industries back here in america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to yield four minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, the distinguished ranking member of the committee on natural resources, mr. markey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. . is recognized for four minutes. mr. markey: i thank the gentleman from colorado. we are just hours removed from house republicans voting to take away health care for 30 million americans and put the insurance companies back in charge of our health care system. and it's back to business as usual for the g.o.p.-controlled house, yes. it's time to get back to more giveaways to the nation's wealthiest companies. because when house republicans

aren't voting to take away health care from ordinary americans, from poor americans, they're voting for wealthcare for the most profitable industries in the history of the united states of america. in fact, the majority continues to bring largely the same legislation to the floor over and over again, only the name of the industry reaping the windfall changes. two weeks ago the republican majority voted to give away nearly all of our onshore public lands to the oil and gas industry. the majority has passed bills to put rigs off of our beaches in california, off of our beaches in florida, off of our beaches in new jersey, without passing any new safety requirements after the b.p. oil spill just two years ago. they have passed legislation to allow old growth forests to be clear cut and to hand over land

to a multinational mining company without protecting native americans' sacred sites or local water quality. in fact, this republican majority has cast so many votes to give away our public lands to the oil, the gas, the mining and the timber industries, it's almost hard to remember which industry is getting a special giveaway each week. so i have a suggestion. that i think could help everyone out there. keep track each week. we can consult this handy dandy chart. the g.o.p. wheel of giveaways. to figure out which industries are going to get their turn benefiting from handouts from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle on the same day they're going to take away health benefits from the poor, the sick, the elderly and ordinary families in america. let's see who the big winners are on the house floor today as they take away those health care

benefits for our native people. let's give a spin here. let's see what happens as we look at what is happening out there in this great land of ours this week. this week it's the mining industry, ladies and gentlemen. come on down, you are this week's big winner in the g.o.p. giveaway game. the mining industry is the big winner on this giveaway show here today, on the house floor. that's because the bill that the majority is bringing to the floor tomorrow, despite being entitled the national strategic and critical minerals act, has absolutely nothing to do with developing these minerals. in fact, this bill is all about gutting the environmental safeguards and the proper review of large mining projects on public lands for virtually all minerals. including coal. under this legislation sand apparently could be considered as rare.

gravel could be a critical mineral. crushed stone or clay could be a strategic resource. even abundant minerals like gold or silver or copper could potentially qualify as a rare earth product under this bill and have lower environmental standards as a result, in drilling for them that would endanger ordinary families again and their health. but of course they would never provide any health care benefits for them because that's the other bill we're going to be having out here on the house floor and gutting here today. indeed, the only rarities created under this republican bill would be environmental protections or public input. mr. polis: i yield an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. markey: and while this bill provides new giveaways to large, multinational mining companies, it does nothing to change the mining law of 1872, 1872, ladies and gentlemen, which allows

mining companies to pull taxpayer-owned hard rock minerals out of our public lands without giving americans a fair payment. in fact, under the 140-year-old law, mining companies can extract gold, silver, uranium, copper and other hard rock minerals without paying taxpayers one cent in royalties for the minerals on the public lands of the united states of america. this law isn't just outdated, it's outrageous. these are the same people here who are saying, we can't afford to pass the law which protects against pre-existing conditions in health care of ordinary americans. these are the people here saying we can't pass the bill to protect against discrimination against women in our society. may i have 30 additional seconds? mr. polis: i yield 30 seconds. mr. markey: this law isn't just outdated, it is outrageous.

on the game show "the price is right," a $1 bid is strategic. but under the republican giveaway game show, it is an actual price that these huge industries can continue paying for the rights to our public lands. the republicans want to continue giving away grazing rights for little more than $1 per acre on our public lands and allowing oil companies to warehouse public lands for $1.50 an acre. and after more than 250 votes -- votes against the environment, and more than 110 votes to benefit the oil and gas industries, the american people are going to look at the record of this republican majority and say, no deal. i yield back and urge a no vote on the republican proposal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: madam speaker, if the gentleman would stay here a second, i understand from congressional quarterly that it is your birthday today. in which case, the gentleman from massachusetts, i wish to welcome -- i wish you a happy birthday.

i appreciate the visual you had. unfortunately as you tried to spin it we realized it didn't work. so hopefully that is for your birthday party because nothing else works. but i appreciate and i wish you happy birthday. i yield him 30 seconds. mr. markey: i thank the gentleman and if it weren't possible to retard the aging process, that would be something that i think all of us could agree upon. but in the absence of that breakthrough medically i thank the gentleman for his bipartisan wishes of a happy birthday. mr. bishop: as someone with whiter hair than you have, i understand what you're talking about. let me yield three minutes if i could to the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher, who does indeed have some of these industries in his district and understands full well what this bill is actually attempting to accomplish. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. rohrabacher: i rise in support of the rule and rise in support of h.r. 4402. tomorrow we will be considering h.r. 4402, that takes significant steps towards making

much-needed reforms to our nation's mineral exploration and mineral permitting process. h.r. 4402 will force the hands of unyielding bureaucrats who seem intent on obstructing any and all mining despite the detrimental effects that their actions have on the american people. at a time when china threatens to hamstring our military capabilities and cripple american health care, telecommunications and renewable energy markets by controlling or reducing our access to rare earth minerals, we must take responsible action to ensure our access to minerals that are vital to our prosperity and security. in short, the timely licensing of mineral applications is critical to our nation's survival and to preserving the american way of life which is

opportunity for all. while investigating this issue the natural resources committee found that it often takes over 10 years for agencies to license mineral projects. this is simply unacceptable. but the forces that arrogantly stand in the way of these permits should be of no surprise to us. they are the same gang who routinely stand in the way of technologicalal and scientific advancement -- technological and scientist advance -- scientific advancement. that's right. extreme environmentalists that would rather live in a bird nest, some of whom are bureaucrats, federal bureaucrats, and some of them of course belong to activist organizations that seem to sue for sport and constantly stand in the way of any development of natural resources that were put here by god, not to be sitting in the ground but to help

ordinary people live well. and the people who are stopping us from getting those minerals are standing in the way of ordinary people, having a decent life. which is so important to the americans and what we're so proud of here, that every american should have those opportunities. this mindset that puts the well-being of insects above the health, safety and quality of life of human beings has contributed to the 8.2% unemployment rate, and that's a low figure as far as i'm concerned, the real unemployment is far beyond that, but some of the restrictions we've had on our people that would like to use these natural resources for the well-being of our people has contributed to that unemployment. unfortunately, however, we are here today to say that we've had enough and i would say that luckily we have come to our senses, even republicans are -- i ask for an additional minute. mr. bishop: i yield an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rohrabacher: we're coming to

our senses and having courage enough to stand up to this obstructionism bisetting reasonable time limits for litigation by setting reasonable time limits -- by setting limits for litigation. we're making sure these are not indefinitely delayed by frivolous lawsuits or by activists who as i say care more about the habitat of insects and lizards than they do about the well-being of the american people. i come from california and i have seen, and i am a surfer and i am in the water a lot. any time i can get out there. and we have had offshore oil and gas reserves in the hundreds of billions of dollars available to us but denied the people of california, even as we cut the programs that our seniors and our children need, these

radicals will not let us get to those oil and natural gas resources. that is a sin against those older people in california and the young people. we need to clean up that situation. whose side are we on? we're on the side of ordinary americans living a decent life and that's what this bill is all about. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i'm briefly addressing the gentleman from california, i would urge him to support president obama's proven track record of success in accelerating the access to public lands, 17% improvement in speed of access over the bush administration. with that i'll yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. tonko: thank you, madam speaker. and thank you to the gentleman from colorado. i rise in opposition to this rule. there is no reason we could not have an open rule on this legislation. well, unless there are amendments the majority does not want the members to vote on. obviously my colleague, representative holt, has offered one such amendment.

the rules committee did not make his amendment to require companies that earn a profit mining on public lands to disclose their public donations in order. why not? vast amounts of secret money are ruining our democracy. it is the ultimate irony that free speech now has such a high cost. our democracy has truly become the best that secret money can buy. that's not good news for the average voters who do not have tens of thousands of dollars to shower on their preferred candidates. representative holt's amendment would shine some light on this practice and ensure that the entities profiting from public resources are accountable to the electorate. the public, i believe, has a right to know, a right to know who is funding our elections. apparently under this rule they don't even have the right to know where members of this house stand on this issue. with that, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i could inquire of the gentleman from colorado how many additional speakers he has? polypolywe have one remaining speak -- mr. polis: we have one remaining speaker. we might have one other but we have one currently here. mr. bishop: thank you. let me yield myself just one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: again, to try and put things in parameter of what we're doing in this bill, in the 1960's to the 1980's, the united states was actually the leader in the production of most of these minerals. today 97% of the rare earth oil or 97% of the rare earth oxides, 89% of the rare earth alloy, 75% of -- i can't pronounce the words, and 60% of the small cobalt magazine nats come from china. we have lost that to them. and the reason for d.o.d. doing that is actually part -- for doing that is part of bureaucratic delay. unlike a lot of comments that have been made about this bill, it doesn't pick winners or losers. it doesn't even change the process.

all it does is tell the bureaucracy in washington to do it. to do it within 30 days. making sure that we have now sped up the process so that we now can do something that's not helped reality. that's the point of this bill. it has nothing to do with other issues, it's only trying to get the process to be sped up so decisions can made in a timely fashion. with that i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, madam speaker. it's my honor to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman. i say to my good friend on the other side of the aisle there could be common ground about the exporting of mineral exploration. many of us would look to this as a positive strategy for creating jobs. i think it is important to say to my friends that in fact this bill is not even coming to the floor of the house today.

it is not even going to be debated today. so that is one fracture. if we talk about creating jobs. but another fracture is, of course, that we are substituting this legislation that might, if it was bipartisan, be able to move forward on creating jobs, for wasting time and casting votes and debating on the affordable care act, an act that has already proven it has saved lives, provided coverage for small businesses, exempted businesses under 50 persons, allowing them to have insurance, close the doughnut hole on the prescription drug benefit and save billions of dollars. here in this legislation, of course, one of the challenges that i have even though one would call this a bureaucracy, in actuality it's expediting and overlooking the environmental policy act and therefore expediting necessary environmental review. but being called an

infrastructure project for purposes of the executive order entitled improving performance of permitting. it was designed to reduce permitting time. but more importantly, there are environmental impact that should be considered, and so there is no apop significance to creating jobs. there is no opposition to the value of our minerals. but i believe there is opposition to expediting the process and excluding environmental review, and more importantly, limiting this debate that might create jobs, might have more opportunities for amendments, might have more time on the floor by what we are going today is -- for those of us that believe that believe we can come together in a bipartisan way, work on the underlying premise of the affordable care act of saving lives, expanding opportunities and adhering to the supreme court decision that this is the right law of the land that works for all people. i'd ask my colleagues on the underlying rule to oppose it and maybe we can get down to the work of the people of the united states of america.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. bishop: or utah. either state will do. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: madam speaker, i'm happy to yield five minutes to the sponsor of this particular piece of legislation who will do a couple things, i hope, when he comes up there. no environmental laws are waived by this process. it's about timing. and number two, he will clarify when i said 30 days i meant 30 months. it's why i don't talk well without a script in front of me. i yield five minutes to the gentleman from nevada, who has clearly understood this issue and put it together, mr. apple day. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from -- amodei. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nevada is recognized. mr. amodei: i think the rule is very open in the context of the legislation. for those that haven't reviewed the legislation, it's about 11

1/2 pages long. what it talks about what it really does, it's not giveaways. when you talk about strategic and critical minute malls, here's some things from the bill. strategic and critical minerals is things that are necessary. here are some thoughts for ponder. nevada defense and national security. now, do you know what those minerals were 10 years ago? and do you know what they're going to be 10 years from now? it's not meant to be as specific, and my colleague from colorado is absolutely right. these are broad definitions. because you know what, we don't do this every day. we're not going to check this every year and spend time like this on it. so when you talk about some flexibility there, it's not an accident. it's supposed to be broad. here's another thing. strategic and critical. how about the nation's energy infrastructure? kind of important if you care about things like energy. regardless of what side of the fence you're on.

