insurance companies and plowed it back into medicare benefit thesms drug benefit you were talking about. free medical services, preventive services. the result was a 16% reduction overall average across the united states for medicare advantage. aetna, a very large insurance company -- by the way, this is from mercy, one of the consulting companies. i think i'll let it go at that. there are more statistics at that. but, mr. speaker and my colleagues on the republican side, if you want to come down and debate the issue of health care inflation, then you better come down here with real facts. don't come down here with a lot of just talk, but health care inflation has gone down since the affordable care act has been put in place. mr. tonko, why don't you pick it up from here? maybe i'll have a challenge

here on the floor from the speaker. mr. tonko: representative garamendi speaks about the advantage programs. those suggested they could do it cheaper. give us a special model out there and launch it as a pilot and we'll show you how we can do these special programming and give us a return. well, after reviewing now what is a history of all of that, it was deemed that there were overpayments anywhere between 12% and 14%, so the dollars were slid over to programs like filling the doughnut hole and providing for screenings for our seniors. not taking it away from a category of health care consumers. in this case, an aged demographic of seniors, but taking those savings as we sweep those savings and reinvesting them in a way that provides balance, more sensitivity for the consumer rather than having record profits developed for an

industry. to me that was progressive policy, and for people to then take those savings and use them in their own budget presentations for other purposes was disingenuous. now, when you talk about the efforts today of the affordable care act to include an exchange, what i think is oftentimes, representative garamendi, sometimes people see this as a public exchange that will be run by the government when in fact we set up an exchange and the private sector sources come to the table if they are willing to abide by the rules, if they're going to govern themselves by the parameters that have been established in the legislation, they can then offer services through the exchange. so it's a private sector solution but with new caveats of parameters that are established so as to provide benefits for the consumer.

and when you think of it, if there are firms that hire 10 people and one of those 10 becomes catastrophically ill, the actuarial impact of that one individual circumstance can drive premiums up for that small business in very high order. that kind of impact is unacceptable for the small business community that they pay some 18% more for their insurance and oftentimes get weaker coverage. with the benefits of an exchange that is private sector driven you now have the opportunities that people can have that actuarial measurement made in a pool of perhaps millions so that the unsteady and unpredictable kind of outcome for small business is now rendered more efficient and more sensitive by shaving the

peeks that may occur in a universe as small as 10 people. so there is a science to this. there is thoughtfulness that's been pumped into the discussion and by asserting that thoughtfulness we have come up with reforms that really speak to a wiser use of this country's health care dollars. to then move to repeal before a number of these programs are even implemented, it was a folding in of progress over the course of several years now that was initiated with the passage a couple years ago that needed time to work, and for people to just play politics with the lives of individuals, with the health care quality of individuals is regrettable. and for us then to be asked to visit for the 31st time a repeal exercise in some 19

consecutive months, we used this week of session in congress to debate for hours, to message for hours, to come to the floor for votes, these were session days that were used up for a repeat of an exercise that time and time and time again has been conducted just to politically posture. when in fact the american public is saying, look, you voted on this. look, the president signed it into law. look, the supreme court, the highest court in the land, conservative leaning court, has ruled constitutionality. they want us to move forward with job creation, responding to the cures this economy needs. we started with a terrible pitch of a recession. 8.2 million jobs lost. 800,000 jobs being lost per month when this administration

started and eye roncally -- ironically when i started in this house of representatives. we are in a dark deep hole, and to come out of that with 29 consecutive months of private sector job growth, to come out of that with over four million jobs created in the private sector and to go forward with an effort to reform our health care system in a way that extends greater opportunity, beacons of hope to families and individuals, those catastrophically ill, those denied because of pre-existing conditions, pharmaceuticals, unaffordable for many seniors, to have all of that turned around and to have the progress of the comeback trail from the recessionary period that was far too long and far too deep and far too painful than anyone ever forecasted, to strike that kind of progress and then have it met with 31 consecutive efforts to repeal the situation is regrettable. it's regrettable.

representative garamendi, you've been here for those 31 efforts. has anything same or is it the same old same old that is being expressed out there that i don't think meets with the concerns of individuals out there from coast to coast? mr. garamendi: well, we're absolutely correct. we really need to get the jobs. i notice some of our republican colleagues here and they will be taking the next hour, and i suspect they are going to pick up something that was said over and over again over the last two days. and i just want to put on the table some facts. some facts about what is really going on here. i heard speakers come to the floor, including the speaker of the house, saying the affordable care act was the largest middle-class tax increase ever. well, i'm sorry. however, "the washington post" fact checker said the health care law will provide more tax relief than tax burden for middle-class families.

a report from the nonpartisan congressional budget office estimated four million individuals will likely pay the penalty because they are not going to buy insurance. ok. that's about 1.2% of the total population. they also -- they also estimated that 16 million americans, that's four times more, will receive tax credits or subsidies to help them pay for insurance coverage through the new exchanges. now, that's 5% of the population. the c.b.o. estimates that the government will provide $630 billion in tax credits and subsidies for insurance over the next 11 years and only $54 billion in penalties, taxes, or tax increases on the middle class. so the fact of the matter is, the middle class is going to get an enormous tax benefit as

a result of this. their taxes, those who buy insurance, are actually going to see their taxes reduced as they buy insurance. they'll have health care coverage at an affordable cost. their taxes will go down. they receive subsidies. the essential point here is, it is not a tax increase of overwhelming largest ever on the middle class. in fact, it is a huge tax reduction. and secondarily, there is a decreased cost to every american that bice health insurance today because there will not be a shift of -- that buys health insurance today because there will not be a shift of cost from the uninsured to the insured and the taxpayer. that's what happens when you have some 40 million americans uninsured, they get sick. fortunately in this nation we have not yet come to the point

where we do not provide health care to people that are sick and in need of care. they get it at the emergency rooms. they get it at the community clinics. it is called uncompensated care. in other words, not paid for directly by the individual but indirectly by every single american that buys a health insurance policy and every single company that buys a health insurance policy and the american taxpayers. the affordable care act does not increase the cost of health care in america. in fact, it has the significant potential of decreasing the cost, and in the last two years we have seen the health care costs in america to decline to the lowest inflation rate ever in the last 50 years except one year. that's get the facts correct, my colleagues. if we're going to talk about tax increases, get the facts correct. talk about the tax reductions at the same time. talk about the fact that the

affordable care act has while in effect has actually been part of an overall reduction in the inflation rate of health care. and in the affordable care act, there are very significant long -lasting powerful reforms that will bend the cost curve of health care. such as electronic medical records. the repeal would wipe that out. gone. clinics, primary care clinics across this nation are funded through the affordable care act . and where do you think people get care today in those clinics? they don't get care there. they're going to the emergency room at five or 10 times the cost. there are vaccinations for our children which incidentally in the appropriation bill our republican friends tried to

eliminate many of the vaccinations. fortunately it didn't happen. there's preventative care for seniors so that their blood pressure, so that diabetes is controlled. today our republican colleagues voted to wipe out preventative care, not only for seniors but beginning this august, a month from now, every woman in america will be able to get preventative screening. mammograms, pap smears, blood pressure testing. that's what's being lost here all in the name of some political tuneistic -- opportunistic manner. well, the american people isn't going to be fooled twice. the american public will come to know that in the affordable

care act there is real benefit for americans. mr. tonko, thank you for bringing us to this floor. thank you for bringing us to the opportunity to talk about what is real. i yield back. mr. tonko: representative garamendi, i couldn't agree more with the need to exchange statistics here, the real stats on what's happening. and we only have a short history. but already it's a powerful statement. and when you look at healthy pregnancy, that front end of life investment which this embraces, what a soundness to the rationale for progressive policy. and when you think of the dignity factor for those seniors years so people aren't chopping a pill in half so as to meet the family's budget and take care of half of their

medical needs, this is an exercise of foolishness to repeal at a time when we just started the engine of recovery and transformation and transition and reform. we also know that -- and i hear it from my constituents all the time -- repeal. what's the replacement? no hint of a replacement because you took it halfway and said, well, just going to repeal this and that's the political posturing that's so painful because you have now delivered to a system, to a society new opportunities to better steward our resources, to better provide for the dignity in the equation so people can have that comfort zone. knowing if they get impacted by some catastrophic illness and we've seen it in our communities, in our neighborhoods, in our families where people's lives are turned

