cookman? what i was going to say -- >> mr. attorney general, i yield back my time. >> mr. chairman -- >> can we have a ruling on who controls the time? >> the time is controlled by the gentleman from georgia. >> he can have extra time, let him answer the question. >> mr. attorney general, you don't control the time here. >> i'm willing to give -- >> my question is this, as i come back to this -- >> mr. chairman, could the witness have a chance -- >> the witness will have a full opportunity to respond but the gentleman from georgia has the opportunity to ask his question. >> mr. chairman, just to make a point, the attorney general stayed here extra time to make sure that everyone had a chance to ask their questions. considering the fact that he is still here past his time, why can't he answer the question as posed to him? >> he will get an opportunity to answer the question just as soon as mr. collins finishes posing his question and we'll give him ect tra time after mr. collins'

time has expired just as we have done for the attorney general on several occasions. >> mr. chairman, may i just a moment, i would appreciate it, i know that some of us have deep voices that sound like we're not being friendly but i would appreciate civility in the question oing of the attorney general as we proceed to the conclusion. i yield back. >> the gentleman from georgia may proceed. >> i >> it was amazings to me that the question was did you not think you would be asked about maybe the time line of when you might recuse yourself because you said -- there was some question, even in your own dialogue of when you did this. i'm asking a simple question as the others on the other side, they got to ask their questions, did you not think that someone on this panel would have asked you that question? >> i did not know. but irrespective, i thought that

was an important fact and i asked my staff to find out irrespective of what was going to happen up here today whether or not there was a recusal. i asked that question myself. i did not know -- i don't know what you are going to ask me, that's why i'm saying i didn't know whether or not you were going to ask the question and i thought it was important and one i put to my staff. >> i have one question, have you recused yourself in using the recusal, have you put it in writing before? >> i'm not sure about that. in the edwards' case, i recused myself in that matter and recused highest in other cases because my former law firm was involved in those cases. i'm not sure that those are in writing, but i do think -- i don't remember what congressman, putting those things might be the better practice. >> i appreciate your answers to your questions. it's amazing again as you have

stated there is a role of the executive -- >> point of order, is that my grid. >> the gentleman's time was interrupted. so he can complete this question and the attorney general can answer it. >> i did not interrupt the gentleman from louisiana in his questions. and i would like the opportunity. we are going to have the opportunity to ask more questions. and with that, i yield back. >> that's fine. i respect the oversight role that congress plays. this isn't always a pleasant experience but one i recognize as you go through the executive branch officer. one thing i tried to do is be respectful of the people who asked me questions. i don't think i have been treated with a great deal of respect and it's not a personal thing. if you don't like me that's one thing but i'm the attorney general of the united states. this is the first time you and i met. i'm not referring to you or any

of the questions you just asked, but that is something that is the problem we have in washington nowadays a toxic partisan atmosphere where civility doesn't exist. we could have serious and disagreements about a whole variety of things but people should have the ability especially in this context to treat one another with respect. i tried to do that. maybe i have not always been successful, but i know i have not been treated in that way all the time. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from. >> thank you. mr. attorney general, i'm going to talk about accountability and credibility, because this is something underneath all these issues and something that bothers me, by your own admission, this is one of the most serious leaked cases.

your comments yesterday, you said it put the american people at risk and yet as you testified today, you don't know when you recused yourself. you have no record of you recusing yourself and you didn't tell the white house that you recused yourself and that bothers me because that explanation, -- previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following order. h.r. 767 by the yeas and nays,

h.r. 701 by the yeas and nays, and h.r. 384 by the yeas and nays. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the house vote on the motion of the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 767, as amended, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 33, h.r. 767, a bill to amend the energy policy act of 2005 to modify the pilot project offices of the federal permit streamlining pilot project. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes

y electronic device. and this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

.

the speaker: on this vote the yeas are 415. the nays are one. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. he house will be in order. the house will be in order. members will take their seats. he house will be in order.

if members could please take their seats. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, i have the honor to transmit herewith a copy of the certificate of election received from the honorable markhamoned, secretary of the state of south carolina indicating that at the special election held may 7, 2013, the honorable mark sanford was duly elected representative in congress for the first congressional district, state of south carolina. signed sincerely, karen l. aas.