couple other things. strategic and critical. those minerals to -- here it is out of the bill -- support domestic manufacturing -- oh, my goodness. how about support agriculture? don't care about that. how about support housing, telecommunications? there was a mention of health care. are those strategic and critical for the lifestyle or the health and welfare of our country? critical transportation and infrastructure. oh, and a couple things. the national economic security and balance of trade. god forbid that we think about those things when we talk about the minerals industry. are those broad? they absolutely are. but here's the part that nobody mentions. there is nothing in those 11 1/2 pages that say that a federal land manager can't in response to an application say my first finding is that it is not critical and strategic

minimal -- not a critical and strategic mineral. if somebody comes in with sand and gravel, guess what, under the rules that they are doing, i guess they'll give them the ability to have that finding. under this bill they have 60 days to sue them on. but we don't want you to know that because we're going to spin wheels and talk about the giveaway of the day. by the way, while we're giving stuff away, please show me in the bill where it says that you get a certain result. and when we talk about reducing the time, this says both sides can execute agreement that says 30 months. guess what, it -- by the way, you can extend the 30 months. for those familiar with the process and how that works, tell me how an applicant is benefited by a nice crisp 30-month no. so if there is an issue about

water quality or there's an issue about anything that is being talked about -- oh, and can i see the repeal sections on nepa? i don't see the language in here. i don't envy federal land use managers. it's a tough job, and when you look at this -- see the red. that's federally owned property. this is to talk about the time it takes to process a permit request on federally owned property. with all due respect -- and plenty respect to my colleague from colorado who's in this knows 36% of his state is federally owned. no disrespect to the birthday boy who is somewhere south of 1%. when you talk about economic development, regardless of whether you're riding an elephant or donkey, guess what, this complicates it. so when you talk to those federal land use managers locally and you talk about things, just a couple more things here, because we can't have this. i mean, this is awful stuff if we talk about enhanced

government coordination, permitting review, engage other agencies and stakeholders early in the process, coordinate and consult with project proponents , opponents. i'm sorry. by the way, where is the part in the nepa bill that was enacted in 1969 that said, what we're really trying to do here is see how long you can wait with that application pending? so guess what, if you get a no you get it in 30 months. or if there are legitimate issues not taken care of in 30 months, why wouldn't you as an applicant say, we'll execute something to say you get six more months? going off to court is not the optimal thing for anybody. so when you ask yourself, what are we doing here? when i hear phrases like giveaways -- mr. bishop: 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. amodei: we talk about additional giveaways, nobody gets anything out of this other

than a time certain in the review process. if there is more time needed, guess what, it provides for that. what's the idea here? collaboration between federal land managers and stakeholders, all stakeholders. if you're an applicant, you want a yes, but there is no magic in getting the 30-month no. my final point is this -- when you talk about the changes that have been made by the president -- present administration permitting time, i hear in committee that that permitting time was actually less than what this proposes. this cuts nobody off. it's a good place to talk and it gets rid of the part that is never in nepa which is we are going to outweigh you and hope you go away. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i'm prepared to close. bad bill, bad idea,. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: great bill. fair bill.

i urge an aye vote. i yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: all those in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the resolution is adopted. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, further consideration on h.r. 6079 will now resume and the clerk will report the title. the clerk: a bill to repeal the patient protection and affordable care act and health care-related provisions in the

health care and education reconciliation act of 2010. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> madam speaker, it's my honor to yield one minute to the speaker of the house, the gentleman from ohio, mr. boehner. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker of the house is recognized. the speaker: let me thank my colleague for yielding. and say to my colleagues, i rise today in strong support of h.r. 6079, legislation that would repeal the president's health care law. when this bill passed, we were promised that the health care law would help create jobs. one congressional leader even suggested it would create 400,000 new jobs. guess what, didn't happen. this bill's making our economy worse, driving up the cost of health care and making it harder for small businesses to hire new workers. you know, the american people, we're told, they'd come to like this bill once it was passed. well, that didn't happen

either. most americans not only oppose this law, but they fully support repealing it. the american people were told taxes on the middle class wouldn't go up if this bill passed. well, guess what, there are 21 tax increases in this health care law and at least a dozen of them hit the middle class. let me just give you a glimpse of the damage that all these tax hikes will do to our economy. a tax on health insurance providers will end up costing up to 249,000 jobs, according to the national federation of independent business. a tax on health care manufacturers will put as many as 47,000 jobs in jeopardy, according to one nonpartisan estimate. then you got the employer mandate, which will affect every job creator with 50 or more employees. let's take white castle,

company in my home state. they say that the employer mandate would eat up most of their net income starting in 2014. and that's on account of just one provision in the law. and then there's the individual mandate that the supreme court has now ruled is a massive tax. and the congressional budget office says roughly 20 million americans will either have to pay this tax or be forced to buy insurance that they wouldn't have purchased otherwise. if you add it all up, the tax increases in this health care law will take at least $675 billion out of our pockets over the next 10 years. all this at a time when employers are just trying to get by. listen, i think there's a better way and that's why we're here today. americans want a step-by-step approach that protects the access to care that they need

from the doctor they choose at a lower cost. they certainly didn't ask for the government takeover of their health care system that's put us in this mess that we're in today. at the gipping of this congress, the house voted to repeal this health care -- beginning of this congress, the house voted to repeal this health care law. unfortunately, our colleagues in the senate refused to follow suit. and since then we've made some bipartisan progress on repealing parts of this harmful health care law including the 1099 paperwork mandate. but this law continues to make our economy worse and there's even more resolve to see that it is fully repealed. now, i think this is an opportunity to save our economy, and for those who still support repealing this harmful health care law, we're giving our colleagues in the senate another chance to heed the will of the american people .

and for those that did not support repeal the last time, it's a chance for our colleagues to reconsider. for all of us, it's an opportunity to do the right thing for our country, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut seek recognition? >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise to yield one minute to the -- our democratic leader, the gentlelady from san francisco, without whom there would not be an affordable care act and we greatly appreciate her efforts. the speaker pro tempore: minority leader is recognized for her one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, more than two years ago we put forth a vision to america's middle class to ensure health care would be a right, not a privilege for a few, but a right for all americans. today and yesterday, the past

two days, they've done more than 30 times in this congress, republicans are set to take away that right. over the past two days we have heard the talking points of the health insurance industry that are trying to drown out the facts and the facts are these. what is the takeaway from this debate? the takeaway is that the protections the republicans are voting to take away from america's families. today up to 17 million children have the right to health care coverage even if they have diabetes, as ma, leukemia -- asthma, leukemia or any other pre-existing medical condition. put an x next to that. republicans want to take away protections for children with pre-existing conditions. today all young adults have the right to get insurance on their

parents' platforms -- on their parents' policy. republicans want to take away the -- that right from america's students and young people, that coverage for young adults, put an x next to that. today 5.3 million seniors have saved $3.7 billion on their prescription drugs. republicans want to take away prescription drug savings for seniors. today small business owners have used tax credits to help them afford insurance already for two million additional people and the bill is not full iny -- fully in effect. republicans want to take away the tax credits for businesses to help their entrepreneurship and job creation. today nearly 13 million americans are set to benefit from $1.1 billion in repay thes

from health insurance companies. republicans want -- rebates from health insurance companies. republicans want to take away those cost savings from america's families. today american women have free coverage, they have a right to free coverage for life-saving preventive care like mammograms, starting in august women will gain free access to a full package of preventive services. no longer will being a woman be a pre-existing medical condition. but republicans want to take away those protections for women and all americans. many of the cost -- many across the country have heard republican colleagues claim that very few people are affected by the pre-existing condition provisions. the fact is the republicans are wrong. the fact is you be the judge. 138 million americans have a pre-existing medical condition.

i asked our friends on the other side of the aisle, do you know anybody with breast cancer? with prostate cancer? with asthma, with diabetes? the list goes on and on. people with disabilities? with this bill that you have on the floor today, you will take away their right to affordable coverage. and that's why the american cancer society opposes this repeal effort. on behalf of -- and their, quote, 13 million cancer patients and survivors who need access to adequate and affordable coverage. that's why they oppose this repeal effort. the american cancer society. do you know the millions of people living well the disability? with this bill you take away people with disabilities' rights to quality, affordable care. that's why easter seals wrote that, quote, millions of parents of children with disabilities are breathing a huge sigh of

relief knowing their children will not be dropped from their insurance. do you know any parents of children with diabetes or asthma or childhood leukemia? do you know any? with this bill you will take away the right of these children to affordable care throughout their lives. that's why the american diabetes association, on behalf of the nearly 26 million americans, with diabetes, urged us to oppose this bill. to, quote, protect people with diabetes who for too long have been discriminated against because of their disease. my republican colleagues are taking away patient protections for millions of americans. protections you as a member of congress already enjoy. i think that that's undermining a fundamental fairness. you repeal this bill which means you keep your federal health insurance benefits while you

take these current patient protections away from the american people. what a valentine to the health insurance industry. when i think of people protected by this law i always remember the powerful testimonial at a hearing last year from stacy ritter, the twin daughters are both cancer survivors. they're 4 years old, they're twins. they're 4 years old, both were diagnosed with leukemia. hanna and madeline faced stem cell transplants, chemotherapy and total body eradiation. yet over time stacy said, we ended up bankrupt even with full insurance coverage. today hanna and madeline are happy, healthy 13-year-olds. and according to stacy, quote, my children now have protections from insurance discrimination based on their pre-existing cancer condition. they will never have to feel rescissions of their insurance policy if they get sick.

they can look forward to lower health insurance cost and preventive care. we passed the affordable care act for people like stacy, hanna and madeline, we passed it for some of the people we heard from today at an earlier meeting and, madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to submit their statements for the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. pelosi: thank you. i urge my colleagues to think about them and to think about stacy and her children when they cast a vote to take away their rights and protections. here's what the affordable care act is about. strengthening the middle class, honoring the entrepreneurial spirit of our country, putting medical decisions in the hands of patients and their doctors. this is about innovation, prevention, wellness. it's about the good health of america as well as good health care for america. it's about restoring and reigniting the american dream and living up to the vows of our

founders, of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. a healthier life. for liberty and freedom to pursue happiness and defined by your own talent, your own skills, your own aspirations. you want to start a business, if you want to be self-employed, if you want to change jobs, are you not job-locked -- you are not job-locked because your decision about your job, your career, and your life has to be predicated by your health insurance company. that's what this freedom is in this one week from the fourth of july that we celebrate with this bill. with this affordable act, now to make the american dream a reality for all, republicans must stop this effort to take away patient protections from americans. let's review them again. g.o.p. taking away from americans. this is the takeaway from this debate. take away the republicans say

protections for children with pre-existing conditions. take away prescription drug savings for seniors. take away coverage for young adults. take away preventive health services for women. take away the no lifetime limits, so important to so many families in our country. we must work together on america's top priorities. job creation and economic growth. this bill creates four million jobs. it reduces the deficit. it enables our society to have the vitality of everyone rising to their aspirations. without being job-locked as i said. the american people want us to create jobs. that's what we should be using this time on the floor for. not on this useless bill to nowhere. bill to nowhere. that does serious damage to the health and economic well-being of america's families. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill and let us move

forward together to strengthen the economy and to strengthen the great middle class which is the backbone of our democracy. with that, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the majority leader. the gentleman from virginia. mr. cantor: thank you, madam speaker. i now yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois, chief deputy whip, mr. roscoe. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. mr. ross: i thank the gentleman for yielding -- scowscow i thank -- mr. mr. roskam: i thank the gentleman for yielding. this will bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family. the gentlelady from california a moment ago spoke about things to take away. let's take this away. let's take away the reality of this new health care law that has done this. it is now clear that 20 million americans are likely to lose

their employer-based health coverage. the law will cost $2.6 trillion if fully implemented and add over $700 billion to the deficit . it adds $500 billion in new taxes that are triggered toward the middle class and the average increase in family premiums doesn't go down $2,500, it goes up $1,200. here's what we should take away, we should take away this albatross in the economy, we should repeal it, we should replace it and here's the good news. the voters get the last word in november. stay tuned. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut. mr. larson: thank you, madam speaker. at this time i yield three minutes to our distinguished whip from maryland, a person who understands what it means to make it in america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank my friend. repeal it and replace it. for the 31st time we have a

repeal with no replacement. no alternative. no protection offered by my republican colleagues. not one. you could of course introduce legislation that said, we're going to repeal and replace with this. you haven't done it. you haven't done it. so the american people have no idea. we're on the floor today with the distinguished gentleman from michigan who himself and his father before him said a half a century before, americans need the security of having the guarantee of access to affordable, quality health care. that's what we did. madam speaker, after the landmark supreme court ruling upholding the affordable care act, americans are ready to move on. yet here we are again, voting for the 31st time on a bill to repeal the health care law with

no replacement, no alternative, no protections. that's not what we ought to be focused on. americans want to work -- to create jobs and to grow our economy. according to a kaiser family foundation poll last week, 56% of americans believe that opponents of the law should drop attempts to block its implementation. it's time for republicans to end their relentless obsession with taking away health care benefits from millions of americans. if this bill were to pass, insurance companies could once again discriminate against 17 million children with pre-existing conditions. if it were to pass, 30 million americans would lose their health insurance coverage. it would take away $651 each from 5.3 million seniors in the medicare doughnut hole, making their prescription drugs more expensive. 360,000 small businesses would no longer be able to claim a tax

credit to help cover their employees. and 6.6 million young adults under 26 would be forced off their parents' plans, left to face a tough job market with the added pressure of being uninsured. the republican repeal bill would take away these benefits and end these cost-saving measures. and after 31 votes, as i said, no alternative. nothing, no bill to read, no plan to follow, no security to offer. repealing health care without an alternative would add over $1 trillion to deficits over the next two decades. i don't say that. the congressional budget office says that. it is occurring in a place of a vote, if we could be taking on legislation to create jobs. nothing about jobs this week. nothing last week. nothing scheduled for next week. or the week after. it's a waste of time.