around in an instance. to those who suggested might not buy the insurance, who then bears the burden if there is a catastrophic outcome? you are asking them to pay a tax. they don't have insurance, they get a catastrophic illness, fall into some sort of huge accident, who's going to pay? and you're right, representative. there are those that -- there are situations where taxpayers cover it. so this has been thought out in a very meaningful way. and you know, we talk about a global competitiveness, we talk about our industries going to the marketplace, international marketplace and win contracts and produce in america and grow jobs. well, part of the price that they have to calculate is the cost of health care. . if we're

there is a benefit that befalls the economic recovery opportunity because our businesses will be able to have the benefit of the soundness of that universal health care system to better compete in the international marketplace. secure those that translate into jobs. there is an interconnecttiveness here that falls into the realm of economic recovery and business creation and all sorts of quality of life issues that market our neighborhoods, our states, our nation for jobs. we know what's happening in other nations. they have taken the bull by the horns and put together a good sound system. and we were comfortable to have

status quo be our rule, our guiding light. and it was the boldness of those leaders who came forward and said there is a better way to use those dollars out there, there is a need for preventive and wellness programs and screenings and annual check-ups. and pharmaceutical needs that are within the grasp of our seniors and middle-income community and middle-aged community. to site scenarios like that of your staffer and his child, to provide that hope in the middle of despair when people have abandoned the hope for a better tomorrow for their children because of lack of affordability , to cover those health care situations. that's what this is about. this is the old american spirit coming forward. it's about speaking as

community, not as individuals disconnected one from another. it's about thinking as a society, of a greatness of america, at her best, compassion nature, resolved to make a difference, use resources that is most efficient, most smart. america in a great, shining moment. and to denounce that progress and to move forward with repeal speaks volumes about greed and injustice and the desire to turn progress around. representative garamendi, closing thoughts from you. i thank you for joining us this evening. mr. garamendi: i thank you. and i suspect we will hear once again this is a government takeover. not true.

not true at all. this is built upon the private delivery system that we presently have. talk about the government taking over policies, it's not true. i know this. i was the insurance commissioner and it is the insurance companies that actually did that. i think we are going to be totally out of time. thank you very much for your leadership on this and your passion for it. and we are out of time. this issue is not going to go away. this issue is going to be around. and i would hope as it is discussed in the months ahead and get past the rhetoric and talk about what is in the affordable health care act. it is an extraordinary improvement to america's health care. thank you, mr. tonko. mr. tonko: we yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 12011, the gentleman from new york, mr. reed is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the

majority leader. reed reed i rise this -- mr. reed: i rise this evening to talk about an important issue of the day. few hours ago in this chamber on this floor, this house voted to repeal obamacare. the affordable care act to me is a classic example of what is wrong with washington d.c. it is a philosophy that this city has the arrogance and the vision to think that if we take over an area such as health care from washington, d.c.,, somehow magicically the bureaucrats and the folks here in washington are going to wave a magic wand and cure the ills in the health care industry. what obamacare is, it's simple. expansion of government, 130 agencies newly createdation to

enter into the health care arena. 22 taxes to pay for that expansion of governance to take on health care. you got half a trillion dollars of cuts to medicare. mr. speaker, i have heard the last 18 months as a freshman member as the folks on this side of the aisle came here to washington to kill medicare, literally had campaign ads where we were rolling grandma and grandpa off the niagra gorge. that's ridiculous. we have a bill that cuts medicare $00 billion and my colleagues have the nerve to say that we are the ones trying to kill medicare. zhrrs 500 billion -- $500 billion cuts in medicare goes a long way to jeopardizing that

program. i just come here tonight and am joined by some of my fellow freshman to try to articulate for the people of america that with what the supreme court did -- and i read the decision at least five times, and i disagree with it, but i do agree with one sentiment that chief justice represented in the majority opinion. and he said, we're going to call obamacare what it is, an expansion of government and it's a tax, it's a tax increase. and if that's what the people of america want their elected officials in washington to do, then so be it. that is not for the court, and that is not for the chief justice to decide. it's up to the people. so the vote we took this afternoon is done on the backdrop of the supreme court decision saying exactly what obamacare is, an expansion of government, tax increases to pay

for it and cuts to medicare of $500 billion. let's be honest with the american people. the american people deserve their elected first to come to this floor in this chamber and deal with the issues in an open and honest way. i was proud to cast the vote today to stand for repeal of obamacare, because we can do better. we can do better than continuing the traditional washington tactics of, well, let the government take over. let me raise your taxes to pay for it. and you know, we can do better than trying to say it is a penalty and therefore argue until we are blue in the face and say it's not a tax and the supreme court has said it is a tax of the let's be honest in the issues before us tonight. i'm joined by a colleague from the state of mississippi. and i yield to him in regards to this issue.

>> i appreciate you organizing this special order today. it's a very important issue, not just to my constituents back in the state of mississippi but to all of americans. over the past two years, our nation has engaged in debate of the future of our country and future of health care reform. when the supreme court ruled to uphold the law as a tax, they never meant to send a message that this is a good policy. it is bad for our job creators, it's bad for families and bad for seniors. mr. palazzo: they weren't putting their stamp of approval on enormous tax regulations that this bill brings or in favor of a law that takes health choices out of the hands of individuals and doctors and places more control in the hands of government bureaucrats. what they did when they ruled on

this law was reaffirm that this is a multi-billion-dollar tax. the court reafffirmed it is unconstitutional to force a massive medicaid expansion on states like mississippi who cannot afford it. and the supreme court reafffirmed for myself and my colleagues and for millions upon millions of americans that there is a need to fully repeal this law. today with this vote, we are listening to the majority of the american people who do not want this law and renew our commitment to bring step-by-step commonsense solutions that americans want and the care they need and a doctor they choose and at a price they can afford. i yield back. mr. reed: i appreciate the gentleman from mississippi's comments. and you touch on something, the gentleman from mississippi

touches on something that is extremely important when it comes to this issue. with the adoption and repeal of obamacare, what we are trying to send to the american people is the message that the folks on this side of the aisle in particular want to make sure that we tackle health care reform, that one, we take care of a critical issue, and that is how are we going to change the cost escalateors that are occurring in health care ever year? how are we going to do that? now, the fundamental principle over here on our side of the aisle that i firmly believe in is that we're going to do that, once we repeal this law, by taking reforms from the perspective of the individual, from the patient and from the doctor's point of view, not from the obamacare model of handing it to administrators and bureaucrats and somehow thinking

that the government has the solution to this problem. what we're going to deploy, in my opinion, are good old-fashioned market forces, forces of individual choice, having individuals and patients and doctors control their health care destiny, rather than having some unelected bureaucrat under the independent payment advisory board making determinations as to what type of health care you are going to receive. we can do better than that in america. and the gentleman from mississippi makes a great point when he talks about the expansion and the tax burden that this law puts on all americans and in particular, many folks, i heard over the debate the last couple of days said we should be focusing on jobs. you know what? this is related to jobs, because the expansion of government, the

mandates that come from this and the higher taxes that are placed on all americans as a result of this, will saddle our private sector, will saddle our individuals, will saddle our job creators, with a burden they just can't overcome. and we should be releaving those burdens so they can hire the people of today and tomorrow. this expansion of government just doesn't stop today. if it is allowed to go forward, and i hope my colleagues in the senate take this bill up so the american people know where they stand, but if this bill is allowed to go forward, we are sad willing americans with a burden of tax and government regulations and mandates to a point where we are just asking them to do something that they are at a load that is too heavy to bear. you can't hire people if you have more taxes and more burdens and obligations and government regulations to comply with. and i see my friend from

mississippi may have a couple more comments. mr. palazzo: there are so many bad things about this bill and we can spend more than an hour talking about it, but the american people have had two years to fully digest the bill that was crammed down their throats. and the house isn't going to make the same mistakes that they did. we had a president and speaker of the house and a senate that ignored the pleas and cries of the american people. nonetheless, they passed a 2,700-paged bill. they did it under the cover of darkness, the former speaker of the house said you have to pass it before you know what's in it. we aren't going to make those same mistakes and not going to repeat their failures. what we are going to do is listen to the american people and take their solutions so we

can address the care that they need from the doctor that they choose and at a price they can afford. there are some good things that are going to be coming forth. i don't understand -- our colleagues on the other side are saying, hey, this bill isn't perfect but keep it and tweak it. there is no small fix to this bill. it is garbage. we have to throw it out and start over, but we are going to listen to the american people and i think that's where they went wrong and i believe our colleagues, allow them to bring amendments to the floor wherein 2010 or 2009, they didn't even allow one republican amendment to the bill. so those saying if you are ignorant of the past, you are doomed to repeat it. we have learned from our history and we are going to make right for the american people on health care. thank you, congressman. i have to leave, but i yield

back. . mr. reed: one point before i yield to the gentleman from florida, you know, we talk about job creation and i tell you, back in the district, back in upstate new york in corning, my hometown, we get out and we have town halls and we meet with constituents. we meet with business owners. i tell you, one meeting really resonated with me. went up to cornell and met with a company called dico electronics. he employs about 48 employees and he had me in his office and we were watching his shop where he's assembling different components. he had a point that resonates when it comes to this issue. he said, you know what, tom, i'm not going to hire any more people. i got business.