the speaker: the house will be n order. will representative-elected sanford and the members of the south carolina delegation please present themselves in the well of the house? the all members rise and representative-elect raise his right hand? mr. sanford. do you solemnly swear to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that you take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that

you will well and faithfully discharge the office on which you are about to enter, so help you god. congratulations. you are now a member of the 13th congress. without objection, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson, is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, south carolina is very fortunate. due to the quality of life in south carolina, tens of thousands are moving to the state from the midwest and northeast and from around the world. south carolina has gained a new seat in congress to include the communities of myrtle beach and florence, now held by tom rice. this new seventh district rotated all the districts creating a unique district of the first. the first district of south carolina is virtually 10 miles wide along the charleston count

buford county. it's a special district to tom and myself and that we will a historic eston, city. in the district's first election, tim scott was elected as only the second african-american from south carolina elected to congress in 100 years. we are grateful governor haley appointed congressman tim scott o the u.s. senate. this created a replacement primary with 16 participants. the largest number ever in a congressional primary. we're here today to recognize the survivor of the primary, the runoff and general election, congressman mark sanford. i yield to congressman david price of north carolina.

mr. price: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in place of the dean of the south carolina delegation, congressman jim clyburn, who's away this week on family medical leave and asked me to read this statement, and i'm quoting. swearing in day is always about new beginnings, and in that spirit i want to extend the hand of collegiality to mark sanford as he begins a new chapter of service to the people of south carolina and this great country and the u.s. house of representatives. though our past differences have been widely chronicled and we bring different sets of experiences to the public square, i'll always work to find common ground as we fulfill our duties and responsibilities to the people who sent us here. end of quote. so, mr. speaker, mark sanford's colleagues and the carolinas delegations join mr. clyburn in wishing mark well and welcoming him back to the house and i ield back.

mr. wilson: i yield to congressman mark sanford of south carolina. mr. sanford: mr. speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the house of representatives of the united states congress, i look forward to working with each one of you, republican and democrat, different perspectives we may hold, but at the end of the day we are here to represent the people of south carolina and i look forward to going about that business with you. i see friends like elliot engel who were so kind to call me in the wake of events of 2009. democrats democrat he may be, i see friends ands indeed an honor to be back with each one of you. i look forward to working with you on a whole host of issues. obviously greatest among them for me will be efforts to get our financial house back in order here in washington, d.c.,

but above all else here on this day, i'm simply humbled to be here. and each one of our lives involve different journeys but on that journey i think that we can in essence be taken to places wherein we develop levels of appreciation perhaps that we never had before. and so i stand here before each one of you more appreciative than i ever could have been for the honor of working with each one of you here in the united states congress, the congress of the nation most blessed of all nations here on this earth. stand before you most appreciative of the people of the first congressional district of south carolina, as joe just alluded to, a people who've taught me a whole lot about love and humility, about wisdom and about grace. i stand before you, i guess, with a whole new appreciation, indeed for a god of second chances and how in the events f our life, up our down, how

we can be redefined as human beings. i stand before you as a human being most appreciative in whole new ways, for the significance of family and friends, and in that regard i see belan and i see my sons marshall and landon. i see my sister sara and her husband, bill. i see my mom, peg. i see a long list of different friends. i would thank them for their presence here. i would thank a long list of friends, whether that's buff chase or someone like joe taylor who is my secretary of commerce while i was governor. each one of them are representatives to thousands who were so kind to hold me up

through the last couple of years and be instrumental in this election that brought me to this very place. above all else, though, i'm simply humbled to be here and i look forward to working with each one of you. i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the speaker: under clause 5-d of rule 20, the chair announces to the house that in light of the administration of the oath to the gentleman from south carolina, the whole number of he house is now 434. without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from north carolina, mr. mchenry, to suspend the

rules and pass h.r. 701, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 701, a bill to amend a provision of the securities act of 1933 directing the securities and exchange commission to add a particular class of securities to those exempted under such act to provide a deadline for such action. the speaker: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 416, the nays are 6. 2/3 of those being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed. and without objection, the

motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from north carolina, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 384 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: a bill to establish the position of special assistant for veterans affairs in the office of secretary of housing and urban development by transferring the special assistant for veterans affairs to the office of secretary of h.u.d. and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 420, the nays are 3. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. and without objection, the title is amended. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i send to the desk two privileged reports from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the

clerk will report the titles. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 215, providing consideration for h.r. 245 to repeal the patient protection and affordable care act and provisions and the health care reconciliation act of 2010. report to accompany house resolution 216, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 1062 to improve the consideration by the securities and exchange commission of the cost and benefits of its regulations and orders. the speaker pro tempore: they are referred to the house calendar and ordered printed.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to bancroft of irea colorado. she is one of the cases from our immigration system. e chose eventual citizenship and did it within the immigration system and born in northern argentina in 1967.

ninth of 13 children. her parents were ranchers and childhood home had no electricity. when clara was eight years old, she had to leave school and become the sole caretaker and at the age of 16 where she worked as a nanny and returned to school. in 2001, while working as a reaccept nist, she met her soon-to-be husband. collar ave visited her future husband. while she was in america, that rogram was unexpected ended. respecting immigration law, she returned to her home country as she worked to get her visa. while still navigating the system, they were married in 2002 and after a year of legal battles, she returned to the united states and reunited with her husband in january of 2003. since coming to america, she has

learned english and in 2008, they welcomed their son bill into their family. on november 15, 2012, clara took the oath of citizenship in the united states. she is a proud citizen and loves her adopted country. mr. speaker, it is an honor to recognize mrs. clara bancroft by becoming a citizen of the united states of america. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise and stepped. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. > mr. speaker, the news that carbon dioxide past 400 parts per million should serve as a wakeup call that we can no longer ignore the threat of climate change. there are some that don't believe in science and believe that climate change isn't real,

but we should all agree this is a problem we have to confront. addressing climate change is not only important for our environment, but for our economy. creating a clean energy economy will spurn new jobs and technological advancements and grow our economy. in order to ensure we can compete to develop clean energy technologies, it is vital we have a trained work force ready to work. i re-introduced the community ollege training act to support clean energy job training programs. community colleges train and retrain americans who want to learn skills and open up new opportunities. in investing in these programs, we can lay the foundation for success and a field that prepares our students for the good jobs for tomorrow. . .

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: i ask unanimous con tonight is address the house for one minute -- consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: there's a troubling pattern here in washington. when wrong doing occurs involving federal government employees, blame falls away from the white house and the wrong doctors get a pass. no one -- wrong doers get a pass. no one is held accountable. fast and furious. government walks guns into mexico. hundreds are killed. white house blames bush and a low-level employee. employee resign, government gets a pass. exhibit b, benghazi. government denies requests for support before and during the attack. four americans are killed. investigation is bungled. blame placed on a youtube video. one federal employee placed on leave but still getting a paycheck. government gets a pass. exhibit c, i.r.s. target list. i.r.s. unlawfully targets conservative organizations, blame placed on low-level employee and we're awaiting for accountability.

exhibit d, d.o.j. subpoenas journalists' phone records to silence a leak. attorney general holder recuses himself. we're waiting for who's responsible. this is a disturbing pattern. the so-called most transparent administration in history appears to be blocking the truth from the american public. america is tired of unaccountable escape artists in the federal government. this ought not to be. but that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman s recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, today i rise to honor military mental health awareness day. mental health issues continue to carry a significant stigma in our country. but it's time we recognize the challenges that many current service members and veterans are facing and we work to address their needs. all too atic stress is

prevalent in our service members and veterans. as a country beyond partisanship we must come together to tackle this issue. our men and women in uniform deserve our dedication just as we ask them to dead kay cate their lives to -- dedicate their lives to our nation's service. in san diego more than 5,000 veterans were treated for posttraumatic stress in 2011 and we're fortunate in san diego to have medical institutions that provide enowevative models of care to our veterans and it is my hope that we can bring some of those standards of care to the rest of the country. mr. petri: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous -- mr. peters: mr. speaker, i ask my colleagues to bring attention to this issue by working with service providers, counselors and military groups in their communities as we continue to honor the sacrifices these service members made for us. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. thompson: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