mr. larson: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. hoyer why is it a waste -- mr. hoyer: why is it a waste of time? the republican majority knows it will not pass the united states senate and it would not be signed by the president of the united states. so it's a message bill. it's politics as usual. spurring the base while spurning the average working american. i outlined several proposals yesterday that are bipartisan in nature. it ought to come to this floor immediately. it's called make it in america. let's vote on those bills. let's vote on those bills to create opportunities, not this one to take them away. madam speaker, i ask my colleagues to oppose this bill and let us work together constructively for a better economic future for our people, more economic security, more health care security and a better america, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

majority leader, the gentleman from virginia. mr. cantor: madam speaker, thank you. i yield three minutes now to the gentleman from texas, the republican conference chairman, mr. hensarling. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, my democratic colleagues come to the floor and question, why are we here to vote to repeal the president's health care program? let me offer a few reasons. number one, the american people don't want it. the longer people have to know this bill, the more interested they are in seeing it repealed. reason number two, we hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle, well, the supreme court said it was constitutional. well, the $5 trillion of additional debt that they and president obama have foisted on the american people, it's constitutional, but, madam speaker, it is not wise. seniors know that the

president's health care program cut half a trillion dollars out of medicare. a half a trillion dollars. the independent payment advisory board, one of 159 boards, commissions, programs to get between americans and their doctors, the independent payment advisory board, there to help ration health care for our seniors, another reason. now, i just heard the distinguished leader of the democratic party get up and say we should be talking about jobs , the economy. well, madam speaker, these are the very same people who told us the stimulus bill would help jobs, would help the economy. the stimulus bill was not a jobs bill. repeal of obamacare is a jobs bill. talk to any small business person across america.

there's 40, 45 workers, we are not going to 50. we are not going to do that. we are not going to hire those extra people. talk to a manufacture like i have in my district in jacksonville, texas. half of their work comes from the medical device company. he said, you know what, obamacare, the medical device tax, will force him to lay off workers. the employer mandate costs jobs. the congressional budget office , as the gentleman from maryland just cited, they themselves said it will cost 800,000 jobs. private economists, one million to two million. chamber of commerce just did a survey of small businesses, 74% said this makes it more difficult to hire. so after the president just turned in his 41 straight month -- 41st straight month of

8%-plus of unemployment, the worst economic performance since the great depression, maybe it's time for a true jobs bill, madam speaker, and a true jobs bill is to repeal obamacare. the american people do not want it. we can't afford it. job creators are losing jobs by -- let's repeal it and repeal it today. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut. mr. larson: thank you, madam speaker. at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from south carolina, a leader in the democratic caucus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. clyburn: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in opposition to repeal the affordable care act. this is the 31st time the majority has orchestrated a vote to repeal in whole or in part this very important and long-awaited law to increase

accessibility and decrease the cost of quality health care. fortunately the other body rejected this ill-fated effort the first 30 times, and this 31st time will be no different. why then are we having this debate? do my republican colleagues really believe that the majority of the other body is now ready to take some children with dithes the right to coverage under their parent's -- diabetes the right to coverage under their parent's health care policy? do my republican colleagues believe that the majority of the other body is now ready to take from children who are seeking employment the right to remain on their parent's health care policies up to their 26th birthday? do my republican colleagues really believe that the majority of the other body is now ready to take from a woman with breast cancer or a man with prostate cancer the right

to keep their coverage once they get sick? the american people are smarter than that. they know the deal. they do not wish to be taken down this primrose path for the 31st time. the american people want stability in their lives, security for their families and safety in their communities. americans want us to stop jerking them around. they cannot have stability in their lives when we are shipping american jobs overseas. they cannot have security in their homes when they are fearful of getting sick. they cannot have safety in their communities when their teachers, policemen and firefighters are being laid off while we engage in symbolic episodes. i ask my colleagues to reject this charade and let's vote to restore the american dream. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the majority leader, the gentleman

from virginia. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i now yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. scott: thank you, madam speaker. why are we here? we keep hearing that from our friends on the right, why are we here again today? and the reality of it is simple. the numbers keep changing and it simply does not add up. a long time ago in 2010, a long time ago, the estimates were $900 billion will be the cost of obamacare. two years later, now the estimate is at nearly $2 trillion. well, how do we fund this? everybody wants to know this. a program that is already financially strapped, medicare, obamacare takes $500 billion, $500 billion out of medicare. what does that mean?

well, to me as a grandson of a grandfather who's 92 years old, 92 years old, what happens when we take $500 billion out of medicare? well, the answer's clear. there's a 15-member board called ipab, the independent payment advisory board, that will then recommend cuts to medicare payments for doctors, hospitals and other providers. in other words, my grandfather's health may be in the hands of a 15-member autonomous board who will decide what happens to his health. that's wrong. if you look in obamacare, what you'll find is $317 billion of new taxes of a 3.8% tax on dividends, capital gains and other income, you'll find $110 billion on the middle class, for folks who like their health

care and want to keep it, oh, no, no, no. they can't keep it. and then you find another $101 billion -- mr. cantor: madam speaker, i yield an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. scott: another $101 billion, annual tax on health insurance providers, not paid for by those folks who make more than $00,000, but paid for by the -- $200,000, but paid for by the everyday working folks like my granddaddy and mama. who struggle to make ends meet. if you need a medical device, another $29 billion of new taxes. there is just not enough time, mr. leader, to talk about all the taxes that can't be articulated in just two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut. mr. larson: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself before i defer to the vice chair of the caucus just 30 seconds to respond

here, as mr. andrews has very patiently and eloquently pointed out, that the $500 billion that was just discussed by the previous speaker is something that the republicans have voted on twice. perhaps they didn't get a chance to read that bill as they sometimes claim about health care on this side. with that i defer to the vice chair of the democratic caucus, javier becerra. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for how long? mr. larson: two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. becerra: i thank the gentleman for yielding the time. it took 19 presidents and 100 years dating back to president teddy roosevelt to open the door to all americans to quality health care that is centered on the patient-doctor relationship. 105 million americans who will fall ill no longer will have a lifetime limit on the coverage they receive from their health insurance company.

up to 17 million children today who have pre-existing conditions cannot be denied coverage by an insurance company. 6 1/2 million young adults under the age of 26 today can stay on the health care policy of their parents. 5 1/2 million seniors today receive an average of $600 to help cover the cost of their prescription drugs when they fall into the so-called doughnut hole. 360,000 small businesses in america, men and women who own their own business, got assistance through a tax credit to help provide health insurance coverage to their employees. 13 million americans will benefit in insurance premium rebates from insurance companies who must now show that they're spending the premium money they get from those americans for health care, not on paying c.e.o. salaries or not on profits. $1.1 billion in rebates for 13 million americans. and perhaps the most important thing that most americans don't recognize, the $1,000 that

those of us who do have health insurance throughout america that we pay in premiums to our insurance companies to cover care that -- not for us and our families -- but for those who don't have insurance, the free riders, that will start to drop. those are the things that are at stake. yet, while it took 100 years to get to this point, it has taken our republican colleagues a year and a half to vote over 30 times to try to repeal these patient rights and protections. patient's rights and protections president obama promised, this house delivered and the supreme court confirmed. my colleagues say to repeal and replace this patient's rights and protections is the right way to go, but the only thing we have seen on this floor is all repeal and no replace. it's time for this congress to get to work on the most important thing before us, getting americans back to work. let us vote this down and get to work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i now yield a minute and a half

to the gentlewoman from washington, the republican conference vice chair, mrs. mcmorris rodgers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from washington is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i thank the leader for yielding. i rise in support of this legislation today, to repeal obamacare, because the control of health care and health care decisions belong in the hands of patients and families and their doctors. obamacare was a big government takeover of one of the most personal aspects in our lives. and i come to this debate as a mom, as a wife. i have two children, one that was born with special needs, and i understand firsthand talking to so many within the disabilities community and i hear their fear, their fear of not being able to find the doctors, not being able to find the therapists within the medicaid programs, within tricare because of the government -- these are government programs that are too often making false promises. i think about my parents who are signing up for medicare and

over $500 billion in cuts to the medicare program. and in eastern washington, it is very difficult to find a doctor right now who will take a new medicare patient. because of obamacare, my family, like millions all across this country, are facing longer lines, fewer doctors and lower quality of care. we can and we must do better. if we don't repeal this law, the results are going to be disastrous. c.b.o., the congressional budget office, has already estimated 20 million americans will lose their employer-provided health insurance. health care premiums continue to soar. innovation and life-saving technology and devices are being threatened. the first step to putting individuals and families back in charge of their health care is to repeal obamacare and i urge support. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from connecticut. mr. larson: it gives me great honor to introduce the dean of the connecticut delegation and

a voice for compassion, who believes passionately about this health care law that's in effect for the american people, rosa delauro from connecticut, i yield a minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from connecticut is recognized for one minute. ms. delauro: what will happen if the house majority skeds in repealing the -- succeeds in repealing the affordable care act? 16 million children will once again be denied coverage. 6.6 young adults under 26 will no longer be covered by their parent's insurance plan. insurers will be allowed to discriminate against women again, charge them more, deny them coverage because they had a see syrian section, leaving maternity and peed at rick care out of -- pediatric care out of their policy. 360,000 small businesses will lose tax credits. americans will have to pay out of pocket for preventive services like cancer screenings and wellness exams. preventive services that could have saved the life of syria, a

50-year-old east haven woman who died from breast cancer because she simply could not afford a mammogram. and 30,000 americans will lose their health insurance and be left to their fate, while every single republican in this house will maintain their health care coverage. . repealing is wrong. it was wrong the first time. it is wrong the 31st time. welcome to "grouped hog day" in the house of representatives. -- "groundhog day" in the house of representatives. this majority needs to start working to make our economy healthy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. cantor: i now yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from georgia, the republican policy committee chairman, dr. price. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. price: i thank the leader. as a physician one of the tenets of medicine is first do no harm. sadly the president's law does real harm. the supreme court has said the

law is constitutional. that doesn't make it good policy. it harms all of the principles that americans hold dear as it relates to health care. it increases cost, decreases accessibility, will hers quality, and limits choices. the wrong direction for our country. it harms patients, especially seniors, by removing $500 billion from medicare and having 15 unaccountable bureaucrats deny payment for health care services. decisions that should be made by pasheents and doctors, not government. it harms doctors. over 80% of whom in a recent poll said they would have to consider getting out of medicine because of this law. and it harms our economy, killing over 800,000 jobs and making it more difficult for small businesses, the job creation engine of our nation, to create jobs. and it's that much more frustrating because it doesn't have to be this way. there are positive solutions that don't require putting washington in charge. there's a better way. the first step to that better way is to repeal this law so that we may work in a rational

and deliberative and yes, bipartisan process, for patient centered health care, where patient, families, and doctors make medical decisions, not washington. the president's law doesn't just harm the health of patients and seniors, it harms the health of our economy and nation. the first step to replace is to repeal. we can start today. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from connecticut. mr. larsen: may i inquire how much time -- mr. lrson: may i inquire how much time? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia has five minutes remaining. mr. larson: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. million miller: for the 3 st time this congress, the house republicans are trying to put insurance companies back in charge of america's health care. the house republicans are preoccupied with taking away the patient protections while they are keeping their own protections. i recreptly got a letter from a woman who lives in the fran san

francisco bay area. she told me how vital this law s her husband is self-employed. he has diabetes, and thanks to the affordable care act the husband will fenally have access to qult affordable coverage. -- quality affordable cofrpbl. thanks to this law insurance companies won't be allowed to deny her coverage. and annie's son, a 25-year-old, thanks to this law is able to get on his mother's health care plan and save the family money. today the republicans want to take that away. they want to takeway these protections and benefits these american families haven't had in the past. today the republicans in the congress want to put the insurance companies back in the business. the same insurance companies that took away your policy, where your child was born with a disability. the same insurance company that didn't allow to you have cancer surgery because had you a lifetime limit or pre-existing condition. the same insurance company that decided that your children would be kicked off their policies when you're 18. i don't think we should go

there, america, but that's what repeal brings you. that's what the republican plan is to give it all back to the i shurens company after 00 years of struggling to take it away -- insurance company after 100 years of struggling to take it away. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i now yield three minutes to the majority whip, gentleman from california, mr. mccarthy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. mccarthy: thank you, madam speaker. thank you to our respected leader for yielding. from the moment obamacare was introduced, house republicans and the american people have expressed concerns about the quality, the cost, and the effect it would have on our jobs. we are here today because the supreme court ruling made one thing clear. it's up to congress to do the repeal. the devastating tax increase and

what it would affect upon our economy. obamacare stands today because the supreme court said it's constitutional as a tax. the chief justice stated in his opinion, members of this court are vested with the authority to interpret the law. we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. those decisions are entrusted to our nation's elected leaders who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. it is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of the political choices. but it is our job. unfortunately we have learned over the past two years this law has proven to be bad policy. you know what's more important? it's filled with broken promises. we all remember president obama's first promise, if you like the health care you have today, you can keep it.