i got some opportunities that i could potentially expand, but the c.e.o. of the company said, if i go over 50 employees, you know what, i got to comply with obamacare. these mandates, these regulations, you have 2,700 pages of statutory text. you have tens of thousands of pages of regulations that ultimately will be created. he says, i can't take that chance. so this is all related to jobs also as we continue this debate too. it's not just about health care but it's about job creation and i agree. that is the primary issue of the day. but that is a classic example and that resonated me when i came down here to stand for repeal because so many spisses are in the exact -- small businesses are in the exact same place that dico electronics is. they are saying, nope, we're not going to hire because we don't want to go over that 50-employee threshold.

with that i yield to a great member of the freshman class, the gentleman from florida. mr. west: well, i thank you very much to my colleague, mr. reed, for allowing me to be here to spend some time and talk about why i didn't want to go on supporting what has to be the patient protection unaffordable tax act. when you think about down south florida where i am from, a lot of people play golf. i have never swung a golf club in my life but i appreciate the term called a mulligan. a mulligan means you can do it over. that's what the american people want from us here in this distinguished body. republicans and democrats is a doover. so that's what we try to do today, and hopefully senator reid will take our heed and he will go forth and allow the american people to see that mulligan take place. i sit on the small business committee. when you think of the effects that this tax law, because that's really all that is, you know, that the solicitor

general from the administration argued that it was a tax and the chief justice said it's a tax. down south if it quaks like a duck and looks like a duck, then doggone it, it's a duck. according to the national federation for independent businesses, thed a vow casey group for small business, 75% of small businesses small business, subchapter s's, l.l.c.'s, meaning they pay their taxes on their business income at an individual rate. the joint committee on taxation estimates the tax hike that will be hitting will affect 940,000 small businesses. half of all small business income will face higher taxes. according to a bloomberg news and analysis by the j.c.t., also shows that president obama's plan for these massive tax hikes mean higher taxes on 53% of business income reported on individual returns. more than a quarter of american jobs workers are at risk.

according to a u.s. census data through the nfib, small businesses employ more than 25% of the total work force. so raising taxes on these small businesses threaten these jobs. and the last thing we need to do in this weak economy. this artificial man tate if you go over 50 employees then you get hit with these fines because you have to provide certain levels of health insurance and health coverage. why don't we put that artificial burden, what does that mean with a small business owner at 48 or 49? is he not going to seek any higher? he'll get rid of that employee which means another person is added in. your chamber of commerce showed that 74% of small businesses contend this law will make job creation at their companies even more difficult. the supreme court's health care ruling leaves in place 21 tax

increases enacted as part of this law. a dozen of these go affect these people. clear violation what the president talked about with his plans to avoid taxes on middle to lower income taxpayers. a .9% payroll tax on wages and self-employment income and new 3.8% tax on dividends. something very important for seniors down in south florida. capital gains, why are we going after capital gains in the health care law? i don't know. i think it's a tax law. why are we going to go after capital gains when we need to have investment so we can grow our economy and other investment income for taxpayers? cadillac tax. annual tax on drug manufacturers and importers. 2.3% excise tax on medical device manufacturers and

importers. that's one of the pieces of legislation, that 3132 sitting on harry reid's desk so we can get rid of the medical device tax. we need to have a mulligan. 7.5% a.g.i. medical expense deduction over 10%. deny eligibility of black liquor for cellulosic fuel credit. what does that have to do with health care? codify doctrine. increase penalty for health savings accounts distributions. impose limitations on the use of health savings accounts, flexible spending accounts, m.s.a.'s. impose fee on insured and self-insured health plans, patient-center outcomes research fund put this out. expenses allowable to medicare part d subsidy. a tax on tanning services. down in south florida, if there is an overcloud, a lot of people go in the indoor tanning

booth. now they pay a tax for that. what are we doing with the tax code, mr. reed? are we now using the tax code by which a means to promote social policy? are we using the tax code now as a means by which we are going to create behavior modification here in the united states of america? that's all this bill does. 16,000 new i.r.s. agents. why we need 16,000 new i.r.s. patients if this is supposed to be a health care law? because someone's got to collect all that money that this patient protection unaffordable tax act is bringing upon the american people. what do you really get with this? you get 159 new government agencies and bureaucracies. you get all of these different bureaucrats up here in washington, d.c. that will interject themselves between the doctor-patient relationship. you going to get, well, no one talked about this a lot. how in this health care law the federal government took over college education loans. it was the people from across the aisle who made the decision

that we will take it from 3.6% to 6.8%. it became incumbent upon us to come in and clean up the mess that was made. it's truly as the former speaker said, we have to pass this bill in order to find out what is in it. and now that we're finding out what is in it we just cannot stomach this. the obamacare taxes already holding back job growth in medical innovation with venture capital investment and medical device firms down 50% in 2011 compared to any of the previous five years. the average american family already paid a premium increase of approximately $1,200 in the years following passage of this law. they predict that health insurance premiums for individuals by a private health coverage on their own will increase by $2,100 in 2016 compared to what the premiums would have been in 2016 if it had not -- this law had not been passed. mr. speaker, there's no doubt about the fact that we need to

do something to reform the health care process here in the united states of america. make it more affordable. but to all of a sudden bring the federal government in. you know, about 30-some-odd years ago when there was a former democrat president that said, everyone has a right to own a home. and the federal government created this thing called a community reen investment act. and look how well that -- reinvestment act. and look how well when we had that financial meltdown. what will happen to this incredible, onerous invasion into the health care industry? i don't want to be around 30 years from now to see. and that's why my message to harry reid is very simple. the american people want a mulligan. let's do it over and do it right. thank you and i yield back. mr. reed: i so appreciate mr. west's comments, the gentleman from florida speaks very clearly and directly with issues on this bill. as the gentleman articulated,

139 different agencies now created under obamacare. i come to the well of the house, mr. speaker, to display to america what our health care system now looks like under obamacare. this diagram goes through the 2,700 pages of statutory language and identifies those 130-plus agencies. this is what american health care looks like after obamacare. we can do better. as the gentleman from florida mentioned, we need a mulligan. and what we need to do is listen to the american people. that is one of the fundamental problems out here in washington, d.c. people down here think, i'm in washington. i got elected and i got a title. i'm called congressman. of course i know what's best for everybody in america. you know what, i trust the american individual. i believe in the american individual. we need to listen to them. that's why we go back to the district and we talk to so many constituents. we have town halls because the

commonsense ideas that people have around their kitchen tables, around their sofas in their living rooms and having conversations, we should be listening to the american individual and the american people because the common sense of america is what makes us strong, not some bureaucratic thought process, some person reading a book who sits in a cubicle down here in washington, d.c. and comes up with a monster of a health care program that's got 130-plus agencies and this is how the personal relationship of a patient and a doctor is handled under obamacare. we can do better. we need a mulligan. and i so appreciate my other friends in the freshman class this evening meeting with us. with that i'd like to yield to a good member, great friend from arkansas, mr. griffin. mr. griffin thank you. i appreciate it very much. mr. speaker, we have heard a lot about repeal and replace.

i have a lot of constituents asking about the replace part of that, and what i tell them is we have a lot of ideas that have been introduced here in the house. in fact, by last count, there are over 200 -- i think it's something like 219 bills introduced in the house that relate to health care reform. so we are not short of ideas. in terms of implementing real health care reform. but before we get to that we first must repeal this monstrosity, this almost 3,000-page monstrosity of taxes and new boards and new agencies that makes it more difficult for businesses to hire new people. and so that's why we're here focusing on repeal today.