mr. thompson: mr. speaker, today the house agriculture committee is marking up a five-year farm bill re-authorization. the federal agriculture reform and risk management act of 2013 or farm act. the farm act is a commonsense package of agricultural reforms that will save taxpayers nearly $40 billion while strengthening the economic health of our family farms and small businesses. the bill is a product of a multiyear policy assessment designed to modernize federal agricultural policies that achieve substantial deficit reduction. the farm act delivers on both fronts, while offering american agriculture the tools to grow and prosper. the bill reduces regulatory burden on small businesses and makes needed reforms to nutrition assistant programs. it will help protect our forests and better manage our lands. mr. speaker, we can no longer allow partisan gridlock to prevent this re-authorization from becoming law. this bill is good for the economy. it promotes jobs and growth. it achieves deficit reduction.

and it secures the ability of the american agriculture to continue providing the safest and most affordable food supply in the world. nd i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for ne minute. ms. gabbard: mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the brave men and women who serve in our police forces. every day police officers put their own lives in danger in order to keep our families safe. many have made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty. this week we celebrate our local heroes during national police week. in order to support the national law enforcement memorial, my sister, a deputy u.s. marshal, joined more than 1,800 officers last weekend in a 300-mile memorial bike ride from new

jersey to washington, d.c. she honored the memory of three hawaii officers killed in the line of duty last year. and fontes, chad morimot garrett davis. they've been honored on the national memorial's wall and in hawaii we're working to establish a local memorial which will be the last state in the country to do so. today i honor these everyday heroes and their families for their unwavering dedication to the safety and service of others . i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rom nebraska seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. fortenberry: mr. speaker, america wants congress to get things done and lately that's been pretty tough. a deep philosophical divide often separates us but there are certain things tha the military has to protect our

country and america has to care for her veterans. while congress is stuck in many areas, both parties this morning took a unified step toward defense of our country and in service to our veterans. mr. speaker, in a small hearing room right below here, the military construction and veterans appropriations committee said yes, said yes in a bipartisan manner, to meet our defense department infrastructure needs and to properly care for our veterans. the bill spend as little less than the president asked for and a little more than last year -- spends a little less than the president asked for and a little more than last year. the bill also compels both the department of defense and veterans affairs to use a single integrated electronic health record, ensuring a seams transition of care for -- seams transition of care for our veterans leaving war service. today we got to a yes which is

essential and right. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, this almost seems like the curious case of benjamin button. a movie that went backwards. particularly when tomorrow for he umpteenth time we'll be debating the appeal of the affordable care act when states have uninsured up to 28%. what are we thinking? it's a curious state when the judiciary committee, someone can come in and offer as audio as testimony that the person on there happens to be someone who worked in the department of justice, with no affirmation of who it is and then expect the attorney general to answer questions and in the instants of who it was supposed to be -- instance of who it was supposed to be, a man who was cited by the o.i.g. as restoring integrity to the voting rights section, or in fact blaming the

administration for the associated press incident when we're talking about trying to protect the nation from a terrible attack as it relates to terrorism. and everyone knows that we're unified in protecting the first amendment rights and shielding reporters. we're not looking for reporters, we're looking for those who leak something dangerous enough to undermine the security of the united states of america. this is a curious place, it's nothing but a blame game. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman s recognized for one minute. mr. fleming: mr. speaker, i want to be certain that the administration and pentagon leadership do not deny our men and women in uniform one of the very freedoms they are fighting to protect. on monday i led a letter sent to

