outrageous. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. waters: you should stop it and i yield back the balance of my time. i don't even know why i came here. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chairman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, who is a distinguished jurist before he became a member of congress and then a distinguished member of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. i can verify that there are people who have already lost their insurance because of obamacare. . it is not true that if you like your insurance, you can keep it. people have lost doctors who were assured if you like your doctor you can keep them. that is not true. we were told there would be no tax. and that's not true. in fact, in the bill itself, one of the most devastating things, if you are a single individual

and making 133% of the poverty level, you are making $14,000 and can't afford $12,000 insurance policy, you are going to be fined at 2 1/2%. it is a tax. it will devastate. you make $40,000, a family of four, five, six, $1,000 fine because you can't afford a $12,000 policy, that on top of the government running everything, that's why we got to repeal it for the good of the people. mr. conyers: i yield myself 15 seconds. to tell judge gohmert that there isn't one american in this country that has lost their insurance because of obamacare, not one. and now i turn to the gentleman

from tennessee, distinguished member of the judiciary committee, mr. cohen, i yield him two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. cohen: i appreciate the time. i was a history major in college. and oftentimes i'm in this hall and think about the history. we have been in this hall for nearly 250 years. and when there was an attempt to pass social security, the republicans were against it. and they're still against it. they want to give it to wall street and let it be invested. and the next great historical advance in our history was medicare. and the republicans were against it. and now they're against the affordable care act and patient protection act. every republican who voted against it and they line up and talk about speaker pelosi and

lined up like ducks at the peabody hotel and democrats are concerned about children, women and life and the deficits in the long run and there is a continuing battle in this house between people who look out for the haves and those who have nots. and i was taught by my parents and that was to look out for people who needed help. daniel webster's words are inscribed in this capitol right in this hall worthy about something to be remembered. that's what we're here for. the affordable care act and patient protection act is to care for and help people survive. it's provided -- and next month it will provide $1.1 billion for

over 12 million people who have been overcharged by their insurance companies. president obama said this was insurance reform on steroids. it is. you want the insurance companies to run your life? for you people, they will get $1.1 billion back and this is the beginning of something great when you have some control over the insurance company. i yield back the balance of my time and i'm appreciative of doing something worthy to be remembered. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: we are prepared to close on this side, so i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i'm pleased to yield to representative garamendi, the balance of our time on this side, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr.

speaker. and i thank the members of this house for what is an extraordinary debate, a debate of which there is a lot of false information. i was the insurance commissioner in california and i can talk about these insurance issues forever, but what i would like to focus on is the fact that the law that is in the land today really helps people. it helps people like my deceased -- it would help people like my deceased sister-in-law, juvenile diabetic and spent the last 20 years of her life struggling to get insurance. that won't be the case in the future for those who are juvenile diabetics. they will get insurance and get it through an exchange in their states and at an affordable cost.

and if they don't have the income, they will have a subsidy to buy the insurance. it will help people like the son of my chief of staff, who was born with kidney failure. he had insurance from conception to hours after he was born, but the insurance company dropped him. that won't happen him anymore because children throughout this nation will be able to stay on their parents' policy because of this law. it will help people like my daughter, who turned 21, and the insurance company who had covered her for 21 years dumped her. because of this law, she is now on my policy. and 17 million other young adults who have insurance as a result of this law. i could talk forever about the way the insurance companies

discriminate based upon age, sex and pre-existing conditions and there are millions upon millions of americans who are denied, who were denied coverage, but are no longer because of the patients' bill of rights. this is insurance reform on steroids. and i wish i had this law available to me when i was insurance commissioner in california. this is a good law. this is a very, very good thing for americans. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: we are prepared to close on this side. reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has remaining time of 2 1/2 minutes. mr. smith: i yield the balance of my time to mrs. bachmann, a member of the financial services

committee and the intelligence committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. mrs. bachmann: i thank the gentleman from texas for yielding. if there is anything we have learned is we have debated the president's health care plan. it has been a mirage and built on a series of one broken promise after another. the president told us we would be saving $2,500 per household if we passed this health care bill. the americans' health insurance premiums have increased by almost that amount, which means the president was off by a stunning $5,000 per household. and americans are pulling their pockets inside out saying, mr. president, i don't have the money to pay $5,000 more per year on my health insurance policy and of course they don't. because this has to be the crown

jewel of socialism. that's what government health care is. and senior citizens realized early on, they have the most to lose by the president's health insurance policy because what they found from this bill which has been commonly called obamacare is that $575 billion will be stolen away from them out of medicare. and not only will they have $575 billion less in medicare, still looking to having to spend, senior citizens out of their pockets $200 billion more in increased taxes for medicare. that's a big loss for america's senior citizens. but it doesn't stop there, mr. speaker. millions of americans across the united states are now going to find out that the promise the president made that if you like your health insurance, you can keep it.

that's a sham, too. not only will you not keep it, millions of americans are looking at being thrown off their current health care policy that they have from their employers. millions. millions of americans that will no longer even have the option of their employer' health insurance plan. how do i know that? i talked to a job provider today. 400 employees. he told me he can no longer afford to provide health insurance because of the new increased costs. he isn't the only one. i talked to another employer today, mr. speaker, a woman. she has 250 employees. now she is down to 90 and told me if we can't repeal this bill she will have to let them go. we have to repeal this bill. and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri is recognized for 15 minutes. >> i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the jam is consumed. mr. graves: small businesses create 7 out of 10 new jobs and driving force behind this nation's economy and we need these jobs as we attempt to rebound from the stubborn recession. i constantly hear from small business owners that the burden of government regulations is too

high. the last thing the federal government should do is discourage job creation, yet this massive health care law with its costs, mandates, regulations and paperwork does exactly that. facing the confusion, it's natural that small businesses decide to wait and see instead of invest and grow. the worst impacts are yet to come. we should be freeing up our businesses. heff-handed government causes entrepreneurs to be carbous. businesses are reduced from thinking about growth to thinking about survival. a small businessman in douglas, georgia, planned to open a new store and testifying before our committee, he said, quote, all my dreams will not be possible. my worries that everything i have worked for will be for not and will be wiped out by this new health care law.

stop it in its tracks before small businesses like brian are personally harmed. we want real reforms and bring down costs. this law is historic but for all the wrong reasons. it reaches too far into the personal decisions of americans and it puts a heavy burden on our economy and small businesses. it's an example of big government at its absolute worse. we have the responsibility to repeal and replace this intrusive law before any more damage is done. let's vote this big government intrusion out and give small businesses a chance to do what they do best and that is create jobs. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for 15 minutes. >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and stepped my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: works.

-- without objection. >> i rise in strong opposition to the bill before us today. the supreme court's recent ruling upholding the health care bill was a historic win for this nation's small businesses and their employees. repealing the affordable care act will be be an enormous step backwards for 26 million americans who not only want relief from high health care costs but for congress to focus on job creation. this bill will not help a single small business or invest in its operation. the other side acknowledges that this legislation is going no where, just like the previous vote w took at the beginning of this congress. no only is the health care bill good law, it is good policy and

has already led to major achievements for small companies since its enactment. the tax credits from the health care bill have faced over 300 small firms an average of $1,400 on their insurance costs. the pilot project program has invested $1 billion in over 4,600 small innovative firms that are developing ground-breaking therapy and creating jobs. small firms are receiving more value for their premium dollars because the 80-20 rule is now in effect. now is the group receiving $3218 million in rebates, they are benefiting from lower premiums. .

allowing more employers to purchase affordable insurance. soon prior medical conditions will not ban anyone from obtaining coverage. as implementation of health care reform continues, improving the health of the nation's citizens will remain a priority for congress going forward. at a time when economic growth is critical, we should be focusing on how to help small businesses raise capital and create jobs. today's bill does none of this. instead it threatens our nation's job creators. it imposes a tax increase by eliminating critical small business tax credits which have generated 485 -- $485 million worth of savings. by doing away with reforms that establish new health insurance

markets, it will limit small businesses' ability to secure coverage and eliminate choices for the entrepreneurs. small businesses already pay 18% more for coverage than their corporate counterparts. the loss of new safeguards will compound this program. because of health reforms, insurers are not longer able to raise rates arbitrarily. passage of this bill will strip new protections that provide bargaining power to small companies. rather than making improvements to the law, the republicans want to eliminate it without offering any alternatives. while i agree that more can be done to make healthy living more obtainable for americans, voting for today's bill will not do that. one of the first votes i took this congress was against republican efforts to repeal the affordable care act.

i will continue opposing any efforts repealing a law that is beneficial to millions of small firms. i urge members to oppose the bill and i urge the leadership to focus on meaningful ways to address this nation's economic challenges. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, at this time i would yield two minutes to my friend, the chairman of the transportation and infrastructure committee, mr. mike' of florida. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. mr. mica: mr. speaker, before i begin i have a parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: would the gentleman state his inquiry? mr. mica: mr. speaker, i have not been privy to the prior debates of our discussion j--al subject and the repeal legislation at hand. is it appropriate and within the decorum of the house to

refer to the legislation that is being considered repeal as repealing obamacare? i don't want to inflict any disrespect on the office of president or should rewe have -- should we refer to keep in the decorum and respect for the office from referring to the president's plan for health care, government takeover, as obamacare or in another term? what would be appropriate under the -- the speaker pro tempore: the chair will not render an advisory opinion. mr. mica: if i do refer to it as obamacare i'm not out of order? the speaker pro tempore: the chair will not enter an advisory -- render an advisory opinion.

mr. mica: thank you. and i have been instructed by the staff that the proper term of the title of the bill, i guess, mr. speaker, is repeal of obamacare. but i wanted to clarify that before i began. as the supreme court rendered its decision, i had the opportunity to stand with some of my colleagues on the steps of the court, just across from the capital, and -- capitol, and i stood on the steps and spoke to the crowd gathered with other members of congress and i said, the decision by the court to, again, uphold the law that we seek to repeal, the decision was basically the decision to tax the people and the power to tax it's been said is the power to destroy. i come before the house tonight

and i'll state the same concerns i expressed on the steps of the supreme court. first the power to destroy. it's appropriate tonight that the small business committee is here and chaired by the distinguished gentleman from missouri. american small business has been stuck in neutral and the decision by the court in upholding this law is taking small business, which is stuck in neutral, and actually putting it in reverse. it's putting it in reverse because it is one of the largest tax imto sgs -- impositions, call it a mandate, call it a penalty, that you can impose on small business which is the primary economic generator in the united states. as a former businessman, i know the difficulty in trying to keep the door open, the lights on, the bills paid. and this is probably creating

the greatest uncertainty and the greatest depression in the creation of jobs and expansion of small business in the united states. so indeed the power to tax is the power to destroy. secondly i stand in support of the measure to appeal obamacare or the president's -- repeal obamacare or the president's plan for health care because of the impact on our senior citizens. the power to destroy something they sought as seniors and a promise from our government, medicare. to cut half a trillion dollars from medicare is not the way to go. that's why i oppose the president's plan and ask for its repeal and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: -- ms. velazquez: mr. speaker, since i have two speakers on

this side, i will continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. graves: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, at this time i would yield two minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. west. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. mr. west: thank you, mr. speaker. the u.s. chamber of commerce survey showed that 74% of small businesses contend that a patient protection and affordable care act will make job creation at their companies even more difficult. a recent report by bloomberg news noted that the president's health care law will impose an estimated $813 billion in new taxes on job creators and middle class families, based on data from the nonpartisan congressional budget office. additionally the law in the more than 13,000 pages of related regulation issued before july 11 of 2012, are causing great uncertainty, slowing economic growth and limiting hiring opportunities for the approximately 13 million americans searching for

work. imposing higher costs on businesses will lead to lower wages, fewer workers or both. half of all small business income will face higher taxes according to bloomberg news and the analysis by the joint committee on taxation. which also shows president obama's plan for massive tax hikes would mean higher taxes on 53% of business income reported on individual returns. the obamacare taxes already -- tax is already holding back job growth in medical innovation, with venture capital investment in medical device firms down over 50% in 2011 compared to any previous five years. mr. speaker, today i had 17 members of the south florida chapter of the association of builders and contractors saying that this law is going to adversely effect their businesses. roger duveragey, -- from fort pierce, florida, is considering who he will have to leave off

of his insurance coverage or who he will have to completely get rid of from his business. the president and c.e.o. of st. mary's hospital in west palm beach is concerned about how he will be able to run the hospital and also the type of care he will be able to provide. dr. mark powers of the or the peedic specialists is -- orthopedic specialists is concerned of what he'll be able to provide as as a small business owner. i ask for 15 seconds more if i could. mr. graves: i ask permission to yield the gentleman 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. west: mr. speaker, this is not about taking anything away from the american people. we can keep what is good. but this is bad policy that had to be passed in order for us to find out what was in those 2,700 pages. let us do what is right for the american people. repeal this onerous monstrosity that is nothing more than a tax law and develop a health care solution to which the american people can be proud. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. velazquez: at this point, mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from michigan, mr. peters, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for three minutes. mr. peterson: thank you, mr. speaker. i -- mr. petri: thank you, mr. speaker. i -- mr. peters: thank you, mr. speaker. i stand in opposition to this act because it is an irresponsible approach that does nothing to address the rising cost of health care that our families and our businesses are facing today. it is a fact that the fastest rising costs for most u.s. companies is health care. without the affordable care act overall health care costs will continue to rise even faster. costs that will be born by both the public and private sector. it is important to note that voting for this repeal bill will eliminate the small business health care tax credit. this credit, this tax credit

currently allows small businesses to offset up to 35% of their health care insurance costs. starting in 2014, the credit will increase to 50% of premium costs. small businesses have faced outrageous increases in their health care costs over the past decade. the affordable care act helps reduce that burden and is already making a real difference in people's lives. nearly two million employees at 309,000 small businesses have taken advantage of the tax credit. receiving an average credit of $1,400. this repeal bill will put a stop to this important small business tax credit. i want to make sure that we all understand that the repeal of the affordable care act will result in a tax increase on small businesses. businesses which create almost 2/3 of all new jobs in this country. let's be clear what the affordable care act does. for people and for small

businesses. the affordable care act prohibits health plans from imposing caps on lifetime and annual coverage. it bars cancellation of insurance policies. it guarantees free preventive care that lowers the cost of health care, it eliminates denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions and by eliminating this unfair practice, health care reform helps nearly 1/3 of uninsured self-employed entrepreneurs. but critics of the affordable care act claim that they want to go back to the old system. a system where small businesses pay more on average for health insurance than large companies. yet receive fewer benefits. a system that has small business premiums rising 113% over the past decade. a system where our country continues to lag behind other advanced nations in delivering timely and effective care and a system where americans spend twice as much as other nations on earth but have worse health outcomes. the affordable care act protects the nation's 26 million small businesses from

unfair premium hikes and ensures that they have predictable and stable costs. without the affordable care act, out-of-control costs will only get worse, rising to 4.4 -- $4.4 trillion by 2018. we cannot go back to business as usual. the supreme court has settled the issue of the law's constitutionality and congress should stop these election year stunts. this bill has no chance of being signed into law. we need to stop playing political games and focus on putting americans back to work. instead of just saying no, republicans need to work with democrats to improve and implement a law that ensures health care is affordable and accessible to all americans. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. graves: i yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> the small business health care tax credit has proven incredibly ineffective. the g.a.o. has said it is much too complex and like everything washington does, its temporary nature has really done nothing to reduce the cost of health care for small business. mr. speaker, my state of illinois is hurting. real unemployment has been above 11% for the past three years. i have heard from employers throughout my district saying they do not support the president's health care law and do not support the 13,000 pages of regulations. they don't support the 21 new taxes. they are already overtaxed and do not support the increased health care costs and seen their health care costs rise. the numbers speak for

themselves. 74% of small businesses say the law makes it more difficult to hire additional employees. why don't my colleagues on the other side listen to the people who create jobs in this country? why do my colleagues on the other side think they have all the answers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. >> i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri has 7 3/4 minutes. the gentlelady from new york has eight minutes. ms. velazquez: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. velazquez: small businesses pay more for health insurance and receive fewer benefits. prior to enactment of the a.c.a.

