition falls squarely within the facts here. when insiders revealed fast and furious, the department of justice falsely told congress

that whistleblowers weren't telling the truth and congress fulfill its obligations and try to get to the bottom of how guns were illegally put in the hands of mexican drug cartels, ultimately killing border patrol agent brian terry, this administration refused to turn over crucial documents that would shed light on this. instead, they asserted the executive privilege at the 11th hour, really calling into question the validity of the privilege itself and communications were held at the highest levels of the government. in fact, the wiretaps, we all know they are approved at main justice. mr. speaker, this attorney general needs to be held accountable. the terry family, the family -- the mexican families that were slained. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: i yield to the

gentleman from texas for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. reyes: thank you, mr. speaker. it is indeed a sad day today. as an fer that spent 26 1/2 years wearing the united states border patrol uniform, it is regrettable for me today that we're here under these circumstances. i want to acknowledge and thank the chairman and the ranking member for inviting me to go to -- with them to mexico city and visit at the u.s. embassy about the circumstances around -- what led to the investigation of fast and furious. and to me it's regrettable because we are here discussing the death of a border patrol agent. i went to the memorial service for agent brian terry. i visited with his mom and his family that day.

i went there because as a former border patrol agent i wanted to express sympathy and support as i did so many times as a chief for agents that were killed in the line of duty. so for me it is particularly troubling that we're here politicizing the death of a united states border patrol agent. we ought to be about getting to the circumstances of the investigation led under a u.s. attorney under osedef. both the chairman and ranking member know that was the controlling entity in this case. i don't know except to say it's pure basic politics that we've now spun this up to the level of the attorney general. having had the experience to

superadvise my agents that were part -- supervise my agents that were part of those investigations and having had a number of conversations with my friend on the other side of the aisle who were experienced prosecutors, i -- everybody here that has that experience knows that those controls don't go up to the level of the attorney general except after the -- mr. cummings: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. mr. reyes: don't go up to the level of the attorney general. so we're here taking a lot of time when we should be discussing things that are a priority to the american people. we're here under the worst of circumstances for the terry family who all they want is closure on the death of a son, on the death of a patriotic american, citizen, and spinning it in a political sense. i really think that this is a sad day for this house of representatives, and we ought to do better for the american

people. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from idaho, mr. labrador. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from idaho is recognized for one minute. mr. labrador: mr. speaker, once again i sit here and i'm amazed by the language that is being used. we've had numerous hearings. we've had numerous investigations. we had a lot of people come before congress and give us false information, and the reality that i hear again and again from the other side is that there is no evidence of cover-up. there is no evidence of cover-up. but the realities that we have only received 5% -- 5% of the documents that we have requested. there is no way for us to know exactly what happened, who knew when and what did they know unless we receive all of the documents. all we're asking the attorney general to do is to provide the

documents that we have requested. we wouldn't be standing here holding these contempt proceedings if he had given us the documents and that's why i ask everybody in this body to actually vote for contempt. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: may i inquire as to how much time is left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland has three minutes remaining. and the gentleman from california has a minute and three quarters remaining. mr. cummings: we'll reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland reserves. mr. issa: reserving the right to close, i have no more speakers. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from maryland wish to be recognized? mr. cummings: yes. mr. speaker, the -- you know, it's interesting here today what we just did with regard to the criminal contempt, i do believe that it is very unfortunate and let me tell you why. we have an attorney general who is indeed an honorable man.

we who practice law look up to the attorney general and any u.s. attorney. they are folks like us who are well educated and who love their country and eric holder jr. is no exception. over and over again he has tried to cooperate with this committee and i'm sure that both sides -- his side and our side have become a little frustrated at times. but as he said in a meeting a few weeks ago -- about a couple weeks ago, he said that he's willing to give the documents. he's asking at some point his

attorneys have an opportunity to get back to work. now, leader pelosi said something a moment ago that we should not lose sight of, mr. speaker, when she spoke about the constitution and that it requires congress and the executive branch to avoid unnecessary conflict and to seek accommodations that serve both of their interests. in the words of attorney general william french smith said and, of course, he was under president reagan, it is the obligation of each branch to make a principled effort to acknowledge to meet the needs of the other branch. i believe this attorney general has bent over backwards trying to accommodate us, trying to provide the information but at

the same time as he has said to us many times, to protect the institution of the attorney general of the united states. and when i say protect the institution i mean protect the institution. same types of things that have been subjected -- subject -- executive privilege. making sure that wiretap applications are not made public. making sure that confidential informants are not disclosed. making sure that ongoing investigations are not interfered with. i'm not sure something happened in this house today may have interfered with the trial. i submit -- we need to meet him

halfway. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 1 3/4 minutes. mr. issa: it's been a long day for america but it's been a longer day for the terry family. i am going to urge everyone to vote for this ability to hire counsel and that's what the last vote is and i believe it will pass overwhelmingly. i'll pledge to the american people and the terry family and my colleagues, this investigation has in fact been brought to a halt in one area and the area is the attorney general's flat refusal to no longer cooperate with this committee. but it doesn't change the fact in the days and weeks to come we will use what we can and other tools, including some of the individuals that the

minority has talked about today to glean additional information , to find ways to prove accountability for the many people that had to be involved in this operation in order for those guns to walk. we will continue to do that. we will try to find the truth. hopefully in the weeks to come we will also begin getting cooperation from the administration begin -- again, but if we don't i will tell the ranking member today it has always been my intention to look backwards to previous gunwalking or programs we believe were certainly poorly designed and resulted in weapons getting out of the hands of lawful people and into the hands of criminal elements. that's not going to change. it's not going to change because it's our obligation to investigate and because this one we cannot let loose until the terry family has been kept a promise that the ranking

member and i both made. so i take the ranking member at his word today that in fact he will not rest until we get some answers and i commit the same that i will not and i urge the passage of this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 708, the previous question is ordered on the resolution. those in favor say aye of adopting the resolution. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is agreed to. and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. mr. cummings: ask for a roll call. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: roll call, yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is requesting the yeas and nays. 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. this will be a 15-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 258. the nays are 95 with five voting present. the resolution is agreed to. and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and passing h.r. 5889 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: h.r. 5889, a bill to amend title 18, united states code, to provide for protection of maritime navigation and prevention of nuclear terrorism and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules on h.r. 3412 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: h.r. 3412, a bill to

designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 1421 veterans memorial drive in abbeville, louisiana, as the sergeant richard franklin abshire post office building. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules h.r. 3501 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: h.r. 3501 a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 125 kerr avenue in rome city, indiana, as the s.p.c. nicholas scott hartge post office. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the

affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the question on suspend the rules and passing h.r. 3772 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: h.r. 3772, a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 150 south union street in canton, mississippi, as the first sergeant landres cheeks post office building. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and passing h.r. 3276 which the clerk will report by

title. the clerk: h.r. 3276, a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 2810 east hillsborough avenue in tampa, florida, as the reverend abe brown post office building. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and passing h.r. 1447 as amended which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: h.r. 1447, a bill to amend title 49, united states code, to direct the assistant secretary of homeland security, transportation security administration to establish an aviation security advisory committee and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and passing h.r. 5843 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: h.r. 5843, a bill to amend the homeland security act of 2002 to permit use of certain funds in conjunction with a national laboratory or research facility. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and passing h.r. 3173, as amended, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: union calendar number 371, h.r. 3173, a bill to direct the secretary of homeland security to reform the process for the enrollment, activation, issuance and renewal of a transportation

worker identification credential, twic, to require, in total, not more than one in-person visit to a designated enrollment center. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska rise? >> mr. speaker, to address the house and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i inadvertently missed the vote on resolution 442. my vote would have been yes. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's statement will appear in the record. is there request for one-minute speeches? for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise?

>> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, ma'am. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise today because this is a great country. in fact, i would call it the greatest country in the world. and throughout my life's history, although we have traveled mountains and low valleys, i have been equal and unequal in this nation, but yet today i feel as tall as the pine trees because our supreme court shed itself of die verse -- diverse a sometimes divisive biggering and upheld the constitution of the united states and granted to the american people affordable health care. it granted to the sickest of the sick the opportunity to be covered by insurance. it granted to seniors who fall

into doughnut holes and have to choose prescription drugs over food a relief line. it granted to hospitals who take in indigent patients who may otherwise die on sidewalks in america an opportunity to take care of those patients. it gave children with pre-existing disease an opportunity to live fully in this country. and so now the affordable care act is the law of the land. we have been vindicated. every single, single vote, those who have lost and those who have won have been vindicated. thank god for the united states supreme court. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. . the speaker pro tempore: are there further requests for one-minute speeches? under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, mr. ellison is recognized as the

minority's leader. the chair will entertain special order speeches without prejudice for the resumption of legislative business. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. ellison: we will claim the time. special order time and i have charts to set up, so i'll take a moment to do that.