defense secretary hagel demanding details about a meeting between pentagon ficials and anti-christian extremist michael wine stein. wine stein has spent -- weinstein. weinstein has spent nine years at war, those are his words, at war with evangelical christians who he says are committing spiritual rape. against the u.s. military. christians who are merely exercising their first amendment right or primary duties in the case of chaplains. mr. weinstein exploits freedom of speech to label christians as the christian taliban and al qaeda. but he seeks to shut down the religious freedom of expression of service members in the process. i am troubled with several anti-christian steps the pentagon has taken in recent years. that is why my colleagues and i seek answers from secretary hagel on this important question now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from indiana seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> this week is national law enforcement week and as chair of homeland security committee on emergency response preparedness and communications and as someone who has worked closely with law enforcement as a former deputy mayor of indianapolis and u.s. attorney, i want to mark this moment. men and women of law enforcement run into the most difficult situations while the rest of us are trying to get out. they spend their lives in harm's way to keep the rest of us out of it. when i toured the flood damage just last month in grant, howard and tipton counties, i learned the police had gone door to door to make sure everyone had evacuated. mr. brooks: when i was u.s. attorney -- mrs. brooks: when i was a u.s. .ttorney i spoke at a funeral

historically indiana law enforcement has lost 406 individuals in the line of duty. these men and women gave their lives for their fellow hoosiers. we are forever ef and to their survivors and honor their memories byg and honoring their service and those who proudly wear the badge. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, it seems like each day a new study or report is released that finds serious consequences coming from obamacare's implementation. the law's already hurting job creation. this was evidenced in the latest jobs report which showed an increase in the number of part-time workers and a decrease in the average number of hours worked each week.

this law is also raising insurance premiums, increasing deficits and will reduce the quality of health care for americans across the country. mr. marshall: opposition to this law is -- mr. marchant: opposition to this law is bipartisan. in fact a recent fox news poll showed that 56% of people that identified themselves as democrats were against the thousands of pages of obamacare regulations and called them way over the top. we must now repeal this law and get to work on reforms that lower costs, improve the quality of care and protect jobs. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there further requests for one-minute speeches? under the speaker's announced the of january 3, 2013, gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. murphy, is recognized for 60

minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. speaker. we're here tonight to talk about health care. something that is important to all of us. something that we have been discussing in this chamber for the last few years. trying to make health care affordable and accessible to many american families. a couple of years ago out of this chamber a bill was passed, one that many didn't even get a chance to read. but we were told in preparation for that, the american people were told there would be tremendous benefits to passing the president's health care law. the president of the united states himself said it would cut health care costs by $2,500 per family per year. we also were told there were a number of benefits such as no lifetime caps, number of prevention benefits, certainly ones that many of us agree with.

but to get the benefitsf the health care billal'r told by then speaker pelosi that we had to pass the bill to find out what is in it. we have since then found out many of the things that are in it and many of those we're still discovering as time goes on. tonight we'll discuss what is the affordable care act and many aspects that concern us deeply and why it must be repealed. just the good intentions of the bill are not enough. good intentions do not guarantee good results. what we will discuss tonight is a study that's told us shocking information, how premiums will go up on average of 96%. even moreso for young men and women before retirement. we will discuss new findings that show massive premium increases for families, individuals, small businesses across the country.

many of these americans, they will wake up when they get their health care bills and find the affordable care act is not affordable. but first let's review the promises and reality of that affordable care act. the seniors -- to seniors, the president promised these reforms won't cut your guaranteed benefits. what we discovered is there were more than $500 billion in cuts to medicare that the administration's own actuary predicts will lead to providers no longer accepting medicare. meaning, the doctors seniors have been seing for a while will say we can no longer afford to provide this the nonpartisan congressional budget office predicted that for medicare advantage these quotes, cut -- these cuts, quote, could led many to lower benefits they offer or withdraw from the program. medicare advantage is a program

that provides a wide wang of -- range ofntive services and disease management for senior the very things people who talked about what we should be doing for health care will be omitted. savings come from cutting payments to doctors and hospitals. we've also known that the independent payment advisory board is a problem. also known as ipab. this 15-member apointed board, of which by law a majority of them may not be in the health care field, will make additional cuts to medicare without any congressional approval or appeal unless the house and the senate pass legislation and the president signs it into law. so literally, it would take an act of congress to change some of these aspects that this independent board will make decisions on with regard to payments and coverage. the president also promised if you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your

health care plan, period. they won't take it away no matter what, unquote. but here's some of the facts we've discovered since the bill passed. the nonpartisan congressional budget office predicted three million to nine million individuals would lose employer-sponsored coverage. mckenzie consulting has come up with higher numbers, saying it could be as high as 80 million to 100 million. over 1,400 waivers had to be granted to employers to opt out of the legislation. health and human services departmented that to grant pardons to large businesses leek mcdonald's, universal studios and others. it's stimmed they cover 1.2 million people. speaker pelosi said the bill would create 400,000 jobs almost immediately. let's look again at the results. the congressional budget office predicted the law will result in