, they spent more than 30 cents on every premium dollar on administrative costs and an additional 25% on every premium dollar. the a.c.a. requires 80% of premium dollars on medical costs instead of administrative expenses. is that bad for small businesses. when republicans were in control of both chambers, they talked about this solution for nearly a decade. and yet nothing happened. in that time, small businesses saw the increase of premiums rise by an average of $700 every single year. why should small businesses

believe they should believe it this time. the most beneficial provision to small employers doesn't go into effect until 2014. the availability of state exchanges in 2014 could spur more small business owners to provide health benefits to employees. in example, in california, just 32% of small businesses currently offer health insurance to their employees. but the number of those likely to offer insurance through exchanges jumped to 44%. so, don't repeal this legislation just for the sake of energizing the republican base. you know that by enacting today and taking this vote, this is going no where. what we should be doing and what someone on the other side said,

we should be listening to small businesses. yes, we are hearing from small businesses and what i hear is that they are having trouble getting consumers through the doors and having trouble selling products and having trouble accessing capital. those are the obstacles they are facing today. this and that will prevent small businesses from creating jobs and this is what this economy needs in order to get the economy growing again. so repealing this today is not going to create one single job. and with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from missouri. mr. graves: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. schilling. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois has two minutes. mr. schilling: i'm disappointed that the supreme court upheld

the president's affordable care act. it is an attack on the american people and businesses that create jobs. under this law, the health care costs remain too high. government bureaucrats remain between patients and their doctors. too many americans remain unemployed with the national unemployment rate hovering around 8%. the law's medical device tax will continue to raise health care costs like cook medical to expand and grow jobs. and the mandate will force employers to choose between playing the penalty, replacing full-time staff with part-time employees or laying folks off. now is not the time to raise taxes on working class families or employers. we need to work on a bipartisan

health care reform that lowers cost and makes it more affordable. i'm new to congress while ensuring that we have access to coverage. visit schilling.house.gov to take a look. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. velazquez: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady continues to reserve. the gentleman from missouri. mr. graves: i yield one minute to the gentleman from colorado and small business subcommittee on agriculture and trade, mr. tipton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. tipton: the ranking member just listed off many of the challenges the businesses face and we agree. but let me add one more. a company in public although, colorado, employing more than

200 handicapped individuals, that company is threatening to see their business shut down because of obamacare. they simply cannot afford it. that is the challenge that small businesses across this nation are truly facing. a $2 trillion tax, a $2 trillion tax when we need to be investing that in things like competition. let's create those positive opportunities through health care, allowing the marketplaces to work, ensuring that people have those opportunities. let's let our children who are 26 years old stay on those policies, but let's competition come to the market. those handicapped individuals in pueblo, colorado are counting on common sense not in washington, d.c., where we have all the answers. let's not get between that

doctor and patient relationship. the people are counting on positive action. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. velazquez: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from missouri. mr. graves: i yield one minute to the gentleman from colorado and chairman of the subcommittee on small business regulation. mr. crolve man. mr. coffman: this has reinforced the need for congress to repeal and replace this law. health care reform is important. today, health insurance is far too expensive and health care reforms should lower costs and broaden access without compromising the quality of care. i support tax incentives to help individuals buy health insurance

and allowing small businesses to band together for the purchase of health insurance so they can get the same discounts that large corporations receive. and medical malpractice reform to help bring health care costs under control by curbing the unnecessary and costly practice of defensive medicine. mr. speaker, it is time for congress to act, to show the american people that we can accomplish meaningful health care reform without crippling the economy and bankrupting our nation. thank you. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. velazquez: i would like to inquire of the chair how much time each side has left. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has five minutes. ms. velazquez: i yield three

minutes to mr. tonko. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mr. tonko: thank you to my fellow new yorker. i oppose the 31st edition of this legislation and urge my colleagues to vote against it. just what are we doing today? are we passing jobs bills that will help the middle class? no. are we working together to help the americans help to recover from the recession? no. are we debating a law that will be signed into law? no. are we political posturing during an election year? yes. and are we voting to repeal a law that more americans support than oppose without any hint of a plan for replacement? yes. and are we voting to deny 6.6 million young adults health benefits under their parents insurance? yes. are we voting to raise costs for

some 5.3 million seniors who pay for their prescription drugs? yes. are we voting to deny 17 million children with pre-existing health conditions the opportunity for coverage? yes. are we voting to take away free screening and preventive checkups? yes. we can do better than this. the supreme court, the highest court in the land, a conservative-leaning court has ruled and the debate has ended over the constitutionality of the affordable care act. instead of repealing the health care bill for the 31st time in 19-straight months, in a congress that has done absolutely nothing to create jobs, isn't it time to move on to something, anything that will help our struggling middle class? mr. speaker, the american people are sick and tired of the games

played on this floor. let's end this debate and get back to work. work that will find us passing bills that will help grow jobs, work that will find us working together to inspire a thriving middle class. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri. mr. graves: mr. speaker, i would yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. chabot. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. mr. chabot: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the supreme court's unfortunate decision to uphold obamacare doesn't mean it's the right thing for this country. it was bad public policy when it was forced on the american people two years ago and it is today. millions are still out of work across this country. businesses are still struggling to keep their doors open.

it is unfortunate that this president doesn't recognize that this law is hurting american workers and those looking for work. businesses will be hit with $500 billion in new taxes and the supreme court said what it is, a tax, a maze of mandates that would cost a loss of additional jobs. we can't afford that. and for what? law that puts government ahead of people and consolidates people in the mands of 15 unelected bureaucrats and increased health care costs and there is a better way forward. this misguided law must be replaced with patient-centered reforms that allows families to make their own health care choices and visit a doctor they want to visit. health care decisions should be made at home around kitchen tables, not in back rooms on

capitol hill. mr. speaker, we do not need health care reform like this, but we do need health care reform. this law is not the answer. it's a big government power grab. that's what it really is. and what history has shown time and again is big government makes things more expensive, more bureaucratic and less effective. time to repeal this law and get our economy moving again and get americans to work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields his time back. the gentlelady from new york. ms. velazquez: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from missouri. mr. graves: i yield two minutes to the the gentlewoman from north carolina. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. . . mrs. ellmers: the supreme court's decision last month has verified that obamacare is one

of the biggest tax increases in modern history. furthermore, a board of 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats will now remain in place to determine the health care for millions of americans while cutting $500 billion out of medicare for our seniors. the american people now have a clear choice and we in congress can either support historic tax and spending, fiscal uncertainty and unprecedented government overreach or join together to fight, to repeal this obamacare tax and work for real solutions while taking health care decisions out of the hands of government bureaucrats and putting them back into the control of doctors, patients and their families. by repealing obamacare we will restore the doctor-patient relationship and protect our seniors from ceding this relationship to a board of unelected bureaucrats. our system must not dictate to

doctors how to provide care, force them to provide medications regardless of known complications and then make them liable with no limits or protections. reforming the health care system and ensheering patient-centered access to care is -- not a democratic or republican idea, rather it is the obligation of all of us to the american people. thank you, meeg -- mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady from new york. ms. velazquez: mr. speaker, i would like to inquire of the chair how much time is left on each side. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york has three minutes remaining. the gentleman from georgia, 30 seconds. ms. velazquez: at this time i yield -- i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from texas, ms. sheila jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is now recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank, to the speaker.

i thank the gentlelady from new york for her distinguished commitment and service to small businesses across america. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to place in the record a letter to the governor of the state of texas from congresswoman sheila jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. jackson lee: just a few minutes ago a colleague rose to the floor and called this socialism. it is not. many have risen to the floor to talk about how this will impact negatively on small business, it will not. i rise enthusiastically to oppose what is a political legislative act, the repeal of the obamacare. it is really the affordable care act. and by the statement of the united states supreme court of which i read, the statement of justice roberts indicated, beginning in 2014 those who do not comply with the mandate must make a shared responsibility payment to the federal government. that is what this is about. sharing and bringing about health care costs that will

come down, not up. and to my small businesses, let me say how much we care for you. i have supported small businesses throughout my public life and before. and i would argue vigorously that this helps to ensure that you can keep employees and add employees. in fact, between 2010 and 2011, health care costs dropped to 3.9% when it was above 6%. almost 1/2 less than before the affordable care act was passed. this frankly exempts all businesses fewer than 50 employees. that means some 96% of american small businesses will not even be impacted. but for those who are, this legislation will provide 40% -- $40 billion in tax credits for small businesses to offer health care. now in 2011 360,000 small businesses have benefited from the health care tax credit, two million workers, and as well

you'll be able to ensure that rather than advertisement, your health claims or health insurance will cover 85% of your premium, will be on health claims and improvement activities. not advertisement. it entails that if an insurance company pays $70 for every insurance claim and product activity, you will get rebate of $127 million in total rebates in the individual market and $1.3 billion, mr. speaker, to consumers and businesses. the fact is this is the right thing to do. support obamacare. oppose the repeal. this is good for business. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: who yields? gave gave mr. speaker, i'm prepared to close -- mr. graves: mr. speaker, i'm prepared to close. ms. velazquez: i'm prepared to close if the gentleman doesn't have any further speakers? the speaker pro tempore: in that case the gentlelady from new york is recognized for one minute. ms. velazquez: thank you.

what will small businesses lose if health care reform is repealed? small business tax credits that save employers $435 million in 2011 will be abolished. insurers will be able to continue price gouging their customers and denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. repeal will mean millions of families and employers will not -- no longer receive the benefit of lower premiums and insurance companies rebates worth of over $300 million this year alone. i urge a no vote because the a.c.a. was a step in the right direction. without it the self-employed and small business employees will continue to be uninsured at high rates. with no hope of republican action to fix the broken health care system. mr. speaker, instead of holding this vote, we should be spending our time on targeted

measures to help our nation's small businesses grow and create jobs. maybe what we should be doing today is debating the jobs bill that the president submitted, presented to us in the house of representatives. i yield back the balance of my time and i urge a no vote. the speaker pro tempore: jeer the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from missouri is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. graves: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to address the comments made by the speaker before the last speaker, the gentlelady from texas. who claimed that four million small businesses are going to be able to take advantage of this tax credit and how much it was going to help. we requested a g.a.o. study and found that only 170 small businesses have even taken partial advantage of this credit. this bill is grossly ineffective. it does not work and it hurts small businesses. i would urge my colleagues to vote to repeal this piece of legislation and help get this economy finally rolling so we

can pass some real reforms when it comes to health care. with that i'd yield back the balance of my time and i appreciate it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, further consideration of h.r. 6079 is post poped -- postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentlelady rise from texas? ms. jackson lee: address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: thank you, madam speaker. we have just finished part of the debate for legislation that wants to repeal the affordable care act. i rise today as we conclude and begin to look toward the conclusion of the debate tomorrow, to make a public appeal.

when the 1965 medicare law was written, it was written to save lives. we have statistics that recognize that prior to medicare, americans were living 60 years and under. it was well documented that we've extended the lives of senior citizens through medicare. now the affordable care act seeks to extend the lives of the sickest of the sick, to extend the lives of children with pre-existing diseases, to extend the lives of individuals who would not have access to insurance or those families who have been thrown into poverty because of catastrophic illnesses or an accident. we can do better. this bill is a premise of allowing and providing for all americans to be insured. this bill cries out for republicans and democrats to work together. this bill cries out for saving the lives of americans who have been falling along the highway of despair and dying.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: it was important for us to look for the common and better good. the public good. save this bill. vote against the repeal. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there further requests for one-minute speeches? under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. fleming, is recognized for 32 minutes as designee of the majority leader. mr. fleming: thank you, madam speaker. it's a pleasure to be on the floor once again, to really talk about my favorite subject in congress and that is health care. i am a physician, have been a physician for 36 years. i'm a family physician. still have an active practice and practice when i get a

chance, which lately is not -- has not been very often. we'll be talking about obamacare, the repeal of obamacare, we'll be talking about medicare. i say we, that is if i'm joined by some of my colleagues who may be making their way here this evening. i want to just -- in the way of introduction, let everyone understand, madam speaker, that -- how did we get here in the first place? why are we here this evening talking about this? why are we talking about the repeal of obamacare? and i'll take you back to 1965 when there was a recognition that insurance was becoming -- that is heament care insurance, was becoming something more than just insurance. that is to say that insurance

of course in theory is to protect against catastrophe. and we see that of course in our homeowners insurance, and our car insurance. and so it seemed a good idea to have some form of insurance where you would not be bankrupted by a sudden or severe illness and have your life savings taken away. and so the idea of insurance came up and it was mostly a catastrophic policy. and then that sort of evolved over time into more and more comprehensive concepts and really it's become today extremely comprehensive, perhaps even health management type of system that you pay into and hopefully the system takes care of you. and there was a recognition that a robust market did not exist for insurance for the elderly. and from that sprang the idea of medicare, health care insurance for the elderly,

which is really not insurance per se, it's really a 100% single-payer government program . and then also insurance, again a single-payer program, for the poor and that is medicaid. and that began around 1965. and it began with the promise to the health care system and to the elderly that this would never usurp the relationship with the patient, that the decisions would be made by the providers and patients and that medicare, of course the government taxpayers, if will you, would be picking up the bill. no questions asked. and there was also recognition that even though patients would get help with their bills, they would still have to pay something into that. and i'll also interject that there was the belief, estimates, actuarial estimates, c.b.o., congressional budget office, that predicted that a

program that would be maybe $3 billion annually would maybe top out at $12 billion and of course we know now that it's in the hundreds of billions of dollars. many times over what it was initially promised to be. and in that evolution we saw where government and insurance companies began to take a larger and larger role in covering for various things. for instance, beginning in the early 1980's medicare began to see the physician charges becoming a problem and from a budgetary standpoint, they weren't really going up that fast, but because of the growth of the elderly out there, it was running the cost up. and that led to restrictions put on what doctors could charge. then came an acronym that said, regardless of your ability to pay if you show up to the

emergency room, the doctors and hospital have to treat you. these are all things that began to add up over the years. it's made medicare balloon into an extremely expensive program, as is medicaid as well. for most states, that's the largest budgetary item that they have. well, fast forward to 2008, as a physician, i became very concerned that we needed health care reform in this country. why? because government had become such a large part of the health care system and the so-called insurance thereof and with the price fixing that went along with that, it began to actually have a perverse effect on health care. that is to say, as reimburse optometrist hospitals, doctors, and other providers were going down, that costs were actually going up just as fast.

which is the opposite you would expect intuitively. why was that happening? why is it happening today? the answer is this. a physician, hospital, anybody, the first thing that they're going to do, the first thing a business or factory is going to do is, when the reimbursement per unit goes down, you make it up on volume. you keep working harder and keep see manager patients and find more things to do, to drive up that, and i'm saying this in a generic wayism do not ascribe to that. but many doctors have been put in that position. just to stay solvent in their practices, they have seen more and more patients and moved faster and faster. while they make an extra dime to keep up with their costs, they're running the system up by a factor of 10.

they make a dime for themselves and cost a dollar for the system. as a result, we've had eveer inflation. it was my belief that the way to solve this problem was to begin to move government out of health care and begin to move the private sector back in, put together robust and healthy markets, give consumers choices once again, patients have skin in the game, that is to say, they have to pay something into it, remember back in the 1980's, patients' out of pocket expense, in medicare, for laboratory and many other items, went to zero of. which meant that instead of having to negotiate with a patient, what is the best ideas in terms of a list of tests that must be performed to get to the answer, i can just simply make out a list as long as i want, somebody will pay for it but it won't be the patient. therefore again, health care inflation. i came to washington after being elected to work on this

with the other side of the aisle because i saw that we had two major giant entitlement programs that are bankrupting this country, medicaid and medicare. i'll remind folks that medicare runs out of money, according to whichever actuary you want to listen to, in five to 12 year bus they all agree it runs out of money and the services have to be the chair recognizes the gentleman fromly curtailed. what we found was that the other side of the aisle, our democrat colleagues over there, decided that instead of solving the problem by brinning the marketplace, they wanted to bring government another step. it reminds me of a story told to me once of two farmers, they're on a wagon, they have a mule, they're going down a road and one of the wheels breaks and they come to a stop. now the mule can't pull that wagon, it's too hard to pull it

on one wheel. so the two farmers get off, one starts fixing the wheel and the other one starts going back home. and the first farmer says to the second one, where are you going? and he said, i'm going to get another mule. because that's the way we're going to go forward, we're going to hitch a second mule and keep dragging this wagon down the road. and you see new york my opinion, that's precisely what happened with obamacare. instead of fixing our health care crisis, and the inflation and cost, the inefficiencies in the system and the fraud, waste, and abuse, by bringing the marketplace back into sanity and back into balance one again and letting patients be the decisionmakers, what we realy did is double down on the government control of health care and as a result of that, we're going to have an even more expensive, more burdensome and bureaucratic system we won't be able to control. so anyway, this is the doctors caucus special order.

we're going to be talking in the next 30 minutes, we're going to be talking about the repeal of obamacare. we have voted on this, you probably have already heard, several times already and of course we never got it past the house of representatives because the senate won't take it up and of course the -- it's doubtful that the president, our current president, would sign it. there's a lot of things we hear about obamacare. let's talk about taxes. we had a supreme court decision handed down, there's been a debate, a battle, within the supreme court and outside, on this individual mandate where government under this bill literally forces and requires you to purchase a product or service that is created by government rather than making it more affordable and more attractive and you opting in and buying it on your own.

so the decision has been handed down that, yes, the bill is constitutional, but not by way of the commerce clause. but government can, congress can, now, according to the justices now, congress can basically make you do anything congress wants to do. it has to force you through taxes. while we could debate whether i agree or not agree with that, that is the law of the land now. so this means that if we in congress decide that we want to make citizens do thing well, do have a pathway now to do that. and that is to tax you. even if you're not in an activity or buying something, we can still tax you. i prefer that we go the market route. i would much rather people buy insurance because they see a need, they see a desirability and they see that it's cost effective, rather than forcing americans to do that. our colleagues on the other side would rather just simply

force you to do that. but now we have to also admit that this is a tax. and our friends on the other side of the aisle, i think, would admit that had this been advertise -- advertised as what it turns out to be, a big tax increase on the middle class, that it would have never gotten passed. it would have been voted out of office for having raised taxes on the middle class. that's a big political no of no these days. but there are -- a big political no-no these days. but there are other taxes. an increase on the excise tax on tobacco. another is the employer mandate , the supreme court said that you can, congress, you can make employers buy insurance or you certainly can penalize them if they don't. but interestingly enough, one part of the bill that was termed unconstitutional was coercing or forcing states to

expand medicare, excuse me, medicaid eligibility. so that's a part of the supreme court's decision that actually is going to impact the cost of this bill. there's a surtax on investment. this is something that you're going to hear more and more about. the way you're going to hear about it is, one day you're going to sell a home, you're going to sell a property or investment or something like that, and the i.r.s. is going to demand 3.8% of those profits. on the subject of the i.r.s., remember that it's estimated that 16,500 new i.r.s. agents will need to be hired and are funded in order to require or force the taxation into obamacare. so this will certainly bring the i.r.s. much more intimately

into your life, regardless of whether you own a business or you're simply an employee or really don't even have a job. there will be an excise tax on comprehensive health insurance plans that will go up over time. obamacare hike in the medicare payroll tax, there will be a medicine cabinet tax, you will, but what that really is, is removing the tax deductibility for the pretax dollars from health savings accounts that you've been able to enjoy before, if you go and buy, say, cold medicine, off the shelf, that you could buy it with your pretax dollars urn your health savings account. that's gone. if you want to get cold medicine, use your pretax dollars, you have to get a scription from a doctor. so one of two things are going to happen. either you have to see the doctor, which will cost you more, or the doctors are going to be spending a lot of their time, again, wasted in paperwork, writing scriptions

for nonscription drugs. that really doesn't make much sense. there will be an obamacare h.s.a. withdrawal tax hike. obamacare flexible spending account cap. obamacare tax on medical device. -- medical device manufacturing. it's estimated that many of the domestic medical device factories will simply go out of business or go offshore. the cutting edge innovation that we have today in health care devices, we're going to lose that as a result of obamacare. that will go to other countries. the itemized deductions, that exemption is going to go from 7.5% to 10% of adjusted grose income. there'll be a tax on tanning. i mean, that's got to be a middle class tax. obamacare elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided

retirement drug coverage in coordination with medicare part d. obamacare blue cross cross-blue shield tax hike. an excise tax on charitable hospitals. a tax on innovator drug companies. a tax on health insurers. a $500,000 executive compensation limit for health insurance executives. obamacare employer reporting of insurance on the w-2. the black liquor tax. the obamacare economic substance dock run. again, a long list of taxes. so you know, madam speaker, it seems to me that in a time that we have the worst recession since the great depression, we're now facing perhaps the

largest tax increase that's occurred in our lifetimes. both through obamacare and through the expiration of the bush tax rates which are much lower than the clinton tax rates and you've heard some about that as well in recent days. in fact, the president himself said in 2009, the last thing in the world we want to do is to raise taxes in a recession. and everybody knows we're in 41 months of a recession and no end in sight. now there's also been some discussion and debate on the impact of small businesses. and i'm seguing to small businesses because let's face it, taxes have an impact on all our pocketbooks but taxes also have an impact on the ability for small businesses to hire people. if you take money off the bottom line, that's less money, less cap tap -- capital to invest, less money to hire more

people. that is precisely what is going on with obamacare. in fact, i would say, based on studies i've read, one of which said that 70% plus of small businesses are saying that the main reason they're not hiring people is because of their fear, the uncertainty of obamacare and its impact on them. the people that i speak with throughout my district and throughout the country who say that obamacare is probably the worst threat in the survival of their businesses and therefore they're not going to expand their businesses. we know there's trillions of dollars sitting on the sideline right now, both small and large businesses, ready to be invested to grow jobs and yet the job creator the employers, are fearful, they don't want to put that money in. why would somebody want to put, say, $10 million into a new factory not knowing whether they could make a profit.