that's not true. 80% of those in small employer plan risk even keeping what they have today. the president also promised the law would bring down premiums by $2,500. but that's not true, either. because it's already been increased $1,200. c.b.o. says it will even rise higher. president obama did promise as i sat right here and listened to him, he would not add one dime to the deficit. you know what? that's not true, either. it's going to add billions of dollars. president obama promised he would not raise taxes on those making less than $250,000. turns out obamacare includes 21 new taxes, 12 of them on the middle class. promises made, promises broken. there was another president from illinois who was quoted as saying, as our case is new, so

we must think anew and act anew. we must disenthrall ourselves and then we shall save our country. now is the time to listen to the american people. now is the time to put the patient first for they are empowered. now is the time to repeal and begin to bring this country back together with a quality of health care, where the patient has the choice, not the government. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from connecticut. mr. larson: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself 15 seconds as we ask the dean of the delegation to step forward and just say that aside from the platitudes that we have heard today as been expressed by many on our side and so many elements of debate we have heard, we continue to see no plan from the other side but a persistence endeavor to repeal a plan that would cost more than $100 billion for the

taxpayers. recognize the dean of the house of representatives, the gentleman from michigan, john dingell. mr. dingell: i thank my good friend. the speaker pro tempore: will the gentleman suspend just for a moment, please. the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mr. dingell: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dingell: this is a gavel i used when i pre the speaker pro tempore: sided over the passage of medicare. and when i presided over the passage of legislation called a.c.a. this legislation takes care of the american people. i'm willing to say to my republican colleagues they can use it for a good cause. what is important here, you are going to lose the debate because the american people know what you're trying to take away from them. this is the 31st time we voted on this and it isn't a law. we have 44 days left to finish the business of this congress and interestingly enough we are

not going to deal with important questions like jobs, employment, the economy. the worst economy that the president inherited since the days of herbert hoover. the american people wonder why this congress has not been doing it. the reason is the republicans have been wasting the public's time. in those 44 days they are not going to be able to do the nation's business. unemployment -- unemployed will continue to be unemployed. i'll loan you the gavel if you promise to use it for something good. it's a fine piece of good and its tasks in terms of dealing with the public's concerns are not yet done. having said these things, i say shame. you are wasting the time of the american people. you are wasting the time of the congress. where is the replacement? it is not to be seen. where are the steps that you

should be taking about jobs? they are not to be seen. you have the gavel. use it. use the leadership the people have given you to lead the congress of the united states. the democrats will work with you. but you won't work with us and you won't work for the american people. the time of dealing with the business of this nation is short. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. dingell: nowhere are we seeing anything, my republican colleagues -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. million dingell: i say have a -- mr. dingell: i say have a more enlightened outlook. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i'm prepared to close and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut. the gentleman from connecticut has two minutes remain maining. -- remaining. mr. larson: thank you, madam

speaker. madam speaker, i want to compliment both sides for the quality of debate that has occurred on this floor over the last couple of days. today we are here for the 31st time to act on repealing the affordable health care act. i give my colleagues credit for their persistence, but i'm deeply troubled by the obstinance and the obstruction that they have demonstrated in an almost indifference to the needs of american families. most importantly the simple dignity that comes from a job that more than 14 million of our americans are being denied. and we can't in this great civil body bring forward the president's bill that will create jobs. one of the people in my district

said, do you not understand that you have plunged us into the dark abyss of uncertainty? the only thing that creates and corrects that situation is the simple dignity that comes from a job. yet today we spend our time on the floor talking about something where we should be working together. where members on our side of the aisle who would have preferred medicare for everyone, the majority of our caucus would have been there, and yet embrace the compromise that extoled the virtues of the romney plan in massachusetts, but there is no room for compromise on the other side of the aisle. so we can only surmise this, that you would rather see the

president fail than the american people succeed. person after person on both sides of the aisle have gotten up and talked about the need for us to come together. you embrace most everything that's in this plan but would rather see the president fail than the nation succeed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i introduced this legislation on behalf of my colleagues so that we may all be on record following the supreme court's decision in order to show that the house rejects obamacare. and that we are committed to taking this flawed law off the books. this is a law, madam speaker, that the american people did not want when it was passed and it

remains the law that the american people do not want now. first and foremost obamacare violates president obama's central promise to the american people, that if they like their current health coverage, they can keep it. . the jastvort of people like the coverage they have and they can keep it. now, thanks to this law, patients across the nation are losing access to the health care they like. millions stand to lose health care coverage from their employers because obamacare is driving up costs and effectively forcing employers to drop health care coverage. beyond that, obamacare takes away from patients the ability to make their own decisions and individual choices. instead of letting patients and families work with their doctors to decide the best

care, obamacare puts washington in the driver seat to make health care choices for them and their families. driving up costs and making health care draw matcally more -- dramatically more is not what americans asked for. madam speaker, we know in this tough economy we need to be doing able we can to help our small business men and women. they are struggling because of uncertainty and facing the pros pects of one of the largest tax hikes in history. obamacare increases that burden by adding new costs and more red tape. the new harsh reality is that creating new jobs and bringing on new employees may just be too expensive and too burdensome if this law is left to stand. the president said throughout

the health care debate, as did former speaker pelosi and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that this health care law was not a tax. well, we now know that the supreme court has spoken. it is a tax. madam speaker, it's time to stop all the broken promises and give back to the kind -- get back to the kind of health care people in this country want. it cannot be overlooked that obamacare also has disast russ implications for the moral fabric -- disastrous implications for the moral fabric. this paves the way to funding of abortion. violating individuals' religious, ethic and moral beliefs. it is when president obama required employers to cover items and services with which

they and perhaps their employees fundamentally disagree. washington-base care is not the answer. there is a better way to go to improving the health care system in this country. the american people want patient-centered care that allows them to make the very personal decisions about health care with their families and their doctors. they want to keep the care they like. they want to see costs come down. and they want health care to be more accessible. that is the kind of health care we on the republican side of the aisle support and frankly the type of care that the vast majority of the american people support. madam speaker, we have said since day one that we must fully repeal this law. today we can start over and we can tell the american people we are on your side, that we care about your health care, we want

quality care and affordable costs. we listened and we've acted. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 274, the previous question is ordered on the bill. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to repeal the patient protection and affordable care act and health care related provisions and the health care and education reconciliation act of 2010. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, further consideration of h.r. 6079 is postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the house will stand in recess subject to the call of the chair.

guest: endorsed president obama, this is just a case of a blue dog democrat trying to do its best for the election. certainly north carolina is a state what we see this happening more and more, receiving pressure from the right who believe their seats are threatened. host: what's the story behind another name mentioned yesterday, representative mike

mcintyre of north carolina. guest: i believe their districts -- they are neighboring districts. mike mcintyre voted for the first repeal. we expected him to probably do the same this time. it's interesting, don't think we are going to see any democrats who supported repeal the first time renege on that support this time, even though it's likely at this point that most of the affordable care act will stand barring a major republican sweep of elections in november. mike said he would be supporting repeal again and we can expect to see that in the vote today. host: we have two definitely said -- indicated how they are going to vote. what about other democrats? are there some on the fence as far as how they'll weigh in? guest: we have been trying to break down that number and it's difficult because a lot of these blue dogs in tough races are not interested in talking about this, especially with national media. they are interested in coming to the floor, casting their vote

today, and keeping it quiet. we were looking at jim mathison of utah, jim donnelly of indiana who is running for the senate seat there, and neither of them are being very forthcoming about what they'll do. host: so the democratic leadership is currently identify guess whipping the democrats to fall in hine against it? guest: that's right. they are whipping against it. and republicans are not whipping against it. they believe that they are going to have more democratic defections than the last time around and that they will lose no members of their party. guest: do we know what time this vote is expected? guest: i don't at this point. schedule hasn't been released for today. you can expect quite a bit of heated debate beforehand. in the rule yesterday they allotted for about five hours of debate. which is quite a bit given that they have done this before.

and so i believe it will probably come in the early afternoon. host: that's lisa who writes for the hill. thanks for your time this morning. >> final vote on the health care repeal likely coming up within the hour. we are keeping an eye on the #aca vote on twitter. >> we are also watching our poll on facebook, facebook.com/c-span. and the question this afternoon -- we had it up for a day or so,

do you support or oppose the repeal of the 2010 health care law? the vote so far, supporting repeal, 578. opposing the repeal is 529. you can log on and cast your vote. again the house coming back at about 3:00 p.m. eastern. until then to the heritage foundation from this morning. they hosted a discussion reviewing some of the supreme court's major cases, including the health care decision. arizona's immigration law, and more. among the participants were u.s. solicitor general donnell barillly who argued the health care case and arizona cases on behalf of the government. until the house comes back in we'll show you a portion of that discussion. we'll pick it up with remarks about the court's ruling on health care. michael carmen, who argued before the court on behalf of the national federation of independent business. >> unlike the solicitor general i will be offering my personal

opinion. one of the luxuries of being in private practice. i did argue the case for the nfib against the individual mandate. so it's sort of like the old saying, the operation was a success but the patient died. which is sort of how -- we got some really good commerce clause rulings and the chief justice in the dissent accurately characterizes, rewrote the sthaut and gave congress the power and -- statute and gave congress the power all the power just removed from the commerce clause power. i thought i would walkthrough it clearly. why this was truly a judicial rewriting of the statute and not an interpretation as the chief justice correctly noted. the test between what is a penalty and tax has been straightforward in the law. if you have a legal violation, that you can't offend, then whatever monetary consequences,

that's a penalty. if it says don't do something and do you it, they put a penalty on top of it. that's a penalty. can't be a tax. if they ban cigarettes, across the united states and say if you sell them the penalty is $5 a pack fine, that's a fine. that's a penalty. if they say go ahead and sell cigarettes, we are not making that illegal, but when you do we'll attach a $5 a pack surtax, same economic consequences one is a tax and one is a penalty. applying this test, chief justice roberts looked at a provision that should you shall buy insurance and you will pay a penalty for failure to adhere to this legal requirement. and he interpreted that to mean you may pay a tax if you don't do what the government suggests. he clearly rewrote the statute. he didn't look at the structure of the statute which had different exemptions for the penalty on the one hand and the mandate on the other which conclusively showed that they weren't the same.

just a high level of generallyity. the government didn't want any money from the individual mandate. they wanted people to buy insurance because that was the key the government repeatedly emphasized. the last thing they wanted to do is have them pay the penalty and forgo the insurance. the chief justice made much of the fact this was being enforced through the i.r.s. so it looked and smelled like a tax, that sort of overlooks the obvious point which is who else but the i.r.s. can monitor inactivity by its citizenry? you can't establish a whole new bureaucracy of the f.t.c. to say, your health insurance, have you bought your broccoli. the only way you are going to be able to do it is to have the americans who have to send in these things tell you whether or not they bought the mandate. so, again, some conservatives are taking solace in the fact that really all the chief justice did was rewrite the statute, not the constitution, and made some good commerce

clause law. but i really don't think that survives scrutiny, either, because everything he said of that the commerce clause was designed to prevent the federal government from doing, i.e. imposing a mandate to buy a particular product, he then turned around and said they can do that under the taxes pent. they don't have to call it a tax. it's not a question of labels. it's a question of, again, whether or not there is a legal violation. tomorrow they can pass a law saying you will buy broccoli or pay a penalty. the chief justice will rewrite that to say if you buy broccoli you will pay -- don't buy broccoli you'll pay a tax and therefore everything that they preview under the commerce clause they are now empowered to do under the taxing power. i don't think it was a victory either in terms of limited government in the long term, certainly not in terms of the provisions of this act. i don't really think contrary to what some people said there is any real limits on his newfound principle that penalties can

become taxes. some people are suggesting the penalties can't be too big, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. the bigger they are, the more the government would want the revenue. and also he said the outer most limit was 10% of your annual income. they've got pretty very serious ways of imposing these penalties by attaching a civil penalty to little any activity or inactivity, you could repass the violence against women act, which the court had struck down in morrison and say, if you commit violence against women you'll pay a civil penalty and that will now come within the taxing power. my final point on this people who think this engenders respect for the court i think have a very different attitude about how the judiciary is supposed to behave. i don't think it engenders respect for the court when you rewrite a statute in a way that enacts law that congress, a, would never have enacted, and b, could never have acted because they couldn't have passed this law if they honestly told the

american people it was a tax. i think that concern about independence of the judiciary is compounded by the stories that have come out about the timing of it. it makes it look like, hopefully, wrongly, that president obama's wholly improper and unprecedented attack on the court while they were deciding the case, somehow did influence the adjudication of a third branch. which will give legitimacy to this kind of lobbying in the future and i think it was a very unfortunate precedent and i'm sad to see that some reports about the chief justice's activities it could happen again. after that happy note i'll switch to two cases i did like the result in. one of which already mentioned the u.s. v. alvarez case. it was very significant in that the court said full statements are protected by the first amendment. you had six justices opining on that quite clearly. they said the prior comments about full statements always were made in the context of full

statements that induce material harm on a fellow citizen. you lied on this reputation, defraud them out of money, but they weren't going to extend that into the political arena, which i think is very significant because there are a number of cases, state laws that require and create clauses of action if you tell an untruth during a political campaign. you can imagine the court -- work that would create for federal courts if that was accepted on the federal level. finally, i'm running quickly out of time, there was a significant decision i think in this knox vs. f.b.i. youth case which involved a controversial issue when unions take mandatory fees from you can they send it for politically related expenditures. the law prior to knox had always been as long as you gave the employee the nonunion employee ability to opt out of the fees that were going for political advocacy, that was comported with the constitution. i think there was a strong indication in justice athleteo's