700,000 additional americans unemployed. 700,000 additional americans unemployed. the national federation of independent business foundation predicted the bill will cause the loss of over 1.4 million job. a new insurance tax will also impact the numb of private sector jobs, estimated to be jobs n 146,000 to 262,000 by 2022. 59% of these job losses come from small businesses. the backbone of our nation's growth. where so many moms and dads and young men and women haver that jobs and get their start. small companies, neighborhood companies, those ones that have the big impact, that sponsor everything from the little league games to church events as well. many will say we cannot grow and create new jobs. many worry how they're going to

keep workers employed. many worry how they'll afford health care coverage for their workers. and many of those workers are wondering if they can keep their job. the president also said, quote, i can make a pledge under my plan, no family making less than 250,000 a year -- less than $250,000 a year will not see any form of tax increase, not your payroll tax, not your income tax, not your capital gains tax, end quote. let's talk about the facts. there are over 835 -- there are over $835 billion in taxes we have passed on to families in the form of higher premiums and higher costs. let's look at some of those taxes. there'll be an increase in thed me medicare payroll taxes and an increase in other taxes. this will be a total amount of $317 billion in taxes that people will see coming

indeed, they'll see them on their peak. there's a medical device tax. all those medical devices that doctors and dentists use to care for you, that will be a new tax. and even though they say the tax will be paid by the manufacturers, those taxes indeed will be passed on in terms of higher costs for those medical devices so critical for doctors and nurses to provide good health care for you. that will increase costs. there will be a health insurance tax. health insurance tax on health insurance companies themselves and on the policies. that will be $101 billion. there will also be the individual man tate tax, saying if you don't have coverage you'll pay an adegreal tax, $55 billion. and of course, your employer decides to give you a high level health care plan that covers so many of the things people want in terms of their doctors' fees,

hospital stays, dental, medical, jy glasses, prescription drug, those may now be labeled a cadillac plan. those will be taxed with a 40% excise tax that each family will have to pay on their health insurance. total being about $111 billion on that alone. these taxes will indeed cost health care more. there'll be higher taxes for families on their paycheck. there's no escaping this part, that even though people were told they will not pay higher taxes, indeed, they will. but now, the energy and commerce committee has also done a study and we're going to talk about what's going to happen with premiums in this. because the president said his plan, quote, not only guarantees coverage for every american but blings down the cost of health care and reduces every family's premium by as much as $2,500. even after the bill passed, more promises were made about the

benefits of the law. in july, 2012, president obama promised that once the affordable care act has been, quote, fully implemented, your premiums will go down. they have not. in fact, since the affordable care plan has passed, people have seen their premium goes up by thousands of dollars. we now have the data showing premiums in fact will go up even more. and quite dramatically. for millions and millions and millions of individuals and families and small businesses across the country and large businesses as well. let me the scribe the study that the energy and commerce committee performed submitting letters on march 14 of this year to the oversight an investigations committee with 17 health care insurer companies requests about the affordable care act. we asked how would it affect premiums? we asked them to tell us the

information that they already have, what numbers they have come up with, what are their analysts telling them already as far as costs, in terms of new premiums. we didn't request the companies create new information. didn't ask them to make anything up. we said very specifically, tell us what you see is going to happen. submit your existing analysis to us so we can capture the purest representation of the impact of the affordable care act. simply said, what is it going to cost them? as insurers are currentry filing their applications to participate in exchanges, that prediction phase is over and now we can find out what was in the health care bill, what will it cost families? we went straight to the source to find out what it would be for america's families. here's what we is found out. first of all, we noted that health care is going to cost on

average 96% more for people who are going to get a new health insurance plan. 7 % more for those keeping their insurance. nd as much as 413% more for -- based on age and the plan mandate. now this is important because what this means, basically, is that young men will see a large increase in their health insurance rates. women who are near regular tirmente age will also see a large increase in insurance ratesful let's look at what some of the reasons for this are. what was provided to us, for example by one actual insurance company analysis said, as you start to look through cost increases, what may be a new business or existing one for your employer, there's several essential benefits. now up to this point, people have been able to choose a plan based on its affordability.