mr. ellison: my name is keith ellison and i claim the time on behalf of the progressive caucus and i'm joined by representative kucinich. c.b.c..grijalva.house.gov. and we will focus on three topic areas, the historic health care, the travesty of justice perpetrated on eric holder and three, the voter i.d. issue that is proliferating trying to restrict and suppress the votes of americans. that's our progressive message for today. i want to go to my friend from

ohio, mr. kucinich. i want to introduce the subject by saying today was a historic day. historic health care bill was passed. it was passed many, many months ago, but until the supreme court of the united states said that this bill is constitutional, this act is constitutional, it was always in jeopardy of being overturned. we in the progressive caucus believe and many of us who were co-sponsors of h.r. 676, which is the health care bill for all. i want to say personally that i think today this is a dramatic step forward in the quest to make sure that all americans are covered and can go to the doctor. this is a very important step. it's an advance and i'm happy to see it. with that, i would like to turn some time over to the gentleman from ohio to make any comments he may care to make about the

health care bill or the supreme court decision. i yield to the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i thank the gentleman from minnesota, congressman ellison for his leadership in the progressive caucus and thank you to talk about this moment us decision by the supreme court. i represent cleveland, ohio. there are many people in cleveland who could not afford health care and many people working and can't get families covered. this issue of health care reform is one of the defining issues in our country. and it's one that we finally grappled with in 2010, to come up with a bill that not everyone agreed with. as a matter of fact, as mr. ellison will remember. i didn't agree with it. i was not satisfied with health care reform in the context of a

for-profit system. but one of the things we needed to do was to make sure that children with pre-existing conditions would be covered. make sure the lifetime caps on the amount of people people could claim for expenses, make sure they were removed and make sure that people were given a fighting chance with the insurance companies. and what's happened is the affordable care act finally took a step in a direction of reform. now, the supreme court has said you can do under taxing authority, but it's just a step. and all of us understand that there's still millions of americans who are finding health care out of reach even with the help that the affordable hement care act offers. and that's why at the state, there are still states such as vermont, that are looking as to

how they can go forward with a single payer plan in their state. mr. ellison: let me ask the gentleman a question. you had an amendment which would allow states, if they chose to, to pursue alternatives like a single-payer system. do you recall your amendment? what were some of the things? >> keep in mind, the employee retirement income security act essentially would stop states from going forward. we asked states for a waiver and the amendment would have provided so states wouldn't have a legal bar to pursue a single-payer system. it was passed in committee but stripped out. congress can facilitate that. and the passage of affordable care plus, the supreme court saying, congress can move on health care and can take a step. puts finally, puts us in a

position where we can elevate health care to the highest level of public concern. and every american who is out there tonight who is worried about whether they would be able to get access to affordable health care suddenly realizes that it is possible. and for those poor people across america wondering if they are going to be shut out, now it's up to the states to reaffirm the position of the state in the life of their citizens by saying, if you are a poor person, we're not going to use the supreme court decision to block your access from the resources, to block nyack cease to the resources of the government with respect to health care. and so i think that we need to recognize that we have taken a big step here. and as someone who wasn't sure

at first, as someone who reluctantly voted for the affordable care act on the hope that by proving we could have reform within the context for a for-profit system, that it would open the door for further reform. i would say it is a great day. it shows it's possible to reform that for-profit system and i'm hopeful we look down the road to what we are going to do in the future, which is to restart the effort for single payer and knowing that we have the assurance that more people are covered and don't worry about your child 26 or under or a child with a pre-existing condition or caps or don't have to worry whether the doughnut hole is going to cause your budget to get crushed. the government is taking the side of the people and putting us in a position where we are able with integrity and with drive to move towards the future

where some day we will keep working for single payer. i thank mr. ellison -- mr. ellison: would the gentleman yield? today, i don't know if this happened to you, but it did happen to me. i just sort of got -- i started thinking about all the door knocking i did and thinking about the horror stories, health care horror stories that i heard and i want to ask you today when you reflect on 57% of the people filing for bankruptcy being motivated by medical debt, people getting a lifetime cap and not being able to get additional health care even if they have cancer or if they have cancer, they get dropped. mr. kucinich: the gentleman is correct. and when you think of how many people -- most bankruptcy are connected to people not being able to pay hospital bills. and any single family has no one

to dread of having one individual get ill and everything people worked their lifetime for, they lose. mr. ellison: the gentleman might reflect on the fact that many of these people you are referring to have insurance. mr. kucinich: that's right. think about this now. you can have insurance and if you run up against caps, lifetime caps on coverage, you are out of luck. you can be insured, because so many americans have gotten in trouble financially, even though they have insurance, they can't pay the bills. the bills have sent americans into poverty. and so we need to realize that we have taken a step in the direction of a standing support for the american people and their health care with the affordable care act, but it's not the final step.

again, i'm here to share with you, mr. chairman, my willingness to continue the effort towards a universal single-payer, not-for-profit health care. and now that we have proven that reform of health care is possible and proven that health care is not the third wheel in american politics and now we have proven that the court will uphold an effort by the congress to move towards health care reform, now we have proven that, we can say it is possible to go to a place where we can have health care for all under a not-for-profit system. i yield back and i look forward to working with you as we chart a new course in america for health care for all. mr. ellison: thank you. the gentleman from ohio who i know he has some things to do. when the final chapter is written on the improvement and the advances in health care in

america, they will certainly be chapters on how dennis kucinich, your leadership as a member of the house of representatives, bills you introduced through your presidential run where you made health care front-burner issue. you will have a chapter that will designate your great contributions to the american people to get quality, affordable, universal health care. i thank you so much. today is a day of reflection and think about how your campaign for president and other work you have done moved us down the track. i thank you. mr. kucinich: i thank the gentleman. mr. ellison: i'm joined by my good friend, representative garamendi. congressman garamendi, on a day like this, you must be full of thoughts about health care reform and the big list and all of the things that occurred.

what are some of the thoughts that occurred to you today? mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. ellison. and thank you for your consistent strong voice on what we really need to do here in america to take care of people. at the beginning of the day and at the end of the day, our task is to fulfill that message of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. and this day really in many ways fulfills that. you think about it. can you have life without health care? well, probably for not for very long. mostly everyone i know has had a sickness and you don't get health care, you may lose your life. happiness? we know that most of the bankruptcy, this is before the great crash, but most of the bankruptcy are not having health care and not having insurance. so with regard to happiness,

wow. and of course, liberty. you just think about the number of americans that are literally chained or tied to their job because they have health care there. they want to leave and pursue a different course, want to improve, but they can't because they are tied to their job because of health care. they can't get it. today, the supreme court said that what this house did with the affordable health care act is constitutional. it is constitutional. it is possible for us. as we just heard from mr. kucinich, it's possible for us to reform the health care system. my thoughts are so happy for america. so happy for that man that i saw five years ago that was on his death bed, and he said, if i can just live another five months, i'll be on medicare.

and i can get the treatment that i need without bankrupting my family. today, he probably will be able to get that. it's a good day. and you think about -- i was insurance commissioner for eight years in california. and if only i had this law. if only this law was in place, i could have hammered those insurance companies that were discriminating against people who had pre-existing conditions. but i didn't have this law. so they were able to get away with discriminating against women, because they are women, because they are child-bearing age and might have a child and might cost the insurance company money. my chief of staff today had a child who was born with an ailment. that kid from the day of conception to the day after he

was born had insurance. as soon as the insurance company found out that that child had a serious problem, they stopped the insurance. and the family almost went into bankruptcy. but for the friends and support around them, they would have done so. that is over. every child born in america will continue to have health care coverage whether they are healthy or not. it's a good day. it's a good day for the children. it's a good day for the people of america. i'm happy. . mr. ellison: i share your voy and i want to let you know that the fact is there's lots of really important part this was bill. not enough americans understand what's in the bill. andky remember back a couple of years ago when i was trying to have community forums in my district and people who didn't understand the need for health care reform would get loud and

boisterous in these meetings and i would let them talk. i wouldn't let them disrupt the meeting but i would let them talk and some of them expressed themselves in very passionate ways. one of the things they said to me, congressman, is, did you read the bill? and they wouldn't ask the question, they would basically make an accusation that i didn't read the bill. of course i had read the bill. and i think it's now a good idea to really help people understand what good things are in this bill. for example, i think it's important for people to understand that already in the bill, if you have a child under the age of 26, that child can be on your health care insurance. no more worries that your college graduate kid who's not yet got that job is just out there with no insurance. if you're a woman that can't -- you're a woman they can't discrimination against you anymore. if you have a pre-existing condition and you're a child, at this moment they can't discriminate against you and when the bill is fully in effect

they won't be able to discriminate against anyone. if you're a senior, we're helping to make the cost of prescription drugs more affordable by filling in the doughnut hole. we're also for medicare, we have people -- we have a provision in there that's helping to make sure that screenings are free and to have preventative, healthy, strong seniors, so they would prevent them from getting sick. there's a medical loss ratio that says that the insurance company has to devote 85% of their receipts into health care. not all this other administrative stuff including exorbitant pay. so, i mean, as we sit back and reflect on what's actually in there, i mean, i think it's important to make those points. mr. garamendi: let me take up some of those numbers. they're very, very exciting. 13 million americans will receive $1.1 billion in rebates because the insurance companies have overcharged them.

that didn't happen before this bill. i didn't have that power as insurance commissioner to do that. 54 million americans that are in private health insurance plans will receive free preventative services as a result of this legislation. 54 million. mr. ellison: wow. mr. garamendi: and of course women, millions across this nation, will receive free coverage for a comprehensive women's health preventative services. pap smears, breast x-rays and the like. 32.5 million seniors will receive -- have received one or more preventative services and that's in 2011. in 2012 14 million seniors have already received these services. 105 million americans will no longer have a lifetime limit on their coverage. right now, before this bill was in effect, you go up to $100,000 or $200,000, you have a serious

illness, they blow through that, bam, you don't get any more coverage. no longer, no more limits, lifetime limits are gone. 17 million children with pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied coverage by insurance. by insurance companies. 6.6 million young adults, and you were talking about my daughter. she graduated age of 21, 22. lost her insurance. when this bill passed, the day after it passed, she said, dad, can i get back on your policy? the answer was yes. actually it took six months but it did happen. 5.3 million seniors in the doughnut hole, this is the drug coverage thing, have saved 3.-- $3.7 billion on prescription drugs already. now, our good friends, the republicans, want to repeal all of this. so you go through this list. 13 million americans will not receive a rebate if the republicans succeed in repealing the bill. 54 million americans will not receive preventative services.