we have, mr. speaker, lots of ideas. for example, many of us here support medical liability reform. gallop polls and other experts have testified that much of the cost of what we pay in health care is attributable to the practice of defensive medicine. by some count, a quarter of all health care cost are attributable to the practice of defensive medicine. we have a great medical liability reform bill. in fact, if i remember correctly, couple years ago in the state of the union the president said he was in favor of medical liability reform. hadn't heard much from him on that. wish he would talk more about it. it certainly wasn't part of his health care law, but that's a great idea that will reduce the

practice of defensive medicine and reduce the cost of health care and in turn make health insurance more affordable which in turn addresses the access question. . we have great legislation introduced by my friend, marsha blackburn of tennessee, she has a great bill. and it allows for competition between insurance companies across state lines. so if you live in arkansas and see a health care plan that you want to buy over in tennessee, our neighboring state, well, you can buy that plan. and then if you move to arizona, don't know why you would leave arkansas, but if you did, you could take that with you across

state lines. competition. choice. patient-sent -- patient centered options. that's the kind of health care reform that i favor, that many folks here in the house favor and that are reflected in the over 200 bills that have been introduced here. and we want to get to that. but before we can get to that, before we can focus on the replace, we have to repeal. and that's why we're here again asking the senate to do its part. and i tell you, i have had some folks on twitter and facebook and other places just say, you are wasting your time. why are you just wasting your time? i think i was asked that on television earlier today.

and my response was, when i made a pledge in my campaign to repeal obamacare, the president's health care law, whatever you want to call it, my pledge was not, i'm not going to fight to repeal it if the senate agrees to pass it. that wasn't my pledge. my pledge was, i'm going to fight to repeal it. i'm in control what i can control. i can't control the senate. in fact, i told somebody on twitter about 15 minutes ago before i came down here to the floor, i said, well, if we in the house only took action on issues that we know the senate will vote on, we'd all be sleeping. mr. speaker, you'd be sleeping in the chair, and we'd be

sleeping, because the senate doesn't take action on much of anything. sometimes i feel like i have to walk down there and wake them up. so my job in fulfilling my promises and my pledges and my commitment to my constituents is not dependent upon whether the senate is going to do the right thing or not. i hope they do. i'm praying for them. i wish them well, but we're going to do our job here regardless of what they do down there. and i'll say one more thing. anybody who has been paying attention over the last two years knew before i ever got elected what my intention was and a lot of us talked about this before we ever got here and

what we are doing is following through on our promise. i yield back. and i appreciate the time. mr. reed: i appreciate the gentleman's comments. and you are touching on something when we talk about the senate and what we can control here in the house. and i think today's exercise of voting to repeal obamacare, again, was time well spent, because time to be open and honest with the american people. you look at this bill, the 2,700 pages that created this health care system that you see on this board with 139 agencies. look at the timing of when these requirements and mandates kick in. look at the whole argument that the last two years of the debate on the affordable care act, obamacare, look at whether it is a penalty or a tax. i can remember kathleen sebelius still fighting me as the arts were going on whether or not

this was a tax or a penalty and she said it's not a tax, but a penalty. and you saw the president repeatedly tell different reporters and go on the record and say it's not a tax, but a penalty. there's a lot of politics going on under this bill and want to do it in a way that they aren't held accountable because november 6, 2012 is a critical date. and look at the dates under this bill when most of the tax increases are kicked in, they happen after november 6, 2012. what is so magical about november 6, 2012? we have a house, senate and presidential election. today, after the supreme court spoke and called what the bill is, an expansion of government, tax increase, we went on the record so the american people come november know where we stand.

my colleague was talking about the senate and asking them to take this up. the senate isn't going to take this up. they won't go on record on the repeal of obamacare. they aren't going to take it up. why? because november 6, 2012 is coming down the pipeline and don't want to come on record after the supreme court has gone on record and call it what it is, an expansion of government and a tax increase. that's not how elected first lead. elected officials lead by putting their name on the board and standing in front of their constituents, in front of the american people and being honest and open with them. and as a freshman member of this chamber and this body, i firmly believe we can tackle more of our problems if we adopt that attitude. and with that, i'm pleased to be joined by the gentleman from colorado, mr. gardner, and i yield to him.

mr. gardner: i thank the gentleman for his time today and leadership on this important issue. you have a young family as do i and make sure that we talk about those things that will lead to a better future. but it has been a disappointing day today when we saw our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who had an opportunity to reject one of the largest tax increases in american history, when they could have voted to repeal and begin the replacement process on the health care bill, the president's takeover of health care. instead, most of them, majority of them decided to move forward on a tax they pledged not to commit and carry out on the middle class in this country. i will never forget my hometown doctor and his name was jack pierce. he was somebody that still looked up to in my hometown and lives in texas now but parts of

the new hospital is named after. somebody who delivered me and was there when my mom was delivered as well. dr. pierce was my doctor's name. but with the health care bill, the rest of america gets dr. washington. dr. washington is going to make health care decisions for the american people. if you are sick and need help, you better have the approval of dr. washington first, because dr. washington has a board of bureaucrats that will decide for you what kind of treatment you may or may not receive. dr. washington is going to ensure you have a $1,200 increase in health care premiums if you are the average american family. that's what happened after the first year of the president's health care takeover. you will have a 1% increase in your premium for individuals and families who can buy coverage on their own as if the law hadn't

been enacted at all. a 13% increase if the law hadn't been enacted at all. going back to colorado talking to business owners, they talk about what their costs will be. families talk about the insurance that they would like to have now, the insurance they wanted to keep, but concerned they aren't going to be able to under the president's takeover of health care. this tax increase will cost americans dearly. and it will cost them the doctors that they wanted, and it will cost them the insurance that they'd like to keep. we know that this bill is going to cost even more than it was anticipated to cost. as recently as june 27 in 2012, they said this health care bill would cost $1.8 trillion over the next 10 years. numbers, over $2.6 trillion over

the next 10 years to pay for this. how is it going to be paid for? a tax on the american people. in a letter to the governor of texas, secretary sebelius wrote saying, we encourage you to participate in this new expanded health care opportunity because of the expanded benefits being offered. how is this country going to pay for those generous federal benefits? deficit spending? borrowing? tax increases? the answer is all of the above. in fact, that may be the only thing that this administration agrees with, taxes, spending and debt. ladies and gentlemen, the people that i represent in colorado, the people that we represent in this country are asking for real health care solutions and asking for solutions that improve the quality of care while decreasing the amount of care. we have an obligation to this

country, to the people that we represent, to make sure they understand when the chief actuary of medicare said the two promises made in this bill will never materialize, that it will decrease costs and if you like the insurance you have, you get to keep it. the chief actuary, independent actuary has said those two promises will not be realized. and yet today, the vast majority in the president's party said, move forward with the tax and say good-bye to the health care that you and your family is hoping to secure. and so with that, i would thank again the gentleman from new york for the opportunity to be here to talk about ways we can move this country forward and our obligation to the american people. i yield back. mr. reed: i appreciate the gentleman from colorado for joining us. when you talk about dr. washington, it is a great

analogy and what we are talking about is the independent payment advisory board, the agency of dr. washington. what is the independent payment advisory board? 15 unelected bureaucrats that will be making recommendations to congress as to where to cut, the types of services that will be provided under american health care, under obamacare. now, the argument that i have heard from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that those are just recommendations and if we disagree we can take a vote in the house and senate and the president signs into law and we could overrule those recommendations. read the law. what do those recommendations do? they come to congress and require a 2/3 vote of the house and the senate to approve or disapprove those recommendations if we want to do something differently than what the agency

recommends to us. why stack the deck? why 2/3 voting requirement on such a critical issue as to what health care is going to be delivered in america? let's be open and honest with the american people and call it with what it is. 15 unleppingted bureaucrats not conducting their recommendations in public and make recommendations to congress and say we are having congress make the ultimate recommendations and have a 2/3 voting requirement to override those 15 members of those unelected independent payment advisory board. what kind of health care system is that? we could do better. we need a mulligan and can do better and repeal this and listening to the american people and adopting reforms that are

patient-centered and doctor-septemberered. i'm joined by a col league by ms. black. mrs. black: i thank you for managing this special order. because we cannot talk about this issue enough. we have to continue to make sure that the american people are aware of this devastating bill called obamacare or the patient affordability act. having been a nurse for over 40 years, we have the best care in the world. the countries don't come anywhere near providing the quality care. we have seen people from other countries come to the united states to get that care because they know across this world that we provide the best care, health

care in the world. but i'm not going to disagree that the system is broken and does need some repair. we need to have more accessibility and we need to lower the costs and need to make sure that while doing that we maintain and increase quality. however, what has happened in the bill that was passed some three years ago now by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle where there wasn't transparency, there wasn't input by those providing care and are part of the system and we didn't see patient centered care. there are other solutions. my colleague shows this chart when nancy pelosi said we have to pass this bill to know what's in it, she is correct. when we look at the 139 agencies that need to be promulgated, we