and making the calculation that perhaps i should stand up that factory overseas someplace where in fact i can make a profit, i don't have to deal with obamacare. and all that comes with it. that's part of it. we also know that regulations, the hyper regulatory atmosphere we've evolved into, where regulations are not being written by congress but people in the buildings that surround the hill here, many of which we don't yet know. 106 new major rules being written out of this administration. the worst proliferation of regulations. so this, on top of other things, the attack, the direct hostility and attacks on energy and job creators themselves is just put a complete wet blanket over our economy and the creation of jobs. . i would say obamacare is the lead in that entire process. there is also something that i get asked about a lot, and that

is, well, what about what you republicans say about obamacare and what the democrats say about obamacare. and it seems at least -- it appears to them that one of us is lying about one of these things. one of the things that is important when we come to congress, what we understand and learn, that we shouldn't presume motives from the other side. i will not presume ill motives from the other side. i will give you an example. we republicans have continued all along that $500 billion will be ripped from medicare, again i said earlier medicare becomes insolvent in five to 12 years. everybody agrees it is in that window someplace. and we have the ryan budget plan which would save medicare and

the other side of the aisle refuses to engage on that. but the question is does ork take $00 billion out of medicare. i have a lot of medicare recipients who are worried about that and they have asked me and they read something from the fact check kers and they said it isn't happening the way you think it does and so forth. we had a discussion with the prior c.b.o. head two days ago and he confirmed my beliefs about this and here's the way it goes. madam speaker, the way laws are written, oftentimes, what is the in the four corners of that law says one thing, but when you add the omissions and unintended consequences and sometimes consequences, the effect is different.

medicare doesn't lose $500 billion and pes pumped into obamacare. i think the nuance in there is that you have to understand that the cost of medicare goes up progressively every year. in some years it goes up higher than other years but it always goes up. in washington you can say that something is cut when in fact, the increase is reduced. that's really what happens here is what democrats did in crafting obamacare is they cut the increase in medicare spending and they took those so-called savings and they spent it inside of obamacare. well, where is it coming from? is it going to have an impact? of course it will. those things get more expensive if you reduce the amount of

increases that occur, it's going to have an impact, because there is an underlying inflationary rate that has to be recognized. while one can make the case, no, there isn't $500 billion removed, but in reality, it is removed because you have to go from point a to point b and if you don't allow that inflationary rate in medicare spending, if you don't allow that, it's going to be a cut, a cut in services. and about about half of it is going to be in medicare advantage, which is the private type of medicare, which people really love that. it's really popular in a lot of states. and and the other is going to come from providers, hospitals, medical device providers and so forth. now the democrats were very careful not to take that money from beneficiaries and in fact

in the sequestration that occurred last year and we are still debating where money is taken out of defense and also taken out of medicare, the money is taken out on the provider side but not the beneficiary side. we aren't taking away from the patients but from people who are providing the care. that's all well and good. well, not so fast. you have to understand that as you reduce reimbursement of services, the ability of providers to provide those services is going down and going down progressively. certainly a relatively small percentage of doctors receive medicare. it will be on medicaid. that will be very good. you will have a medicaid card, but when you shop around and go to various doctors' offices and

say i would like to see the doctor today, assistants will say, we don't accept medicaid. you might be critical of the doctor on that, but you have to understand doctors to make payrolls and pay rent. and if it comes to a point where they can't do that, they have to stop seeing medicaid patients or go out of business. either way you aren't going in to see them. the same fn no, ma'amon is happening. if you are on medicare, there has been such a flattening and ratcheting down in many cases in reimbursement, that just because you have a medicare card does not mean you will be seeing doctors when you want to see them. and that is what i was talking about in the beginning of the discussion, is that if we just simply take the same entitlement programs that are making the

cost problems worse and through a price-fixing mechanism actually perversely incentive advising fraud, waste and abuse and we expand another entitlement system, we are only going to aggravate the same problem. we will have more people, more patients searching out care from newer and fewer providers. that will lead to long lines and rationing. not a planned kind of rationing but the imbalance that will happen in the system. it's already happening but not showing up to the level that you might expect just yet. let's look at massachusetts. remember massachusetts and also tennessee have comprehensive state programs and since the comprehensive plan started in massachusetts a few years ago, the waiting lines have grown now to an average of six weeks.

50% of primary care doctors aren't accepting new patients. the reimbursements are going down and so are the number of doctors and the waiting lines are getting longer and the same thing happening in other countries, such as canada and great britain and how does these people get care? they go to the emergency room. and where is the most expensive care? in the emergency room. you see, madam speaker, when you have a highly strurled bureaucratic top-to-bottom system, all you're going to get is higher costs and ultimately the only way you are going to control costs is through long lines and rationing. and obamacare, democrats did something very clever, they didn't want to depend on congress to make those tough decisions to cut reimbursements. so they created something called

the independent payment advisory board which would be 15 unelected bureaucrats appointed by the president. and again, they are unelected and will not be answering your phone when you call to complain. they will have more power than congress itself in order to cut the benefits that you will receive. they'll do it by way of reducing the types of services, the quality of services, and the payment for those services. it will happen in a lot of different ways and begin to show up in delays, in more paperwork, mis-- missed diagnose no, sir cease and unfortunate outcomes that i can see coming down the road. congress will have the responsibility of meeting certain targets of spending. if they fail to meet those

targets and congress has never reached those targets, that is to cut so much in medicare, that it falls to i pab and they will be making those decisions. call it what you will. members of government, people on the governmental payroll making decisions about what services you will have. a lot has been said about the free services, free pap smears, free breast exams. madam speaker, i never seen anything free in this society. somebody is going to pay for that service. somebody has to pay. somebody has to pay the secretary, the provider, somebody has to pay the rent. nothing in this society is free. and i will tell you that any time someone tells you something is free in obamacare or any other health care insurance,

they aren't being straight with you. somebody is going to pay for it at one point or another. let's talk about the social conscience part of obamacare, which a lot of us in the pro-life community are very concerned. the president said he would preserve conscience rights and providers would not be forced to provide abortions or anything that's against our conscience. and in fact, the first version of obamacare that passed the house, passed only because the pro-life members of the democrats said those protections have to be in there, the so-called hyde amendments that no taxpayer dollars will be spent on abortions or abortion-like activities. when it came back from the senate, another trick was pulled and that was -- pulled all of

the legislation and the president said i will write an executive order which has very little means certainly in the long-term. any president can rescind that. there are many ways to end run an executive order in something that is not in statute. as a result, there are plenty of holes in obamacare that allow taxpayer funding of abortions. now for the first time in many years, a majority of americans are pro-life. i can tell you the overwhelming majority today and always has been against the taxpayer funding of abortions. but what we're dealing with today is not the taxpayer funding of abortions. that's already in law and that's part of the reason to repeal it, but the fact that the president is now forcing religious institutions, such as the catholic church to provide

certain services such as abortions, sterilizations. their choice is to get out of health care entirely or to go along with the government and run into heavy fines. so where are we today with obamacare? is it going to be repealed? today, obamacare will be repealed in the house of representatives. that, you can bet on. however, we all understand that there is a problem with the senate, which is trolt controlled by the very people who voted it in to begin with and the president, though he supports it and would not sign the repeal says very little in defense of obamacare, and why? there is very little to defend in it. i look for the tuvent to vote for the full repeal and look forward to next year when we'll

have the ability to report lock, stock and barrel, pull it out by its roots and start it out again with ry form in health care with patient choices as it should be. thank you. and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko is recognized for 30 minutes as the designee of the minority party. mr. tonko: thank you, madam speaker. for a great number of hours today in this chamber, there's been a great debate on whether or not to repeal the affordable care act. when we know fully that the chances are slim to move forward and the measure would not be signed into law. is it plile posturing? i believe it is, of a grand style. there's a pattern established

here, there's an attack, outright attack, on social security, attempts to privatize a system that's been under attack for the last 76 years. the underpinning that provides stability for working families across this great nation. it has been a security that has enabled many to have at least assurances that there would be some support in family budgets as they move month to month. we know that that measure, social security, has been dealing with its enemies for a long time. since before it was made a law. likewise, medicare, which came to us in the mid 1960's, that enabled our senior community to have its health care needs met,

that provided predictability, stability, for retired households, enabled people to enjoy a quality of life, a better quality of health care, we know that before medicare, many of those who had retired expected to see their economic security go south because of the expected cost of providing health care when they could not get that coverage in an insurance context. and so, medicare, as we know it today, would be undone by the republican majority in this house. they would prefer to privatize social security, allow us to reach to the financial sector to perhaps see a repeat of what happened to so many individuals

and families out there with this past recession, where they saw their lifetime savings wiped away, pain and suffering endured by families across this land. they'd rather see a voucher system for medicare. handing it over to the insurance companies to leave seniors digging deeper into their pockets. so the pattern has been established here. and now, a repeal of the affordable care act. before its full implementation, before wofe a chance as the last industrial industrialized nation in the world to provide a universal health care solution. the decision is rendered by the

highest court in the land, a conserve tiff leaning court, and before the ink is dry, a move to repeal. the highest court spoke and said it meets the constitutionality test. so this evening, on the eve of repeal, the attempts to repeal affordable care act, as it stands, is a very telling moment. it is one that suggests to us that there is this outright attempt to undo programs that serve our middle class. -- our middle class so very well and without a thriving middle class, our nation is not prosperous. without that thriving middle class, there's not purchasing power strong enough to provide the recovery of our economy

without a strengthening of our middle class, there's not a confidence in the economy, a confidence that is needed so as to grow more customers for our business base. so the affordable care act, offering promise and hope to millions, tens of millions of americans, across this land, whether you're insured, underinsured, uninsured, all categories will see strengthening because of this measure. thoy of it. i represent a large proportion of senior citizens, who are concerned about their pharmaceutical cost and have reached the doughnut hole that requires them to reach into their pocket. we close that doughnut hole and

make the decisions that allow them to stay well and in some cases buy the medicine that keeps them alive. we deny that opportunity to the nation's seniors. we deny the respect that we offer. we've denied the dignity in the equation that speaks to aforwardable outcomes for the pharmaceuticals that we require. that doughnut hole would have been closed by 2020. further, at the other end of the age spectrum, many young adults finding it difficult in this recession and now rerecovery period to gain a job as they perhaps leave high school or college, are given the opportunity with the affordable care act to remain on their family' -- family's policy until the age of 26.

therein lies the strong benefits for some 6.6 million young adults. denied with the repeal measure. denying access and affordability to health care situations. how many cases of young adults impacted by catastrophic illness, accidents, will it require to turn the hearts and the minds in a positive direction that would not forgo this opportunity for our nation's young adults? a strong benefit associated with this package. and what about those who have a pre-existing condition? some 17 million children in that category. that's not to account for the many adults who would be denied

because of pre-existing conditions. asthma in children, diabetes in our senior community. being a woman utilized as a pre-existing condition. an opportunity to deny, to deny coverage and the basic core needs that we should consider to be truly american. another benefit lost to the greedy notion of repealing, success that was achieved in this house and the united states senate and signed into law by this president. what about the efforts to deny lifetime benefits as the threshold, cutting people off of an insurance coverage at perhaps a very demanding time

in their lives. games played with people and their lives and their recovery. hope pulled from working families across this nation because of an insensitivity to this congress. a deplorable situation, a assistance -- situation, stones to our small business community. now if we profess our small business community to be the economic engine that is part and parcel to our economic comeback, our economic spring board, then would we not want to provide assistance in that basic core need area? would we not want to allow tax credits to come the way of our small business community?

many, the majority of those businesses will remind all of us as representatives that they want to provide for their employees. they want a productive work force, a strong, well work force. they see it as a strong investment, one they could not afford in recent years because of the estimated costs. 18% larger bills and perhaps weaker coverage. they wanted that turned around. they wanted a smart approach, a business like approach, a sensitive response. they got it. with the affordable care act. progress denied. the small business engine weakened by this sort of neglect that could be advanced

in this cited pattern of undoing social security, privatizing social security, changing medicare as we know it forever. now, repealing the affordable care act. we see the pattern. we see the gross neglect, the disrespect for america's middle class, our working families. so we go forward and we understand that the opportunities of an exchange, small employers, small business community, understands that if they're unable to enter into an ex--- enabled to enter into an exchange where all the private sector participants agree to play by the rule, sharpen their pencils, roll up their sleeves, live within the parameters and

allow for the many to enter into a common ex-change, to provide corresponding benefits. think of it, if one of 10 in that employee firm of 10 were to be impacted with catastrophic illness. that's devastating. and actuarial impact that hits that small business owner hard in the pocketbook because of the premium increase for that one person of the 10 you employ. if those same 10 employees were allowed to enter the exchange, a better outcome a different outcome, a stronger outcome for the economic recovery of this nation because of the gross majority of jobs being produced in this comeback are being done by our small business community. so, you know, the formula is quite obvious. we want a comeback, we want

that strongest response here from washington, and that kick that we endured from a recession that drained us of 8.2 million job the best way to do it, first, -- first of three principles, small business. provide for the strengthening of small business which the affordable care act does because that small business community has forever been the pulse of american enterprise. secondly, invest in that entrepreneur. the dreamer. the mover, the shaker. always stretched us since our days of pioneer spirits with the industrial revolution and the westward movement. very familiar to the district i represent which is the donor area to the erie canal in upstate new york in the capital region of mohawk valley. that pioneer spirit exists in

our fabric today. it's our d.n.a. invest in the entrepreneur. to be the ideas economy kingpin, we rely on the wizard to build us, sustain us, stretch us. empower us. and then finally, invest in a thriving middle class, which the affordable care act does. it enables us as a middle class community to be bolstered by the confidence, the security, the stability that comes with this success story in guaranteeing access and affordability to quality health care. that will underscore the value of wellness and not just deal with illness. that will put together efforts to cost contain, that will bring people into a structured

program so that we can monitor their activities and connect them to a system. you'll hear from some on the floor, we don't want to pay for this. it's going to cost us too much. we're paying today for the neglect, for the consequences of a not-so-perfect system. status quo won't cut it. so we need to go forward. with progressive policies, with the soundness of reform. with the boldness of transition. with the confidence we can instill. with the progressiveness of policies that we can draft. . and so, it is a sad note here, echoed in this chamber that would attempt to unravel, dill lute, deny, the promise we can make to america.

as i look at this effort for a comeback, the containment of health care costs, it's just one of those areas that we need to help control, create that better environment in which to grow jobs, cultivate a prosperity. it's important. it's important for us to understand that it is part of an economic recovery equation. there is also the wisdom of investing in education, in higher education. again, under attack by a system that does not always profess the strength of research and education, its patents and discovery. we understand that we are in the

midst of a global race on innovation, clean energy and ideas and high tech. to be outstanding competitors, to arrive at that race, ready to conquer. we will need to be strong and fit in order to be the winning agent on that global scene. we saw that order of passion. we saw that order of investment in the global race on space just decades ago. this nation impacted by a moment, dusted off its backside and said never again. never again. and what was the result? together a nation grew in its commitment to winning the global race on space.

we are going to seize that nation, that proud people that would stake the american flag on the moon. and we won that race because of a commitment, because of investment in the soundness of the people of this great country and her business community. we embrace research. we embrace science. we believe in our strength as a people and the confidence exuded , was the elixir brought us to the victory. where is that passion today? where is that leadership? that youthful president that led us in the 1960's and challenged us. republically occasion today by the president asking us to go

into the global sweepstakes committed with passion to the cause and we need that investment in education, higher education and research. just today in new york, in the 21st congressional district of new york which i'm proud to represent, we announced formally the creation of the advanced battery manufacturing center at that facility of ge. the c.e.o. traveled for the celebration, came to town to announce this wonderful addition. that is america at work with her general yuss activity. -- genius activity. that's america to determine to win the global race on ideas. advanced battery manufacturing. the battery, the linch pin to

grow domestic supplies of energy as we grow our energy future, to reduce the government's dependence on fossil-based fuels, oftentimes imported from some of the unfriendly nations to the united states, selling billions of dollars to those foreign treasuries to fight against our own daughters and sons on the battlefields. there is a better way and this congress knows it. we invest in jobs. we invest in health care. we invest in yeags -- in education. this is our best attempt as a nation to generations yet unborn. someone was there for us, and we need to be there for future generations of americans, to

provide the cutting-edge opportunity that will sell america at her best. i looked at that opportunity for not only battery manufacturing, but nanotechnology and semi-conductor manufacturing, the newly designed, 20th congressional district in new york that comprises a good portion of the 21 did district that i represent, it is the most technology-invested districts in the countries -- in the country. and it is a belief in the entrepreneur and small business community and industrial context of the district. and knowing full well that america's needs, be they for the environment or energy sake or job creation, business

opportunity are inspiring this remarkable progress. it requires our moving forward with a plan. it requires us moving forward with the soundness of policy and with the coring resource add vow cast si that will yield lucrative dividends. i see it all the time in energy-efficiency programs that produce jobs that captures heat, that is part of the energy process, enabling us to be much more efficient. efforts that enable us to create more and more patents in a world that has grown much more

competitive. we can ill afford to weaken in our attempt to be the kingmakers of the international economy. the old american spirit, the history of this nation replete with those ration to riches scenario, that became the reason and the inspiration for the compilation of journey made by our ancestors to these shores because the opportunity called the american dream became the prize for which they searched. i see it in my own roots. the proudest label i carry in life is son of immigrants. their journey gave me great opportunity, gave my family

great opportunity. those journeys chased after the american dream. we need, beginning in this house chamber to re-ignite the american dream, to go back to the core essence of who we are as a people, to reach into that american heart and soul that has forever ever relied on its passion that we can achieve because we have opportunity and that we will not deny that opportunity, that we will strengthen the boldness of those dreams that enable us to respond to the needs of the moment and the future and write our legacy as a generation of americans.