6.6 million young americans will not be on their parents' coverage to the age of 21 and 22. there's a lot of takeaways from what the republicans want to do with their repeal. mr. ellison: if the gentleman would yield. i think that is a very important point to make. sadly as soon as the affordable care act was upheld, our friends on the republican caucus immediately said, well, we're going to have a repeal vote. well, they've already had repeal votes. what are we doing this over and over and over again for? we're doing it for a very important reason to. make a political point. you know, as they were announcing another repeal vote, another repeal vote, we hadn't done anything about student loans this week which are expiring. we hadn't done anything about jobs. and we hadn't done anything about the transit bill which is due to expire. i mean, it's just really amazing

how much time we have for stuff that doesn't matter. just political gamesmanship. but, you know, i must share this with you, congressman. i'm saddened by the fact that our republican friends won't join with us in this awesome good thing that happened to the american people today. i wish they would finally come around. it's like, look, you know, you fought the health care -- well, first of all, between 2000 and 2006 you had the white house, the senate and the house of representatives. you didn't do anything except give a bunch of money to big phrma and we're trying to fix that right now. but all the stuff they talk about, oh, we want to do state -- sell insurance across state lines, we want to do tort reform, they could have done all. that they didn't do it. because they didn't want to do it. now they say that's what they would have done but that's not what they did do when they could do it. so there you go with that. but, ok, so now the democrats went and took up health care, after many, many years of trying

, we get it through. they fought it tooth and nail to. their credit, none of them supported the final vote on the affordable care act. they were solid and unanimously against conferring the benefits that are contained in the affordable care act. now they got around to saying the bill was unconstitutional. it's unconstitutional. you heard this cry day and night and they even called themselves constitutional conservatives. well, the constitutional court has said this bill is constitutional so you would think they'd say, ok, we just want to make sure it's constitutional. now we're ready to join hands with you and celebrate this great thing to make sure all americans can go to the doctor. and what do they do? they schedule a repeal vote. but here's what i want people to know, congressman. according to the congressional budget office, which is a nonpartisan entity, if they repeal this bill it will cost the american people -- it add to the deficit $230 billion -- it

will add to the deficit $230 billion. these are my friends who never tire of saying, we're conferring debt on our children and grandchildren. they always say that. i'm sure some, it's been tested by, you know, some high-paid individual who does that kind of stuff. they never tire of saying, our children and grandchildren, debt on our children and grandchildren. but if they strip the afford -- the affordable care act as they plan on doing on july 11, they would drop a big debt and add to the deficit. mr. garamendi: thank you so very much, mr. ellison. and thank you for your leadership on these and so many other issues. i'm looking at that sign next to you, republicans, no job agenda. a repeal of the affordable care act and the patients bill of rights is not going to create jobs. in fact, it is going to make it very, very difficult for small businesses. because the affordable care act actually helps small businesses. they don't have the mandates.

small businesses don't have the mandate. but what they do have is an opportunity. they have an opportunity to get health insurance at an affordable cost which they've never had before. small business, one person, husband and wife perhaps, and two or three employees, literally was impossible for them to get affordable health insurance for themselves and for their three employees. under this bill they can get it. it's subsidized to be sure. but they can finally get insurance and across the state of california, across this nation we're finding thousands upon thousands of businesses for the first time going into the insurance market, able to buy insurance, getting coverage for themselves, and their employees, while providing what insurance must do which is the knowledge and the stability that is necessary for the financings of that business to succeed. the other thing, and i'm just

going to pick up one more that's very, very close to me. in california, the affordable health care act provided funding for 1,154 clinics. way back in 1978, when i was in the california legislature, in 1976, as a member of the assembly, i authored legislation to establish the rural health act. and that built clinics in the rural part of california. and today, as a result of that, there are clinics all across the state of california and the affordable health care act keeps those clinics in business. this is where many californians, and across this nation, americans, access the health care system. it's there in their community. these are the community clinics that are so critically important in providing the health care that americans need. the call for repeal kills these

clinics. these clinics will die if this bill is repealed. so, out across the state, even in the most conservative point of my new district, there are clinics that are dependent upon this legislation. and will be able to continue as a result of the affordable health care act found by the supreme court, including chief justice roberts, to be constitutional. this is constitutional. the legislature, congress and the senate and the president have the power to solve one of the great american dilemmas. the health care system. over time we'll change this. we'll make modifications. among those modifications ought to be an expansion of medicare. which is efficient, effective, universally available to every american over the age of 65. how good it is, how hard and how determined people are, if i can just live to 65 i'll have

medicare. it's a great program. we ought to expand it. we ought to make it universal. mr. ellison, i don't know how much time you have. mr. ellison: we got about 0 minutes or so -- 30 minutes or so. mr. garamendi: there are things we can talk about. mr. ellison: i'd like to take up what happened with eric holder today. if that's a subject you don't mind -- mr. garamendi: ok, let's talk about it. mr. ellison: i tell you, the holder case, eric holder, when he came into office this program, the fast and furious, was ongoing. it was a gunwalking program. the original theory was that you put some guns into the street -- stream of commerce and then you can find out who's buying them, who's selling them and try to get to the bottom of some of these cartels that trade in illegal guns. well, it was a poorly conceived plan. and tragedy occurred. a border enforcement officer,

officer terry, was killed as a result of one of these guns. and we all -- we all pause in his honor and offer our sincere condolences to his family. well, when attorney general holder found out about this program, he shut the program down. and -- but then of course as facts came to light, it is legitimate source of investigation and he submitted to nine hearings, 8,000 pages of documentation. but when it finally got down to it, when there was information that was of a deliberative nature, not on the facts of what happened to officer terry, but just exchange of information, and pending criminal information , which everyone in this room should know is not for public consumption, when that information was sought the administration, the white house

said, no, we're going to exercise executive privilege. obviously if the president exercises executive privilege, the attorney general has to abide by that decision. and despite all those facts, today on the house floor the republican majority, instead of dealing with jobs, instead of dealing with health care, instead of dealing with redoing the student loan interest rate it's, which are about do -- rates, which are about to double, instead of dealing with the transportation bill which is about to expire, we go do a witch hunt on eric holder. it's really too bad. any thoughts on this issue you care to share? . mr. garamendi: i do. and we just walked out of this chamber and said this isn't worthy of the dignity of the house of representatives. and we weren't going to honor this process with our presence. but let's go back here.

the fast and furious programs actually began in the george w. bush administration, i think in 2005, 2006. and there were two different projects that were under way in out of the phoenix office of the a.t.f. and they were trying to find out who the gun runners were. we have watched the western movies and the gun runners. there are american gun runners running guns to the narco folks in mexico and wanted to find out where are these guns coming from. and that was once again during the george w. bush administration, gone on for three years. the obama administration comes in. eric holder is selected as attorney germ and the program continued.

the tragedy occurred and the agent was killed and from there, the fast and furious, what we now call the walking of the guns, became known. eric holder shut it down. in that process, a letter was written to the senate committee saying that it didn't exist. clearly an error. i am told, but this house doesn't know today, never investigated by the committee, but i am told that there was information that the office in phoenix, arizona, misled the office in washington, d.c., and a letter was sent forth that was incorrect. that's the subject -- that should be the subject of the investigation. what happened here? what actually went on in arizona?

not one witness from the actual operation was called to testify, not one. so this is really a very strange and botched investigation. if you want to get to the bottom of it, you've got to talk to the people that actually did it. didn't happen. the democrats on the committee demanded several times, bring forth the people who did the fast and furious operation, from the bush administration into the obama administration, bring them forth. get their testimony. find out what happened. find out about the communications between the phoenix office and the washington, d.c., office. didn't happen. in terms of an investigation, you have a partial investigation focusing in on the end of the story, rather than on the full story. and today, first time ever in the history of this nation,

first time ever in the history of this nation, this body voted to hold in connection a cabinet official on a half-bakede, in sufficient investigation that purposely ignored, purposefully ignored calling witnesses that were engaged in the fast and furious operation and who were responsible in the phoenix operation responsible. it was a political event. and we walked out. not, not a good day. and as you said a moment ago, there are things we must do, men and women and families across this country are hurting. they're unemployed. they want jobs. they want to go work. transportation. where's the transportation bill?

we never did get one out of this house. we just went to conference. where's that bill? how about about the student interest rates? where's that bill? and what about the jobs program? what if september, 2011 proposal that president obama put forward -- mr. ellison: the american jobs act. mr. garamendi: what if we had taken that up, three million, four million americans would be working today. that didn't happen. our colleagues on the republican side refused it to be brought up in this house and in the senate. that is sad. very sad thing for america. it's one of the great we should have. but we were prevented from doing so. mr. ellison: i have some obligations that require me to curtail our hour a little early.

you can carry on. mr. garamendi: i must go but i appreciate talking about three very, very important things. mr. ellison: you are famous for nailing the need for greater investment in manufacturing and supporting american jobs and i thank you for all the great work you are doing. mr. garamendi: you mean make it in america. spend our tax money on american equipment and jobs. mr. ellison: what an idea. mr. garamendi: spend our american money on american equipment and jobs. mr. ellison: let me wrap up. it has been a eat evening, great day, great victory for the american people. the affordable care act has been vindicated in the supreme court. the day is marred by the majority in trying to go after eric holder. nonetheless, another day in

washington. progressive caucus will be back next week. i yield back. the chair: the chair announces the speaker's announcement of 238-b for fiscal year 2001, 22 u.s. crode 002 as amended and order of the house january 5, 2011rks the following member on the part of the house to the united states and china economic and security review commission for a term to expire december 31, 2014. under the speak ear announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from georgia, mr. graves, is recognized as the designee of the majority leader. mr. graves: i rise today with a group of colleagues of mine to really speak in contrast to what we have just heard and it's

shocking to me not only the news of today and the overreach of the federal government, but to hear colleagues on the other side of the aisle who were advocating for the progressive caucus, the progressive movement in this nation celebrating, truly celebrating the supreme court ruling of today, which allows the federal government to continue reaching into the homes of american families all across this country in a way that has never been done before and granted so much more taxing power that has never been granted before. and yet they celebrate. and used a lot of different terms like charting the new course. that was a phrase that was used by the progressive caucus just a moment ago. charting a new course. what is this new course? it has been a course that the progressive movement has been on now for nearly a century and today, they are celebrating that