have no clue in this health care system now for the next five to eight years. . . we do have solutions, such as h.s.a.'s which have not been given a chance. they are a very, very good way, especially for the young, many of the young people that are currently not insured are not insured because they can't see a reason for paying for the very expensive insurance that's out there and available for them. on things such as removing the barriers from purchasing your health care across state lines, these are some good market-driven ideas that will bring the cost of health care down and give patients more opportunity for them to make decisions about what's best for them in their health care. also, tort reform. we know tort reform has worked in those states where it has

been successfully implemented. it needs dob -- it needs to be done across the entire country. these are solutions that allow the patient to be in the driver's seat to make decisions about what's best for them. instead, what do we have? we have a law that devastating our economy and it is wrong medicine for our health care system. 3/4 of our small businesses, and i know that as i visit the small businesses across my district, they're the bedrock of the u.s. economy, say the law is preventing them from hiring people. and all of this, an health care costs continue to soar. it hasn't done anything to bring the cost down. what we're seeing is the cost escalating. and to make matters worse, obamacare will result in millions of americans being dropped from their employers' health insurance plans and pushed on the government of-run health insurance. all of this, all of this results in more deficit

spending and more tax hikes for the middle class folks. the president has said as recently as this wee that he does not want to raise taxes on the middle class he also says he wants congress to focus on job creation and the economy. but mr. president, the house has vetted yet again to do just that, by repealing obamacare, we can prevent this crippling tax on the middle class this will also lift the cloud of uncertainty and other job-killing taxes that are reeking havoc on our economy and our health care system. it's been 41 straight months of unemployment above 8%. and it doesn't look like things are going to change very soon. if the president is committed to helping the middle class, like he says, then he will join us in doing away with this law that is increasing the tax burden and the cost of health care for all americans.

the americans deserve better. thank you again, my colleague from new york and managing this time to allow us to be able to talk to the american people and help them understand there are real solutions out there. thank you. mr. reed: i thank the gentlelady. we are coming to the end of our hour but we have time for two more speakers. i yield to the gentleman. >> i am proud of the freshman class here in washington, we have changed things, at least on this side of the capitol. mr. flores: we are listening to what the people want, and they overwhelmingly don't want obamacare.

i have to thank mr. palazzo, mrs. black, a few minutes ago, i was sitting in the chair as the speaker pro tem, and the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi a democrat, and mr. tonko from new york, invited me to debate with them. if you listened to what democrats say about obamacare you'd think the world is going to be perfect and butterflies will be singing couple baa. -- singing kumbayah. when you go to their websites, it tells how great your life will be. but it doesn't discuss the cost. only in this town, washington, d.c., this town that's based on fantasy, can you believe things like that, where you can get everything for a cost of nothing. americans know that's not the case. they know that you can't do that and americans know that you can't take 1/6 of our economy and turn it over to

bureaucrats like the people that run the g.s.a. now they -- the people at the g.s.a. partied real well but i don't trust them with our nation's health care. not my granddaughter's, not my grandmother's. none of their health care. now we, as i said in this town, we are changing things as a freshman class. most of us that came in this class came from the real world. we know how to sign the front side of a paycheck, we know what the commitment is like to have to hire an employee. to have to make sure that that employee's family gets a paycheck so that family will have food and housing and education. that they can be part of a robust local economy. so they can be part of a healthy middle class in this country. but bureaucrats don't do that. the private sector does that. builds that healthy economy for americans. so again, i just -- i can't see how you can say that we can

turn over health care to folks like the ones that run the g.s.a. what mr. garamendi and mr. tonko need to do, when they say that everything is for free and costs nothing, the world is going to be better off they need to talk to a small software company in waco, texas, that saw their premiums go up in 2011 by 27%. and saw their health insurance premiums go up this year by 23%. and then -- or the small manufacturer in brian-college station, texas, that's looked at their premiums go up by about 40% over the last two years. in each of these companies are thinking, do i have to drop coverage? do i have to lay off employees to absorb the extra cost? do i move my operations overseas? the folks on the other side of the aisle need to understand that the taxes, the restrictions, the regulations, that come with obamacare are a

tax on all america. when you tax the economy, you tax all americans. and we've already talked in great detail, mr. west laid out all the taxes in obamacare, did it pretty pell. -- pretty well. i say when you add it all alm -- all up, they're a tax on the economy. that's a tax on the middle class. that's a tax on every class in america. that's not what americans want. i put together, i vowed for the repeal of obamacare today, i'm proud i did. i urge that harry reid over in the senate take it up. is i -- so i put together the sort of top 10 fatal flaws that are part of obamacare. here they are. number one, the worst of them, the violation, it's a violation of our constitutional liberties. your right to your religious preferences. where you can have a bureaucrat, like the ones at the g.s.a., cram down your throat what your employer has to provide for you. or what it may not provide for

you. number two, it fails in its primary goals of controlling costs and allowing americans to keep their health insurance coverage. we heard other freshman speakers lay that out. number three, it hurts hardworking taxpayers, adding over 20 new taxes costing over $8 billion. taxes on home sales and income. those hit the middle class. number four, according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office, the c.b.o., as we call it around here, it will cost our nation over 800,000 jobs. how is that good for the middle class? in addition, now that that the -- now that the state medicaid mandate was ruled unconstitutional, the cost of obamacare is going to increase by several hundred billion dollars. and that's already on top of -- further damaging our fragile fiscal situation at the federal level. number six. we've already talked about this tonight.

a half trillion dollars cut from medicare. hurting our seniors. number seven. obamacare puts 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats between doctors and patients. mr. speaker, i don't want people that run the g.s.a. between me and my doctor, or between my granddaughter and her doctor, or my daughter-in-law and her doctor. this is assault on all americans, women, men, young and old. number seven, excuse me, number eight, even though it's just been partially implemented, it's caused health care premiums to inflate dramatically across the country. number nine, obamacare is causing massive uncertainty for american businesses, hurting american job growth and our economy and the american middle class. and adding further pain to all the economic policies that we're experiencing in the obama

economy. number 10. we've heard about this earlier. the federal taxover of the student loan program. another accounting gimmick used to pay for the takeover of health care. so mr. reed, mr. speaker, i would say it's time to -- time for us, and we did today, to recognize that these fatal flaws mean that this should be overturned. and that's what we did. i think it's high time the senate act and do the same thin. one of the things that mr. tonko and mr. garamendi talked about if americans want to hear the facts, they laid out their vision of the facts. americans can go to my website, there's an obamacare section at flores.house.gov at the top of the page and you can find out about the tacks, you can find out about the laws, the times we have tried to repeal this you can read the law to see what's in it, you can read the supreme court decision. and then you can also see what

the republican alternatives are, some of the ideas or alternatives to fix this. mr. reed, i thank you for your leadership on this and i yield back to you and look forward to serving with you. mr. reed: i appreciate the gentleman joining us this evening. we have another freshman colleague from the great state of georgia who has joined us this evening and will bring us to conclusion, mr. woodall. mr. woodall: i thank the gentleman for yield, i appreciate the speaker for being down here with us, and i appreciate the gentleman from texas, when he said, you can just go read the law. you can now go and read the law. it's time to make that happen. that's what is so frustrating to me about the debate. i appreciate the way you highlight each and every one of these things. when i go to folks back home, they say, rob, the president told me he's going to bring down health care costs. isn't that good? that would be good.

the president says i'm going to keep the policy that my family knows an loves today. wouldn't that be good? yes. people say, rob, he tells me he's going to make sure that children who don't have access to health care today will have health care tomorrow, isn't that good? i say that would be good. they say, so why do you oppose the bill? it doesn't do those things. the c.b.o. tells us it's 800,000 jobs that this bill destroys. say it's only 700,000. that's 700,000 too many. they tell us it's raising costs from mandate after mandate after mandate at the federal level. say there are only a dozen instead of the 30 or ho i believe there are, isn't that a dozen too many? in my state of georgia, the family went out after the president's health care bill passed to buy insurance for their child.