let us not fail in that amendment -- attempt. let us continue to reach deep into that american spirit. when our economy was brought to its knees by failed policies that did not manage well and did not provide for the stewardship of our resources and that when we tripped and fell, let it be known that in the recovery, we were stronger than ever before, that our best days lie ahead of us. that that belief that those best days were into the future, because of that belief, we move forward and we've dug deep into that american spirit to respond with a respect for america's middle class. our middle class, all of us in

that middle class have always understood that if you play hard , you abide by the rules, roll up your sleeves and do your best , that you could rightfully anticipate the taste of success. that is america. in her most shining moments. that is an economy that we can produce and it begins with the soundness of a strong and productive workforce that went through training and retraining with the taste of potential for success, by that self-discovery that comes from education and to understand our gifts so we can share them in the most profound way. and then to provide for the wellness of that workforce.

so it could be most productive so that the conditioning that came with that sort of commitment and that order of respect and that dignity could then allow us to speak to a nation that was hum bled by its own beginnings where the rightful stories of so many who made it their journey were written by a nation that believed in her people. so tonight on this eve of an attempt to repeal the affordable care act, let us understand that our budget here in washington, our actions with legislation, our responsiveness to the needs

of the american people, our establishment of our priorities, a prescription of what we see our future to be are reaching into the hearts, say that we are a truly caring lot. that's what separates us from other nations. it's the uniqueness of america and her greatness. the affordable care act is a measurement of not only sound policy, it's a statement of a compassion nature society that understands it's not about one's self, it's about neighbors, it's about community, it's about the great society. it's been the history through the decades of time that enabled

us to reach to the greatness of our government, reach to the soundness of ideas and innovation, to respond to the challenges that enabled us to build upon those who preceded us, always anticipating that the next generation would be made stronger. we owe it to our children and grandchildren and generations yet unborn. let them look at this moment in history, american history, knowing that america is challenged, but she stepped up to the plate and said yes to her people and truly made a difference to allow people to

understand full well that the best phase of this great nation lie ahead of us. with that, madam speaker, i turn back. the speaker pro tempore: the question -- the chair recognizes the gentleman for a motion. mr. tonko: motion to adjourn, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands

>> warehouse republicans determined to repeal the health care law? what's they have been fighting against the affordable care act since before it was passed. they thought about it since they took over the house last year and they fought for a decision that would have repealed the law. that last effort failed. even after the supreme court decision which to many people was a surprise, republicans turned right there around and

said we are still going for full repeal even if john roberts and the majority thinks the mandate is constitutional, we think it is horrible policy. they want their members to reaffirm their position of full opposition to the president t agenda item. democrats are saying republicans are now living in the past. they're not talking about jobs. they're talking about an item they lost on. the supreme court has ruled against them. one of their guys has ruled against them. it a word -- get over it. you lost. you're not talking about important things like jobs and the middle class. republicans want to get on record again. this is the second full repeal republicans in the house will be voting for. they voted for a full repeal

when they took control of the house last year. they had about 30 other votes dismantling parts of the bill, funding mechanisms, pulling different threads on the affordable care act. republicans have been voting against the affordable care at over and over for the past few years. this is maybe another page of that. >> democrats have indicated so far, they have become key -- they have been keeping count -- 31 times that have tried to appeal. >> democrats are emphasizing because they want to make it seem like republicans are beating a dead horse. they keep coming after this even after the supreme court has ruled against them. they want to make the point that the president spent a lot of political capital and energy on getting 30 million americans health care who did not have it before reining in insurance companies and improving parts of

medicare. democrats have been critical of themselves over the past couple of years for not doing a better job of selling the merits of this bill. they have gotten better on that over the past few months. they keep track of the 31 number to give the impression republicans are so unilaterally focused -- singularly focused on opposing president obama even when he is trying to help the middle class that they are beating their heads against the wall and they will not focus on the big picture. >> reports indicate a number of democratic members will vote in favor of the appeal. why would they vote against their party? >> there are a lot of swing districts where you will see democrats running for a repeal. the one part we should say is that full repeal does have a fair amount of support.

polls are all over the place on this. anywhere between 45% of the public said they want full repeal. it depends how you ask the question. if you ask the same people a different question -- do you like individual parts of this building also say yes. you ask which members -- keep your eyes on the democrat from north carolina, mike ross from arkansas. conservative democrats and conservative states who would like to take the opportunity to untether themselves from the president and his agenda. always keep in mind in party politics sometimes you can get burdened by your party's program saying democrats are for a bill that a lot of people did not like. it can cut the way -- it can cut the other way as well. they give somebody like borne an

opportunity to say, and not in the president's pocket. >> thank you for joining us. >> my pleasure. >> in a few moments, and mitt romney campaigns in colorado. and a little less than an hour, house debate on a proposal to repeal the 2010 health-care law. >> hitler by then had virtually no plan. when you realized these remnants of army were not coming to his aid but were trying to escape to the west, that is when he collapsed and he realized it had come to an end. glucksantony beevor with a new look at the second world war. >> the main objective was not to be captured alive by the

russians. he was afraid of being paraded through moscow in a cage and the inspector at and ridiculed. eva brown was determined to die with him. >> sunday at 8:00 on "q &a." >> mitt romney hosted a town hall meeting in grand junction. this is a little less than one hour. [cheers and applause] >> thank you. what a welcome. thank you.

that is a hello. i will tell you. that is terrific. good to be here with their elected officials. i see the attorney general is back here. please stand and be recognized. i appreciate you being here. [applause] he has been leading my campaign in the state. i am counting on him to get me a win here. are we going to win here in november? [applause] colorado could well be the place that decides to our next president is going to be. if it is the place that decides that i am counting on you to get the job done. [cheers and applause] let me offer a few words to begin with just about the fact the whole nation has been watching colorado over the past days and weeks as the wildfires have changed the lives of so many people. there has been a loss of life and the loss of hundreds of

homes. lives have been changed. our hearts go out to the people of colorado who have been effected by the tragedy of these wildfires. we have also seen some of the greatness of the human spirit demonstrated by the people in colorado -- [applause] -- as you have come forward to not only fight the blaze is but the devastation in lives affected by the fire. it has been interesting to read these stories and hear the experiences of those to make a difference in the lives of others. when i would like to call out to somebody you may have seen or heard about. a guy 15 years of age was doing some lawn mowing around the house. he saw some smoke in the distance and realized people could be heard by that fire. he got on a four wheeler and

drove off to go warn people. the fire was pretty darn close as he went around to warn people. he warned people one after the other and help them get out of harm's way. and then the fire closed in behind him. he knew his dad was behind watching and might try to run to the fire himself. he turned around and took is for real arthur that fire, got himself pretty burned, blisters all over his arm in the hospital. he did that all because he was worried around -- worried about people there around him. he is a hero among us. j.d., would you stand and be recognized? [cheers and applause]

j.d., take it personally, we love what you did. we love the spirit that drove you to do something like that. we celebrate the greatness of humanity, of people acting beyond themselves for something bigger than themselves. is part of the american experience. is part of what defines this great country. i am here to talk about the course for the country and what lies ahead for a america. i know that last week the middle class of america got a kick in the that when the jobs numbers came out. we found out we created only 80,000 jobs. our nation is to create double that if we keep up with the population growth of our nation so we're falling further behind under the presidency. that is one reason we are going to change him and get somebody in there that will get the

economy going. [cheers and applause] but this week the president added insult to injury with another kick at enter the gatt. by announcing he has a plan to lower taxes. we were all excited when we heard that. you have to be careful. when people in washington say they are lowering taxes, hold on to your wallet. for some people he announced your taxes will stay the same period in washington that means you lower taxes. for others -- for job creators and small businesses he announced a massive tax increase. [boos] at the very time the american people are seeing fewer jobs created and we need the president announces he will make it harder for jobs to be created. i do not think this president understands how our economy works. liberals have an entirely

different view about what makes america the powerhouse it is. i love what ronald reagan said. he said it is not that liberals are ignorant, it is just what they know are -- what they know is wrong. [applause] and the idea -- the very idea of raising taxes on small business and job creators at the very time we need more jobs is the sort of thing only an extreme liberal could come up with. this is the sort of thing that used to be in the democratic party and the times past. bill clinton called himself a new democrat. he believes smaller government, reform the welfare as we knew it and try to get the economy going with trade. new democrats have been some good things. a lot of republicans the been some good things. this old-style liberalism of bigger and bigger government and taxes has to end and we will end

it in november. [cheers and applause] you know, the president said just give his policies sometime. that is a change of rhetoric. when he was inaugurated, he went on the today show and said, if i cannot turn the economy around in three years i will be looking at a one-term proposition. we are here to collect. [cheers and applause] we have now seen him measured by his own metric. because he says if we let him borrow $787 billion for his stimulus, so called, they would

be able to keep unemployment below 8%. it has been above 8% every month since. 41 straight months by their own measure, he has failed. his policies do not work. liberal directions for the country are the wrong directions for the country. [cheers and applause] you look at what he did. i know liberals like him think these things will help, but they did not. and we know they did not. the evidence they did not work is the numbers around us. these are not just statistics. these are real americans who need work that cannot find it. it is people with part-time jobs that need full-time work. kids coming out of high school or college that cannot find work. half of america's graduates

coming out of college could not find work or work consistent with their skills. it is a human tragedy. did you hear what dick armey said? he said the american dream is no longer owning your own home. it is getting your kids out of the home you own. people are having to go back home -- [applause] -- i am applying a little humor to a really sad situation. a lot of people are not getting the homes they are expecting because of the policies of this president. he said look at the times. let's ask, do these help create jobs or does it make harder for jobs to be created. look at his energy policy. it was let's slow down the development of coal. if somebody wants to build a new cold fire, -- coal power plant they will go bankrupt. he has made it harder to use 0

coal. he prevents us from drilling in the outer continental shelf. and then you have natural gas -- massive new natural gas resources but the federal government trying to insert itself in with fracking regulations at the national level. do these policies help create jobs? no. and the more he pursues the policy is the harder it will be more americans to go to work. then there are his trade policies. for a productive nation like ours, ours is the most productive work force in the world. it is good to be able to trade with other nations. it creates more jobs. during the last three and a half years, european nations and china have created 44 different trade agreements. this president has put together zero.

in addition his trade policies are affected by his stance toward china. china has been stealing our designs, patents, know how, our brand names. it has been hacking into corporate computers as well as governmental computers. they are manipulating our currency and the president refuses to recognize the currency manipulation. if i am the president, i have a different view than his. my view is his trade policies do not work to create jobs. do you think they are working? by the way, he likes to talk about outsourcing. he has run some interesting attack ads on me on that topic. an independent, unbiased fact checking organization looked at his ads and said it is false and misleading. but it is interesting that when it comes to outsourcing that

this president has been outsourcing a good deal of american jobs himself by putting money into energy companies, solar and wind energy companies that make their products outside of the united states. if there is and how sorcerer in chief, it is the president of the united states, other guy to replace him. -- not the other guy running to replace him. [cheers and applause] there is another part of his policy that relates to the economy. do you believe permanent trillion dollar deficits will create american jobs? let me mention one more and that is regulatory burdens. you need to have -- you cannot have people running often starting banks in their garages and taking money from their neighbors. you have to have regulations to make an economy effective.

you need them updated. you need the modern. this president has increased the rate of new major regulations by threefold over his predecessor. do you believe adding regulations help small businesses grow and add jobs? ok. it is unanimous. the president's policies are not creating jobs. it is making it harder for this economy to recover having the president pursuing liberal policies that did not work in the past and will not work now in in modern america. i have a very different vision. [cheers and applause] let me tell you what i would do. let me mention five steps would be to get the economy going. i would take advantage of our energy resources. our coal, gas, oil, our renewal both. [cheers and applause]

-- our renewables. no. two, i will take advantage of trade opportunities particularly in latin america. number three, i will cut back on the size of government. it is taking too much out of our paycheck. [cheers and applause] i will look at all the programs we have a in government and ask this question. is this program so critical to america it is worth borrowing money from china to pay for it. on that basis the first one i will get rid of is obamacare. [cheers and applause]

4 is making sure our workers and our kids have the skills for the jobs of today and tomorrow. we need schools that are the best in the world, not one in the bottom quartile. the president talks that talk. he talks about investing in our kids and improving our schools. look what happens when the president goes the largest contributor to his campaign in the campaigns of his fellow democrats comes from the teachers' union. it means the union bosses have a big say and to often the interest of the union bosses is placed ahead of the teachers and our kids. that has to change. [cheers and applause] and one more.

perhaps the most important in some respects. the fifth i will mention is restoring economic freedom. this country's economy is propelled by free people pursuing their dreams, working hard, and in some cases starting small businesses, in some cases reaching for new job opportunities they think they will improve their family pose a lot. it is americans dreaming, creating, entrepreneurs or that drive our economy and put us a -- ahead of europe and the great populated nations of africa. they said the constitution -- they said that the creator and endowed us with our rights. [cheers and applause]

those rights are protected through the constitution. among those rights they describe in the declaration of independence were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. that phrase pursuit of happiness means that in this country people would be free to pursue happiness as they choose, not as government directs, not limited by the circumstance of burden. is the policy of america to have free people pursuing their dreams. and dreams are being crushed when taxes go up and up and up on job creators and business creators. when regulations become overwhelming and burdensome. when people and government treats you like you are an enemy

instead of a friend. if i am the president of the united states what i will do is everything in my power to make sure this is the best place in the world for entrepreneurs, small businesses, big businesses. i will make my job when creating good jobs for the american people. [cheers and applause] so let me come back to you. i spoke longer than you might have expected. less than i sometimes do. i will turn to you and ask you for any questions you might have. i will do my best to respond. this guy already has his hand up with a question. we will come to that. i will end with a few thoughts. >> how are you planning on fighting the fourth wing of the democratic party, which is the media. obama said he created 80,000

jobs and they let it go at that. they did not mention he lost 150,000 jobs. we need a fighter out there. i have been listening to alan west talk. he would make a great vice president. he is a fighter. that is what we want. [cheers and applause] >> thank you. all suggestions are welcome. i will tell you this. we are fortunate that the american people get their information from a larger and larger array of outlets. people get their news from cable, from talk shows on the radio, from the internet. people find sources they find to be the most reliable. we are able to communicate broadly to the american people, not just for -- not just through one or two networks. that is why i think when the president came out with obamacare and when the

mainstream media by and large thought it was ok and encourage people to accept it, the american people got their information from a wide array of sources and recognized it is bad medicine, bad economics, bad policy that has to go. despite the fact the realized i am fighting an uphill battle and some organs of the national media. none the less there are some people that are open an unbiased and willing to get our message across. i cannot wait for the debates to have a chance to go face-to-face with the president. [cheers and applause] so people will watch for an hour and then our and a half to three times and get to see our different perspectives. the president the other day was kind enough to give me a call on the day i sensed the nomination. he said i congratulate you. i think the country will benefit from an important and honest

debate on the issues. i think that is absolutely right. so far his campaign has not started that. all they are doing is attacking at every diversion that can come up with. i do hope at some point the president gets serious about talking about the direction for the country and the direction he has taken as in so far has not put america to work, has not fulfilled his promises, and it is time for the people to take this country in a different direction and make us strong again. [cheers and applause] thank you. >> i work at military bases as a contract engineer for many years. a lot of the equipment the u.s. military uses is foreign made.

you go on a military base, you see a bus made by mercedes-benz. our troops are forced to use a little italian pistol instead of the big 45 colts that we used to. that is nice they want to support all of the economies of the world, but what about our workers here? you have every piece of manufacturing equipment for the u.s. military made here in the united states and the wall at probably a couple more million jobs to what we already have the. [cheers and applause] >> i actually believe america can make the best products enter the world. if we are making the best products in the world, we will be able to make sure that we are buying american products. i believe the competition and a president that puts in place

policies that helps american manufacturers of all kinds compete will create jobs and put those jobs back into the country that have left in many cases. i read an article the other day by a columnist at the washington post. he said, you know, a study has shown that if we were serious about taking american be the largest energy producer in the world within 10 years. [applause] if we did that and have low costs, available energy, manufacturing would come back to this country. if you want american goods to be the best in the world, we want to make sure that the input and energy costs can be competitive. they will be. you will see that happen here. let me speak about the military commitment. i am concerned that after the complex we have been through, a lot of our military equipment

has been damaged. it will need to be replaced. there are some who think we need to economize on the military and that we need to cut back. it is the one place that the president is comparable cutting, which is our military spending. he is comfortable with the number of aircraft and ships that we make. he was to cut back on the personnel in our military. my view is that our military must be second to none so that no one would think of challenging it. [cheers and applause] i would take ship building from 9 to 15 per year. i would buy more aircraft. personnel. dd more i would make sure that our

veterans get the health care that they richly deserve. to[applause] go ahead. he has a notepad. [laughter] that is not fair. i need a notepad. >> this will be the first year i will have the privilege to vote. i paid attention to politics. hearing what you have to hear in person has given me a lot of respect for the passion and you have. i understand your position on government. it is an honorable stand. it does not get the credit it deserves for what it is trying to do. you protect yourself as someone who is a champion of liberty. i was moved when you said that this country is propelled by three people. one of the cornerstones is that we are allowed to pursue our own happiness if we choose to do it.

it is personal and might be straying from the economic discussion, but here is an example. your religious affiliation of being a minority -- my question is in terms of social equality and women of's rights and gay rights and liberty in that area, what is wrong with exploring liberty and giving liberty to everyone in the economy? >> i do believe personal liberty and economic liberty to the american people and everyone in this country should have an opportunity to pursue their close in the life as they choose. that is what makes america america. [applause] i support the statement that you make. there may be some places where

we have different viewpoints. i for instance believe that when it comes to a very tender issue, which is abortion, well-meaning americans come to different conclusions on that topic. some like myself attach importance to the unborn child has a life -- [applause] -- just as we do to the mom, the person carrying the unborn child. we have to weigh what is the right course in protecting liberty and life in that setting. my view is that we should protect the sanctity of life, born and letting -- unborn and living.

some issues are very difficult for some. i believe that people have come to different conclusions out of a well-meaning intent. not all of these issues are easy. we should show respect to people and to acknowledge the right to come to these conclusions. let the american people make the decision to what they think is right. [applause] i do not think an important issue like that should be voted by a one-vote majority of the supreme court. these issues should be decided by the american people. thank you. [applause] i will give you this one. >> you won't get this back. will you be announcing the vice president's election before or after? >> tampa? the republican convention?

yes. [laughter] [applause] i cannot give you the time line for that. that is a decision we will make down the road. i cannot give you the individual. i can tell you that the person i choose, you look at and say, that is a person to could be president if that was necessary. that is the most important criteria. thank you. [applause] >> as a state legislator, will you stop sending us unfunded mandates? [applause] >> yeah, former state governors have pet peeves. they wanted to do some the and do not send you money for it. that happens too often.

i have a different plan altogether. it happens to be good for america in my view. the federal government has become so large and unwieldy and that in many cases it is being program by people who are out of touch out of what is happening in people's lives. to what are not doing the kinds of things that programs should do. i think programs like medicaid provides health care services to the poor. hundreds of billions of dollars, i would take that and cut it up state-by-state based on the shares they are getting this year and send it to colorado. you care for the poor in the way that you think is best. [applause] that might apply also to housing vouchers and food stamps,

and other programs in your community. what it needs to be poor in massachusetts is different from montana or mississippi. i would let their respective states decide what is the best way to provide care for those who need the care. we are a generous people. we are a passionate and generous people. we want to have a strong and able safety net for those people who need our care. i believe that these major programs can be managed effectively at the state level. they should be banished there. it will make sure that we are doing a better job of taking care of those who need care. by the way, it will save a lot of money all of these bureaucrats and programs that do not apply to a state like colorado as effectively as it might somewhere else -- by the way, do not have the job training programs are out there?