course continuing to be charted and that is a course of more government and less liberty. and that is what this decision was all about today. it was about empowering government and not empowering the american people. it is about creating more government and less liberty. that's what the decision reflected today. i'm joined today with many good friends here in the house of representatives who are on the side of liberty. they're on the side of the american taxpayers. they're on the side of the private sector. they believe in free markets. they believe in capitalism. they believe in profits. they believe in success, dreaming and don't think the federal government has to get in the way of any of that. mr. speaker, i would like to yield to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett, to get his insights on today's decision. mr. garrett: i think mr. graves for leading the floor tonight on this very important matter. he joins me in saying that we

are all extremely disappoint that had we have to come to the floor tonight and the supreme court ruled that the commerce clause does not support the individual mandate but upheld it any way by collecting taxes. congress cannot use the commerce clause to compel you to do something but instead congress can tax you into submission instead. it should have been crystal clear that the commerce clause which grants power to congress to provide free trade could not use that clause to regulate it. if congress cannot force you to purchase a product, there is nothing that government can force you to do. this is against your liberties and congress is not only given few, but specific powers. as the supreme court told us in this case states, the framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. they gave congress the power to regulate congress, not to compel it. ignoring this would undermine

that the federal government is enumerated powers. congress has the power to tax and tax and tax until you submit to it. is this consistent with the founding principles of this country? did those brave patriots who endured british cannon fire and weathered freezing winters march without shoes, sleep without blankets and suffer with perpetual starvation so congress can tax the people to conform to their own behavior? did the founders who objected to stamp act and sugar act which led to our great nation to revolt, risk the charge of treason and their lives at risk so they could replace one king who demanded more from taxation and replace it from from a president who demands more from taxation?

no. we are individuals. we are not and shall never be more mere subjects to a government that can tax its way to tyranny and disturbing as it is, there is many problems. the obama administration has been confused as to whether or not the monetary penalty for failure to pay is, in fact, a tax. but even if we accept the penalty as a tax, as this court has rewritten the law to be, such a tax is unconstitutional. for many reasons. the constitution lays out three types of permissible taxes. a tax that is not assessed on income. this tax is not assessed uniformly when triggered by inactivity. it is unconstitutional in that regard and the tax is not apportioned among the states. even more important than that,

the constitution does not grant congress an independent power to tax for any purpose that it wants. taxing provides for the general welfare does not mean there is limitless power for congress to tax. rather, it means the tax must be for a national purpose to achieve the end that are outlined within the enumerated powers. this is not my view only. this was the view of james madison who ought to know a little bit about the constitution, since he is the man most responsible for it. there is nothing about the individual mandate defined as a tax that is sanctioned by the constitution. but we have strayed far from the constitution's founders. no longer the ability to tax by the limits imposed by that great document. the growth and power of this document would rerpped it un recognizable but repulsive by the founders. madison worried about the growth of government. the writings they left for posterity are full of warnings about limited government.

madison believed that republican governments would perpetually be on the defensive against the encroachment of aspiring tyrants. john adams said democracy will never last long and franklin said, we have produced a republic, if you can keep it. and now 225 years later, we have arrived at this moment. perhaps we should strife, not perhaps but we should strife to restore the free society of our founding fathers that they fought for. if liberty is our goal, the supreme court has failed the american people. and so although we come here tonight extremely disappointed that the supreme court did not rise to the defense of the constitution, i can take sole ace with the knowledge that the people of this country will. the americans of this country revere the constitution. they long cherish their

liberties and will not surrender them without a fight. since the enactment of obamacare, i have seen efforts by patriots in my district, my state and across the country trying to repeal obamacare and i'm inspired by their passion to defend the constitution. this generation of americans will not allow history to say that we presided over the demise of the american experiment in limited government. it is true that the struggle against obamacare has been long and difficult and sometimes met, as today, with disappointing results. but those of us who still believe in our founding principles, i offer some advice from thomas jefferson, who said, the grounds of liberty is to be gained by inches. and we stand here tonight all together pledging to work alongside the people of this great nation who will fight inch by inch in defense of the constitution, and we will repeal

obamacare. mr. speaker, obamacare must be repealed entirely because if it is not, the constitutional republic and the safeguards of our natural rights through limited government will be lost. and with that, i yield back. . >> i thank you for your remarks. based on the principles which this nation was based upon and while the erosion continues, and we've seen more of it even today with the ruling, the resolve is even stronger. dwrave grave so to those who -- mr. graves: so that those who may be listening or watching, you can know that there are a group of members that are not going to let up, that are going to be fully resolved to prepeel -- to repealing obamacare in had its entirety. pulling it out -- in its entirety. pulling it out, each and every root of this legislation, and empowering the people and not empowering government. because, why? because this is not a government

of the court, by the court, for the court. this is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. and i am convinced that the people will have their voice heard in the next few months. so as we heard from the progressives earlier and their continued march down this new charted course of more government and less liberty, we are thankfully joined tonight by a great friend of liberty and a great advocate of liberty and that is louie gohmert from texas and i'd like to yield to the gentleman from texas. mr. gohmert: i sure do appreciate my friend from georgia, an absolute patriot, standing for truth, justice and what used to be the american way . according to the supreme court, not so much anymore. and i appreciate the gentleman for yielding. i've been going through this decision and, you know, having been an attorney and i've been a prosecutor and a judge and a chief justice, as a small

three-judge court, but you learn things, you go to judicial conferences about how to write opinions and things. never to the level of the united states supreme court. but as a certified member of the united states supreme court bar, you follow the holdings of the courts and so it's been with great interest, after i got my wind back from having found that chief justice roberts wrote the opinion for the five-person majority, ok, so we start going through the opinion. let's see how in the world he came to this conclusion. well, i'll be very brief in jumping through it, even though it's a very long opinion, including the sense, but the first thing the court had to consider is the anti-injunction

act that was passed by congress years ago that makes very clear the supreme court cannot take up any issue regarding a tax unless the tax has actually been levied and someone required to pay the tax and then someone against whom the tax had been levied, required to pay that tax, files suit, that person then has standing. well, under obamacare, if the mandate is a tax, the penalty is a tax, then the anti-injunction act would kick in and no one would be allowed to have standing before the federal district clerk or the appeals an certainly not the u.s. supreme court. so the first thing the supreme court had to get past the idea that the issue is is this

penalty a tax? because then if it's a tax, then the supreme court must throw this case out, announce that the plaintiffs in these cases have no standing and will not until around 2014, until such time as the tax is levied. so the court goes through and if anybody prints out the decision, you can look at pages 11 through 15 specifically where they discuss the anti-injunction act. and they point out, just in essence what i have hopefully clarified. if it's a penalty then the court can take it up. if the penalty that you must pay for not buying the insurance is a tax, then this case goes out, no supreme court decision for at least two to four years. so, chief justice roberts, brilliant man, there's no question he's a very brilliant

intellectual, he indicates this and says, congress' decision to label this action a penalty rather than a tax is significant because the affordable care act describes many other exemptions, it creates, that are taxes. and he says this, he says, where congress uses certain language in one part of a statute and different language in another, it is generally presumed that congress acts intentionally. so he goes on and he says, the anti-injunction act, the affordable care act, are creatures of congress' own creation. how they relate to each other is up to congress and the best evidence, supreme court's words, justice roberts' words, the best evidence of congress' intent is the statutory language. the statutory text. and so he goes on to conclude that since congress says in

obamacare, the affordable care act, boy, is that a misnoemer, affordable care act, since congress calls it a penalty, then justice roberts and the majority say it's not a tax. it is a penalty, so around page 15 or so, 15, 16 they come around and say, i guess 15, ok, congress made clear that the penalty is what it is, not a tax. therefore the anti-injunction act does not apply so our court has jurisdiction and, as he says, the anti-injunction act therefore does not apply to this suit, since it's a penalty and not a tax. and therefore, as he says, we may proceed to the merits. ok. so he -- a penalty is not a tax because if it's a tax they can't do anything, they got to throw it out. ok, it's a penalty, not a tax.

so then he goes on after page 16, he goes on in the majority opinion to discuss this issue of whether or not it violates the commerce clause. this penalty. and he comes to the proper conclusion that if congress can mandate a penalty for not buying a product, there's nothing to stop congress from intruding in every area of individual americans' lives. and it's mentioned in this opinion that the main purpose, one of two main purposes is to bring down the cost of health care. supreme court thinks that's a legitimate reason to pass an act, bring down the cost of health care. but justice roberts and the majority decide it would violate the commerce clause because if

you can force individual americans to buy a particular product in order to bring down the costs of health care, you can order anything. you and i could be ordered to begin or to join a gym and start exercising x number of hours a week. we're told that the federal government does not monitor debit card and credit card purchases although supposedly it could. well, if it has -- if it has a duty to bring down health care costs and it has the ability to watch your purchases and under obamacare the federal government , through their relationship with general electric, sweetheart deal they did with g.e., they're going to hold everybody's medical records. so if they're holding everybody's medical records then i don't know why they wouldn't go ahead and monitor everybody's

cholesterol rate, blood pressure, things like that. and so it could conceivably get to the point where, gee, you get a letter from the government that says, we notice your cholesterol rate's up 250 or so and we notice you bought bacon this week. what were you thinking? you know, you got to take that back. you can't keep bacon. anyway, there's no limit to what congress can do to intrude in people's lives and i point out to my friend from georgia, you know, liberals are constantly on the protection of bedroom privacy rights. i really thought that once they fully examined the potential effect of obamacare they would be standing down here with you and me and my other friends here, louisiana, georgia, they'd be out here saying, wait a minute. if the goverent has the right to order us to do or not do acts or buy or not buy products for

the sole purpose of bringing down the cost of health care, there's studies that say some certain relational activities create more risk for health care problems than others, so if this is true, the federal government would have the right not only to invade the kitchen and the bathroom, but head straight to the bedroom and dictate people's rights. i didn't want to go there and i felt like once we found out that chief justice roberts makes clear this is a penalty, not a tax, it violates the commerce clause to force people to buy a product like this, you would think that would be the end of it. but then chief justice roberts goes on and it doesn't make sense because then he begins to say, well, it violates the commerce clause but does it violate the tax and spend

clause? and then he goes through and makes a case for saying, it's not -- it's not a penalty, it's a tax. and he's already told us that the best way to tell what it is is to look what congress called it. and i think in this case not only look what congress called it, look at what the president called it. just happened to have a partial excerpt or an excerpt from the transcript of a show the president did with his friend, george stephanopoulos, and mr. stephanopoulos is asking him about and he said, under this mandate the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't. how is that not a tax? well, the president obama goes on and he lays out all this weak jibberish and eventually gets down, stepen op louis interrupts