the insurance commissioner said, you could have bought an insurance policy before the president's health care law passed but now, every single insurer of children has left the state of georgia. read the law mitigating circumstance colleague from texas says. read the chart my league from new york had. when you get to the facts, if only it did what the president promised america it would do. but it doesn't. but we can. you know, first vote we took as freshmen was to repeal the president's health care bill. about 189 of our colleagues voted against it. they wanted to keep it. today only 185 of our colleagues voted against it and wanted to keep it. folks ask back home, the supreme court said it's ok. i said, they didn't say it's ok, they said they weren't able to look at the policy and see if it's any good. they say it's not their job to protect the american people from their political decisions. they say yes, the power to tax

is just this dangerous but it's up to congress to decide. congress decided today and i'm grate to feel my friend from new york for using this opportunity to highlight that decision. the final say on this bill was not the last thursday in june with the supreme court. s the first tuesday in november with the american people. you and i know what the american people are going to say. we are their representatives. this is not the 29th time or the 30th time, it's the 31st time the american people's representatives have spoken in this house and they said, we can do better. this bill is bad for america, it's bad for health care. . mr. reed: i preert the gentleman from georgia and my colleague from texas and as we wrap up tonight. you are absolutely right, we can do better. health care obviously needs to be reformed. the costs that we are seeing in

the increases in costs in health care need to be addressed, but this law doesn't do it. this law compounds the problem. and just look at its track record. i have been contacted by numerous constituents talking about premium notice with increases of 10 to 15% in the state of new york. it's not delivering on the promises. read the law? absolutely. read the law. we have. and we have spoken on behalf of the people and we stand for repeal. the chief justices' closing commentsr it's up to the people and that's where they will speak in november, 2012 and we stand on their side with the vote we took today to say we can do better and stop the government takeover and tax increases that are coming down the pike. we need to stop it before it's too late.

in november, 2012, is the last stop to allow us to turn this back. with that, i yield the balance of my time. thank you, mr. speaker, for your attention this evening. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognize ezz -- recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. we have had a number of people ask, why would we have a vote today to repeal obamacare when it's been done before. there had not been a vote taken since the united states supreme court said that the

administration misrepresented what was really in this bill. it was a tax. we know there have been misrepresentations about different things, but this bill creates a massive tax for the people who can least afford it. so running numbers, if you make $14,856 or more and you are a single individual, then the chances are you're probably not going to be able to pay for a $12,000 health insurance policy, which is the estimated cost of the insurance policy that is being mandated by the obamacare law. if you cannot -- if you make

more $14,856, say $20,000, you can't afford $12,000 for the insurance policy, you will have an extra annual tax of $371 when the extra income tax kicks in. and if you only make $14,856, and that's before taxes, take away a hunk of that for income tax, medicare tax, social security tax, that $374 means a lot. it may mean the difference between being able to fill up a worker's car enough times to get to a from work so he does president lose his job. if you are a family of two and

make $22,000 or more, $30,000, $22,123, you will have an extra 2.5% tax. but the more you make over $22,123, but the minimum. if you are a family of four, four people living on off $ 37,647, under obamacare if you can't afford the policy that the government mandates under this law, then you will have an additional $766 with which you will not be able to buy food for your family. you will not be able to buy gas for your car with that extra $

766. and i don't middle eastern people like $30,000 -- and i don't mean people like $30,000. the people who make that money don't have any extra money and especially not to pay the extra $766 obama tax on these individuals. if you make $41,190 or more and you are a family of six, you will have a minimum, minimum, $1,030 extra income tax that you'll have to pay in order to meet the requirements of obamacare. and to keep the obama tax, i.r.s. agents off of your doorstep, because there are

thousands and thousands of new i.r.s. agents who will find jobs, even there's hundreds of thousands in net loss of jobs since this president has taken over -- we have lost four more jobs than we've picked up, at least one piece of good news, the government's gotten bigger -- good news for those who love big government, i don't happen to, and those who love more i.r.s. agents, because we are adding thousands and thousands of those who will make sure that if you make $41,190 and are a family of six, they'll make sure that not only do you have to pay your regular income tax, you will have an added tax, an abomba tax in obamacare of $1,030 minimum.

anything you make above that amount and you are a family of six, then you will keep paying more tax the more you make. and that's if you are not able to afford the 12,000 or so average costs that estimated that the obama health insurance that's dictated in the obamacare bill will require. if you are a family of eight or more and you make $51,724 or more, you will have a minimum tax of $1,293 on top of regular income tax. congratulations. that's a gift from the obama administration and all of those -- not a single republican, but all of those on the democratic side of the aisle that voted to

cram down obamacare on a nation where it was clear poll after poll after poll, the american people got it. they did not want the government dictating their health care. and now with chief justice john roberts abandonning intellectual integrity with his opinion and saying on page 11 through 15, clearly, this is not a tax, it's a penalty, it's the obama administration penalizing everybody in america that doesn't buy exactly what the administration says. it's a penalty. chief justice makes clear best evidence what it is, it's congress' own language, congress calls it a penalty, it just penalizes those who doesn't do what the obama administration

says. and let's see, about the middle of page 15 of the supreme court opinion, commeef justice roberts says since it's a penalty and not a tax, the supreme court does have jurisdiction, because as he makes clear, if this were really a tax, the injunction act would apply and no one could file suit until 2014. but he says, you know since it's a penalty and not a tax, then we have jurisdiction and we can proceed now and don't have to wait until 2014 and proceeds through the rest of his opinion after talking about the commerce clause to say you know what, no matter what congress calls is, it is a tax. and he justifies it by calling it a penalty for one thing and a tax for another.

it is one oth worst written opinions that i have seen -- i mean at least when the liberals on the supreme court have written opinions, they were at least more intellectually consistent than that tragic opinion is, written by our chief justice. he's a good man. he lost his way. and i feel sure he'll find his way back when he realizes what has really occurred. yesterday during the debate, today the obamacare bill was debated somewhat further, but i heard people on the democratic side of the aisle who kept saying no one has lost their insurance, no one will lose their insurance. if you like your insurance, you aren't going to lose it.

and there were people saying that that i have great respect for and i would know they would never intentionally say something that's false. what it told me is, they really don't know, they honestly don't know that people across america have already been losing their insurance that they liked and wanted to keep. they don't know that. and so i'm hopeful that people across america, when they have heard over the last few days people saying nobody will lose their insurance, nobody has lost their insurance, that as people continue to and have already lost their insurance, that they will make sure to drop a line or give a call or something and make sure that people here know that yes, we have lost our insurance. and we liked it. we were ok with it.

it was obamacare that caused the loss. and we have people that kept saying, look, we ought to be talking about jobs and i know they are sincere about that, but they don't understand that this bill is killing jobs. and so many people have said -- i have talked to people. we were right there as the 50-employee limit under obamacare, we don't want to have 50. we are keeping things small and don't want to hire more folks because we can't afford to pay that extra $2,000 an employee tax that we get hit with the minute we go over that 50 employee limit. so there are people not being hired and people losing jobs. other people are saying we are downscaling and don't want to be over that 50-employee number and

maybe stay competitive in a do you understand economy. the economy is difficult. and i have been intrigued as have people on both sides of the i'll let me know during this time and we have a chance, democrats for a time, republicans for a time, back and forth, have a chance to bring things to the floor to get into the congressional record and to make public things that others may have missed. and i have people say, i had no idea about that and i heard you talking about it on the floor. i was watching c-span and i have been told before, we love it when you are on tv because we can turn you off. but i have been told by others here on capitol hill, that they actually turn up the sound that

they see me on. whatever the case, mr. speaker, it is a wonderful chance to make sure people get information that they don't have time to get otherwise. but we have been hearing a great deal about the photo i.d. in the district of columbia, federal court here, we have been having a suit between our so-called department of justice and texas over whether texas can do as indiana did and require a photo i.d. in order to vote. texas pretty well tracked the law, looked like a good law. read the supreme court opinion that addressed the issue and upheld the law as being a legitimate law. i don't know from reports i heard today whether or not texas

is trying the case properly, but if they put on the evidence that's available and is quite convincing and clear, there should be no reason for texas to lose this case, that requires a photo i.d. if someone cannot afford a photo i.d., a few dollars for that, then under the texas law, as the indiana law, can simply make that indication. and if you can't pay for it, then you're going to get it free. and there are groups in texas that have made it clear if you can't get to where you need to go to get a photo i.d. we'll take you there. in fact, if this justice department had spent a tiny, tiny fraction of the money it has spent on this litigation against texas and against florida, gns these other states

-- against these other states on helping people getting photo i.d.'s there wouldn't have been a problem with everybody getting a photo -- a photo i.d. that needed one. but this article, they write, earlier today, attorney general eric holder addressed the naccp national convention at the george r. brown convention cent for the houston, texas. what did media need in order to attend? government-issued photo identification and a second form of identification too. something both holder and the naacp stand firmly against when it comes to voting. wow. the naacp and the attorney

general have just disenfranchised a slew of people that probably would have liked to have heard the attorney general. but they disenfranchised them, said, you can't come in to the naacp convention unless you've got a photo i.d. you can't come in. and yet, attorney general was in court saying that what texas is doing is wrong. if it's wrong, why is the naacp and attorney general doing it? the article says all media must present government-issued photo i.d. such as driver's license as well as valid media credentials. members of the media must rsvp to receive press credentials and it gives the website, for security purposes, media check-in and equipment setup must be completed by 7:45 a.m.