-- alitos decision that from now on they are not to allow the employee to opt out payments that go for political advocacy but make him affirmatively opt in to endorse it. if that's where they go with the law that could have a significant effect on public union employee's ability to engage in politics and would have an even more significant effect if it was extended to private sector unions under this case. i'll leave it at that. thank you. [applause] >> now, please join me m welcoming professor richard epstein. >> thank you so much for having me here. again i'm obviously going to have to say something about the nfib case. i say i wrote briefs on three part of it. speaking about severibility and going after the medicaid extension. i think the one point i would like to make now is this, that when i drafted the brief along

with mario on the question of the exemption, everybody laughed. they said, look, this argument was so bad that it did not carry a single vote anywhere in the united states courts, republican or democrat. the argument was so pathetic that the state of texas and the state of florida refused to raise it before the supreme court. and they were holding against their will by -- the supreme court said we would like to hear this kind of thing. with that kind of pedigree it seems to me you have a good chance of winning. the last fact is more important than the others. the interesting feature about it is i regard this as a relatively easy case as a matter of first principle but i thought it was an extremely difficult case as a matter of constitutional law. one of the worst cases ever written in the history of the united states supreme court, i will not mince words, were south dakota vs. dold because justice rehnquist, and say, yes, we do

have a principle which means that certain conditions attached to government grants are illegal but will i draft that condition so it is never satisfied in the history of mankind. he did it in that particular case by introducing a distinction between inducements on the one hand and coercion on the other. it's a correct distinction only he grew it in the wrong place. in his view if i stick my gun to his head and say give me money, but if i say give me 5% of what you have in your wallet, that's inducement. you can't draw a line bean tween what you ask for when you use coerced behavior. if i said i'd like to get my wallet and pay you x dollars for it that's an inducement. so justice rehnquist managed to repeal the entire law of property high buy not being able to understand the difference between coercion and inducement. in this particular case the chief justice never wanted to

attack the fundamental distinction, what he did do was make an argument which was completely inconsistent with what he said about wait which you look at the tax. he said we are going to treat this thing as a tax because it's different from making a direct order to somebody. you are only saying if you don't do this you have to pay it. he's dead wrong on that. the entire law of preemption says it's tantamount to an order. but when he got to the other half of this thing, he said, the serious conditions that you can and serious conditions that you can't attach the government grants and if we require you to sacrifice something, the action is not voluntary, even though you may well choose to do it like many of the blue states were willing to do. he takes a completely different view on the relationship and understands that the sacrifice of what was briefly anonymity would in fact have coercion under these cases. what's inic under these circumstance what is you are sacrificing is a government grant under terms of the contract where you are allowed -- the government was allowed to

insist they alter and amend the arrangement. thinking more like an ain't trust law, consent to illicit tie will not be a defense that will be the case here. it came up with essentially the write conclusion. that you can condition the way in which the money you give them them may be used but not tell them they have to give up billions of dollars in money unless they want to play ball with the government. once you allow them to do that, everybody will realize that the larger the dependency you have on government on other programs are the more hopeless you are in trying to deal with anything else. so i think he made the right decision on that particular case. but was desperately wrong i think on the taxing power. now, talking about some of the other things, i saw it in the arizona case, what struck me was when i read the scalia dissent my eyes bulged out of my head. it's clear looking at this as

somebody who's done a lot of work, said occupation is the feel, conflict, frustration, everything is working in favor of the government and he ought to win this one. i thought he was going to win. but what scalia does the states need to go back to the original period the federal government ever had or exerted any power over immigration. if you look at the naturalization clause. it does not mean immigration in ordinary english. it only means the same thing by the time you get to the 1870's. he thought there was actually a dual sovereignty issue. unless you could show a reason why the state sovereignty should be displaced, he was willing to let it ride. it was an eye popping decision. i thinkually in the end he has to be wrong and that the preemption analysis would work. on that basic score, i'm not even sure that the court was right in saying it's ok to say that the state can refer people in a cooperative arrangement.

that would be fine, i think if it turned out that the federal government was willing to have the cooperation. but the moment they announce we don't want you dealing in this thing, we regard this as an increase in the federal enforcement levels we do not accept, it seems to me you could make a case this thing ought to go in the opposite direction. another case worth a couple points, here you ask the question, how is it that any sane people could wish to bring the kind of action that the government brought against the e.p.a. i'm not here talking about the law and whether it's a final judgment under, but you have a guy who is four blocks away from water, sitting on a piece of bandland which is rocky and stony and he tries to build a foundation of those of his neighbors and now we understand this guy is discharging pollutants into the waters of the united states. this is intellectual double talk of the absolute worst nature. the fundamental mistake in every piece of environmental legislation known to man is that instead of waiting for imminent

harm when you shut people down or suing them for damages, you have all these remedies which apply to cases which in one case in a million will actually generate the kind of harm in question. so had this surreal discussion as to whether or not the kind of rock he is using on this particular part will change the ecology so a single drop of something will end up in some river 800 feetway or whatever it is. it is a classic case in which the federal government aided by the united states supreme court has given grotesque interpretations by the 1/2 gibble -- navigatible waters of the united states. can you not use these kinds of clubs to beat people up. speaking about clubs, the last case i'll talk about, again the federal government in my view had no business whatsoever in bringing the -- it's a waste of public funds to try and prosecute religious organization which had its own definitions of who is or who is not a member of

its organization. and the great danger of using the handicap and anti-drimmings laws -- anti-discrimination laws, is put the courts and government in the position of telling a religion you are or not. the obama administration, i'm going to stop on this note, effort to try to narrow the protection of the free exercise of religion to say it covers worship and nothing else is one of the great constitutional miscarriages of current time which is going to play out in the medicaid context. in connection with, as we well know, the question as to whether or not catholic institutions can participate in federal programs. i think the government is completely dead, inexcusably wrong on that question. thank you. a we have now heard an analysis of several of the major cases during this term of court. we'll give each speaker a minute or two to respond to anything they may have heard from the

others. and we'll start with the solicitor general. >> sure. so picking up where professor epstein left off. factually so that we are clear about this, although those were tough cases for the united states, they were tough cases based on enforcement policies that each of the relevant agencies that adopt add long time ago and had been enforcing in each of the particular instances, actually, in the prior administration as well as this one. and part of the job when you are the solicitor general and solicitor general's office is to defend the enforcement decisions of the federal agencies, especially when they are long-standing and well established, and sometimes are you going to lose those cases. those are tough cases, we understood them to be tough cases. in terms of thinking about the

policies that were at issue, i do think it's important to understand they were long-standing policies. >> mike. a i'll pick up on that last thought i guess. look, it is true that the solicitor general's often in the unenviable position of defending some of the agency's more egregious policies, that's why they make their way to the supreme court. i think it's quite clear that the eeoc was seeking to expand their ability to regulate churches' hiring decisions or employment decisions. there had been this exception that was pretty well formed throughout all the lower courts that your ability to eliminate employment discrimination didn't apply to somebody who was a minister. immediately there was a lot of confusion about who qualified and who didn't. that was the eeoc's enforcement policy. i will say i think the thing that got most court watchers' attention on the brief the government filed not so much the bottom line position is the

motive analysis where they argued that the free exercise clause didn't give churches or religious institutions any special autonomy against government interference even making their most basic decisions that go to the heart of who is going to run the ministry. and that position was rejected, i know, by the supreme court. i think the solicitor general's position was you could get some protections from the general right to associate that can you find in your first amendment, but the court said, look, there is a specific provision here that deals with religious institutions and the notion that they've got only the same rights as everybody else under the religion clause doesn't make a whole lot of sense is. i fully agree with that. i will point out there is a bit of confusion in the wake of this decision because under this smith v. oregon decision of the court, in terms of eliminating religious practice, it is sort of a nondiscrimination rule. so long as it's presumed to a particular rule, you can stop people from exercising their religion which taken liberally

would mean if you have prohibition then catholics can't have communeon which is in my mind unthinkable. i think there is a lot of tension between the notion you saw in the court's latest pronouncement that churches do have greater rights than other citizens in terms of resisting nondiscrimination commands of the government and some of the things you saw in the oregon division vs. smith line of cases which seemed to have wiped away some of those rights. all of which will be implicated in the catholic church's and affiliated institutions challenge to the contraceptive mandate under the anordable care act. -- affordable care act. >> in terms of long-term enforcement i have uneasiness about it. i think that might apply to the dolma case -- doma case, it's quite clear there is at least some selectivity. looking at the particular statutes i think that it is not a long-standing policy to give this narrow interpretation what the free exercise clause is as

under earlier administration. even if it were, it's such an utterly indefensible position intellectually, i'm going to take one step further, i always thought freedom of association should dominate against anti-discrimination cases except in cases of monopoly. i go so far to say all this stuff is completely unconstitutional as limitation on freedom of association, and the reason that one wants to do this is you do not want the government or anybody to have to say as mike says we now have to do is that religions get themselves greater preferences from everybody else. now you have an establishment of religion. you put an anti-discrimination law in place. either you are establishing the religion on the one hand or prohibiting it its re-exercise. no matter what you do you are always wrong. if you have freedom of association position applied to all people, all times, all ways you don't worry about those kinds of embarrassments. these guys have to go home and you improve labor markets by

running to contracts at will as opposed to the government imposed mandated terms which never makes things work. the thing to understand about this is that the bad structure of the anti-discrimination laws which are unquestionably accepted in respectable circles. i'm not a very respectable person -- >> i am getting a sense of that. >> these things -- every time the congress does something which gets the common law distinctions wrong they get into trouble. the nondiscrimination principle is an antidote with respect to monopoly. it should never be applied in competitive markets. when you do, you end up with stuff like this. they get it backwards in a case like zach. there was actually a huge change in position when the republicans ran this operation, navigable waters of the united states meant navigable waters of the united states. you had to send a boat. then it becomes anything which

has an effect on navigable waters they did to that statute. bly using a substantial effects -- by using a substantial effects test instead of are you an interstate commerce. then what you do is you get an administrative policy with which essentially when it comes to injunctive relief cares only about one kind of error, the one in a billion chance that a drop of water will enter into navigable water scarring it forever. they don't care about the 999,000 times which this is overfrokes. it seems to me that the common law rules on this, which is in junction, should apply with equal force to the government and its environmental stuff. collectization of remedies is designed to handle coordination problems. it should never allow the government to have more force than a group of private individuals who own the river or whatever properties to be polluted to get things that they themselves could not get. the fundamental mistake of the

modern environmental movement is the moment you bring this into government -- it becomes unlimited powers. you see what's going on in these cases. only at the tag ends because the only suits that brought are those about case that is are so egregious people are willing to do it but actually fought back the first principle. most of the permits issued in the united states are professional busywork, which essentially destroys the industrial fabric of the united states while doing precious little to protect the environment and indeed i'm going to go one step further, given the fact that they -- the structure of all the clean air act so crazy and so forth, if every time you have tough standards, you perpetuate the use of old and dirtier ones so the net effect of the e.p.a. and various crusades for pollution-free environment has increased the total level of pollution in the united states probably by tenfold because they simply don't understand how the system is put together. >> ok. you have heard from the scholars.

now it's time to hear from the audience of the please wait until the microphone has reached you so you can then give your name and your organization if you wish, and then ask your question. and let's start in the back there. get a microphone. please give your name and ask your question. see if the microphone is on. >> i was wondering if afterwards [inaudible]

>> the question for the audience that is watching us, that is the question about your performance where there's second thoughts about your performance and how might it have been upgraded if you see it that way, and also what were your thoughts? were you vindicated by the decision? >> let me answer that question this way. we have a first amendment. we talked about it a little bit here today. one of its primary purposes is to protect criticism of government officials in the exercise of their professional responsibilities and official responsibilities. i'm a government official, i've got a weighty responsibility. i ought to be subject to criticism like any other government official with a weighty responsibility. i guess i was. and i'm ok with that. and that's just the nature of the process. that's the way it should be.

>> i just want to make two points, one is i went through this with bush v. gore. you have these high profile cases. automatically in america there's 100 million experts on hanging chads and the commerce clause. and i'm always like, gook look f. you gave me three days to sit down and type out an answer that was just shouted at me like nine justices. it's real easy to sit at home and parcel every portion. i think there was such a liberal echo chamber in terms of how strong the government's argument was that this was really killing the messenger because i think the case was much more difficult to grapple with at the commerce

level. so when there wasn't perfectly satisfactory answers and when some of the justices were skeptical instead of rethinking whether or not your position was sound, they attacked the messenger. i don't want to get into any other nonsense about it. i do want to make those points. the guys in the arena are always going to get a disproportionate artillery shells shot at them and 99% of the time it's completely unfair. that was my perception of what happened. >> as somebody is who has not been involved in the case, what i would like to do is attack the critics. i thought he made some good arguments, bad arguments. but what was so noticeable -- i was on the charlie rhodes show the night before the argument. and jeff was in his swaggering best style. we were winning and all the rest of this stuff. i look at him like the man was slightly crazed, which he was under this thing. mike says -- my view is the

government should have lost coal because the correctness of the supreme court to do is overrule ricket and sylvan which has no constitutional foundations whatsoever. i don't expect them to make that argument. that's a different game. but then the next day comes around and all of a sudden he's kind of embarrassed about it. he takes it out on don. what is interesting about it is every one of these guys who says that mr. verilli made the wrong argument then proceeded to make arguments which was so incompetent themselves it was almost irriesible. you read these characters explaining why insurance markets must necessarily fail. paul crewing, he's suppose the to know economic -- krug, he's supposed to know the economics. there's a long history in these health insurance debates, about the difference between social insurance and insurance. and social insurance is not a

subset of insurance. it's a completely different beast. with social insurance, what you wish to do is first to pool risk and transfer risk from those people who were less risky, more affluent, whatever it is to other individuals. no voluntary market will ever create a private, uncompensated transfer. what markets can do is they can pool but if are you a high-risk person and the market is working well, your insurance has to reflect your risk. they didn't want to do that in this particular case. they wanted to socialize the risk. at that point you have to use some degree of coercion. to say in effect that insurance markets will always fail is to make the following proposition, that markets only create wealth they don't redistribute it. when they start talking about the failures of the private markets, what they forgot to do is talk about the difference between these two forms of insurance. the reason why the case is so difficult for the government under these circumstances is it made two arguments simultaneously. on the one hand it said all these young folks were reriders