-- step op louis interrupts him and says, that may be, but that's still a tax increase. the president says, that's not true, george. for us to say that you got to take responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. the president also says, nobody considers that a tax increase. he's not done making clear the will of the congress and of the president who president bushed -- pushed this bill to make it his shining bill that he had passed through congress. city ofen op louis says, i have to check for myself, but critics say it's a tax increase. president obama says, my critics say everything is a tax increase. city of op louis, but you reject that it's a tax increase? president obama says, i absolutely reject that notion. not a tax increase. so you would think that if chief

justice roberts and the majority, the other four, are going to uphold the president's prized bill, he might accept what the president said he's done in this bill. but oh, no. after finding that it's not a tax, it's a penalty, then chief justice roberts comes over to page 39 and he says, the joint dissenters argue that we cannot uphold section 5000-a as a tax because congress did not, quote, frame it, unquote, as such. then he goes on and he says, labels should not control here. what? he just said before, congress' own expressed written intent is the best evidence of what their intent is. and yet now he comes over to page 39 and says, wait, we have to look at what the intent is but labels should not control.

so then he goes through and makes this ridiculous argument that it is a tax. and he says over here, page had 4, the affordable care act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be considered as a tax. because the constitution permits such tax, it's not our role to forbid it or to pass upon the wisdom or fairness. but then one of the big mysteries in this brilliant man's opinion for the majority uses the first opinion person pronoun i. anybody that's been a judge, normally you go to judicial conferences, you have seminars, you have training as writing style, if it's an individual judge, sole court opinion, then you'll write it one way. if it's a multiple justice

opinion, you write it another way. you see first-person pronoun i in dissents, even though it's really not the best grammer to use pronouns in dissents, but you don't see them in well-written majority opinions and chief justice roberts is one of the best linguists we've had on the court. . >> it takes justice ginsburg a few different places to pass in the majority opinion and yet, she is one of his voting justices to support the majority. that doesn't make sense. you don't normally see one justice write the majority opinion, take off and criticize someone who is voting with him. that doesn't make sense. here on page 44, he says justice ginsburg, rejecting the commerce power argument given that it can be upheld under the taxing

power. chief justice roberts says the statute reads as a command to buy insurance than as a tax. so now he is back to what he originally said before it was a tax, and he says this, i, chief justice roberts, will uphold it, talking basically -- i would uphold it as a command if the constitutional allows it. he is writing for the majority. no reason for him to have the first person pro noun there. doesn't make sense. maybe he was writing as a dissent and all of a sudden found himself in the majority and amazingly no one caught this problem of style in writing the opinion. doesn't make sense that a man that smart would have a product

this poor using first person, criticizing another justice in the majority with him and then saying what he would do. well, he is writing the majority opinion. he has no business saying that. then he goes through and says the states can expand its authority under the spending clause but basically comes back and upholds it and says you can't force the states to do these things. but remind my friends, the president said it's not a tax. the only way this bill gets upheld if the supreme court finds it is a tax, after they find jurisdiction after saying it is not a tax. this is the same president who said if you like your health insurance, you are going to keep it. he said if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. he found those -- he said he is

going to bring down the cost of health care and every indication we have seen insurance as dramatically gone up. and i get tired of hearing people say that the memories are poor in here across the aisle, well, look at the good things in here. 26-year-olds can be on their own parents' insurance. you can buy insurance across state lines because of us. we have taken care of the unfairness that some insurances use as pre-existing conditions as an exclusion. i would encourage my friends. i know my colleagues here remember, back when they had the house, they had the senate majority, they had the white house, republicans, many of us begged them, let us do some bipartisan bills together, because we can agree. it's not a problem, 26-year-olds stay on their insurance. the insurance companies like that. it's not a big cost.

so we will agree on that. it was republican, john shadegg was the first one who said you have to sell insurance across state lines. those are republican ideas. most of us supported that. and the pre-existing condition, most of us are aware of circumstances where insurance companies have been grossly unfair in using that exclusion and we were prepared to reach some agreements and have bipartisan stand-alone bills. i know my friend, dr. price out here, he has some concern about health care, having devoted his life to it before coming to government. people have been concerned about it. we were willing to agree on these things, but they would not have it. so to say without obamacare, we don't have these other things is simply not true and forgets current history. we were ready to agree on stand-alone bills.

they didn't want a bipartisan agreement. they wanted the whole brass ring and to shove it around our heads, around our next and eventually down our throats and that is what has happened. so i would encourage people -- i have been amazed people how many have picked up laws and started reading them. and i would encourage them to read this bill. -- i mean not the bill, the opinion. it's a very, very strange opinion. it contradicts itself on so many levels. it takes the obama -- it takes away religious freedom. i'm baptist. i see what they are doing to the catholics and i don't want to say i saw what they did to the catholics and i remained silent and i didn't object. i'm zpwrateful to stand with my

friends. i heard my democratic friends who spoke before us said, without this obamacare bill, these clinics will die. there have been clinics before the obamacare bill that vice president helped. we have some my district. they need more help. the best are really charitable institutions. the clinics aren't going to die. what i suggest came from the president's mouth also in his town hall when a woman in the white house, part of the town hall said, mr. president, my mother got a pacemaker at advanced age and if the doctor had not met her, the doctor wasn't going to let her have a pacemaker. after he met her, he said absolutely and has lived years beyond that. so would you consider someone's quality of life under your

panels -- we know they don't want to call them death panels, would they be able to consider the quality of life people have before they agree or disagree to let them have a procedure. and the president beat around the bush and he said -- you find the transcript, he said, maybe we are just better off telling your mother take a pain pill. you don't get a pacemaker. you don't get these additional years of life. you get a pain pill. so when our friends across the aisle might say, the clinics will die. i will submit that based on the president's own words, it's not the clinics that will die under this bill. and i thank you for yielding so much time. it's a bad opinion. and i appreciate having the time to talk. mr. graves: i hope all those that are viewing this understand

that this is about a tax. this is a new taxing authority, in essence, a broadening of the taxing authority. and as mr. gohmert brought up, this is unheard of. we will now have a federal government that can do whatever it wants to do through taxation. and you know, just thinking of the difference between tax and penalty. who do you send the check to, right? where's the bill coming from? i imagine from internal revenue services. i asked them, they wanting hundreds of millions of dollars to hire more people for the implementation and we know why. so here's the crux of the decision today. while the court might have said, the federal government can't tell you what to do, they can sure as heck punish you through

taxes if you don't do what you want to do. and mr. huelskamp has great insight. mr. huelskamp: i appreciate your leadership. sometimes i wish there was someone like you on the court today. and before we forget, before we forget, one of the five votes that upheld obamacare, one of those five votes, that justice would have recused herself. the decision could have only been 4 to 4. justice kagen shouldn't have been on this. if the judge refused, they would have been violating ethical rules. they said nothing. you know what, i'm not here to talk specifically about that. you talked about taxes and the

congressman did as well. there are 21 tax increases. but i want to talk about two in particular. when we look back on the american system of once limited government, this day, june 28, 2012, will stand as a definitive date in the advance of government tyranny and today's ruling, slim majority of the court has turned the constitution on its head and ruled that the federal government in effect can force upon the american people anything it darn well pleases so long as it is called a tax. let's not forget when our founding fathers put everything on the line risking life, limb and property to make us an independent nation they did so to ensure that no man was taxed without representation. asserted every man and woman has an inalien able right. they have these concepts in the declaration of independence and ultimately our constitution. today, the supreme court offered

a perverse interpretation of the bill of rights. they said, just across the street from here, even though you have a right to do something, the decision to exercise that right will incur a tax. the decision to exercise that right said the chief justice of the u.s. supreme court, the right will incur a tax. can you imagine the limitless possibilities for washington? why not extend its interpretation to other parts of the constitution? for example, why not tax the exercise of your first amendment rights? surely, you have the first amendment rights and send your member of congress a letter, but pay a fine to the government. that makes sense. publish a blog. don't forget to tell the i.r.s. and 16,00 agents. what about right to fair and speedy trial. that is guaranteed.

but that's yours to have for a fee. that's the lack of logic. americans who love their constitution. these are guaranteed and not to be imposed if you pay the fee. i want to talk about in addition to this health insurance mandate tax, the president's health care law creates what is clearly a religion tax. the religion tax? yes, you heard me right. even if you morally disagree with something being promoted for right now, h.h.s. secretary, look at her record, most americans would disagree with her moral views. if you disagree with her mandate under the president's health care plan, it doesn't matter. you will have to pay for it. if you dare to follow your conscience or practice your faith or no faith whatsoever and refuse to participate, you will

be fined. why? you will be taxed, because of what you believe and your desire to live it out. you will be forced to give your hard-earned money to i.r.s. and washington d.c. because of what you believe. it's a face tax and direct attack on our freedom of religion. there are dozens of lawsuits coming on the h.h.s. mandate coming out of obamacare. a tax on the religion, do you realize if you refuse to participate in the system -- i had an employer said, tim, everybody is talking about the individual mandate. what about the employer mandate? he will be fined $3,000 at a minimum for every single employer. why? because what he believes. that's why we founded this country, for freedom to believe, not as the government or as the key but as the chief justice

would have us believe, but they didn't address it directly in this decision. it will be coming. this is a shocking attack on the first amendment, the right to believe in and follow the god we choose. the supreme court may have not dealt obamacare but it is incumbent on each and every one of us in congress and each and every american and i would have loved to witness a home run, knock it out of the park and say it is clearly justice and if justice kagen had been ethical, it would have been a four, four decision. the end justifies the means, but if not in america. not in america. i ask all americans to realize this decision is not about relate care, it's not about health care but about liberty. and when we have created and designed a method by which

future congresses can get around anything in the constitution, the constitution is a limit on my power andvery power, every member in this chamber and every member across the way and every president of the united states, that's what the constitution does. it doesn't empower, but takes away our power. and this court today has said if you call it a tax, used those three words, even though the three chief justice said, doesn't matter. the word ta tax does matter. it makes it constitutional. anything you do, including a h attacking the very faith that is held by the chief justice himself says you cannot hold that faith, mr. chief justice, unless you are willing to be fined by your own government. . . . cha what this means is we can't overturn this with this president in the white house.