central daylight time for an 8:00 a.m. c.d.t. security sweep. once the security sweep is completed, equipment will not be allowed to enter. what's sad is these folks that can't get the photo i.d., can't even get into the convention. so how is it that these people who say we're out for those who don't have a photo i.d. really care about those without a photo i.d. they won't let them into the convention. ironically, naacp president railed against voter i.d. just before holder took the stage in the convention, they railed against it, but the people without photo i.d.'s, if there are those who can't get them, that really want them they

couldn't get in to hear the speech. the head of the naacp on monday likened the group's first fight against conservative-backed voter i.d. laws passed in several states to the great civil rights battles of 196 0. the c.e.o. and president of the national association for the advancement of colored people said these are selma and montgomery times, referring to historic alabama civil rights confrontations he challenged those attending the naacp's annual convention to redouble their efforts to get out the society in november. we must overwhelm the rising tide of voting suppression with the high tide of registration, motivation and protection, he said. simply put, this is in quotes, the naacp will never stand by as any state tries to incur discrimination in law. well, obviously, he doesn't have a chance to get out and

see the real news but in georgia they passed a voter -- a photo i.d. requirement for voters and have had two elections since and in both those elections, minorities have increased greater than before and actually increased greater than anglo voters. there's been no disenfranchisement in georgia. so actually, it turns out the photo i.d. has engaged minority voters. and the fact is, the voting rights amendment is a violation of our united states constitution until it is applied, section 5 is applied to every state in the union. there were southern states that were guilty of racial suppression in the 1960's and prior. and it is an abomination to this nation that such occurred.

not nearly as much as slavery but it's still an abomination and should not have been happening. and the voting rights act has done a great deal toward eliminating that. but unfortunately, under the voting rights act, atypical of most things in america, once you improve your state to the place where there is no problem , you still are not out from under punishment, the penalty of section 5, because of what happened in the 1960's and before. so states have complained, look, you know, we fixed things. we're doing good. in fact, we're doing better than so many districts in other parts of the country that are not under section 5 that's so punitive. and some of us couldn't help but wonder when a big majority

on both sides of the aisle voted to extend the voting rights act, including section 5 that got even tougher for another 25 careers, why they wouldn't have supported the gohmert amendment, the gohmert amendment said, look, section 5 punitive provisions ought to apply to every district, every state in the country. failure to do so is a violation of equal protection. why is it that districts in other parts of the country, north, east, west, are allowed to grow into racial disparity and suppression of minority vote, but they're not treated with section 5, whereas states that have been under that punitive provision can't ever get out from under it even though they're better off than other parts of the country?

the reason, it seems to be, wonder why would people vote, why not vote to do it across the country if it's good for these states that have proved better than our own state, why should it not apply to everyone? i still ask that question. we had the power to ram this down on these states, punitively, we did, and the last thing we wanted was any of those punitive provisions applying to our states, our our districts, where disparity is more a problem than those original areas. so i don't know. i wonder if at some point we're going to have a rush of the bipartisan leadership that pushed that through to come back and say, you know what, louie, you're right. if it applies to southern states, it ought to apply to everybody. it ought to apply to those

districts that have more of a racial problem than there's been or exists now in those states that are treated punitively. well, we'll see. we've also heard about the loving relationship, as this administration says, with such a great ally as israel. and this is -- it defies explanation. this is from brite bart, william bigalow, dated 10 july 2012. how much does barack obama hate israel and want to throw her under the bus? here's how much. the obama administration not only excluded israel from a new counterterrorism forum in spain, it didn't even mention israel in its remarks.

if there were ever a country that's dealt with murderous terrorist attacks over and over again, that country would have to be israel. here's what maria otero, the state department's undersecretary for civilian security, democracy, and human rights, said. her words. last september, at the official launch of the global counterterrorism forum, i had the privilege to introduce the premier of a film, hear their voices, which tells the stories of 11 survivors of terrorist attacks from pakistan, jordan, northern ireland, uganda, turkey, indonesia, india, spain, columbia and the united states. the film, which was produced by the global survivors network, is a powerful plea for audiences around the world, especially those sympathetic to the grievances expressed by

extremists, to recognize the human cost of terrorism and i'm delighted that our spanish hosts are planning on showing this film here late they are afternoon. when undersecretary -- when secretary of state hillary clinton announced the coalition's formation in june, she didn't include israel on her list of countries that suffer from terrorist attacks. how could secretary clinton not immediately think of israel as a country that suffers from terrorist attacks, when they have bomb, they have rockets flying into israel every day? defenders of israel were furious, even those who were democrats, josh block, a democratic stratyist and former spokesman for aipac said, when the administration promised to include israel in the counterterrorism forum that the united states founded, after jerusalem's inexplicable

exclusion from the initial meeting a month ago, one would think that they would be true to their word. clearly someone failed here. how israel could be excluded from another meeting of an anti-terror forum that we in the united states chair is beyond comprehension. especially one that focuses on victims of terrorism. at a time when romney is challenging the administration's record on u.s.-israel relations, this error stands out. first of all, mr. block, the article says, no one failed here osm because ma succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. later in the article, jonathan chancer, vice president of research at the foundation for defense of democracy, said, what we're seing is a trend of israel being left out of the global discussion on terrorism while israel was extremely helpful in the beginning stages

of this conversation. the obama administration is down playing the struggle that israel has been enduring. i believe to a certain extent, he says, this is due to regional politics and it's disconcerting to see this change. it looks like a quiet effort to down play the issue. the state department, the article says, would not answer questions about the matter. pretty tragic. how this state department, how this administration, could continue to exclude israel from counterterrorism discussions about countries who have been victims of terrorism. well, interesting additional article, we had another hearing today in one of our judiciary committees, caused us to think again, some of us, about fast

and furious, never far from our minds when you know there are guns out there still being used to kill innocent people that were put there, forced there, by this administration. this article, date -- dated july 6, from the national review online. i'm not going to read the whole article but significant part is important to note. . while brian terry is the victim of this notorious policy, it is not a casualty. u.s. immigration and customs enforcement agent, a 32-year-old was shot in mexico. members of a drug gang hit

i.c.e. agent in that ambush, although not fataly. this assault involved a rifle purchased in dallas. largely overlooking these plans, impact on mexico, its people and u.s.-mexican relations. fast and fewer yuss spilled american blood but south of the board it has made blood gush like an oil strike. one of the things so offensive is that our federal government, knowingly, willfully, purposefully gave the drug cartels nearly 2,000 weapons and allowed them to walk, that's from representative chaffetz. these arms were supplied to

allow agents in phoenix to the mexican thugs. but they melted into mexico without a trace, and i add, because they were never intended to be followed. and that was clear. these weapons became invisible, but not silent. the 300 mexicans or so that have died as a result of this also deserve attention and what it has done to our american-mexican relations needs great sympathy and heartfelt apologies. and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. gohmert: i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

the ayes have it. and the motion is adopted. speaker of the house, the ds 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? wellthe 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 [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the senate is not likely to take up the bill. but republican leader mitch mcconnell says he'll push for a vote before the november elections. and tomorrow in the house, a vote on legislation that would speed up the permitting process for mineral mining on federal lands. watch live house coverage when they reconvene, 9:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> we have great threats to our existence. today as a nation. and i would think in my opinion greater than any threat we've ever faced -- and that threat that comes to us because we've spent the last 30 years in this

country spending money on things we did not need and the bill is due. >> a western conservative issue summit featuring speakers from this country and the netherlands. watch the forum online at the c-span video library. shreveport in march. april in little rock. oklahoma city, may. wichita in june. that past weekend in jefferson city. watch for the continuing travels of c-span's local content vehicles every month on book tv and american history tv. and next month look for the history and literary culture of our next stop. louisville, kentucky. the weekend of august 4 and 5 on c-span2 and c-span3. >> the heritage foundation today posted a discussion on the supreme court decision upholding the individual insurance mandate in the affordable care act. here's some of that discussion starting with michael car vin, one of the attorneys who argued

against the law before the supreme court. >> unlike the solicitor general, i will say my personal opinions. 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, right? the operation was a success but the patient died. which is sort of how -- [laughter] got the really good commerce clause rulings and then the chief justice in what was accurately characterized and gave congress the power under the taxing power all the power that it wants under the commerce clause power. i thought i'd walk through it pretty quickly to explain why this was clearly a judicial rewriting of the statute and not an interpretation of the statute. as chief justice correctly noted. the test between what is peanlt and what is tax has always been

relatively straightforward in the law. if you have a legal violation that you can't offend, then whatever monetary consequence is attached to that, that's a penalty. if it says, don't do something and you do it, and then 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 a $5 a pack fine, that's a fine. that's a penalty. if they say, go ahead and sell cigarettes, we're not making that illegal, but when do you we'll attach a $5 a pack surtax, same economic consequences but someone obviously a tax and one is obviously a penalty. so chief justice roberts looked at a provision that said, you shall by insurance and will you 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.