but instead it's going to be that all plans have to look the same. in that sense, that increase could be about 15% more. now in addition, for the minimum coverage, about 8% to 10% more. there'll be other guaranteed issue rerksmufle of underwriting, that will be 10%.er there'll be reinsurance risk adjustment, other effects of small employers. those will also go up by as much as 35%. there'll also be average -- look at the average starting member cost, $158. if you're just doing what's called the bronze level, the very low level, it's about $182 more per month up to $200 per month. there's multiple other fees in this.

but basically what this comes down to show again, for those who are new business, new in the plan, 96% higher costs. for those with an established one, 73% higher costs. in some levels as high as 413% higher. on a -- in a broader sense, to look at how much this will cost 35% of the tates, market will see a premium increase of greater than 30%. now what we see here, some states will be less than 10%. some states will be greater than 30%. some will see 20% to 30% and some will be 10% to 20%. let's look at some individual states. now in these states, i'm just going to pick out a few here to describe, for example, in the state of georgia, potential premium increases range from 48% to 63% in the individual market and 25% in the small group

market. meaning if you're buying on your own, paying much higher than if you're in a small group. indiana, one insurance company said it would be 100% increase in the small group market. illinois. potential premium increases from 27% to 61% in individual market and 25% in the small group market. look at nevada. potential premium increases 31%. michigan, 25% to 88% for males in the individual market with premiums that vary greatly throughout the state and the small group market, 44% will see, decreases in -- decreases in some cases but inreeses in others. in my state of pennsylvania, 23% in the individual market, 37% in the small group market. tennessee, which has already had problems with tenncare, will see a potential increase from 59% in the vedge market to 39% in the

small group market. the lists go on and on. we bring this out so the american people can understand when people say if you thought health care costs were expensive, wait until you see what they're costing when they're free. quite frankly there is no free ride in this. admittedly, some will have some subsidies on this, about 8 pk of those will have some level of subsidy to help offset some of these costs but many people won't have those subsidies at all. at this point i'd like to ask some of my colleagues up to talk about some of these thens. to my left, congresswoman shelly moore capito of west virginia, to talk about what this means for costs for some employees in her state. mrs. capito: thank you. i'd like to thank my colleague from pennsylvania and i'm glad we're talking about this. tomorrow i plan to vote against, to repeal obamacare and put an end to what its lead author

itself said is a train wreck. i'd like to read an email that i received two or three weeks ago. i own a day care center, 260 children and 73 staff. been in business 24 years. i just got the information on ouh ba macare from my insurance company. the numbers will cause me to close my business. how can my own government do this? i have worked hard to have a first raid child care center, seldom taking vacations, easily putting in 10 hers -- 10 hours a day year round. i have always done the right thing for think employees and clients. this is so discouraging for me. is there any way to fix this? i visited the day care center and talked with the owner of the business. if she moves forward and doesn't offer insurance, she is going to have to pay $83,000. a year in penalties. is the cannot afford this. what are her options? she's looking at going from 73 employees down to below 50. that's 24 jobs right there.

that she's talking about cutting. let's think about the further inch cages of cutting 24 jobs in day care center. it's over 70 children who are no longer going to be able to go to high quality day care in her small business. most people in her business have insurance. those who aren't are able to access medicaid and have other health care available to them. she's very, very discurrentlied. another business person in my state of west virginia just sent next tax collection for year. for the obamacare health plan. his premiums are -- he has 105 people. his premiums are going to go up $180,000 more a year. his annual premium in a small usiness like this is $788,000,