47 different federal job programs. they report to eight different agencies in the federal government. think of the overlap of the bureaucrats. i would take that money and say, here, colorado. use the money as you see fit to train your own people. that means work as you transition to that state-led program. my view is that i like competition. i like states competing am learning from each other. [applause] i have to tell you my favorite story about states competing. i learned when i was a new governor. i wanted my state to grow and add jobs. my fellow governor, governor of schwarzenegger, wanted the same thing for his state. he came to massachusetts and put billboards up with him on the billboard. he was wearing a t-shirt with a big muscles and said, come to california.

he was coaching jobs from a fellow republican state. i put billboards up in his state with me in a teacher and flashing my muscles. it says, smaller muscles, but much lower taxes. come to massachusetts. [laughter] [applause] >> on the local da, i have a crime question for you. 15 years ago, we had a horrible double murder less than a mile from where you are standing. a 17-year-old man was raping an 11-year-old girl. he killed her and her 42-year- old mother. a jury convicted him of first- degree murder. a judge sentenced to prison for the rest of his life. the colorado supreme court said it was right. last week, another court said that it was cruel and unusual punishment.

what do you think about that? what can we do about things like that to keep our streets safe? [applause] >> this is another issue that a number of people feel or come out of different sites on, people of good faith. i realize this is not a death penalty case. it was a life in prison case. i happen to believe that the death penalty prevents of the most heinous crimes. [applause] i also believe that the prison terms of the nature that you described can also prevent some of the most heinous crimes from occurring. this is a decision that is normally made state-by-state. i believe that the supreme court was looking at the age of the

offender. a 17-year-old is upsetting. i will look at that case. i am somebody comes on the side of swift and severe punishment for those who commit serious crimes. [applause] >> tell us about your plan for education. >> thank you. let me tell you about my own experience in education. i came into a state where my predecessors had taken some action to reform our education system. they did a good job. this is back in 1993, a long time ago. for kids that will be in high school to graduate with a degree, and they need to pass an exam. in math and english, and i added

science to that. we will also have a state did cover schools that are chronically failing and fix them. we will open up more charter schools and open the door to charter schools in our state so people have greater choice. these measures and others have a big impact. massachusetts students are ranked number 1 in the nation. we ranked number 1 in all four measures in all 50 states. those who pass this exam -- the graduation exam --if you pass in the top quarter, you are entitled to a john adams scholarships. they were able to go to a public massachusetts institution for four years. we created a big incentive for

kids to do well. schools could be matched by people who could get them back on track. the regional legislation said that there was a provision in the union contract -- contract that was interfering with the job's education. we added charter schools. when i was governor, the union was not happy with those. i vetoed the mandatory and that they put on it. the democrats had a% of the legislature. you might it might be hard for me -- 80% of the legislature. you might think it might the been hard for me. i am convinced that those school choices and the kinds of measures that i described make a big difference. if i am president, the federal

dollars in education, the dollars that go to the poor and the disabled, the federal dollars will be a tax to the child and not to the school or the state of the district. that would talk to go to whatever school they want and take the dollars with them so we give them the power of school choice across the nation. thank you. [applause] back here. yes, sir. here comes the microphone. >> something that is very important to the people in this area, especially the law personnel. what about the rights to own firearms? [applause] >> i love the constitution and i like all of the amendments. i am happy with all of them. i respect the second amendment. i believe people should have the right to bear arms forever legal

purpose do i have in mind. simple answer. [applause] her eyoe you go. >> in the debates, i am sure you'll be hammered in romneycare. kenny make the point of that is what the people in massachusetts put in there. -- can you make the point that is what the people in massachusetts put you in there for. >> thank you. i will point out the differences of what we did and what he did. what we did is work and a bipartisan basis. my legislation looked at my bill. out of the 200 legislators, only two but did against it -- voted against it. they al qaeda together and said this was a good step forward. -- they all came together and

said this was a good step forward. it was something we work out for our own state. i love the idea that the founding fathers had a federalism that states are the places where we make key decisions that affect the lives of people. i like that idea. [applause] i do not like the idea of the federal government coming in and saying, we will take away the rights of states. we will impose the will of one- party exclusively on the entire nation. our nation is divided about half and half between republicans and democrats. but basically will impose our will on the nation and raise taxes by $500 billion. but the way, when the liberal friends say, you guys will cut might social security and medicare.

there is only one president who has cut medicare by $500 billion. this is president obama. i want to save and reform medicare. thank you. good point. i will keep it in mind. [applause] back here. >> this is eric comment and a question. why is the obama team and the liberal media want us to be more agree with what you do with your money than what obama has done with mine? [laughter] [applause] >> thank you. i am not one to apologize for success at home and i will not apologize for america abroad. [applause]

i went out and began a business. the business turned out to be far more successful than i ever would have imagined. the profits in the business overwhelmingly went to the people who invested with us -- pension funds, even a church pension fund. not even my church. i will let you know if you want to know. in the process, we were able to create jobs and our own business. some of the places we invested in were able to create jobs as well. i saw a report by my former company, bain capital, the one i helped start. it said that their investments and a 350 companies over the years, 80% of them grew. only 5% went bankrupt. the only ones you hear about on the other side are in the 5%. you will not hear about 80% where jobs were created.

investing my money and the money of people who provided me with the resources for the purpose of my investing it, the very different that when the president takes your tax dollars and invest it in the businesses of companies of his campaign contributors, like solyndra and tesla. someone said, we do not like the government picking winners and losers, especially the losers. i believe the government can play a very important role in encouraging a science, technology, and research. i believe in encouraging those things. i do not believe in investing billions of dollars in companies that have political connections. it is wrong. it smacks of corruption. it is not the right course for america to takes. i will get us out of that practice in a bakery. thank you. -- i will get us out of the

practice in a hurry. [applause] >> of our tax code is bad. it is full of corruption. lobbyists can go in there and dictates what is going on. demi get rid of the nonsense so america can truly -- can we get rid of the nonsense soap american to be great? >> thank you. i want to simplify the tax code. i want to see it simpler. i want to see it fairer. what ii propose is across the board. bring the rates down. i will limit the deductions and exemptions so that we can pay for that reduction. but will we have accomplished? small businesses and entrepreneurs will be able to keep more of the money to build their business.

for me, it is all about jobs. it is creating good jobs for the american people. i will bring those tax rates down. i will be happy to look at other measures -- the flat tax and the pair tax. i will make sure we do not reduce the burden on the higher income tax payers. we did not raise it on middle income tax payers. this campaign is about the middle class and the poor. it is not about the rich. they will do fine. it is a great majority of americans who are hurting under this president. do i need help. i am willing to help them. i will do it. [applause] let me say this -- this is a critical junction for america. you know that. the president says this. i say this. will leave be headed in the direction of the liberal policies of the past? or will it take the approach has proven time and time again to build the strongest economy in

the world using our energy resources and opening up trade? even bill clinton recognize the wisdom of fair trade and free trade around the world. we need to make sure we restrain the size of government and invest in our time and talents in providing jobs and education for our kids. we need to preserve economic freedom. will we do those things? things, weo those will surprise the world with what we can do. i am convinced that will happen if i am elected. we will be able to take that course. the consequence of get it right is marvelous. it is terrific. we will be able to have good jobs for the people today who need them. we will be able to be confident that our kids will be able to find the jobs they need when they come out of school. we will be able to preserve liberty for ourselves and our friends. i say that coming from the comfort station -- conversation

months ago when i was in britain. one of the leaders said to me, if you are lucky enough to beat president of the united states and you travel around from foreign capital to foreign capital, you will have rehearsed all of the mistakes that they think america is making. but please do not forget this fact -- the one thing he said the offer the most is a week america. -- a weak america. [applause] american strength is the best ally peace has ever known. strong values and strong columns, conviction of our constitution and our principles, a strong economy that is creating jobs, a strong military second to none -- the world

depends upon it. our children depend upon it. that is what the campaign will come down to. i will get the job done. i will keep america the hope of the earth with your help. thank you. thank you. [applause] ♪ >> and a few moments, a house proposal to repeal the 2010 health care law. in about an hour and a half, a hearing on how federal and local officials cooperate on security issues. and then the mitt romney campaign event in colorado. cracks in a meeting that is expected to last all day, the house across the committee will mark up its version of a new farm bill tomorrow.

you can see that on c-span 3 beginning tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. this weekend on "book tv" a growing up in the shadows and secrets of the rocky flats facility. she looks at the effects of the environment and the people on saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern time. on sunday -- >> he was covered by an accent. she saw the dominoes start to fall during this time. by 1979, he was in a full- fledged opposition. it was particularly crucial in this respect. she saw the fall of the shaw. >> of the political woman,

sunday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern time. all part of "book tv" this weekend on c-span 2. >> the house of representatives will vote tomorrow to repeal the 2010 health care law. the debate on the bill began today. this portion is a little less than an hour and a half. mr. kline: on june 28, the u.s. supreme court dealt a devastating blow to the american people. in a sharply-divided opinion, the court upheld the president's decision to tax individuals who don't purchase government-approved health insurance. if washington can dictate that private citizens must buy health insurance and impose higher taxes when they fail to do so, it is difficult to conceive of any limit on federal power.

while i disagree with the court's ruling, that is not the focus of our debate today. we are here instead to overturn a flawed law. the government takeover of health care is destroying jobs. it is raising health care costs. it is the wrong sprippings for an ailing economy. it must be repealed. we promised the american people no less and we owe it to them to keep our promise. the need for repeal has grown more urgent in light of friday's disappointing jobs report which marked the 41st consecutive month of unemployment greater than 8%. a close examination of the health care law explains how it scribts to the job crisis facing this nation. hundreds of boards and bureaucracies and billions of dollars in tax hikes and trillion of dollars in new government spending. these are the burdens the health care law has piled on the backs of working families and job creators. .

. this is not just my opinion, we see evidence from job creators across the country. gail johnson from virginia said the law will, quote, ultimately slow our stall the growth of small or mid-sized businesses. speaking the draw coneon laws on medical devices. one manufacturing facility in indiana said it will, quote, undoubtedly force us to cut critical r&d funding and inhibit job creation and retention. and will connect, president of a manufacturing company in pennsylvania, testified that, quote, the sheer monster size of the law intimidates the most -- intimidates most americans and provides so many unknowns for the business community. it is scary. without a doubt, mr. speaker, americans are concerned about getting this economy moving and putting people back to work.

as these and other employers have accurately described, one of the greatest obstacles standing in the way is the president's health care law. through his government takeover of health care, the president has created destructive roadblock to lowering health care costs and private sector job creation and he has disrupted the careful balance of power between the people and their government. whether at congressional hearings or forums or at the ballot box, the american people want their elected leaders to repeal obamacare so we can lower health care costs. i urge my colleagues to stop defending a broken law and start standing by the american people. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on h.r. 6079, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to begin by yielding myself 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: the chairman of the committee says this is a job-destroying health care

bill. since the president signed the bill, american companies have created 4.3 million private sector jobs. at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, who clearly understands the need for health care law. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hinojosa: i rise in strong opposition for the peel of health insurance that would force seniors to pay more for their prescription drugs and add billions to our deficit. in my great state of texas, we have the highest uninsured rate in the country, a disgraceful 25%. one of those uninsured was a little boy named houston from crowley, texas. houston was born with a heart defect just days before the passage of the affordable care act and was deemed uninshurble

from birth for -- uninsurable from bith for a pre-existing condition. his case drew national attention and eventually his insurance company backed down under pressure. today under the affordable care act, no child will suffer the indignity baby houston met. insurers can't deny children coverage over a medical need. these are the protections that republicans want to take away from us today. just yesterday a republican member of congress said that if she had her way she would rather spend every day voting to repeal the affordable care act. so rather than working to pass legislation to put americans back to work or stop the outsourcing and offshoring

american jobs, they will vote to take away health insurance to millions of americans while offering no solution for people like little houston tracy and other children like him who would be left at the mercy of the insurance companies. this is a cruel bill. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the republican bill. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i am very, very pleased to yield two minutes to the chairman of the work force protection subcommittee, the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. walberg: i thank the chairman and, mr. speaker, my friends across the aisle decry the fact that we've now voted over 30 times to defund, dismantle and repeal the law. but, mr. speaker, isn't it right to challenge a tool of destruction of the american

health care system, the economy and personal freedom of choice? in michigan, the law has stifled economic growth and hiring and raised health care costs for everyone. it would impose 21 new higher taxes, 12 of which directly affect the middle class, workers and families. it would lead to a yose tax increase of almost -- gross tax increase of almost $75 billion over 10 years. it will cost $1.8 trillion over the next 10 years, nearly double the original estimate. meanwhile, the obama administration has failed to decide what government-approved health insurance will look like, leaving employers uncertain of future expenses and taxes they will face. white cassel in a hearing prior to this -- castle in a hearing prior to this they have not hired 400 because of the uncertainty of this law. obamacare also cuts $500

billion from medicare to finance new entitlement programs. it reduces medicare itself. according to the american medical association, one in three primary care doctors already limit the number of new medicare patients they take due to the cost. once the law is fully enacted, c.m.s. estimates that about 15% of medicare part a providers will become unprofitable and drop out entirely, leaving seniors with fewer options. additionally, the president's hand-picked 15-member payment advisory board is even more troubling. its purpose is to control future medicare spending so that if medicare grows beyond what is sustainable, the board has the power to recommend cuts and ration care. rights of conscience violations are violated in this bill. this must stop. i recommend all my colleagues to support the repeal of this bill and going back to a patient-centered approach that offers this health care system

a sustainable ability and care for our citizens. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: i ask my friend from michigan if he could stay for a question. my friend from michigan just said that there's an estimate that the bill has doubled in costs. and i read all the c.b.o. analyses of this bill. i wonder if the gentleman could tell me the source of his statement from the congressional budget office that the bill has doubled from costs from the original estimate. i'd be happy to yield to him. mr. walberg: it is the c.b.o. go to the congressional budget office. they have directly stated that. mr. andrews: reclaiming my time. if the gentleman could supplement the record with the date and document that says i would appreciate it. at this time i'm pleased to yield to a gentleman who has become an expert on the budget who understands this repeal bill increases the national deficit and debt, the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes.

mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, two years ago we passed obamacare, and now the supreme court has ruled that it is in fact constitutional and even after this ruling some are ignoring the fact these reforms are working. we know there are children with pre-existing conditions who now have insurance. we know that young adults who had car accidents and the families did not have to go bankrupt due to health care costs because they were able to stay on their parent's policies. we know there are seniors receiving assistance without falling in the doughnut hole. we know people have discovered curable diseases because they didn't have to save up for co-pays and deductibility -- deductibles. we know people won't get kicked off insurance during coverage when they need it the most. every american will receive an

affordable health insurance policy. and why would anyone want to take away these protections and leave people without health security? mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to oppose this 3 st attempt to -- 31st attempt to turn back the clock of the advancements made under the affordable care act. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield now three minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee on health, employment, labor and pensions, the distinguished gentleman from tennessee, dr. roe, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for three minutes. mr. roe: thank you, mr. chairman and mr. speaker. i rise today to urge my colleagues to vote for repeal of the affordable care act. as a physician, i've taken care of families for more than 30 years, and during my time on the front lines, i watched our health care costs skyrocket and our health care freedom erode. i observed three major problems with the health care system.

one, it costs too much. unaffordable for many people. two, there were people who didn't have access to care and affordable health insurance. three, there's a liability crisis in this country. the problem is too much government so more government's not the solution. unfortunately, the president and his party did not learn the lessons of tennessee. tennessee it began in the universal coverage in the 1990's called tenncare. and in 10 short budget years, mr. speaker, i saw our costs triple from $2.5 billion a year to $8.5 billion, and i saw access for patients go down and the quality of their care go down. the affordable care act applies this same failed idea to the whole country through a 2,700-page bill and more than 13,000 pages of rules and still counting. the affordable care act doesn't address the major problem which is cost, and it's also going to cost jobs. i spoke to a business owner in

tennessee just this afternoon who has 800 employees. he said his h.r. people look at this plan. he's going to have to lay off 50 people, put 150 people on part-time work and possibly close some of his stores. we need to create an economic environment that creates jobs. the last congress passed legislation that would destroy jobs. and make no mistake, our health care system was fundamentally flawed before the affordable care act was signed into law, but the affordable care act made a bad situation, i believe, worse. the fact is we don't have a free market medical care today. about half of all the health care bills are paid by government. but that aside, with all the court cases, the policy proposals, the statistics, it's still important to remember that health care is about human beings. it's about people. there are no republican or democrat heart attacks. i've never seen one. i never operated on a republican or democratic cancer

in my life, so we need to talk about solutions in a bipartisan way for everyone. health care is too important to be left insurance bean counters and washington bureaucrats. government always makes things more expensive and eventually leads to shortages, to long waits and to rations. let's talk about a few ideas about what we should do next. let's start by just leveling the playing field and give all individuals the same tax break that businesses get right now. just treat an individual like a business. let's start by empowering our seniors and saving medicare by giving them choice. let's allow small businesses to join together to compete for more affordable insurance just like big corporations do. and let's let -- mr. kline: i yield 15 seconds. mr. roe: let's reform medical malpractice. and finally, let's force insurance companies to compete for your business across state lines.

health care freedom is about the right incentives, personal empowerment, not government mandates and regulation. i strongly encourage a yes vote for this bill, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: mr. speaker, we know what our republican friends mean when they say give seniors more choice under medicare. they mean let them choose which insurance company, which private insurance company should run medicare instead of regular medicare. american seniors know you can count on the medicare guarantee no matter what the circumstances are, whether you're profitable to take care of or not. that's why they support medicare. that's why we support medicare even though the majority has voted on several occasions to terminate the medicare guarantee. at this time, mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to a gentleman who understands that pre-existing conditions should made illegal and insurance companies should not be able to pursue them, the gentleman from massachusetts,

mr. tierney, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for two minutes. . mr. tierney: thank the gentleman. we just had a hearing and we had four witnesses who are speculating about the fear and the myths and all the things that could be terrible if the affordable care act were to go into effect. and then we had one witness, a massachusetts business person with 1,000 employees, president of the largest chamber of commerce in the country. was a member of the board of directors of one of the larger banks and was the regional consultant to the fed in that area who said that since massachusetts accepted the equivalent of the affordable care act, not only has his business and employees done better and his profits have gone up, but the economy in massachusetts has done better. more people are working and less people are using the emergency room.

and in fact that's what it is, the facts outweigh the fear mongering we see going on. there are millions of people who are taking advantage of the affordable care act. one of those in my district, whose son is a firefighter who has to spend hundreds of hours at an internship, he wouldn't have health insurance under his father's plan if this republican-proposed bill were to go through and other americans wouldn't be covered as well. this is misguided legislation that would end that kind of a benefit. it would end the meaningful consumer protection like the 8 0/20. providing health care services instead of paying bonuses, executive salaries that are through the roof, advertising and other costs, anything but health care. it estimated 12.8 millionally cans are going to receive more

than $1.1 billion in rebates because of that provision alone. if the repeal were to pass, small businesses fail -- small businesses would no longer get the business tax credits and not cover two million employees. this list goes on and on and show you examples of people fallen into the doughnut hole. let's find out what we can do about jobs and stop this 31st attempt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. tierney: get the american people back to work. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: i'm pleased to yield one minute to a distinguished member of the committee, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. petri. mr. petri: i rise to support the repeal of praup obama's health care law.