this has take an issue and you know what, this is going to be the issue for november 6. this is the choice. do you want the government to mandate and control everything in your lives as long as they use that magic word they love to use, the tax word? if you allow them to do that, you allow them to be in every part of your life, which is an absolute contradiction to what this country was founded upon. i appreciate the leadership of many in this room. i am just a freshman. i was not here when this debate started last time, some of these colleagues have been here fighting all along but i tell you, the folks in the first district of kansas are any indication of what americans are saying all over, this is the time, they're going to dust off that kansas, they're going to read, my goodness, i don't want to lose this, it's too precious. we're leading the world and now is the time to take biback our government, take back our constitution and take back our power out of washington, d.c. so i yield back my time and i appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from georgia. mr. graves: i thank the

gentleman from kansas. mr. huelskamp, for your words, the unintended consequences. i can tell you there are going to be an amazing amount of unintended consequences with the affordable care act, which i'm not sure we can call it that anymore. i think it's more like the limited care act. it's the very expensive care act. for the progressives that were here earlier, i know many folks listened to them, they were celebrating. they were excited. they were happy, gleeful, whereas we're lamenting but resolved to do away with this once and for all. so why would they be gleeful? because it's their movement. it's their -- this is what they've been trying to do now for almost 100 years and that is increase the size of government, get it into the lives of the american people, dictate the behavior and limit freedom and i read recently that part of their agenda is to divorce the declaration of independence and the constitution. but to use one and to prop up on that one so they can almost sort

of claim that they are for the founding of this nation, and we heard earlier, it was the declaration of independence that was used, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and why they were celebrating that this was the right bill to be in law because of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. if you can claim that with this legislation, there are no bounds in which you can go with this federal government. there are no limits and as the gentleman from kansas just raised, this is clearly not about health care. this is about freedom and this is about liberty and preserving it for future generations. i'd like to yield to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. landry. mr. landry: thank you, mr. graves. a -- and mr. huelskamp was just so on the mark. i would venture to say that today's ruling actually extinguishing the fire of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. it destroys life and liberty and

that pursuit. the question today for this country can best be summed up by president ronald reagan when he said back in the 1960's, in a speech, will history write that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent it from happening? this is a sad and tragic day for the constitution. where is the limits of our government? while the court has answered that the commerce clause does have its limits, and gives us that ruling, it takes away by saying that congress has unlimited taxing power. so it limits or unlimited. i guess that congress now, when it sees fit to regulate an issue, an indury, need only now to turn to its taxing power,

as mr. huelskamp said. this law was sold to us as a mandate. and not a tax. and it was reaffirmed by the president that this is not a tax. but yet when it's -- when the arguments were made to its constitutionality, this administration took the position that it was a tax. and the court agreed. so let's see the taxes. in 2010 an excise tax on charitable hospitals was enacted. the codfication of the economic substance doctrine, a tax hike of $4.5 billion, was imple thed. a black liquor tax hike, a tax than creases on the type of biofuels was added. a tax on innovators of drug companies was enacted. a blue cross, blue shield tax hike was enacted. a tax on indoor tanning services

was enacted. a medicine cabinet tax so, that americans are no longer able to use their h.s.a.'s, their f.s.a.'s, flexible spending accounts, or h.r.a.'s, to help reimbursement, pretax dollars to purchase nonprescription over-the-counter medicines was implemented. the h.s.a. withdrew tax hike was implementmented. a tax that will take effect this year, the employer reporting of insurance on w-4. where are they going with that, mr. graves? where are they going with that? remember, not long ago we had a big debate about that, that now we're going to report to the i.r.s. the amount of your insurance policy that your employer gives you on your w-4. because they want to tax that as income. and then taxes that will take in

effect in 2013. a surtax on investment income. a hike in the medical payroll tax. wait, the medical payroll tax? i thought we had a payroll tax holiday. not in 2013. we're going to get an increase. a tax on medical device manufacturers. a flexible spending account cap. that is going to affect those parents who have special needs kids. so those parents who have special needs kids, that the other side always claims to want to represent this health care law is now going to tax. and an elimination of the tax deduction for employers that cover prescription drugs. a $500,000 annual executive compensation limit. an individual mandate excise

tax. an employer mandate excise tax. a tax on health insurers. and the last but not least, in 2018, an excise tax on comprehensive health insurance plans which will affect unions -- union employees. and so this ladder of success that we had in this country has now had three rings of it removed. because now the government tells the individual, if you live below a certain poverty line, you'll be given food, shelter and now health care. tax free. no requirement by you who is receiving these to pay anything back to the government. zero. so what is the incentive to climb? because the moment you start to climb, you lose these amenities. and the government starts to take from you. so the decision becomes, can i jump high enough to grab a wrung

so that i can then start paying back and get more of the amenities that the government was giving us? and i was provided. so let me conclude, as i began, by asking, will those who have the most to lose do the least to prevent it from happening? and as i spend time in this city, i have come to realize that the giants of america, who have been memized -- memorialized for their great contributions to our society did not contribute with the goal of being memorialized. but did what was right and just in the eyes of the lord with no ego and no agenda other than for the greater good and that is what this country so desplatly needs -- desperately needs. we need those giants.

thank you, mr. graves, for yielding time and i yield back. mr. graves: thank you, mr. landry. you brought up one major component of all this legislation. i remember the president, i want to say in one of the unions, he said, we need tax reform, tax reform. i think he got tax reform in this law. 21 new taxes that are being implemented because of obamacare. 21 new taxes and yet the progressives earlier said, no, this is great for america. free health care, affordable health care no one has to pay. they'll get credits back. somebody's got to pay. that's the way that this place works. whenever they're promising you something, they're taking from someone else and you just laid out 21 different areas that impact every american that the president promised he wouldn't raise taxes on. so i appreciate you doing that and next, the other component of it is, what's left? what really was in this health care law, this big government expansion, this overreach into the homes of american families, a tremendous amount is left. and i know dr. price from georgia has been leading the

fight, not only against this measure, but for positive patient-sent -- patient-centered driven measures as well. mr. price: thank you so very much. i want to commend you for your work on this issue and your leadership. for principled solutions. principled solutions in the area of health care and everywhere else. you've heard, i know, that republicans think every day is the fourth of july and democrats think every day is april 15. why would i say that today? well, we've been highlighting it in this conversation we're having here, because our friends on the other side of the aisle believe that every day is another day to raise taxes. and today the supreme court said, today the supreme court of the united states said, you want to raise taxes? have at it. raise them as high as you want. in fact, the democrats are so incredibly happy this day because it's not just that they can now raise taxes or fight to raise taxes on what we do,

goodness gracious, they can fight to raise taxes on what we don't do. in fact, if you don't do something, then the federal government can say, oh, you better do that or we're going to raise your taxes. and that's exactly what the court said today. which confounds and astounds everybody. i was privileged to sit in the court today though and hear the reading of the ruling and justice roberts, chief justice roberts said one thing i found very, very interesting. he said, quote, it's not our job to protect citizens from their political decisions. it's not our job to protect citizens from their political decisions. and that's exactly what this was. this decision was fixed on election day in 2008. this decision came down on election day, 2008. and as a physician i want to talk for a very brief moment here about the incredible importance of election day, 2012. because as you said, mr. graves, there are a lot of things in this bill that we're not just talking about money. as a physician i know what we're

talking about is people's lives. the health care of the american people. and nothing could be so important. nothing could be so personal. and what the court said today is , let the things in there stand. the $500 billion reduction, $500 billion in decrease from the medicare program, take the medicare program say, you don't need that money, seniors in this country, you don't need that money. we're going to use it over here. what does that mean? what that means is that those seniors, your parents, your grandparents, the parents and grandparents of this great country, the people of the greatest generation are now going to have diminished health care. and how are they going to do it? they're plot going to do it through the front door. they're not going to say, we're going to decrease this care for you, transparently, openly. oh, no. they're going to do it through

the back door. some call the independent payment advisory board that we've talked about before. 15-member bureaucratic panel. nonelected individuals are going to have the power under this law to say, dr. smith, you can't do that for mrs. jones. if you do it, we're not going to pay you. that's the coercive power of this government. that's the coercive power that this court today said is ok. you and i both know it's not ok for us and it's not ok for the merp people. that's why we stand here tonight and say with every ounce of our being that the election that occurred in 2008 may have written this in stone but there's some sandblasters out there and what we're going to do between now and the first tuesday in november is make certain the american people understand and appreciate that there are folks in this town who are fighting as hard as we can toup hold the rule of law, to uphold the tougs and to

adhere to the fundamental principles, especialry in health care, the principles of affordability, accessibility, quality and choices for the american people, the bad news was written today. the good news is, you can solve all of these challenges in health care without putting the federal government in charge of a thing. we've got the solutions, we've talked about them before. we'll be going on the road and talking about them from now until november because the american people want to know that there's somebody fighting for them in this town, on their behalf, and we are. what we need from the american people is for them to stand up and say, no more. we will not tolerate a government that will reach into our lives and destroy quality health care in this country to the degree that the courts said was ok today. i thank my friend for the wonderingful work you're doing.