on the system. if that's the cure then you have to require them to buy market rate insurance against future losses. but the bill also required them to subsidize everybody at the other end of the table by limiting the difference between the top and bottom. it's not an easy thing to say that you've got two inconsistent purposes. i think the correct answer for the government is, well, i have to do both. we are doing both. but it's a hard argument to make. and if you put too much weight on the one and you ignore the other, it's going to make the thing sound very, veryfall. the scheme, i might add, as designed by the administration, is the epitome of insurance incompetence. the way to handle this problem is to do two things. one to require waiting periods before pre-existing conditions kick in, and secondly to require when you buy insurance to keep it for at least a year and to allow the insurance company to put the penalty on it so you don't have to get yourself involved with the mandate question. the difficulty in the administration, this is not his

fault, when they put this thing together there is not a single market oriented economist that anybody in the administration was prepared to talk to. a piece of economic gibberish that kind of puts itself into the name of an insurance situation. it's just a terrible piece of substantive legislation. the mandate is the least of its problems. god knows when you tilely watch the way this thing works it will be the rocky road horror show. >> please raise your hand high so i can see them. over here in the back row. >> this is a question -- >> your name and question. >> luke, i'm a competitive enterprise institute professor. good to see you again. i was wondering if you would discuss the possibility of a discriminatory effect in the enforcement of the provision of the arizona law. which basically will people who look like they might be illegal be more likely being pulled over for going two miles over the speed limit, that sofert thing. >> my general view about most

public officials is that they have been so schooled in the dangers of discrimination with respect to enforcement that they bend over backwards to try to avoid these kinds of situations. we had that little incident with henry louis gates and it turned out that the guy who was called discriminatory was the master of teaching people how to avoid these problems. the correct answer is to say you presume legitimacy of government action under these things given this background until you can find some serious deviation from the standard rule. and in a state like arizona where there are so many people of hispanic origins who are citizens, this would be a very reckless policy to undertake. i do think in effect that there is always a risk, but there is also the other risk which people will bend over backwards to avoid these conflicts. and that what you don't do is try to upset a scheme on the grounds of potential abuse until given the fact that it is in operation. you actually see some evidence of that abuse. i don't think in this particular

case anybody who was arguing on either side of the case has said that the arizona police or public officials had misbehaved in any fashion. >> anyone else want to comment? if not, we'll take the next question. ursuant to cl >>au we'll take you back live t the house. final passage coming up on repealing the 2010 health care law. the clerk: h.r. 6079, a bill to repeal the patient protection and affordable care act and health care-related provisions in the health care and education reconciliation act of 2010. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: madam speaker, a message from the president of the united states. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i am directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives a message in writing.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. andrews: madam speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? mr. andrews: yes, i am. the clerk: mr. andrews of new jersey moves to recommit the bill, h.r. 6079, to the committees on energy and commerce, ways and means and education and the work force with instructions to report the same to the house forthwith with the following amendment. add at the end the following new section. section 5, members of the house of representatives who vote to repeal health care for their constituents must forfeit their own taxpayer-subsidized health benefits. a, forfeiture of fehbp benefits by any member voting in favor of health care repeal, maybe of the how the of representatives who votes in favor of passage of this act, including the repeal of the patient benefit protections provisions described in subsection b shall be common

knowledgeable to participate at such a number in the federally funded federal employees health benefits program, fehbp. under chapter 89 of title 5, united states code. effective at the beginning of the first month after the date of the enactment of this act. b, patient benefit protection provisions, for purposes of subsection a, the patient benefit protection provisions described in the subsection include any provision of or amendment made by the patient protection and affordable care act or the health care and education and reconciliation act of 2010 that provides for or protects patient benefits, including the following. one, prohibition of pre-existing condition ex clueses. section 2704 of the public health service act relating to the prohibition of pre-existing condition exclusions or other discrimination based on health

status. two, fair health insurance people are qualms. section 2701 of the public health service act relating to fair health insurance premiums and prohibiting gender-based discriminatory premium rates. three, coverage of adult children under age 26. section 2714 of the public health service act relating to the extension of dependent coverage for adult children until age 26. four, closure of medicare part d doughnut hole. section 1816-d-14-a of the social security act relating to the medicare part d coverage gap discount program. five, no lifetime or annual limits. section 2711 of the public health service act relating to no lifetime or annual limits. six, preventative health services coverage without cost sharing. a, section 2713 of the public

health service act relating to the coverage of preventative health services without cost sharing. b, the amendments made by sections 4103 and 4104 of the patient protection and affordable care act as amended by section 10406 of such act, relating to an annual medicare wellness visit and medicare payment for preventative services without cost sharing including colorectal cancer screening. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. mr. andrews: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: madam speaker, if my final amendment passes we will proceed immediately to final passage of this bill. it doesn't delay or defer consideration in any way. my amendment raises the following question. should members of congress live

by the same laws we write for everyone else? i say we should. the last two days have been filled with sincere focus -- sincere, focused and passionate debate about the future of the affordable care act. members whom i respect and admire have taken strong positions saying we should repeal the law. members whom i respect and admire have taken strong positions saying we should uphold and enforce the law as i believe strongly. but whether you believe in the repeal of the law or the upholding of the law, you ought to believe in the basic principle that when we write a law around here, we should live by that law the same way everybody else does. so my final amendment says that supporters of repeal should live by the same consequences that everyone else will live by if they succeed in repealing the

law. you see, because if my amendment does not pass and the bill passes, members of congress will be protected if an insurance company tries to discriminate against us because we've had breast cancer or asthma or diabetes, but our constituents will not enjoy that protection. if my amendment does not pass but the underlying repeal bill does pass, members of congress cannot be forced to pay higher premiums because they're female or because they're a certain age. but our constituents will not enjoy that protection. if the final bill passes without my amendment passing we will be able to take our sons and daughters who are less than 26 years of age and keep them on our own policies but the people who pay our salaries, our

constituents, will not have that protection. if the underlying repeal bill passes without the amendment that i'm offering, then we would, as members of congress, get help paying high prescription drug bills under medicare but our constituents under medicare would not enjoy that same benefit. if my amendment does not pass and the underlying repeal bill passes, if, god forbid, a member of our families is struck with a horrible disease or ma little nancy and -- malignancy and runs up hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills, the insurance company will not be able to say, sorry, we're going to stop paying your health care bills because you've run up against a lifetime or policy limit. but members of congress will have that protection. and so you see, i think this

comes down to a basic point. if we write a law we should live by it. this is something that i think most members, liberal, conservative, republican, democrat say when we go home to our district. we frankly have all encountered constituents who wonder why we don't pay into social security. the truth is we all do. we all do. just the way our constituents do. we run into constituents who say that they don't understand why our sons and daughters can pay off their student loans or get them forgiven for free when their kids can't. that's false. our sons and daughters live under exactly the same student loan rules everybody else does. we have people ask us, you know, how come we don't follow the tax laws everybody else does? we most certainly do. republican, democrat, liberal and conservative live by exactly the same laws that we write.

i don't think we should make an exception to that policy here. and if you don't vote for this final underlying amendment, and i think we all should, if you don't vote for this final underlying amendment, understand what happens. members of congress are protected against pre-existing conditions but our constituents aren't. members of congress are permitted to have our sons and daughters on our policies until they're 26 but our constituents can't. members of congress can't be charged more for premiums because of their age or gender but our constituents can. members of congress under medicare would get certain rights and privileges in their prescription drugs but our seniors and constituents can't. i think whether we agree or disagree with the affordable care act, we all would agree with this principle. when congress writes a law we should all live by it.

so i would respectfully say to my friends, both republican and democrat, if you believe in the law you're going to vote for today, then vote to live under it as well. vote yes on this motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. does the gentleman from virginia rise in opposition? mr. cantor: yes, madam speaker, i do. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. cantor: thank you, madam speaker. first of all, i would say to the gentleman, my friend from new jersey, you know, we on this side of the aisle care about the health care of the american people. that's why we're here. that's why i brought this bill forward, along with over half of my colleagues. it is not about members of congress. it is not about trying to say that you get health care, we don't get health care. this is a dire situation for a lot and millions of americans. there are so many things going on right now, critical, critical needs out there across this country, where people are out of

work, people don't have their health care, people are hurting. and for us to sit here and discuss a motion to recommit like this, i just don't think, madam speaker, it is what the american people would like us to be doing. it is about the americans' health care. most americans do have health care. most americans like their health -- like the health care they have, it's just too expensive. and more and more americans are going to go without health care because of this law. and as the president said when he first started this discussion in 2009, americans that have health care and like it should be able to keep it. well, that is clearly a promise that's been broken. and we are trying to end the era of broken promises. we are trying to end the era of

washington-controlled health care. we believe, as do most of the american people, that it's patient-centered care -- that patient-centered care is our goal. that's where we need to start. we start along the path toward that goal by repealing obamacare. obamacare has added cost upon cost and in fact the average american, the average american in terms of the premiums that they pay, the average family has already paid a premium increase of approximately $1,200 since the passage of obamacare. and in fact, the c.b.o. estimates that insurance premiums for individuals buying private health coverage on their own will increase by -- by $2,100 in 2016 compared to what the premiums would have been if the law had not passed. this is why, when study after

study is showing that people are not able to keep their health care they like, it's because of the cost. people aren't able to afford it, the employers are unable to afford it. we are after patient-centered care, we are after affordable care and we are trying to improve and enlarge the access to care. obamacare fails on all those fronts. so, madam speaker, it is not -- it is not a game to be played that evident in this motion to recommit. it is about the american people and that health care and with that, madam speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to recommit and urge them instead to vote for the passage of repeal of obamacare and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

the motion is not agreed to. mr. andrews: madam speaker, on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman asks for the yeas and nays. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of the bill if ordered and adoption of house resolution 726. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 180. the nays are 248. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

the ayes have it. >> i ask for a roll call vote. the speaker pro tempore: a roll call is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the roll call vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 244. the nays are 185. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote -- for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> madam speaker, i ask for unanimous -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. the house will be in order.

the house will be in order. the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house out of order for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker, members of the house, i've been asked to report the results of a competition that took place on monday at the columbia country club. the competition is called the congressional challenge cup. mr. crenshaw: it's an event where a team of golfers from the democratic side of the house play a team of golfers from the republican side of the house, and i wanted to report to the house that this year's winner of the congressional cup is the republican team. so very briefly want to thank my teammates very quickly. trey gowdy, mr. mulvaney, jeff

duncan, duncan hunter, steve southerland. i want to thank them for their dedication, hard work and most of all just showing up. and the big winner, madam speaker, is an organization called the first tee because over the last 11 years we've had this competition, over $1.5 million has been raised for the first tee. that's an organization that works with young people to try to touch their lives through educational programs that deal with character and honesty, integrity. they work at all 50 states. they've touched the lives of 4 1/2 million people over the years and they do a lot of work with the inner city and las fortunate. it was a great day. i want to thank everybody for their involvement and certainly yield time to my democratic counterpart, captain of the democratic team, mr. yarmuth. mr. yarmuth: i want to congratulate the republicans on their victory.

all great things must come to an end and our five-year winning streak was broken through largely superior play. although i do question some of the strategy that was invoked by the republican team. notably mr. mulvaney and gowdy wearing matching plaid bermuda shorts which distracted all of my team members. seriously, this is a great event. and it was conducted very much in accordance with the nine core values that the first tee espouses, particularly sportsmanship, honesty, integrity and courtesy. and i think all of us enjoyed the day, left the event much closer than when we started, was a great spirit of collegiality as well as competition, and i once again want to thank all of my fellow team members on the democratic side. congratulate the republicans. and once again congratulate and thank the first tee for all they do to promote high qualities among our youth in

america. with that i yield back. mr. crenshaw: madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the vote on adoption of house resolution 726 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: union calendar number 146, house resolution 726, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 4402, to require the secretary of the interior and the secretary of agriculture to more efficiently develop domestic sources of the minerals and mineral materials of strategic and critical importance to united states economic and national security and manufacturing competitiveness. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on adoption of the resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning

institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 245 and the nays are 180. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 6079. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia standing? mr. westmoreland: i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourn today it adjourn to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair lays before the house an enrolled bill. the clerk: senate 2061, an act to provide for an exchange of land between the department of homeland security and the south carolina state port authority. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek are recognition? -- seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to be considered as the first sponsor of h.r. 2181, a bill to authorize national mall liberty fund d.c., to establish a memorial on federal land in the district of columbia, to honor free persons and slaves who fought for independence, liberal and justice for all during the american revolution. mr. butterfield: the bill was authored and introduced by our friend and colleague, the late donald payne, sr., from the

state of new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. butterfield: thank you. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? without objection. >> mr. speaker, my home state of minnesota has a remarkable legacy when it comes to charter school education. mr. paulsen: along with leading the way in public education reform nationwide, we have been able to serve our students and community for the past 20 years in a better way. in celebrating two decades now of achievement, let's ensure that this tradition continues. by looking for further ways to improve these schools, making them effective for all american students. i was pleased, mr. speaker, that my amendment to the empowering parents through quality charter school act not only enhances

teaching methods in schools but also breaks down the barriers to make charter schools more ac sell sessble for the -- more accessible for the thousands of students that are now wait listed across the country. young people should have an opportunity for a good education, regardless of their zip code. mr. speaker, i want to recognize the recent anniversary for charter schools and encourage their support in the years to come and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. kaptur: mr. speaker, the draft farm bill, unfortunately, contains serious damage to the supplemental nutrition program, the foundational food lifeline for millions of americans. what a shame. when unemployment levels remain too high, with the cost of living rising with, with food prices going up that affect so many of our senior citizens and millions of americans who live at the edge, surely this congress can do better.