-- of president obama's health care law. the health care law is fundamentally flawed and will make worse our high health care costs. a study last month found the cost of health care services is expected to rise 7 1/2% in 2013 and the law's negative effects on job creation. i hear constantly how the mandates and uncertainties created by the law are discouraging hiring. the report issued from the investment research firm last september said that the health care law was and i quote arguably the biggest impediment to hiring. we need the right reforms to eliminate waste and reward high quality low cost care. we should be choosing approaches for seniors to use their health care dollars wisely but instead we are turning decisions over to the government. i support this bill and i urge

all of my colleagues to work together to ensure that every american has access to affordable health care. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: we share the gentleman from wisconsin's concern about squeezing down health care costs and the record shows that since the affordable care act was enacted, growth in medicare costs which has been 8% annually has fallen to 6% by stopping giving corporate giveaway profits while increasing medicare benefits. i'm pleased to yield to a woman that being a woman should not mean pay-go higher premiums. the gentlelady from california, ms. woolsey, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. woolsey: our ranking member today has proven something that is very clear to me. this is baloney, the arguments are baloney.

so baloney, baloney, baloney. we are hear, mr. speaker, standing on the house floor for the 31st time with the majority serving more baloney regarding the affordable care act. they haven't brought a single jobs bill to the floor but for the 31st time they are voting to repeal the affordable care act. this is just a political show. in a moment, what we need is leadership to tackle serious challenges, i'm still waiting for the majority's constructive ideas on health care. but all i hear are contradicts. this leads me to conclude that they prefer a health care system in crisis. millions not insured. out-of-control costs. they must think it is ok for an

insurance company to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing coverage or charge you more if you are a woman and against seniors saving on prescription drug costs and against increased access to preventive care. we need to strengthen these reforms. the affordable care act is the beginning, not the end. actually for nearly half a century, medicare has proved to be coverage for seniors and those with disabilities to be fair, cost efficient. maybe, just maybe, it's time to give every american those same benefits. we could do that by passing medicare e, medicare for everyone. enough baloney, because it's time for the wealthiest nation in the world to provide health care for all. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: tchanching you, mr.

speaker. -- thank you, mr. speaker. i'm tempted to get in the lunch meat debate but i'll pass for now. i yield two minutes to a distinguished member of the committee, the gentlelady from illinois, mrs. big he earth. the speaker pro tempore: the -- mrs. biggert. mrs. biggert: i rise today to voice my strong support for repealing patient protection and affordable care act. whether it is dropped coverage, higher costs or lost jobs, the unintended consequences of this legislation continue to add up and now that the supreme court has declared the individual mandate to be a tax, we know that this law contains over 20 distinct fax increases. we cannot continue to ignore the impact of this law and jobs while millions of americans remain out of work nor should we cut $5 million from medicare or

place new rules that the c.b.o. estimates will eliminate employer-responsed insurance. we should take the cleaner route. repeal the law and end policies that are raising costs. and in their place, we can enact consensus-driven, bipartisan solutions that democrats have ignored in the past. there is no reason we can't maintain coverage for pre-existing conditions and young adults. let's give them lower costs and access to quality care and more choice. we can do that by allowing consumers to buy insurance across state lines and by extending health savings accounts and we must move forward on commonsense legislation to curb lawsuits that drive up costs and force doctors to practice expensive defensive medicine. mr. speaker, i ask my colleagues to join me in repealing this

regrettable law and then put our focus on effective reforms that will deliver lower costs without putting the government between patients and their doctors, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: i yield myself 30 seconds. mr. speaker, we continue to hear this charge that there is $500 billion in medicare cuts in the health care bill. here's the fookts. the new law -- here's the facts, it eliminates a corporate welfare subsidy and goes after wasteful medicare practices. all the republican speakers who have spoken today must agree with those cuts because every single one of them have voted for every single one of those cuts in the last two ryan republican budgets. every dollar of medicare savings in the health savings act is in the last two republican budgets. i'm pleased to yield to someone who understands the benefit of families being able to keep

their sons and daughters on health insurance policies until they are 26. my friend and colleague from new jersey, mr. holt, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. holt: i thank the gentleman. matt from west windsor said i graduated this past may and i'm working at a job with no health insurance. i have a pre-existing health condition and i would be without insurance and in big trouble if this legislation is reversed. carolyn from east brunswick contacted me to say she had been laid off and cobra benefits were about to expire. at age 25 and because of the affordable care act she can enroll as a dependent on her father's benefits plan. mary from princeton wrote, my son is subject to both the lifetime cap on benefits and the denial because of pre-existing condition. were it not for the provision of

health reform. many people in new jersey tell me they need those things that the health reform law does for them, including protections against premium increases as well as many others like coverage for young adults, insuring people that are people have access to health insurance and the elimination of lifetime limits. now the majority here who are trying to repeal this law say they want to keep those provisions. i say, get real. you cannot repeal the law and still have the provisions of the law in effect. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to yield two minutes to a member of the committee, the distinguished the gentleman from south carolina, mr.âwilson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. will will i would like to -- mr. wilson: i would like to thank chairman kline. promoting women to government

and expanded freedom. due to the passage of obamacare, america is set to experience the largest tax increase in our nation's history, which destroys jobs. house republicans have voted over 30 times to repeal, defund or dismantle the president's job-destroying health care takeover. if this law remains on the books, 21 new taxes will be imposed on the american people and small business owners. already, the 2,700-paged bill has generated 13,000 pages of mind-boggling regulations destroying jobs. over the 4th of july recess, i visited ohio and read a thoughtful editorial in the "the columbus dispatch." quote, the law creates headaches for businesses of all sizes that are likely to create a continuing drag on the economy and job creation. small businesses employing close to 50 people will resist adding

more workers since 50 is the threshold which the law requires them to provide health care or pay a penalty or tax, end of quote. through the last three years, the president and the liberals who have pushed government red tape stalling economic growth, just like the policies of obamacare. the unemployment rate has remained at over 8% over 48 months. the president's liberal policies are destroying jobs. in order to put americans back to work we must start by repealing this overreaching bill and start with the replacement by market reforms as developed by chairman tom price of the policy committee. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: i yield myself 25 seconds. he said this is the largest tax increase in american history. here's the record. there are two kinds of people who pay higher taxes under this law. 97% of american families won't pay one dime of tax increases

under this law. the first family who pays is a family with a gross income in excess of about $300,000 a year, about 1%, maybe 2% of the u.s. households. the second is the person who can't afford health insurance who elects not to buy it, who uses the emergency room and expects his or her neighbors to pay their bill. that's not the largest tax increase in american history. i'm pleased to yield to a gentlelady who understands who gets hurt if this law gets repealed. mrs. davis for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. >> repeal would be a tragedy for america. repeal would mean that children with pre-existing conditions would lose their health care coverage. repeal would mean that 86 million americans will no longer have access to free preventive

care services. repeal would mean seniors would no longer save money on their prescription drugs. repeal would mean that 16 million middle-class americans would not get tax credits to pay for their health care. repeal would mean that my constituent sister, who has breast cancer, would still lose her house due to excessive medical bills. repeal would mean that my constituent who has had successful ovarian cancer treatment years ago would not be able to purchase health insurance because of her pre-existing condition. there are millions of americans who are fortunate enough to have health insurance they actually like, and they ask me why should they support reform? well, first, this economic downturn should have taught us all that we are one pink slip away from losing our health insurance by allowing the unemployed to purchase affordable health insurance,

health care reform changes that. . second, those who have no choice but to use the emergency room as a primary care office make it more expensive for those of us who do have insurance by requiring that everyone who can afford it, have insurance, health care reform changes that. small business owners in my district, concerned about the new mandates in health care reform, canned me why they should support it. these small business owners have always wanted to offer their employees health coverage but haven't been able to do so because the cost has been high and uven predictable. health care reform changes that. now small businesses have a

risk pool for more stable and affordable premiums. what repeal really means, mr. speaker, is that affordable health care now within reach for so many americans would become a distant dream. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. >> can i inquire as to the time remaining on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota has 17 minutes. the gentleman from new jersey has 16 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm now pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. goodlatte: i thank the gentleman from minnesota, the chairman of the education work force committee, for yielding me this time and for his leadership in combating this

terrible bill in the aftermath of a very disappointing supreme court decision ruling that sometimes what we all thought and were told was a penalty is now a tax but sometimes it's not a tax, it's a penalty. first time in the history of the united states supreme court in over 200 years of decisions that a device has been called both a penalty and a tax at the same time. very disappointing and here's what it leaves american citizens with. this is your new health care system. more than 150 new government agencies and programs. i was called by politifact a couple of months ago and they said, where do you get the 150 new agencies and programs? we sent them a list of 158 new government agencies and programs with the page number of the bill and section where

it was swro deuced. i never heard back from them. i was dispointed. i thought we'd see an arrow pointing to the far right that said true. now government dictates to businesses and families and local and state government what is your insurance policy is going to look like, which means you won't be able to keep the nurns that you like now and that you were promised you could keep by the president. once upon a time, no, no, sir, we already have 12,000 pages of new regulations that have been written and they haven't covered about half of those 400 new mandates, new regulatory authorities, that they can write regulations on. it's going to cost $2 trillion over 10 years, a half a trillion dollars in cuts to medicare, over $800 billion in new taxes, including a quarter

of a trillion dollars in taxes on middle income americans and the fact of the matter is, this monstrosity needs to be repealed. vote for this legislation and repeal it today. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. >> i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> two points with respect to my friend from virginia's comments, 90% of families don't pay a dime more in taxes. mr. andrews: it's families with income in excess of $300,000 a year and those who can afford insurance but opt not to buy it. here's what one regulation says if your insurance company, who doesn't have to compete for your business, doesn't spend at least 80% or 85% of your premiums, may must -- they must

give you a rebate this summer, millions of americans -- of american families will be get regular baits from their health insurance companies because they haven't spent their money on tcharke spent it on profit and overhead. we don't think that's such a bad regulation. mr. speaker, in the interest of time, i think my friend the chairman has more time than we do, i think we'll ask him to go to two for one to our speakers. mr. kline: i'm pleased to do that. i yield one minute to the gentleman from the committee, mr. thompson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. tompson: pyre to congress, i spent nearly three decades in the nonprofit health care setting. there's a saying in health care, do no harm. unfortunately, obamacare violate this is principle. he promised it would decrease rates for the average family. the law creates an employer

mandate that provides a perverse incentive to drop their employees from health plans. it wastes money on so-called demonstration programs to hide the cuts to medicare advantage, a blatant attempt to protect the president from fallout in november. he said the individual mandate wouldn't result in a tax. it's official, it's a theafpblgs american people are fed up. why? another check was written that cannot be cashed. more promises were made that cannot be kept. we must protect the american taxpayer and prevent this pl policy from doing more harm. we must repeal this law. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from new jersey is recognize. mr. andrews: i yield myself 20 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognize. mr. andrews: my friend made reference to the employer mandate. it's important to know if a business has 50 or fewer

full-time employees, 50 or fewer, what they have to do under the affordable care act is, nothing. there's no mandate of any kind for a business with fewer than 50 full-time employees. i'm pleased at this point to yield to a gentlelady who fought hard for senior citizen rebates on scription drugs, the gentlelady from cleveland, ohio, ms. fudge, for two minutes. ms. fudge: i thank the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. fudge: i strongly oppose h r. 1679. the republicans need to stop this political grand standing, stop wasting congress' time and do what we were elected to do there are critical issues facing the american people that desperately need our atense. the middle class is asking republicans, where are the jobs? and what is their plan to stop outsourcing american jobs? we should and we must focus on legislation in this house that will strengthen our economy.

it seems like groundhog day, the same thing over and over and over again. the american people should know what it's going to mean to repeal the affordable care act. let me tell you what it means. it means the republicans support legislation that will make insurance companies, c.e.o.'s, and executives richer. it means republicans support legislation that will deny the right of young adults to remain on their parent's insurance until age 26. it means the republicans support legislation that will deny individuals with pre-existing conditions the right to affordable health care. it means that republicans support legislation that will raise scription drug costs for our seniors and eliminate provisions that hold insurance companies accountable for double digit premium increases. it means that republicans support legislation that will raise the taxes of hundreds of thousands of small businesses. by eliminating the small business health care tax

credit, which helped deliver health insurance for more than two million workers. and just for the record, the "washington post" fact checker has also concluded that -- and i quote, the health law will provide more tax relief than tax burden for the middle class, for middle class families, end quote. again, it says, quote, the health law will provide more tax relief than tax burden for middle class families, end quote. this repeal would mean republicans support legislation that will prevent eligible constituents from receiving the same health care coverage as members of congress. and i'm not sure why republicans feel that their constituents do not deserve the same access that they enjoy themselves but by voting to repeal the affordable care kt, that's the message being sent to the people we represent. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from minnesota.

mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield two minutes to a member of the committee, the very distinguished gentleman from tennessee, doctor desjarlais. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. desjarlais: i come to the house floor today to call attention to another problem in this poorly drafted 2,700-page job-killing bill. we remember former speaker of the house nancy pelosi's famous statement that we needed to pass the bill to find out what's in it. today i stand perplexed not only by what's in the bill but by what is not. while many states are refusing to set up exchanges, making it necessary for the federal government to create them. that's permissible in the law. here's what is not. nowhere does it give permission for credits to be offered in federally run exchanges.

mr. obama has had the i.r.s. unilaterally change his bill to fix this error. last i checked, it was congress that made law, not the executive branch. the legislative process should still have meaning in this country which is why my colleague and federal tennessee physician, dr. phil roe, and i introduced legislation to prevent this. even my colleagues who support the law agree his administration's actions lead us down a dangerous constitutional path my opposition to obamacare is clear. that aside, having a president act without congress to change law sets a dangerous precedent, one that violates the principles of our constitution and the separation of powers. principles that are the pillars of our democracy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. andrews: i yield myself 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: my friend's comments echo those we've heard

over the last two years about the unconstitutionality of the law. 24e supreme court spoke about that question. people may agree or disagree with the policy but this law is clearly constitutional and valid. i'm pleased to yield to the author, the originator, of the employment -- the discrimination provisions against pre-existing conditions, the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. courtney: thank you mr. speaker, thank you for your leadership, mr. andrews. we've heard a lot of misleading comments about the so-called taj that's been don to u.s. employers as a result of the affordable care act. the people who make those statements forgot to ask the 5,200 american employers who stampeded into the early retiree reinsurance program, over half the fortune 500 companies in that group, some of whose logos are on the chart. and rather than causing

problems with employment, ford motor company, for example, have added ,000 people to their books, using the program that acts as a back stop for high insurance claims, a principle and pattern we have ewe -- used for flood insurance, nuclear insurance. companies like comcast who are hiring in my district have taken advantage of this program. individuals who make these claims have also forgotten to ask the 360,000 small businesses that last year took advantage of the small business tax credit a 35% tax credit on health insurance premiums. that number is going to go up to 50% starting in 2014. as mr. andrews has repeatedly pointed out here tonight, there's no mandate on businesses or firms, 50 or less, that's 96% of small businesses in america, but there will be a tax credit to help those firls actually defray the cost because as a former small employer myself,

small employers want to provide benefits, the problem is they have trouble affording it and the tax credits set up in the affordable care act will help those small businesses to defray the cost and entice and enroll new employees in their business who are looking for those benefits. so the fact of the matter is, with the job growth we have seen, we need more, but with the job growth over the last year and a half since the affordable care act went into effect, we have helped businesses, 5,200 employers who are using the early retiree insurance programs, including nonprofits, religious institutions and public sector employers across the country and 360,000 small businesses who have taken advantage of that tax credit. we need to build on that success and grow this economy, let's skip this debate and move on to real jobs legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: i would like to yield myself 30 seconds.

we heard a couple of times today from my distinguished friend and colleague from new jersey and again from the well about how small employers aren't affected. if you have 50 or fewer, you absolutely have to do nothing. but if you have 51 or hire one more employee, you have to pay $42,000 in taxes or whatever that is, after the supreme court ruling. it's having an impact on our employers. there is a reason why they aren't hiring and scared and want us to repeal this awful piece of law. i yield two minutes to a member of the committee, a physician, dr. bucshon. mr. bucshon: as i rise, this legislation called affordable, it will be anything but affordable. what's in it? 21 new taxes most of which hit

the middle class. it will continue to generate thousands of pages of regulation to comply with. and establish subsidies that are predicted to be overwhelming when employers stop dropping insurance policies for their employees. in indiana, we have approximately 500,000 additional medicaid enrollees in 2014 and 2024, 700,000 additional enrollees compared to today. medicaid is broken, financially strapped program that doesn't provide good insurance for its beneficiaries. why would we use medicaid as the vehicle to provide coverage? access to physicians will be a significant challenge as fewer and fewer physicians take medicaid. it will be billions of dollars. once the federal subsidies in,

state taxes will have to be increased dramatically or reimbursement to providers, hospitals and physicians will need to be cut. this will result in further access issues for beneficiaries as even more doctors drop out of the program. as the number of indiana residents depending on the exchange for their insurance growth, the cost to the federal taxpayer will grow rapidly. taxes will have to be increases or reimbursement to providers will be cut. we have a new group of citizens many of which had private health coverage that are now dependent on a federal government program. access will become an issue. the a.c.a. is a financial snowball rolling down the hill and must repeal it before it is too late. we need s health care reform that decreases the costs while maintaining critical care in this country and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. andrews: the gentleman from indiana said this is where taxes would hit the middle class. i wish that were true in some ways because the people it pits are people with income over $300,000 a year. and then secondly, with respect to medicaid enrollees, for the first three years, the federal treasury picks up 100% of that cost. and thereafter the average is about 95% of the cost of the new enrollees. this is a benefit to state governments. at this time, i'm pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to a gentleman who understands the impact on hard-working families being able to get affordable health care. mr. carnahan, for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. carnahan: i oppose the republicans' attempt to repeal

the new health care law. when people of sthroose go to work and want to pay a fair pay for a day's work. when they buy dinner on the way home, they expect to pay a fair price and don't expect to be gouged because the chef needs a new set of golf clubs. but that's an example of what has happened in the health care industry. health insurance premiums are rising faster to provide the same services, bonuses, advertising, overhead have crowded out dollars for actual health care. the affordable health care changes that. by law, any insurance premiums must be spent on paying for health care. some companies cannot or will not lower overhead and profits to 20%. this year they will be forced to pay refunds, more than 170 on average to more than 580,000

residents in my state of missouri. for those who have stood up for health care today, i stand with them. the republican idea is to go backwards to the broken system of the past. they are trying to end insurance for kids with pre-existing conditions, end protection from prescription drug costs, end free ma'amo grams and tax credits for small business. let's call thrm republican repeal bill what it is, this is a distraction from addressing the jobs agenda in this country. let's get past this republican stupt and back to work on things we can do together to continue to grow this economy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri yields back. chairman minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: could i inquire of the time remaining on each side?