>> you're not joust speaking on behalf of physicians, you're speaking on behalf of patients, i appreciate the resolve as you head us here in the house. as we go to the last five minutes here with mr. bishop, the government right now, taxes us on what we do or consume. mr. graves: but this is a first in which government can now tax you on what you don't do. that's an amazing concept. i hadn't really thought of it that way until mr. price brought it up now the federal government has move spood a rem it's never been in before saying, hey, because you're not doing something, i'm going to tax you. so i'm going to determine what it is that you should be doing, that you're not doing, so therefore i can collect a little revenue. here we are today with something such as this. mr. bishop from utah. mr. bishop: mr. speaker.

mr. speaker, i rise to file a conference report on h.r. 4348. mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 7 of rule -- mr. burton: pursuant to clause 7 of rule 22, i present a privilege red port. the clerk: conference we report to acompmy -- accompany h.r. 4348 a bill to provide highway safety, highway carrier safety and transit pending enactment of a multiyear law re-authorizing such programs and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the order is printed. gentleman from georgia may proceed. mr. graves: thank you, mr. speaker. as we were just wrapping this spirited discussion here, earlier, mr. bishop you heard the progressives celebrating this decision today and so what were they celebrating? what the federal government can tax you if you do something but today's celebration was the fact that the federal

government can tax you when you don't do something. i appreciate you joining us tonight to give your thoughts from the great state of utah. i appreciate the gentleman -- mr. bishop: i appreciate the gentleman for yielding me a few moments here. truly this is a unique day. i'm happy to join my colleagues in talking about this particular issue. the old cliche is simply, supreme court decisions should not be confused with constitutional principles. today we have one a case brought by many states to the supreme court, and the squad mrgs has always said, this medicare, this obamacare is not a tags. the court said today on a 5-9 decision trks a tax. i guess it's legal if you call it a tax. four of the nine said not even that was good enough, but nonetheless it's a tax. it's appropriate that we talk about that power of taxes because you know the most famous of all cases, mcculloch vs. maryland, one of the most

important cases made in this building said the power to tax is the power to destroy. we have that in front of us right now. i don't think we should have expected judges to do what lennell slative brample new york this case congress, ought to do. i think it's positive that we move forward in this effort to make sure that this program does not go into effect and we take concerns for our constituents and maybe even learn something from it. the idea of judicial review didn't exist for the first decade and a half of this country. marbury vs. maryland didn't happen until almost 15 years into the country. washington, who at the constitution convention thought the veto should be determined what determined constitutionality, and jefferson said there should be legislative review. i think perhaps our founding fathers though all branches should be involved in that kind of concept. i think there should be a fourth one added to it, which is the states who started this process in going to the courts.

like we don't come on this floor -- we don't come on this floor often and quote anti-federalists, because they lost. however, i want to today. even though they were wrong on the constitution, every once in a while they were right in some instances. so, no one knows exactly who wrote this, but he talked abbt the condition september of federalism, the states should have the power to do some things. our power, i've heard it observed that our people are well-informed and will not submit to oppressive government that state governments will be ready advocates but of what avail will these circumstances be if the state government is thus allowed to be guardians of the people, possess no kind of power to stop the laws of congress injurious to the people. one of the things they quickly

said is states don't have the concept or the power to actually involve themselves in this particular issue. there are some concepts that are out there. the repeal amendment which is proposed by some legal scholarring and has been proposed by a state organization would give a tool for states to be involved in this discussion because it impacts those states. right now they simply have to accept what takes place here in the rare -- rarefied air by the potomac river. if, indeed, we gave the states a tool so if enough states were to band together to say, no, we disagree with this rule, we disagree with this regular wlarkse disagree with this law, we even disagree with this supreme court decision, the states would have an ability to add a new check and a new balance to make sure that the common people of this country have some kind of voice in these decisions. i think up with of the things we should learn from today's decision is that we desperately need another check and balance

in our process to make federalism a realistic and real term and that means to involve the states in giving them some powers to have real decisions. not so they have to come to us as they have so far begging, but so they can actually have a say. i think we would be better off as a nation if we did it. this decision today, nothing more should add or resolve for us, to solve a political problem, politically, to do it here in the halls of congress, but maybe add another player in this process, the states, so they also have a say in this power to tax which is the power to destroy. i realize we're coming close to time. i want to give my good friend from georgia the chance to get the final word on this particular -- i appreciate his efforts to organize this opportunity to talk about what has happened today. i yield back. mr. graves: thank you. thank you for your comments tonight and your great insight in reflecting back on early dumonts and early words that have been shared.

mr. speaker, as we conclude tonight, i want the american people to know we are resolved to restore the liberty that was lost today through the full epeel of obamacare. that will be our focus as republicans in the house. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. le the speaker pro tempore: under clause 8 of rule 20, the filing of the conference report on h.r. 4348 and the motion to instruct conferees offered by the gentlewoman from california, ms. hahn, which was debated yesterday and on which further proceedings were postponed.

pursuant to clause 12a of rule 1, the house stands in recess summit to the call of the chair. >> numbers will also work on a bill dealing with student loan interest rates, flood insurance, and highway programs. the live coverage of the u.s.

house always here on c-span. today in a 5-4 decision, the supreme court ruled that the 2010 affordable care act was constitutional. the house speaker in a briefing following the ruling said that while he respects the decision, it is not a wise law for the economy and the american people. they pledged to work on repealing the entire lot. this is 20 minutes. >> thank you, everyone, for coming. i was at the supreme court to hear chief justice roberts decision on the affordable care act. we respect the court but we respectfully disagree with the decision. just because the court upheld the law as constitutional does not mean that it is a good law.

the unprecedented government power, fundamentally changing the individual and government. the court ruled today that the affordable care act is a tax. it is the largest tax in america's history. we also know that cbo has estimated that 20 million americans will lose employer health insurance. if as a mom and a wife making health care decisions like many families in america, we have already seen our premiums skyrocket on average $2,100 per family. for all of these reasons and more, the american people oppose this bill. the opposition has increased since the law was signed two years ago. that is why republicans pledged to america to repeal this law. we are determined more today than ever to repeal the slot. the supreme court spoke today

that they will not have the final word, the american people will have the final word in november. hayworth, a physician myself. i have the privilege of caring for patients in the hudson valley for 16 years. i am here to represent patients and doctors across the country. my colleagues tell me that they are very concerned about their ability to deliver the care that their patients deserve and that they have come rightly to expect under the terms of this law. in particular, i am worried about medicare patients. as an ophthalmologist, i took care of many of them in my career. this 2010 law takes $500 billion out of medicare. this directly compromises their access to care. it is unacceptable.

we resolve here to honor the goals of that law, to have affordable health care for all americans. affordable health insurance. the wrong law. we can't afford to impose a $2 trillion bureaucracy on the american people. what we can honor those goals and ways that make sense. if we are here to put patients at the center of health care. patients, their doctors, their providers at the center of health care. not the federal government. she is right, we are more determined than ever. we will succeed. >> renee elmers, representing the second district. a newscaster will be written for health care as a result of the supreme court decision. it is a chapter that we will continue in the fight. i came to washington because of

obama care. as a nurse and with my husband as a surgeon here in washington now as a mother, i am concerned about our children. as a nurse, i am concerned about our seniors. this decision keeps $500 billion being cut out of health care for medicare and for our seniors. it continues the independent pay an advisory board. that means 15 bureaucratic unaccountable individuals will make health care decisions for our seniors and citizens. the fight continues. the uncertainty remains. the vision that has kept me awake many times at night as a nurse, is seeing myself holding the hand of a patient, while the

doctor comes into the room and says that their life-saving treatment will be denied because the independent payment advisory board deems it unnecessary remains in my mind. we are and will remain committed to this. we will repeal obamacare. this will continue to be our fight. then the chapter for reform with the fishing accountable and responsible health care reform will be put in place. thank you. >> thank you. good afternoon. th m from new york's 25 district. i am a registered nurse. since then, a health care attorney. i have been in health care for most of my professional life. healthcare is intensely

personal. i am very passionate about it. throughout the course of the last 18 months, i have had my hospitals, by physicians -- my positions, senior citizens, and nurses come to me and tell us the law is bad. it will affect the way we are able to provide care for our patients. it may be constitutional, but it is not good policy. we need laws that will do what is best for the american people. they need access to health care. we need to keep the costs of health care down. this law does not take any of the necessary steps to really reform the costs of health care in this nation. president obama continues to say that if you like your health care, you can keep it. i am here to tell you, i am here for the folks from my

district, from the folks at the hospitals, that is not going to be what will happen. many employers will put their employees into the exchange. they will lose their toys for health care in the u.s. it is -- lose their choice for health care in the u.s. it is unacceptable. today begins the fight. today begins another debate. today begins the to debate on how we will reform health care in the u.s. thank you. >> good afternoon, everyone. the president's health care law is hurting our economy. it is startup health care costs. it is making it harder for small businesses to hire new workers. today's ruling underscores the urging of repealing this harmful law in its entirety. americans want a common sense, step by step approach to health

care reform that will protect americans and give them the care they need from the doctor they choose at a lower costs. republicans stand ready to work with a president who will listen to the american people and not repeat the mistakes that gave this country this harmful law. health care coverage has become too expensive for too many people in our country. the republican health care reforms will lower health care costs. women make about 80% of the health care decisions for their families in our country. republican health care reforms will ensure that families and doctors are making health care decisions, and not bureaucrats here in washington. >> good afternoon. if for nothing else, up-to-

date's health care decision underscores the importance of this election. the people of america will have a choice to make in november. it is a choice that will bear upon the direction of this country as far as their health care is concerned. the decision today really indicates that we have entered an age in which the government and the washington will be controlling health care unless something changes. most americans, i believe, still like the health care that they have. the president has continued to say that his law will allow folks to keep the health care they like. but what we have seen it is that is not the case. obamacare will preclude people from having their health care the like. we will see increased costs. we are committed to changing that. we are committed to make sure we can return to patient-based

health care in this country. we need to keep costs low. we need to increase access. that is why when we return the week of july 9, we have stood up and go for total repeal of the obamacare bill. that where we can clear the way for try to focus on health care future that is centered on patient-centered care and lowering costs and better access. >> today's decision by the supreme court did nothing to end the debate on health care. it only enhanced it. the decision raises the question -- will the patient be part of the decision-making process? or will it be government-run health care? it is a debate that will drive this nation. the debate of health care goes much deeper than the ability of

access and costs. it is a time when america has faced unemployment of 40 months of unemployment above 8%. i have had discussions with small-business owners. the decisions today will determine the decisions they make in jobs. the economy will not be turning around because this health care bill harms the economy. studies by the administration shows it will take people off of the current health care plans that they have. it will raise the costs. the debate has not ended. it has only begun. we see a group of the those behind this. we will not be the only ones. across the nation, it will be a healthy debate on policy. look forward to listening to the nation to have health care that empowers the patient to make their own decision.