wall street speculators and bankers got to keep all their bonuses and the republican majority can't seem to find their way to ask the richest to pay something to help our republic close the gap. millionaires and billionaires. couldn't they forego some of their ill-gotten treasurer, especially the speculaters who led this republican to the edge? so what do the republicans do? literally take food out of the mouths of children, seniors, the unemployed, the disabled. $16 billion worth. citizens who live at the edge of poverty receive $1.50 per meal in benefits. the farm bill thus far takes food off the table of up to three million americans. and asks nothing of millionaires and billionaires. what a shame. i urge my colleagues to oppose the cuts to snap. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: are there any other requests for

one-minute speeches? for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. tonko: i ask unanimous con sent to address the house for one minute, to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to oppose the deep cuts proposed to the supplemental nutrition assistance program. the snap program provides low income families, our disabled and our elderly essential access to healthy foods. we should not ask our most vulnerable citizens to go hungry. to balance the federal budget. a cut of $16 billion in snap benefits will not achieve that balanced budget. so snap benefits not only provide needed nutritional support to recipients, they support local economies and our farm operations. by boosting sales of fresh fruit and vegetables at farmer's mark markets and local grocery stores. our nation's farmers and ranchers produce abundant foods in a system that is the envy of the world. there's no reason for anyone to go hungry in the united states. let's produce a far -- a food

and farm bill that each day gives farmers a fair deal and ensures all of our citizens nutritious meals. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? without objection. mr. higgins: mr. speaker, in my hometown of buffalo, new york, nearly half of the bills games are blacked out last season because, despite an average game attendance, 67,000, the games were not sellouts because the stadium is one of the largest in the league. last week we learned that the nfl owners passed a resolution allowing teams to decide to broadcast games locally when more than 85% of seats are filled. this is a change to current policy which requires a stadium to be sold out. if teams embrace this new policy it will be a game changer for football fans in buffalo and

across the nation. this change would not have been possible without the hard work and dedication of loyal sports fans including sports fans coalition, the buffalo fan coalition and the bill's mafia. i urge the nfl owners to opt into this policy and the federal communications commission, to consider a similar policy change. fans support their local stadiums with their tax dollars, it's time for teams to give back something in return for their commitment that they have made. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: are there further requests for one-minute speeches? if not, the chair lays before the house the following message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states. pursuant to the international emergency economic powers act,

50, u.s.c., 1701-ieppa, i hereby report that i have issued an executive order, the order that modifies this national emergency declared an executive order 13047 of may 20, 1997. as modified in scope and executive order 13448 of october 18, 2007, and relied upon for additional steps taken in executive order 13310 of july 28, 2003, executive order 13448 of october 18, 2007, and executive order 13464 of april 30, 2008. and takes additional steps with respect to the national emergency. an executive order 13047, the president found that the government of burma committed large scale repression of the democratic opposition in burma after september 30, 1996. and further determined that the actions and policies of the government of burma constitute

an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the united states to. address a threat and implement section 570 of the foreign operations, export financing and related appropriations act, 1997, public law 104-208, the president and executive order 13047 prohibited new investment in burma. on july 28, 2003, the president issued executive order 133-10 which implemented certain provisions of the burmese law, and blocked property and interest in property of persons listed in the annex to executive order 13310 or determined by the secretary of the treasury in consultation with the secretary of the state. to meet designation criteria specified in executive order

133-10. while the fovet of burma has made progrets toward political reform in a number of areas, including releasing several political prisoners, pursuing cease fires and pursuing dialogue with democratic opposition this reform is fragilism support this reform in burma and the bill being of a democrat -- and the building of a democratic process to allow eall people of burma to be represented. however, i find that efforts to obstruct the political reform process, efforts to undermine or obstruct the peace property, military trade with north korea and human rights abuses in burma, particularly in ethnic areas and outside the government of burma constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to national security and foreign policy of the united states. to address this situation, the

order imposes additional measures with respect to burr masm the order provides criteria for designations of persons determined by the secretary of the state in consultation with or at the recommendation of the secretary of state to have engamed in acts that directly or indirectly threaten the peace, security, or stability of burma, such as actions that have the purpose or effect of undermining or obstructing the political reform process or the peace process with ethnic minorities in burma. to be responsible for or complicit in or responsible for ordering, controlling or otherwise directing or to have participated in the commission of human rights abuses in burma, to have directly or indirectly imported, exported, reexported, sold, or supplied arms or related material from north korea or the government of north korea to burma for the government or burma. to be a senior official of an

entity that has engaged in the act described above. to have materially assisted, sponsored or providing financial material or technological support for or fwoods and services to or in support of the acts described above or any person whose property and interest in property are blocked pursuant to the order or to be owned or controlled by or to have active -- acted or purported to act for or on behalf of directly or indirectly any person whose property and interest in property are blocked pursuant to the order, i have delegated to the secretary of the treasury the authority in consultation with the secretary of state to take such actions including the promulgation of rules and regulations and to employ all powers granted to the president by ieepa as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the order. all agencies of the united states government are directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority

to carry out the provisions of the order. i am enclosing a copy of the executive order i have issued, signed, barack obama, the white house, july 11, 2012. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. this evening, we are going to

address for the coming hour with a couple of our colleagues, the issues of affordable health care and the fact that we see a pattern here that's established by the house that seems to walk away from the needs of a middle class, a working class in this society. our country depends upon a thriving middle class, one that is given the respect and the dignity it so much deserves. and with the attacks on social security, with its 76-year-old history, and the efforts to privatize social security, we understand that that would put at risk a number of people. not a single cent of social security was lost to its recipients during the very painful recession. and likewise, in the mid 1960's, we saw the emerging of medicare, which aloud for, again, the dignity factor to be

presented and found in the midst of our senior households where at that point in time, prior to medicare, those who would retire would anticipate a decline in their income and their economic security simply because of the impact that their health care costs would have on the retirement years. since then, not only have we seen a stronger sense of security and stability in those senior households, but we have seen a strengthening of the response to for the health care needs of our seniors because of the stability that medicare produced and the quality of the care that has been part and parcel to the medicare history. so now, in its infancy, the affordable care act is under threat with a repeal measure taken on this house floor that was achieved for america's health care consumers and it is a troubling notion at best.

so this hour of discussion will be dedicated to the concerns that we have for the economic ripple effects that befall the middle class that needs to be a thriving middle class and the impact of several of these attacks that seem to undermine the very foundations upon which security is provided to america's great populations. so we're concerned. we're concerned about that repeal and what it means, what is removed from the equation of success that was brought about a couple of years ago as we worked in a bipartisan, bicameral way with the white house to make certain that a growing need out there that found this country as the only industrialized nation to not have a universal health care program, to be at risk again because of the efforts to repeal. so we're joined by my colleague from california, representative

john garamendi, and john, you witnessed this vote just now to repeal health care. the affordable care act was providing hope and opportunity and promise to all generations in this american mosaic. it is atradge -- it is a tragic moment. mr. garamendi: mr. tonko, thank you so very much and thank you for beginning this discussion by going back into the history of the united states, back to the development of social security and the extraordinary benefit that that has brought to not only seniors but to their children, to families. knowing that when retirement age approached, 65, there would be a foundation for whatever retirement program a person would have. and also pointing out that for years now and certainly in the recent decade, our republican colleagues have called for the privatization of social security. now if you trust wall street,

then i guess it's a good idea. but if he -- if we had any lesson, we should have had theless onof 2008 and 2009 when wall street -- wall street turned its back on the american public and simply ripped us off to a fare-thee-well. if it were not for the president and this congress it might have happened. then medicare coming along in 1964, 1965, and the way in which that has protected seniors. i remember as a young child, i was probably 7 or 8, my dad took me down to the county hospital to visit one of our neighbor ranchers. i got to tell you, it was horrible. that was the only care available for a senior who had no money. and then medicare came among -- aim kay long -- came along and 60% of america's seniors were

in poverty prior to medicare and now, an enormous boost, yet twice this house has voted to terminate medicare. not the democrats. our republican colleagues twice have voted to terminate medicare. so that every american less than 55 years of age would not receive medicare, they'd be given a voucher and told to go fight as best they could in the private insurance market. and then today. and then today. another major effort by the democrats to provide health care for all americans and health insurance policy that you knew was there, that you could count on that would be affordable. the 41st time -- the 31st time today a full repeal or partial repeal was taken up and passed by our republican colleagues system of what's an american to do? what does it mean to americans? let's spend some time talking

about what this means to americans. if you didn't have medicare if you didn't have the affordable care act what would it mean? i'm going to start, if i might, would you like to start? mr. tonko: absolutely. mr. garamendi: let me take up the patients' bill of rights, very quickly. i was insurance commissioner california for eight years. the insurance industry puts people behind profits. profits before people. and they're concerned about making sure that they have a healthy group of customers. they don't want sick people. sick people cost mup. so over the year, they've developed a whole set of discriminatory practices to exclude from coverage people that they don't want to take care of because they might be expensive. so in the affordable health care act there is what we call the patients' bill of rights that forces insurance companies to end insurance

discrimination. here's just some of theme. children with pre-existing conditions. an example mitigating circumstance chief of staff. his son was covered by insurance the day he was born, the second day of his life, they discovered that kid had very serious renal failure, kidney failure. bam, that insurance was over that family was off their insurance policy, gone, done. no longer. we're talking about, i think, 14 million american children that are going to get covered regardless of what their health circumstances might be. young adults, this one is close to home. i've got six children. every one of them have passed through that age of 21 when they were no longer on our insurance policy. most recently, my daughter. 21 years of age, covered by insurance company for 21 years and nine months, day of her 21st birthday, off the insurance policy. we're now talking about every

young american, 21 to 26, stays on their parents' health policy. she also happens to be a woman. women are discriminated against in the insurance because they have a pre-existing condition. they could get pregnant. that's expensive. we don't want to cover them, say the insurance companies. no, no. under the patient's bill of right, the discrimination against every woman in america on their insurance policy is over. apparently, our republican colleagues don't care about these very, very important efforts to end insurance discrimination. we can go on here. seniors, who among us count have a pre-existing condition? high blood pressure. children with diabetes. type 2 diabetics.

try to get insurance without the affordable health care act. you're out of luck. you won't get health insurance. the patients' bill of rights, should today's action become law, is repealed. along with it, the protections that 365 million americans presently have, presently have, no more insurance discrimination. the ability to get insurance is guaranteed. no more discrimination. i'm a little passionate about this one. i watched this, i watched this as insurance commissioner. i fought the insurance companies day in and day out as they denied coverage, as they refused to provide coverage, as they told people they couldn't get care. the law is in place now, the law is in place, and it's going to stay in place despite the vote today. mr. tonko: interestingly, representative garamendi, we've been reminded by the general public that, look, the legislateure, the legislative body here, congress, took up the

bill, they passed it, it went over to the president, he signed it. the highest court in the land, the conservative-leaning court, reviewed it, has since made their decision and reppedered a decision that it met with constitutionality. people are saying, go forward, move on, get to the issues that now have got to be resolved, that's the economy, creating the jobs, producing the post-recession responsiveness that people so much require and deserve. and that's where they're at. we've been joined by representative eleanor holmes north whon has joined us. representative, thank you for joining us in the special order. ms. norton: i want to thank you, representative tonko, and my other good colleague, representative garamendi, for leading this special hour and for offering the perspective that you've been this hour with -- that you've begun this hour with. something that our fathers and grandfathers are responsible for, the greatest generation.

we all -- and now have been embraced by the american pooned people and as proud democrats we're very, very proud of that -- of these very important reforms. i wanted to come to the floor as well to offer some reallife, realtime evidence, as people try to judge what they've heard on the floor today, what they heard on the floor yesterday about the heament care bill -- the health care bill. we teach our children fair play, you know, you win some, you lose some. when you lose then you lost that one. you try again another time. what they've seen in the house this year and last year is the republicans try to repeal financial reform. they lost that.

it's as if the law of the land weren't the law of the land. now they're trying to repeal health care reform. even when the supreme court announces the law of the land. they do not -- they've come to the point where they do not recognize the law of the land as announced by passage in the senate and the house, signature of the president and in the case of the health care reform bill the last word of the supreme court. but as i heard the debate, i was concerned that the american people would be concerned and in the face of this economy of what they hear our colleagues on the other side say that the health care bill will do to the economy. an attempt to essentially frighten people.