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota has 10 minutes remaining. the gentleman from new jersey has 9 1/4. mr. kline: i would like to yield one minute to a member of the committee, distinguished gentlelady from south dact. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. >> i rise to support this bill. mrs. noem: this bill will cut half a trillion out of medicare. up 20 million americans could lose their employer-sponsored health care coverage and known all along that this health care law has made costs go up rather than go down. however, we now know that buried within the 2,700 pages of this bill is yet another tax that is going to hit and fall on the middle class, this is in addition to the nearly two dozen tax increases already in the law

on everything from over the counter prescription medication. very little about what is promised turns out to be true. we owe it to every taxpayer and senior and to every american and put real solutions that don't put washington in charge of our health care. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: i yield myself 20 seconds. the gentlelady talked about cutting trillions from health affordable care act. the cuts that were made which take corporate welfare money away from insurance companies and avoid waste were voted on in favor by every republican who has spoken today because every dollar of those cuts were used in the last two republican budgets. i would like to yield to a gentleman who has been a leader

in health care for a long time and understands how much his district has benefit frd affordable health insurance. my good friend from california, mr. farr, for 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. farr: i have been listening to this debate, not just this moment but throughout the whole health care debate and shocked me, why are the republicans so angry with a bill with essentially they wrote? it was the republicans who wanted a mandate that ever person in the united states carry private health care insurance. the bill does that. the republicans wanted to make sure that people who were cheating on medicare got busted, no free ride. the bill does that. it was the republicans who said people ought to help themselves by being healthier, eating better, taking care of your health and exercise more. the bill encourages that. so is a bill that has so much

republican writing in it, why are they so angry about it? the members in the beginning of this year said we want to defeat the president no matter what, even if he signs into law our ideas. that's it. he signed into law an awful lot of republican ideas and they can't stand it. don't listen to the rhetoric down here, go check for yourself. go to www.healthcare.gov. find out for yourself. check the facts. they will tell you what you get and what you don't get. look it, there is so many good things that thr bad repeal is trying to do. it's going to take away affordability and take away access and going to take away what americans have been asking for for over 100 years. let's keep it and let's make it work.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: i yield to another member of the committee, the gentlelady from alabama, mrs. roby, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from alabama is recognized for two minutes. mrs. roby: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 6097 the repeal of obamacare act on which i'm a co-sponsor. president obama signed into law the largest health care overhaul in the history of the united states and sadly it is less about providing quality health care and more about expanding the scope of the federal government. and the law fails to address the number one health care concern that families and employers have and that's cost. and under the individual mandate as i sat here and listened to the debate, each individual will absolutely will be penalized, we'll call it a tax, and this

free country, that person chooses to remain uninsured or purchase health care that is not government approved, and that is regardless of their income. despite the supreme court's ruling, a significant number of americans continue to oppose obamacare and encouraging congress to take immediate action. americans and their doctors, not federal bureaucrats and politicians are in the business position to determine which health care options best meet their individual needs. regardless of the court's decision, many problems in the law remain present, many of which have a an impact on small businesses. the american people don't want a one size fits all that imposes numerous mandates and regulations on employers and employees. this will be devastating not just to my home state of alabama but also to the nation and i look forward to working with my

colleagues on both sides of the aisle to improve our health care system to approve market-based reforms and maintain high quality of care for all americans. i urge my colleagues to listen to the voices of the american people and support h.r. 6097. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. andrews: i yield myself 15 seconds. my friend from alabama in describing the individual mandate which republicans have supported for year is imposed irrespective of income. that's not accurate. the mandate is covered by medicaid and there is a hardship exemption for someone who says they captain afford it. and there is a religious conscience exemption as well. i would like to yield to a gentleman who worked very hard to make sure that small businesses and entrepreneurs were aided by this bill and not

hurt. mr. polis for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. mr. polis: in this bill before us today, there are several provisions that i think the american people would be very angry and will be very angry when they find out what this body is up to. members of congress would be able to maintain their government-subsidized health care after they retire. instead of getting insurance from a plan created under the affordable care act. before the act was passed, members of congress were eligible to continue to receive government-subsidized health insurance under the federal employees health benefits program after they are retired. this would give government-subsidized health insurance to members of congress as it took it away for millions of other americans. members of congress shouldn't have access to special health insurance as republicans would have us do under this

-- have us do. under this bill, it will increase the deficit and we won't have that estimate of how much until july 23. it should be important for republicans if they intend to modify this bill to say how they're paying for it. are republicans in favor of increasing the deficit by $150 billion at the same time they give lifetime retiree health care benefits to members of congress? or do they plan to increase taxes on the american middle class. i urge a no vote on this and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to another member of the committee, an emergency room physician, the very distinguished gentleman from nevada, dr. heck.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. heck: thank you, mr. speaker. just because a law is constitutional doesn't mean it's a good law. just because a law is well-intentioned doesn't mean it fulfills its promises. i've heard firsthand from patient who was concerns about the so-called affordable care act, that it would reduce access to affordable care by enacting substantial new taxes, creating thousands of pages of new regulations and putting unelected, unaccountable government bureaucrats between patients and their doctors. millions of americans were sure if -- were assured if they liked their health plan, they can keep it. yet we have heard testimony from businesses large and small that the increased cost of providing health coverage for employees is unsustainable. i've talked to business owners in my district who want to continue to provide coverage for their employee bus the health care law is making it harder. the so-called small business

tax credits phase out so quickly once you get above 10 employees or start to raise wages, it's a disincentive. and it highlights an uncomfortable duty for the law's supporters. this law stands only because the individual mandate is considered a tax even though proponents repetedly insisted it was not. we were told congress had to pass this -- to pass the bill to find out what was in it. what we found was a bait and switch of unprecedented proportions. i strongly believe we should ensure that patients with pre-existing conditions should have affordable nurns options, that annual and lifetime limits don't prevent americans from receiving care they need and that young americans have access to health insurance. i've introduced a bill to do exactly what without a government takeover of health care. we need to restore government

to the proper role in the health care system and ensure that patients and their doctors and their families have the ability to make decisions about their health care. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. andrews: i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: we have been unable to find any occasion in the recent history of the house where a major piece of legislation has been brought to the floor, where the congressional budget office has not yet scored what it's going to cost. i think it's important that members understand this. no one can tell the members of the house how much this repeal will add to the deficit. no one. when the first repeal came up in january of 2011, congressional budget office said it would add around $220 billion plus to the deficit to repeal the law. no one can tell us this afternoon how much this will add to the deficit. i yield myself 10 more second. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized for 10 seconds. mr. andrews: the congressional budget office said by july 23 they'll be able to answer that. but we're in a hurry, we have to pass this law this week because mr. cantor said the day of the supreme court decision, we're going to show how bold and decisive we were. why should congress vote on a bill no one knows how much it's going to cost? i have not heard that answer from the majority side. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. rohrabacher: i rise in support of repeal. when republicans had control of congress and the white house in the previous decade, we failed to address america's major health care problems. which were rising costs and lack of access to health care for millions of hardworking americans. so we republicans didn't do the job. never passing up a chance to

expand the size and power of government over our lives, the democrats have seized upon this opportunity to change the fundamental nature of health care in america. instead of fixing the problem, they chose to change the system. it is significant to remember that even though there were serious issues that needed attention, most americans at that time were satisfied with their health care coverage. nevertheless, obamacare passed this house by seven votes and the senate with no votes to spare and nobody has read the whole bill. what disturbs me most is the largest percentage of americans who were satisfied already with their health care are going to find out to their dismay that the quality of their health care under obamacare will go down and the cost will go up. poth paw ma has promised those who are content with their current coverage that they could keep it. we now know that is not true.

is my time up? i would ask that the rest of my statement be put into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: mr. speaker, if i may engage the chairman. we have one speaker left, so we're going to let him finish the rest of his speaker, i'll close for our side. mr. kline: the gentleman from new jersey is the only speaker remaining? mr. andrews: the last and only. mr. kline: i have two more speakers and myself. mr. an cruise: we yield. mr. clipe: can i ask one more time, the time remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota has four minutes, the gentleman from new jersey, five. mr. kline: i yield one minute to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. duffy. sfloip gentleman is recognized.

mr. duffy: there are a number of reasons why we should vote to repeal obamacare. the tax increases on middle class americans, the debt that is going to be piled on to the next generation of americans. but i want to talk about the impact of this legislation on our senior citizens. the impact of this legislation is going -- that this legislation is going to have on medicare. the fact that this bill takes $500 billion out of medicare and uses that money for obamacare. and the trustees of medicare have indicated that medicare goes bankrupt in 12 years. the c.b.o. says it goes bankrupt in eight years. why we would take a half trillion dollars out of medicare for obamacare doesn't make sense. but one of my biggest concerns is the independent payment advisory board, a board that is going to systematically look at where it can reduce reimbursements to doctors, hospitals, and clinics for medicare reimbursements. if you reduce payments to

doctors, hospitals, and clinics for senior, you'll impact the quality and access for care for our current senior, not a future generation but our current seniors. i think that's wrong. i think both parties should come together and find a bipartisan bill that will work for all americans. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: i yeeled myself 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: the changes in medicare the gentleman from wisconsin spoke about added eight years to life of medicare, added benefits to medicare, they were so bad he voted for them twice. every dollar of those medicare savings in the last two republican budgets for which he voted. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chairman from minnesota is recognize. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. farnltehold: thank you, mr. speaker. our job as representatives is

two-fold. we lead and we listen. if we think back to the last election that swept a republican majority in the house, a lot of the surveys says that was a result of the public's dissatisfaction with this law. we voted to repeal all parts of it multiple times and will continue to do so. we conducted an online poll, not scientific but showing that 79% of the folkbacks in south texas are opposed to this law. i'm looking forward to voting to repeal it again as i'm sure many of my colleagues are. i do want to take a second to address something the gentleman on the other side of the aisle mentioned, we don't have a c.b.o. score of this i would imagine the cost to the federal government, a good chunk of it, is for gon revenue. it makes no sense that undoing something costs the government in the way of spend, it only costs in the way of foregone

revenue like this bill has cost the economy in fore gon jobs. we have numbers showing -- -- in foregone jobs. we have small businesses telling us they are not growing, not expand, because of the uncertainty associated with this law and the kansases associated with complying with it. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. andrews: i yield myself 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: this is the first time, apparently, in the modern history of congress where we voted on a major piece of legislation and not a soul knows how much it's going to cost the federal treasury. i think that's an irregular and irresponsible procedure and i think on that basis alone, people should vote against this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized fed. mr. kline: i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. royce. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

mr. royce: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i join with those that are concerned. i urge my colleagues to repeal this health care law so that we can replace it with a plan that is fiscally responsible, that gives americans the freedom to make health care choices for their family, that contains reforms that actually reduce costs and actually expands coverage. my concerns here are with this 150 new government agencies we are going to see, with what i believe will eventually lead to a government takeover of health care, with the creation of a new, massive entitlement program, with a cost of $1.76 trillion over the next decade, and i know the argument is made, well, year going to pay for this by cutting medicare by half a trillion dollars. how could that possibly be done given the office of the actuary telling us that that is not -- that that's not possible.

that is not possible. and all the taxes in this bill, how that will hurt business, i can tell you right now, businesses are facing an enormous amount of uncertainty. largely because of our massive debt burden. and here we've compounded that problem with 20 taxes on businesses and individuals in this law. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. andrews: i yield myself 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: the $1.7 billion cost is a gross cost. the last time the c.b.o. looked at this, in 2011, the first of 31 attempts at repeal, they said the net savings to the deficit would be over $22 -- would be over $200 billion. repealing the health care bill cost the federal frshry and adds to the deficit. mr. kline: is the gentleman ready to close?

mr. an truse: yes, we are. we have no other speakers. i yield myself the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: i'd like to thank my colleagues on both sides for the civil and constructive tone of this debate, it's been an honor to be part of it. i want to note that the leader of our committee, congressman miller of california, is regrettably not with us because of the death of his mother. we extend our condolences to his family and to our beloved colleague, george miller. i want to speak a few minutes about some people who have been left out of this debate tonight. most importantly, the people who have been left out of this debate are the people looking for a job in this country. or looking to grow business in this country because that's what we should be working on here together tonight. we should be working on legislation to put the american people back to work and create an environment where america's entrepreneurs can grow and drive and succeed. instead of doing that, instead of asking speaker boehner's

infamous question, where are the jobs, we're asking, where is the 31st vote on repeal of the health care bill? and by doing is so, we're forgetting about other peoples who -- whose voice will not be heard in this hall tonight but who need to be heard throughout this country. the person who had a malignancy in her breast in her 20's and when she goes to start a company and get insurance in in her 30's said we won't sell you -- is told, we won't sell you an insurance policy because you had breast cancer, or we charge you three time what is we charge someone else. that should be illegal. under the law the majority is going to repeal today, it is. or the son who is in grad school or working part time,

who has health insurance because he can stay on his parents' insurance. he can under this law, but if it's repealed he won't. or the senior citizen who has to choose between paying their scription drug bill or electric bill. they ought to be in a situation where the medicare program makes those drugs afordable and under this law that the majority wants to repeal today, that senior is getting between $600 and $800 a year of rebate. we ought to be thinking about the family who has suffered the tragedy of a malignancy for a child in their family. and the child hits their millionth dollar of chemotherapy and the insurance company says, we're sorry, we're not insuring you anymore. we're not paying the bill anymore. that ought to be illegal and it is illegal under the affordable care act but if the majority succeeds in its repeal, that will no longer be the case.

you've heard a lot of things today about what this bill isn't. it isn't a $500 billion cut in medicare. it expands medicare benefits, it lengthens the medicare trust. it does so by cutting out corporate welfare for health insurance companies and every single republican speaker here today voted for every one of those cuts in the last two republican budgets. it's not the largest tax increase in american history. 97% of american families don't pay $1 more in taxes under this bill. if your family has a grose income above about $300,000, yes, you do. but for the other 97% of american families, that's not the case. we've heard this is a government takeover of health care. this is a consumer takeover of health care. it's a law that says, when your insurance company says to you, sorry but you had breast cancer, we won't insure you, oyou don't have to take that anymore. when your insurance company says, we're sorry your daughter

has leukemia but we're not paying her bills anymore, even though you paid your premiums for 20 years. you don't have to take that anymore. when a insurance company says here's a bill that's 40% higher pause you're a woman, you don't have to take that anymore. this is not about defending a statute. it's about defending the rights of middle class americans who deserve better than this repeal. we should defeat this repeal and come right back to work tomorrow on a bill that will stop outsourcing and support insourcing american jobs. it's time to get back to work putting america back to work and end the 31st travesty of trying to repeal this bill. vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: mr. speaker, we've heard a lot of the same debate, the same rhetoric we heard before this bill was turned into

law, passed on christmas eve, jammed through congress. now we've got a chance to look at the results of that law. the reality includes higher health care costs, fewer jobs, and even more government meddling into health care decisions. we have had 12,000 pages of regulations and still writing. it's no wonder that america, american employers, american employees, american families are afraid what's next. we have heard on this floor that everybody should be in medicare. no wonder they are afraid. we heard about millions of new jobs added and we are in the worst recovery since world war inch i. we need jobs and we need to get americans back to work and the most important step to put americans back to work is to repeal this awful law. i urge all my colleagues to vote yes on repeal of obamacare so we

can stop debating a failed law and start

policy. we think it is a job killer. the list goes on. they want their members to reaffirm their position of opposition to the president's key domestic agenda item. that is why they are doing it. democrats are saying, republicans are living in the past. they are talking about an item they lost on. the supreme court has ruled against them. chief justice john roberts has ruled against them. in a word, get over it. you're not talking about important things like jobs in the middle class. republicans want to get on record again. incidently this is the second full repeal republicans -- devoted full repeal last year. they have had a 30 other votes

dismantling parts of this bill, funding mechanisms, pulling different threads on the affordable care act. republicans have been voting against the affordable care act over and over for the past two years. >> democrats have indicated so far, they have been keeping count of that 35 times they attempted to appeal. why do they keep emphasizing that? >> they want to make it seem like republicans are beating a dead horse. they keep coming after this issue over and over again. they want to make the point that the president spent a lot of political capital on getting 30 million americans health care that did not have it before. improving parts of medicare -- the mad it care prescription doughnut hole, it closes that

down. democrats have been critical of themselves for not doing a better job of selling the merits of this bill. they got a little better on that over the past few months. they keep track of that number to give the impression republicans are unilaterally focused -- singularly focused on opposing president obama even when he is trying to help the middle class, that are beating their heads against the wall. >> reports indicate a number of democrats will vote in favor of the repeal. who are they and why would they vote for their party -- against their party? >> the one part we should say is that full repeal does have a fair amount of support. the polls are a little all over the place. anywhere between 35 and 45% of

the public say they want full repeal. it depends on how you ask a question. if you ask the same people different questions, they also say yes. is a little confusing. keep your eyes on people like dan boren of oklahoma, mike ross of arkansas, conservative democrats who would like to take this opportunity to yet again untethered themselves from the president and his agenda. always keep in mind in party politics sometimes you can get burdened by your party's program. saying democrats like a bill a lot of people do not like. it can cut the other way as well and give aid and democrats like dan boren or mike ross an opportunity to say, i am not in the president's pocket. i do not agree with everything. they can bolster themselves with

independence and conservatives back home. >>todd zqillich, to live for joining us. >> on washington journal tuesday morning, we spend a few minutes looking at recent polls about the congress. >> what we are going to do now is stocked with stephen shepard from national journal's hot line. good morning. guest: how are you. host: we will talk about a variety of polls out there. i wanted to get your insight and take on the numbers. one is something we see all the time about this time of year and it has to do with whether people would re-elect their member of congress. give us the details on this particular poll. guest: this is another in our series of congressional connection polls.

we were asking people -- we know americans and voters have a low opinion of, -- congress but how do they feel about their congress? right now 35% think their member of congress has done their job well enough to be reelected and 51% think it is time to give someone else a chance. that is historically low. it is around where we have been two years or so, historically speaking that is very low for an incumbent member of congress. >> move it along, that talking about reelecting most members of congress. what is the detail on this particular poll? >> investors have even less of an opinion of most members of congress. only 28% would like to see most members of congress three elected where 61% would not like

to see most members of congress reelected. democrats and republicans are fairly even on that. it is independence who would now like to see most members of congress reelected. >> what is the sampling on these kind of polls? >> we dial randomly landline and cell phone to roughly 1000 adults. this poll was conducted thursday through sunday this past week. between 7005800 are registered to vote. host: congress is going through a busy part of the year and they will get busy again before they break for the election. there is a poll out there that have a lot of details. let's walk through it if we can. it has to do with items congress should be acting on. the first item that you talking about here is tax cuts for large and small businesses.