so, 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 con cluesively showed they weren't the same. just a high level of generality. obviously the government didn't want any money from the individual mandate. they wanted people to buy insurance because that was the key as the government repeatedly emphasized the entire scheme. so the last thing they wanted to do was to have them pay the penalty and foregot insurance. and the chief justice made much of the fact that this was being enforced through the i.r.s. so it looked and smelled like a tax but 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 say, you have bought your health insurance? have you bought your broccoli? the only way you're going to be able to do it is to have the americans who have to send in these things every year to the i.r.s. tell you whether or not they've bought the mandate.

so, again, some conservatives are taking solace in the fact that, well, really all the chief justice did was rewrite the statute. he didn't rewrite the constitution and he made some good commerce clause law. but i really don't think that survives scrutiny either because everything he said 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 taxing power. and they don't have to call it a tax. this is not a question of labels. this is a question of, again, whether or not there's a legal violation. so tomorrow they can pass a law saying will you buy broccoli or pay a penalty. the chief justice will rewrite that to say, if you buy broccoli or don't buy broccoli you'll pay a tax and therefore everything that they couldn't do ound the commerce clause they're now in power to do under the taxing power. so i don't think it was a victory either in terms of

limited government in the long-term and certainly not in terms of the provisions of this act. i don't really think, contrary to what some people have said, that there's any real limits on his newfound principle that penalties can become taxes. some people are suggesting the penaltyings can't be too big, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. you would think the bigger they are the move more the government would want the revenue. and also he said the outer most limit was 10% of your annual income. so they've got pretty very serious ways of imposing these penalties by attaching a civil penalty to literally any human 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 become within the taxing power. so in 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's supposed to behalf than i do. i don't think it engenders rment

for court when you rewrite a statute in a way that enacts a law that congress, a, would never have enacted. and, b, could never have enacted because they couldn't have passed this law if they had honestly told the american people it was a tax. and i think that concern about independence of the judiciary is compounded by the stories that come out about the timing of it and it makes it look like president obama's wholly unprecedented attack on the court while they were deciding the case somehow did influence the adjudication of the third branch. which would 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 at least some reports about the chief justice's activities have confirmed that could happen again. after that happy note i'll switch to two cases did i like the results in. one of which has already been mentioned. the u.s. vs. alvarez case.

it was very significant in that the courts 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 induced harm on a fellow citizen. you liable their reputation, you defraud them out of money, that kind of thing. but they weren't going to extend that into the political arena which i think is very significant because there are a number of state laws that require and create causes of action if you tull an -- tell an untruth during the political campaign. you can imagine the work that would create the federal courts if that was ever accepted on the federal level and then finally i'm running quickly out of time, but there was a significant decision i think in this knox vs. seiu case which involved a controversial issue of when unions take mandatory fees from you, can they send it for politically-related expenditures and the law prior to knox had always been that as long as you gave the employee the nonunion

employee the 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 alito's opinion that from now on the constitutional rule is not to allow the employee to opt out of the payments that go for political advocacy but to make him affirmatively opt in to endorse it and if that's where they go with the law, i think that could have a very significant effect on public union employees' ability to engage in politics and would have an even more significant effect, if it's extended to private sector unions under this case. but i'll leave it at that. thank you. [applause] >> now please join me in welcoming professor richard epstein. [applause] >> thank you so much for having me here. again, i'm obviously going to have to say something about the nfib case. i should say i wrote briefs on

three parts of it, attacking the mandate, speaking about severability and going after the medicaid extension. i think the one point that i would like to make now is this. that when i drafted the brief along with mario on the question of the medicaid exemption, everybody just kind of 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 halted against their will by a supreme court that said, we'd actually like to hear this kind of thing. with that kind of pedigree it seems to me you have a pretty good chance of winning. the interesting feature about it is i actually 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 minutes words, was south dakota vs. dole because it was justice rehnquist being too clever by half and saying, yes, we do have a principle which means that certain conditions that are attached to government grants are illegal but i will draft that condition so it's never satisfied in the history of mankind and 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 drew it in the wrong place. so in his view, if i stick my gun to carbon's -- carvin's head and say, give me all your money, that's coercion. but if i say, i need car fare, give me 5% of what you havey your wallet, that's a mere form of inducement. [laughter] you can't have the line between what you ask for when you use coercive behavior. if i say, i'd like to get your wallet and i'm willing to pay x dollars for it, that's an

inducement. the justice repealed the entire law by 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. but what did he do is to make an argument which was completely inconsistent with what he said about the way in which you'll look at the tax. he said, we're going to treat this thing as a tax because it's different from making a direct order to somebody or only saying, if you don't do this you have to pay it. he's just dead wrong on that. the entire law preemption says that a penalty in effect is tantamount to an order, particularly if you make it large or not. but when he got to the other half of this thing, he said, look, you know, there's serious conditions that you can and serious conditions that you can't detach the government grants and if we require you to sacrifice something, then the action is not something that you may well choose to do it like many of the states were willing to do. so he takes a completely different view on the relationship and understands that the sacrifice of what would previously -- what was

previously an entitlement would count as coercion and what's ironic is that under these circumstances, what you're sacrifice something a government grant under terms of a contract where in fact you are allowed -- the government's allowed to insist that they alter and amend the arrangement but thinking in this case more like an aity trust lawyer than a constitutional lawyer says, justice aragements, that's going to be the case here. and he came up with essentially the right conclusion. that you can condition the way in which the money you give them may be used but you cannot tell them that they're going to have to give up billions of dollars in money unless they want to play ball with the government. in effect, 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 on the taxing power. now, talking about some of the other things, i thought in the

arizona case, what struck me was when i read the scalia dissent, my eyes nearly bulged out of my head. because it's clear that just looking that the, as somebody's done a lot of work in preemption, it says that occupation of the field, conflict, frustration, everything's working in favor of the government and he fought to win this one in a walk and i thought he was going to win all four parts but what scalia does is says, the states are equal sovereigns. if we go back to the original period, the federal government never had or exerted any power over immigration. in fact, if you look at the naturalization clause, naturalization does not mean immigration, at least in ordinary english. it eens only means the same thing by the time you get to the 1870's or 1880. so he thought there was a dual sovereignty issue and unless can you show why a state sovereignty should be displaced, he was willing to let this thing ride. i mean, it was an eye-popping decision. i think in the end he has to be wrong and that the preemption analysis would work.

and on that basic score, i'm not even sure that the court was right in saying that 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 announced we don't want you doing in this thing, that we regard this as an increase in the federal enforcement levels, that we do not accept, it seems to me you could make a reasonably credible case that the thing ought to go in the opposite direction. now, another case that is worth a couple of points of measurement, and here you asked, how is it that any sane people could wish to bring the kind of action that the government brought? and i'm not here talking about the law and whether it's a final judgment under the a.p.a. but you got a guy who's sitting on a piece of land which is rocky and stoney and he tries to build a foundation like those of his neighbors and all of a sudden we now understand this guy is discharging pollutants

into the waters of the united states. i mean, 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 for damages, you have all these anticipatory remedies which apply to cases which in one case in a million will actually generate the kind of harm in question. so you have this is he real discussion as to -- surreal discussion as to whether or not the rock he's using will change the ecology so a single drop of something will end up in some river 800 feet away 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 to things like the water of the united states and what should have been done in this case was to revisit something and say, you cannot use these kinds of clubs to beat people up. and speaking about clubs, the last case that i'll talk about. again, the federal government in my view had no business

whatsoever in bringing the case. it's a waste of public funds. to try and prosecute religious organizations which has its own definitions of who is or is not a member of its organization. and the great danger of using the handicap and anti-discrimination laws which i've always been opposed to on principle, is it forces the -- it puts the court and the government in the position of telling a religion that you are or you're not your practice. 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 that it covers worship and nothing else is i think one of the great constitutional miscarrages of current time which is going to play out of course 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, inex cluesably wrong on that question. wrong on that question. thank you.