especially yesterday when the republicans came forward with a usual set of horribles. this is after the bet is passed now. and where we ought to be speaking of the best ways to implement it. but none of those horribles about what was going to happen to the health care bill was data-based. we ought to ask ourselves, why would not the republicans use the one existing experience that we have? the six-year experience of the massachusetts health care law, which is the very model for the health care law we passed. and that of course was a law that was engineered by their own candidate for president. well, i had the occasion to look at the experience under that bill because as you may know, our colleagues had hearings all around the house yesterday on

health care reform as a prelude to the debate that was on the floor and i was in the oversight and government reform committee. and the hearing was on the impact on jobs. now, if you want to scare the american people, tell them that the bill we just passed is going to add to the problems in their jobs. one of the witnesses was a state senator from massachusetts who is also -- he's been state senator for two years, he was not in the senate when governor romney's bill was passed. he is a c.e.o. of cape air, that's a thousand-employee company, it's a hard business because it's the airline business. it's a regional airline. and he had some realtime

experience for us. and i think it's important just to say a few words about what massachusetts senator wolf, who for six years served on the federal reserve board's advisory council of new england, who was board chair of one of the largest chambers of commerce in massachusetts and is a trustee of the largest neutral bank in the cape and islands region. this is a real small business man. of the kind we had in mind when we talk about small business. this is what he reported. that the premiums are, today, under the massachusetts bill, which this bill, our bill is patterned after, is roughly 3% of his company's gross income. and to quote him, health care

reform has not stifled business. since the passage of the health care reform bill, the very bill that is the predecessor for our health care bill, this company has added 15% more massachusetts-based jobs. he talks about premiums. importantly he said that just before the passage of the massachusetts law, the premiums were going up 15% to 20%. they are down now to going up 5% . and he said last year he was able to negotiate a 5% decrease. my friends, part of this, a great part of this has to do with the large pool that of

course massachusetts citizens are in now. and when you see these reductions. the state spending for health care reform programs last year represented a 1.4% of the state budget. 2/3 of their residents support the health care reform. it was an extraordinary piece of testimony. from a businessman who had no reason to come forward, he's not a politician, yes he's in the state senate, but he had the credibility of being in the senate and being a constituent essential businessman -- quintessential businessman. i want to suggest to my colleagues that there's a reason why our colleagues do not point to the only real experience that could tell us anything about what is going to happen with this bill. and that is because they are

driven not by data but by some ideology that is not understandable, but once you get it in your head that if you're against a bill, even when it's passed, you've got to do all you can to kill it, if it's health care reform, if it's financial reform, even after the worst recession since the great depression, then you try to kill that. i think that in hearing what has happened in massachusetts, that you would think mitt romney would be shouting from the hilltops about, when you see he's happened in massachusetts, what the republicans -- what ourselves should be doing is studding in depth the experience of massachusetts. seeing what their mistakes were. looking at their successes. instead of throwing horribles out there, based on no data and

based on nothing. i thank you for coming forward to start a discussion that helps give the american people some broader sense of what the druggle is about and helps them to understand -- struggle is about and helps them to understand that when they hear the word repeal it is not what it means. in order to repeal yove siaturofhe president people should be alerted that this bill is here to ay. it is at , it will be almost impossible, and unless there is a herculean change in the house, the senate and the presidency to change the congress and the direction of those who oppose the bill, after that every member of this house who believes in law and order, who believes in the rule of law

has an obligation to sit down together, to make this law work and not try to undermine it to the extent that you undermine it , you are now undermining the health care of the citizens of the united states of america. and i yield to my friend, mr. tonko. mr. tonko: thank you, representative norton. and you know, you talk about the struggle and the move to repeal. and it obviously didn't place consumers first and foremost in that thought process. it was probably listened to those deep pockets of interest that did not want to be pulled to the table to provide better outcomes for our consumers. look at the benefits of the health care law for our seniors. 5.1 million seniors receiving savings on their prescription drugs. actually i've seen this number as high as 5.3 million and probably climbing in the short order of time. what an important significant savings.

i hear it all the time from seniors in my district who are always reaching into their pockets after that doughnut hole is hit. and they get the benefit for a while, until they hit a certain threshold, as we all know. many in the short order of months are digging into their own pockets. these are medications that are required to stay well and in some cases to -- in many cases to stay alive. 32 1/2 million seniors receiving free preventative services, health care screenings, the annual checkup, flu shots, items that are brought to their benefit in order to again underscore the value added of wellness. strengthening consumer protections for seniors in the part d program. something i heard a lot of favorable review about. 85% of medicare advantage plans, revenues, going toward senior medical care rather than profits for the insurance industry. so these are big changes. these are changes that were welcomed by the senior

community. i can tell you, if you close that doughnut hole by the year 2020, as the affordable care act is to do, you're providing a major benefit for seniors with the advancement of pharmaceuticals that speak to all sorts of illnesses. this is a wonderful opportunity for them to understand the attachment that is essential. i've heard far too many people adjusting their dosages of medications to balance their family budget. that is not the best outcome for health care. this advances sound decision making. efficiencies, the best use, the wisest use of resources and again speaking to the dignity factor of our country's senior citizens. representative marcy capture from ohio, a great -- kaptur from ohio, a great representative, a strong voice for consumers in this house. thank you for joining us. it's great to have you here and i know that you're hearing a lot in the state of ohio. ms. kaptur: i want to thank you,

congressman tonko, for your leadership and on so many issues that relate to the well-being of the american people and our economy, health care is 1/6 of the leg of the stool that holds up the republic as a major industry. when you look at all of our medical hospitals, all of our schools, the nursing profession, dentistry, you take it all together, it is a massive employer across our country and congressman garamendi, i mean, coming from california, your experience is so vast in terms of your leadership at the state level there and now here as a member of congress. so i'm very proud to stand with colleagues from new york and california, coastal powerhouses, from the state of ohio right in the middle of the current there -- country there, and i wanted to add to your discussions this evening, some real life stories that illustrate what you've been talking about tonight. here's a story from toledo, ohio

. a real story of a couple that was forced to drop their health coverage after the wife got sick and their health insurance premiums jumped from $800 a month in 2007 to $1,200 a month in 2008. how many families across our country, when somebody gets sick, the premium goes up? this bill is wonderful because it doesn't allow that to happen for this family, the cost in 2009 would have risen to $1,600 a month with the $2,500 deductible. so what did they do? they dropped their insurance. they couldn't afford the insurance. even though the wife was sick. but -- but because of the law we passed, the wife received coverage through a high-risk insurance pool that was set up within our state following the passage of the law and they're

paying $400 a month, half of what they paid before, and they have a $1,500 deductible. literally, the new insurance coverage saves them $15,000 a year. which for them was -- unaffordable. that's why they dropped their insurance. just that family alone tells us how important this bill is, this act is and think of how many cases across this country have similarities to theirs. from marblehead, ohio, which is very central to the district that i'm privileged to represent, a small business owner, a woman, was diagnosed with lupus and she was turned down by multiple insurance companies because she had a pre-existing condition. but because of this act and the high risk insurance pool in ohio, she was able to obtain a plan for $315 a month with a

$2,500 deductible. that was her choice but she has obtained insurance, though she has a pre-existing condition, how many americans have you -- as you said have pre-existing conditions? this allows them to continue to pay, not be cans selled, so they're contributing to the pool, the insurance pool, and they're able to take care of themselves. finally, the third example i wish to place on the table is a senior citizen couple that faced a $3,000 to $4,000 bill in extra prescription drug costs after the husband dwooped staph infection. how many families do we know with relatives that develop staph infections that required them to spend a lot more money in 2009 and 2010 on prescription drugs. thankfully, the husband's health has improved, thanks to

the doughnut hole provisions they talk -- you talked about that took effect in 2010, they didn't have to pay the extra money for the prescription drugs necessary you have to take when you get an infection, you have to take those for a very long time and they're very expensive. the wife said of their situation, for seniors like paul and me, living on limited income through social security, these costs were not a joke. and because of the affordable care act, no senior, ever, will have to go through what paul and i spent that year doing. and by the end of this decade, that doughnut hole will be completely closed at the rate of $500 a year. $500 a year to a senior citizen is a mountain of money. $50 is a lot of money. because they're on limited incomes. most people depend on social security to hold their lives

together. so to get bills of $500 or $5,000, it's an impossibility. i challenge every american, who is listening to my words tonight and every young person who has a conscience. go to the supermarket and look for people who are staring at the vegetables or raspberries or fish and can't afford to buy it. maybe you could slip them a couple of bucks in the supermarket. nobody would even know about it. i've done that so many times, they can buy something they want that they can't afford to buy. when you're a senior citizen, limited income is a real fact of everyday life. for all of the millions and millions of americans, congressman tonko, that you talked about, this is being lived life by life, family by family in the state of ohio. i'm pleased to join those of you -- both of you and to thank the president of the united states for having the guts to stick with his convictions. our speaker, then, nancy

pelosi, for fighting so hard for every vote in this house and really helping to lift all of america to a different plane for the future. i come from a small business family. our father is one of those people that had to sell his business because he got sick and he had to get health insurance for his family so he went to work for an automotive company and i remember how ill he became and what a horrible choice that was for him back then. half the uninsured in this country are small businesses. the law says, if you have 50 or under, you don't have to provide insurance, but if you're interested, those exchanges will be there for you and there will also be plans that your employees can buy into if they want to. wow. i wish that had existed in the 1950's when we were growing up as young children and our dad could have had that plan so he wouldn't have had to sell his business. what a difference that would have made in our family. so i say, that story is

repeated by the tens of millions across this country, half of those who could potentially benefit are small business owners and their workers. thank you for doing this special order tonight as we speak on behalf of all the american people. mr. tonko: thank you, representative kaptur. please feel free to share more information with us. the anecdotal evidence you prvide from your region alone speaks to the empowerment that is part of this transition this progressive policy, and to now attempt to repeal, just as you've given people the sense of hope, that there lab doable outcome, that they won't have to cut medication in half so that they could have enough money to do all the others -- other items that are required of them, to pay utility bills or to afford to eat for that given month. the fact that they would cut their medication in half is not

a sound thing. spending money and it's probably ineffective. so deathering people to a system that's sound and secure. when people say, i don't want to pay for someone's insurance, i don't want to pay for this health care program, you're paying today through premiums an taxes. you're paying for the worst sort of outcome by putting people into emergency rooms and having them visit with a different doctor each time they visit and not having the stability and standardized outcome that is predictable and effective and efficient. these are the dynamics that are driven by the soundness of a policy like this that, yes, we'll take investment, but we'll get far better bang for the buck than what we're getting today with a, you know, haphazard sort of response that does not provide continuity or direction or standardization or predictability or certainty. we will be far better off and a much more compassionate response is rendered, so from a

taxpayer perspective from a consumer perspective, it's a far greater, stronger, more intelligent outcome and it seeks -- speaks to, i think, the core fabric of this wonderful country that we do truly care and this is a way to show it and still be economically sounder in our attempts. so thank you for sharing the anecdotal evidence. representative garamendi, you and i have done a number of these sherble orders on this floor, on this house floor. i find it fascinating to see what the response is out there from the public who always call to engage and get more information. so the fact that we can provide more information on what is included in the affordable care act, i think, is a good opportunity here. and i know you always have a lot to say and a lot to share and your walk in your professional life, as insurance commissioner, was an important

bit of strength for all of us in the caucus. mr. garamendi: mr. tonko and our colleague, marcy kaptur, reminded me of personal story, personal things. my sister-in-law was a juvenile diabetic. and i think what would her circumstances be if she had had this law when she was alive. the last 20 years of her life were a struggle. the company she worked for floated and her health insurance was lost. and she spent the last 20 years of her life struggling, financially, medically, and really unable to get the kind of continuity of care necessary . she got a lot of help from her family but even so, it was a struggle. under the law today, she would have been able to get insurance.

and in 2014, in california, actually, next year in california, there will be an insurance exchange. so even though she spent the last 20 years as an independent contractor selling various things over those years, she could enter into a large pool. that is the exchange. where she would have the same opportunity to buy a low-cost policy as though she were in ford motor company with hundreds of thousands of employees. a republican colleague -- our republican colleagues would abolish the exchanges and i just think about what could have been. there was no exchange and she wasn't able to get that insurance but had she lived, and had other men and women with diabetes or serious heart issues or other kinds of

problems, medical problem, they could get insurance in the exchange and be part of a large pool. simultaneously if they didn't have the income, they would be able to get a subsidy. if their income was less than the poverty level, that insurance would be free through the medicaid program. and if they were above the poverty level, it would be subsidized so it would be affordable. and i guess if this is really about compassion, this is about a very moral sense of what we are as americans. do we have compassion and do we care for our fellow citizens? on today's floor, i heard the most astounding arguments, arguments based upon falsehoods, just flat out falsehoods. i heard the speaker here say the affordable care act cost employment. but since the affordable care act has been in place for the

last two years, private sector employment has grown every single month. now, there may have been some company that decided not to employ somebody or maybe they went out of business for any number of reasons, but private sector employment has grown every single month for the last 28 months. so taken as a whole, the the affordable health care act didn't retard employment. it didn't cause the number of private sector employees to decline. in fact, they've grown. i also heard the very same person with the very same argument say that it's driven up health care costs. well, excuse me, take a look at the statistics. the health care statistics. we've actually seen in the last two years, since the affordable health care act went into effect a significant dede-cline in the rate of inflation for health care.

in fact, the rate of inflation for health care in the last two years, 2010 and 2011, was the lowest rate of growth in every year except one in the last 50 years. it was 3.9%. those are not my statistics. they're not full -- pulled out of the air. those are government statistics about health care inflation. 3.9%, the lowest rate of inflation in general health care in the last 50 years, except only one other year. how about the cost of premiums? before i get there the average health care spending in 2000 to 2009 was 6.8% per year. that's the annual growth. 6.8% per year. in 2010 and 2011, as i just said, it was 3.9%, nearly 50%

less. let's get our facts right. put aside the rhetoric and deal with the facts. if you're going to come down here and speak, use facts in your argument, don't just throw out a number. mr. speaker, if you'd like to debate it on the floor with me, come on down. seniors pay more? no, i don't believe so. no. they don't pay more. medicare advantage enrollees, the cost that premiums for medicare advantage was 16% less in 2012 than in 2010. the affordable health care act was re-- the affordable health care act, was it responsible for that? partly, yes. because the affordable health care act took $150 billion, $15