>> today was not a good day for freedom. it was not a good day for struggling american families who wish to keep the health care that they have. i respect the ruling of the supreme court. i respectfully disagree with it. for those who say it is constitutional, i remind them that a constitutional law does not make for a wise law. the trillion dollar deficits of the obama administration are clearly unconstitutional. they are not wise. the fight will continue. we believe is health care law still fundamentally is hurting our economy and hurting jobs. every day i hear from small businessmen. they tell me they will never hire more than 50 people.

the have spent millions in compliance costs and have to lay off workers. it hundred billion dollars of taxes. family premiums are up $2,200. the affordable health care act has not proven to be affordable for struggling families. but most importantly, americans want to be able to choose their own doctor. they want quality health care. they want access to health care. they want affordable health care act it costs they can afford. the president's health care threatens that. the supreme court was heard today. we respect it. as the republican leader said, the second week of july, the people's house will be heard from and ultimately the people from america will be heard from.

>> the decision by the supreme court was a troubling decision. we clearly disagree with that decision. it is not the rule of the court to protect people from the political decisions. the people clearly chose in 2008 and we are now living under the consequence of the political choice. i can tell you that the doctors and patients of this land are very troubled. this law violates every principle that we hold dear as a nation. whether it is accessibility or affordability for high-quality care or a choice for patients, this law violates all of that. it makes it more difficult. we will work together with the the american people to make certain that this law is repealed. we need to move forward in a rational and deliver way with

patient-centered health care. means patients, doctors, and families making decisions, not the government. >> if you would like to ask a question, please raise your hand. if you yell, i will not call on you. [laughter] >> my hand was up first. can you explain -- and their inconsistency? you did not like the policy. you are saying you respect the decision of the court. >> the court made the decision about whether this law is constitutional. it does not mean that the law is wise. it does not mean it is good for the country. i will give you an example. look at the decision of today.

the chief justice in his opinion itx, ned that the c can proceed because congress has the power to impose taxes. the government can decide to tax you if you do not eat broccoli on tuesday. apparently, that is not constitutional. i do not think that is a very wise law. >> mr. boehner! >> all you have to do is raise your hand. no work required. -- no words required. >> what makes it necessary to go forward?

>> the outcome up-to-date's decision is to strengthen our resolve -- of today's decision is to strengthen our resolve. the american people will have an opportunity to make their decision on election day. elections have consequences. the election of 2008 clearly had a consequence that most americans disagree with. >> would describe -- would you describe chief justice john roberts in the decision? >> i am blessed that i am not a lawyer. it is not for me to decide. i am disappointed in the court's decision, but they came to a decision and i respect it. >> democrats say that you are holding another vote to repeal

this law is a sign that republicans are sore losers. the are plenty of laws that republicans have passed over the years. >> resolve. there is a lot of resolve among the american people to stop a law that is hurting our economy and drive up the costs of health care. the american people want this bill repealed. what they want are common-sense steps that will empower them and their families to choose the doctor that they want at lower costs. >> how did think this will affect politically in the fall? >> we will let the american people make that decision on election day. >> and do you think it will help motivate your quarters? >> what i am concerned about is a law that is driving up the

costs of health care and making it harder for employers to hire people. that is what i am concerned about. >> given that this ruling, the penalty for not having insurance is within the tax price, is the house looking to repeal that penalty? or will they put in -- >> we believe repealing the entire log is the right thing to do. it will save medicare from being -- repeating the entire law is the right thing to do. it will save medicare. we want people to have access to the quality care that they want.

>> on "washington journal" we will focus on the supreme court's decision to up hold all of the president's health care law. then we will speak with four members of the house. we will speak to the representative from illinois, the representative from georgia, and the representative from pennsylvania. "washington journal" is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. >> house minority leader pelosi called the supreme court's decision to uphold the health care law a victory for the american people. this briefing is 15 minutes.

>> good afternoon. pretty exciting day. the decision that was announced by the supreme court is a victory for america's families. it was a victory for american families when it passed the affordable health care act and the president signed it into law. since then, tens of millions of people are already benefiting from the legislation. children can no longer be denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions. young people and students and young people can stay on their parents health care policy until 26.e ar 26y are it is a big victory for women.

it is about wellness. it is about prevention. it is about the health care of america and not just health care. it is pretty exciting. earlier i met with a caucus after a decision was announced. it was no surprise to us. we thought the we are on solid ground and terms of the constitution. it was just a question of what the vote would be. without confidence, we happily embrace the decision that came down -- with that confidence, we happily embrace the decision that came down. the best is yet to come. i want to say a word about senator kennedy or for coming year. i thanked him for a lifetime

commitment to making their a right and not a privilege in this country. he called it the great unfinished business of our society. i knew that when he left us, he would go to heaven. this decision came down, inspiring one way or another. he can now rest in peace. is dream for american families has become a reality. i will be pleased to take any questions. >> the president has said a occasions that it is not a tax. >> i have to look at the language of how we identify the bill in the house.

the documentation was part of the decision. it is a step forward for american families. take yes for an answer. this is a very good thing for the american people. what you are talking about is washington talk. what is happening out there is that families and children with pre-existing medical conditions will not be discriminated against any more. same thing when the bill is fully implemented. that is what is important to people. technical terms, that is for us here. >> republicans say this decision raises the stakes for the election.

there'll be a health care debate in this election. >> we need to take a step back and say, why are we here? we are here to do a job for the american people. we are here to act upon our belief. it is a belief that many of us share. health care is a right and not a privilege. we believe the health care bill needed to be passed so that families will not be punished because they had a diagnosis or an accident. we believe it is about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that people can now pursue the aspirations depending on their talents without being a job-locked because it taught has a pre-existing condition or a fear of a diagnosis. they can be a writer. they can be self employed. this is about our responsibility

to reduce the deficit. there is no other reason to pass this them because of costs to families and businesses, large and small. costs to our economy in terms of it being a competitiveness issue. politics be damned. this is about what came to be. anytime you want to waste time, what does this mean? we undermine our purpose in coming here and acting upon our beliefs. we are very excited about this day. it is a start. it ranks right up there when it passed medicare. now it is being upheld by justices of the supreme court.

>> chief justice roberts called get a gun to the head. the states had to comply or else they would lose medicaid funding. >> with all due respect, a characterization -- here is what it does. but this very carefully. again, we wanted to have balance in the legislation. we wanted it to have legitimacy and a well-received. what it says is that for three years, states will receive 100% of medicaid funding for this bill without any matching funds. that is not a gun to the head. the house language as more

clarity. 100% of the money has matching elements to it, but not to the expansion of medicaid in this bill. they're not bothered at all by the decision in regards to medicaid. we think most governors would accept 100% funding without matching funds. >> are you going to be walking out on the house took the? -- today? >> thank you firm opinion that up. i have a few things to say about that. it would have been mischievous of me.

you think it was a matter of mischief. it is no coincidence that this is taken up the same day the supreme court decision came down. it is too much of a coincidence. the motion ofen yo was only passed one week ago. what the republicans are doing with this motion on the floor today is contemptible, even for them. it is contemptible. the constitution tells the branches of government that they should work together and try to resolve differences without getting an upper hand are showing strength -- or showing strength.

the house of representatives wanted to go forward was such a motion. trying to resolve it is not sending a bill to the floor of the house based on a false premise. this is not the truth is on the floor today. it was a false premise and asking for a boat. they tied to guns -- and asking for a vote. it had to grind. we had two employees at the white house. was the keeper of the president's papers. for 200 days, we tried to get info from the white house. they stonewalled it. once in and month out, the chairman of the committee and i and our leadership said, keep trying.

we did not want to bring this to the floor again. we want to exhaust every remedy. that is not what is being done here. ailroading of ati resolution. it is based on a false premise. it came to the floor of the house in a manner of less than two weeks for when we spent 200 days try to get word one from the bush administration. these people have gotten thousands of pages of documents. the documentation is from the attorney general. >> will you be walking off? >> i am just saying, there is an attitude in our caucus that we

should not on a process that is coming to the floor. i myself and then to stay long enough to vote no and then i will see what many in our caucus thinks we should do. i will honor the wish of my caucus. but i will be there long enough to make sure that the record is straight on what is going on. we are honored by the work of cummings. i want to be able to speak firsthand and what was said on the floor following this. this is not about anything other than they are trying to undermine the chief officer of our country, the attorney general. it is the first time in the history of america that a cabinet officer has had a contempt of congress resolution

on the floor against him or against her. i believe, as i have said from the start, it is their attempt to undermine his effectiveness and that of his department to address issues that are going on in our country that have many other complaints. they do not like the fact that he is not moving forward to descend the doma act. again, it is about a lot of things. that is why i say it is contemptible. in some circles, they would call it "lies." i do not like to use the word. is abuse of power in