52% of people polled say it is very important. guest: we wanted to get an idea of what americans reject this is a broader example of americans. what they thought was important to act on by the end of the year. that is the republican proposal to create jobs. we thought a majority thinks it is important for congress to agree on. that was your than the 70% who thought -- that was your than the 70% who thought infrastructure spending, schools, preventing layoffs of teachers was very important for congress to act on. >> here is the health-care issue. 49% say it was an important to

repeal the affordable care act. 14% someone important. 10% not important. 22% not important at all. guest: i think it echoes where we are with health care. the new abc washington news poll shows americans split right down the middle. in this case i think americans are really desperate for congress and their political leaders to agree for this issue and set it aside and focus on the economy and jobs. host: 70% according to this poll said it is very important for congress to act on stimulus spending. did that number surprise you? guest: not terribly because of the way we ask the question. we actually asked about new federal spending on infrastructure and schools and to prevent the layoffs of teachers, firefighters, and first responders.

this speaks to the messaging advantage democrats might have moving forward through the rest of the congressional session into the flame back. these sorts of proposals about infrastructures and schools and firefighters and teachers are reasonably popular. host: does lasted of items very timely as the president goes to iowa. they have a decision to make later this year. you asked about extending the bush era tax cuts for all and then the $250,000 marker. what else should we read into those numbers? guest: i think as polls have shown there is more support for the president's proposal right now. that is extending the bush era tax cuts for only those making under $250,000. we saw the president hammered at home. i think democrats recognize they might have an opening there. i think most people being under

the income threshold, that tends to earn their support when asked about it in polls, particularly when given a choice between extending only between the threshold and all taxpayers including those who are wealthy. >> and a few moments, a hearing on how they operate on security issues. mitt romney campaigns and colorado. >> on the washington journal tomorrow morning we will look at the tax provisions of the affordable care act with donald marron and joseph henchman. we will be joined by peter more to talk about the magazine's recent story on surveillance across the united states including which cities are the

most watched. live on c-span every day at 7:00 eastern. >> we have great threats to our existence today as a nation. i would think in my opinion, greater than any threat we have ever faced whether it has been our civil war, our revolutionary war, whether it is world war ii, or the great depression. that threat comes to us because we have spent the last 30 years in this country spending money we did not have on things we did not absolutely need and the bill is due. >> colorado christian university held a western conservative issues summit featuring speakers from this country and the netherlands.

>> next, a hearing on house, state and federal officials cooperation on border security. the house order and maritime securities subcommittee looked at how the government prioritizes deportation and the secure communities program. >> the committee on homeland's security, our subcommittee will come to order. we are meeting to examine how the department: security can better leverage state and local partnership to programs like secure communities. our witness is john morton, director of immigration and customs enforcement. i would begin my opening statement by welcoming the director. we are appreciative of his participation today. we want to extend our

condolences on the recent shooting of agent harrison which demonstrates the risks are agents are facing each and every day. we pray for his speedy recovery. i want to thank the director and men and women who do a magnificent job. i think all of us here want to do everything in our power to make sure we give ice their support they need to get the job done. tangible border security requires we take a leered approach, not solely focused on the line in the sand that separates the u.s. from mexico. we have the long border we share with canada or the thousands of miles of coastline. despite our best efforts and the money be spent on personnel and infrastructure and technology, drug and human struck -- smugglers will inevitably try to find a way through.

not only do hard-working people, crossed the border for a better life but human smugglers and drug cartels also come into this country with less than george menem -- motivations. estimates vary but the truth is many who enter the country illegally walk in through the front door. in a never leave following the expiration of their visas. we saw that with several 9-11 terrorists and even the recent case of the capital bomber. in tracking down visa overstays and removing dangerous -- criminals as perhaps the most critical enforcement layer. i would remind my colleagues that every single person who crosses the border illegally has committed a crime. we cannot ignore the fact or sweep it under a rug. sen in message that we will not

bother with the efforts to deport you is a dangerous signal to be sending. it threatens the safety of our country. prioritization of limited resources to the most dangerous criminals certainly makes sense but ice cannot hallow -- ignore low level criminals. aside from entering the country illegally. when we think about the best use of our limited resources, we should be cognizant of the fact although ice is a large organization, the scope of the immigration and border security problem is very large for them to tackle alone. we can debate american wisdom of top state immigration laws but ice needs to cultivate and leverage the partnership for state and local governments who are more often than not willing to share that burden. we have seen delays in the role of a secure communities in

alabama because of the disagreement with the tough state law. we have also seen a go-slow approach in illinois in cook county which refuses to honor ice detainers for even the most dangerous criminals. i am sure we have questions about those incidents as well. immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. congress has authorized a enforcement to provide certain circumstances. secured communities are critical components in the last line of defense. congress created secure communities in 2008 to establish the capability to identify all criminal aliens or potential criminal aliens at the time of arrest. in an activated jurisdiction which is now about 90 percent -- 97% of the country, those arrested have their fingerprints in databases to determine if they are in the country legally

or not. the goal of having the program having online nationwide by the end of the year. the program has helped lead to the removal of more than 141,000 convicted criminals who were on lawfully present in this country. i find it amazing that there was so much opposition to this program. 94% of the aliens supported by this program are either convicted criminals or recent border crossings or visa overstays. this begs a simple question. how can you oppose a program with those results unless you are not invested in securing our borders. several groups have advocated and formalized in a report resulting in the adoption of a policy.

my only concern with the secure communities program his be have heard reports about aliens who have been convicted of lower- level convinces -- offenses. without taking enforcement actions against all criminal aliens, programs such as secure communities may result in large numbers of identify criminal aliens being released into society which is an unacceptable outcome. the purpose of today's hearing is to examine the work that ice is doing to leverage local and state resources. congress is eager and willing to facilitate cooperative efforts to secure the border and remove dangerous criminal aliens from our streets and to help the department of homeland security secure our nation's homeland. that is the purpose of the hearing. the chair recognizes the ranking minority it subbed member for his opening statement. >> thank you for holding this

hearing. i will like to thank john morton erector -- the director john morton. i want to express my condolences to the aged who delight -- who died in the line of duty in west texas. also a quick recovery to special agent harrison shot in the line of duty. i believe you're handing over there to visit him and the family. thank you for showing -- one of the countess i represent. this terrible incident is a reminder that the men and women of law enforcement put their lives on the line every day to make our country more secure. we greatly appreciate their service and sacrifice. the purpose of today's hearing is to examine the status of ice.

security -- secure communities program. removing criminal aliens from the u.s. has been a congressional priority since 1986 with the passage of the immigration reform act. the department of homeless security and its predecessor agency have offered a programs targeting criminal aliens since 1988. today under the secure communities program, agencies said the figure prince of arrestees for primal -- for criminal background checks. they're checked against them for dhs databases. i wanted to have my congressional district trouble with us and we told the folks it was a very simple thing. when they put the fingerprint, you used to check the criminal background. once in jail, they send off the

immigration status. i think it is a common-sense approach. often if the four counties in texas -- all 54 counties in texas, reports show that through march 31 of 2012, more than 135,000 immigrants convicted of crimes, including more than 49,000 convicted of things like murder and rape, were removed from the united states. my brother was given as an example of how the stops somebody. it turned out somebody in jail was there for murder in another state. so it does work and it does help the local law enforcement. given the limited resources of ice, prior to our zinc criminals, particularly the

serious ones for removal, keeps our communities safer. the secure communities program has not been without controversy. director morton has taken steps to make enhancements to the program. when in houston, i was there with the surest who told me about the past four to put together to make sure ice was working to improve its communication with state and local jurisdictions. not only there in houston but in other parts. we want to thank you. to make sure we minimize the possibility of racial profiling in the program. i hope to hear from director martin about ice's progress. and how he intends to ensure the program will remove serious criminal aliens from this country.

we always want to make sure that the agencies understand what is your core mission. what is your core mission to make sure you accomplish those objectives? i know how important programs like secure communities are in addressing illegal immigration. i hope we can have a thoughtful and open discussion on secure communities today and the fortune having a productive dialogue with you. i also want to thank the chairwoman and the ranking member. thank you in the yield back the balance of my time. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from mississippi for his statement. >> thank you, madam chairman. welcome, director morton. i support the administration's decision to identify and remove aliens who may pose a threat to

national security. or public safety. i believe it is imperative that programs like secure communities be focused for and foremost -- first and foremost on removing serious criminal offenders. the program must be administered to guard against racial profiling and protect community police relations. the home and security report -- advisory council task force made important recommendations to improve the program. i agreed with the recommendations that ice developed a good working relationships with participating states, cities and communities, implement mechanisms to ensure the program prioritized those oppose a risk to public safety or national security. most importantly, strength and mechanisms to prevent civil

rights and civil liberties violations. in a response to the report, ice has made plans to implement several changes to the secure communities program to address the task force's recommendation. i look forward to hearing from the director today about the status of these efforts and what additional changes we should expect. unfortunately, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to describe ice's partial risk-based support to the removal of undocumented aliens, whether they be brought to ice through secure communities or another program. -- as administrative amnesty. unless and until congress appropriates efficient funds for ice to apprehend or remove every undocumented did -- alien in the country, which of support the agency's efforts to focus its resources on removing those

undocumented aliens who pose the greatest threat to our nation. under current administration, ice has moved more criminal aliens and more millions total then under the bush administration or any other prior administration, a democrat or republican to read with that, madam chair, i also again will like to recommend we do recognize director morton for the job he is doing and i look forward to hearing from him. he will provide the subcommittee with valuable insight in the complex issue of the immigration enforcement. i yield back. >> other members of the committee are reminded that opening statements might be submitted for the record. our full witnessed today is john morton, director of immigration and customs enforcement at eyes, the investigative arm of the

department of comment security. the agency's primary mission is to promote home and security and public safety through the criminal and civil enforcement of federal laws governing board of control, customs, trade and immigration. director john morton has strength of their efforts with emphasis on border crime, intellectual property enforcement and tout exportation. the chair recognizes the director morton. >> thank you some much, madam chairman. thank you for inviting me. it is my honor and pleasure to appear before you today to talk about secure communities. that we start are saying i think secure communities is an excellent program. it represents one of the most important effort by the congress to focus ice's efforts of criminal offenders. secure communities started in 2008 in the appropriations act.

to identify convicted criminal aliens and removal from the united states. congressman instructed ice to identify all criminals and have the removal based on the severity. congress has since reiterated that direction in subsequent appropriations and has focused on attention resources. secure communities was launched in texas in october 2008 and we have come along here way since that time. secure communities is deployed in every state of the union and fully deployed in every state save alabama and illinois. secure communities has been deployed to 3074 of the 3100 to 8100 jurisdictions in the united states. a remarkable achievement. i am confident we will reach

full deployment in the near future, stepping with direct -- starting with jurisdictions in alabama. we can uniform and identify individuals who are here on lawfully and are subsequently arrested for climb -- crime, provided their fingerprints are on file with the fbi and dhs. this stinker print sharing permits -- this fingerprint sharing permits -- the results have been significant in terms of immigration enforcement and public safety. ice has removed 58,297 individuals through secure communities so far this year alone. and over 140,000 criminals since the inception of the program. this year, 75% of the individuals removed had a

criminal conviction and of the remaining quarter, the overwhelming majority were either immigration fugitives or had he legally re-entered the country after having been previously deported one or more times. contrary to what critics allege, the single largest category of individuals who are removed through secure communities are aggravated felons. 17,000 to date this year alone. as the program has expanded, we have taken care to address concerns in certain jurisdictions. in particular, we have made important improvements including considering minor traffic offenses only upon conviction, creating a 24 hour hot line for anyone believes they are a u.s. citizen and had been improperly served in immigration detainer and making clear that our containers are valid for more than -- no more than 48 hours.

and a strong oversight program. with regard to the program, we have 68 active agreement. that number has not changed much over the years. 40 are in a jail setting, 20 involved task forces and eight involved a 03 digit model continues to be the most productive. accounting for little over 9000 of the 900 of the thousands of removals' to date this year. the task force model has been much less reductive -- much less impressive. we are phasing out much agreements as the result. we ended seven in arizona and six in seven resulted in no removal of any kind for the last two years. i think we will add the fiscal year with similar results to last year. these removals will focus heavily on our enforcement

priorities. over half will have criminal convictions and the vast majority of the rest will be recent border violators and those who have ignored our final order. with a criminal removal, we will see further emphasis on self budget level one offenders. one final note, i want to thank the committee for its thoughtful bipartisan approach. i have always found the committee's oversight and vice to have been firm but fair in the same was true when mr. where which jim -- was chairman himself. texting give very much for your testimony. -- >> thank you very much for your testimony. has been a successful program, as he mentioned. that was one of the reasons we wanted to call this hearing to read to do our congressional oversight and the bag with the program, how it is rolled out,

where are some of the hiccups with a counter along the way. everything we're doing in regards to border security is not as successful as secure communities so it is good for us to amplify this message. i do think that a critical component in the makeup of why it has been successful is the force multiplier your finding utilizing state and local law enforcement as well. one thing we talked about on this committee, a critical element of the 9-11 commission's report is where they said we have to go from the need to know to the need to share. amongst all the various agencies. i think that is a critical component of our layered approach to border security and

law enforcement, etc. you have a pretty good buy in across the nation. in my district, our local sheriff is very enthusiastic about this program. it allows them to utilize technology to know that it pulled somebody over for a routine traffic stop and they are in the database as either a visa over state or an illegal in the country that they're able to contact your agents and look for deportation. we have a situation in alabama which sounds like it will resolve itself hopefully in the fall. the big holdout that we see although there are so -- there is some small municipalities,

cook county illinois, has become a sanctuary city. yet they are still, the community is still looking for federal dollars in grants to pay for detainee's they have been in their jails. they do not want to participate. i am looking for some response if you will to clarify the alabama situation but particularly the cook county situation. >> with regard to alabama, i think that will be resolved. i think we will see full deployment in mr. rogers's home state. but that was excellent timing.

i think the supreme court's decision will lead us to a place for the circuit will rule and we will be able to fully deploy in the remaining counties of alabama. with regard to illinois, it is more of a difficult situation there. cook county is the largest county in has one of the largest detention systems in the country and they have adopted an ordinance that essentially prohibits all cooperation with ice, even with regard to serious and violent offenders. i have written a number of public letters to the county. i am opposed to their approach. i think it is the wrong way to approach public safety in cook county. i'm quite count -- confident their approach is ultimately going to lead to additional crimes that would have been prevented had we been able to

enforce the law. at laws presently written to give you some sense of it, the rate for criminal offenders can be as high as 50% or more. when is can come in and remove offenders from a given community said they cannot read offend, we take that rate to zero. if you have 100 criminal offenders and we were able to remove them, that is 50 crimes that will not happen over the next three years as a result of our efforts. that as the power of secure communities. it is a direct way to support public safety in a thoughtful manner. what are we trying to do to resolve the situation? in illinois, we have been working with the county to see if there is some solution. i did not think that approach is going to work.

we will need the help of others. we have been exploring options under federal law with the department of justice and we will see where that goes. with regard to the annual request by cook county to be reimbursed by the cost of retaining individuals, i find that position to be completely inconsistent with them not allowing us access to removing those same individuals. we will be taking a hard look at their request. my own position will be that if we do not have access to those individuals, we will not be able to verify the request for the year. >> i cannot tell you how delighted i am to hear you make that candid assessment of what is happening in cook county.

and exploring your options to a financial assistance from the federal government. we do want to work with cook county but there is reciprocity in all relationships terry denny to work with us as well and they are not immune to federal law. if they are not going to assist us in removing not only criminal aliens but those that might go on to commit a terrorist attack or what have you because they want to have their city become a sanctuary, federal government cannot stand by idly and allow that to happen. it is the wrong message to be sending. i am appreciative away you are saying of exploring your options. is there anything father this subcommittee can assist you with -- is there anything further the subcommittee or the congress can assist you with? we are all ears because we do need to solve that in the correct way and i think cook county will have to recognize the federal government is so curious that -- the very serious about secure communities.

they really will become a magnet for all kinds of situations there. >> i would say that we are going to give it a very good effort to try to resolve the situation directly with cook county and with illinois. and with the department of justice and if we cannot do that, i think we would be happy to come back and explore further options with the committee. from our perspective, federal law is clear on the question of cooperation with federal authorities in immigration. we do think that the ordinance is consistent with the terms of federal law. i think we share the same aims with the authorities in cook county and that is public safety for the people that live there. it does not make sense to unleash to the streets serious

criminal offenders who should not be here in the first place. craig -- question mentioned about the amount of those secures communities program that have been previous the removed that were picked up again. 16% are something that you're picking up had already been previously removed? that begs the question about some of the effectiveness we have a long border security. you have a comment? are you surprised by that number? >> i think it highlights -- some of the criticism of secure communities is that it identifies and removes certain individuals prior to conviction. the answer is it does do that but it does that in circumstances that make a lot of sense from an enforcement perspective. when you look at who are these when you look at who are these people we are identifying