$180,000 more than it was the previous year. this is for a plan that has a $3,000 deductible which is going to break the back of a lot of employees in his business. his change, we heard from the gentleman from pennsylvania that we were promised the premiums would not go up. that it was going to be affordable, premiums would come down. his people willums have gone up 30% -- premiums have gone up 30%. we already talked about how many folks across this country are going to lose their coverage. how many are going to lose their jobs. these are just two small businesses that are thinking about either cutting their full time employees down to part time, to try to get under the threshold, which means that employee has to go out and find another job to supplement the income to be able to have enough income to sustain their family. we also learned as a report from the energy and commerce committee has stated that for

younger people and people going on the individual market, the premiums are going to be 96% higher. we've also learned that 80% of single adults between the ages f 21 and 9 -- 29, with incomes at just $16,500, will pay more for their health care than they do today. it's very discouraging to hardworking folks. i was reading the "wall street journal" the other day and saw an op ed by dr. ezekiel emmanuel who i think has played a large role in creating obamacare. he noted that the exchanges would only work if younger americans decided to participate . the gentleman from pennsylvania has just pointed out that the younger working population is the one where the premium increase is going to hit the hardest. but he further suggests that the president, through his force of his own popularity with younger americans, because they voted

for him, they would be convinced to sign up for health plans because of the popularity of the president. it's difficult to encourage people to -- through sheer force of personality, to act against their own economic instincts. i mean, we're talking about young people that will go across the street and most people in america that will depdep across the street to save a nickel on gasoline, even if their dad owns the gas station on the other side. this is just -- in my view this doesn't even hit reality of what's actually going to happen with our young people. he further states that health insurance needs to be seen as an individual responsibility. you know what? health insurance right now is an individual responsibility in this country. but instead purchasing insurance after january 1 will be a requirement imposed by big government. i share the concerns of -- we've talked about the taxes, as i was

reading through the renewal summary of the small business that has 105, he has three taxes listed here that his insurance company has enumerated for him. one is the annual fee on health insurance providers called an insurance fee. this is a nondeductible excise tax applied on health insurance to help finance obamacare. number two, patient-centered outcomes research trust fund. this provides funding for an institute to assist patients, clinicians, purchasers and policymakers to make informed health decisions. and the other is a transitional reinsurance contribution for those who are in high-risk pools. this is added tax to small businesses. the employers in our country. and what they're going to do, they're going to have to make tough choices because it's unaffordable, even paying the penalties is unaffordable which is going to result, as you said, in over 700,000 jobs lost in

this country. we have a better way to do this, a more patient-centered, market-based approach where affordability and accessibility is something that -- goals that we all want, could be much -- i think have a much more economical and probably a better health approach because it will have the patient-centered, doctor-patient relationship in full consideration. so i would say to you that i have two concrete examples. i would encourage my colleagues throughout -- and i'm sure we have, in the house and senate, to talk to these employers who are over 50 employees, to see what kind of impact this is going going to have. 24 possible people losing their jobs in a daycare center, 70 children losing after school care. what are those families going to do? and i think that the choices -- i tried to help with this business owner to try to help her find solutions. i couldn't come up with one. because this is getting rammed down her throat no matter what.

and so, with that discouraging bit of small business viewpoint of the impact of obamacare as it approaches, and with at tude of some of the architects of obamacare, that it's our responsibility, or because we voted for somebody we are going to work against our own economic interests, it just doesn't even pass the laugh test in my opinion. so i think we're in for a rough ride. i want to thank my colleague for letting me join him on the special orders and all my colleagues here tonight and i would like to yield back the balance of my time. mr. murphy: thank you. i thank my friend from west virginia, whose district borders mine in southwestern pennsylvania down there. but note, and amplify something you said, even when some say, well, if you're a business with less than 50 employees, it's not going to effect you. here are a couple of things. some businesses say, well, we'll stay under 50 employees, but those people are still going to have the tax. they'll have higher medicare taxes, taxes on their paycheck.

they're going to see health care costs going up anyway because of the tax on health insurance, tax on prescription drugs and other taxes that go on. so people will still see higher costs. i'd like to call now upon another one of my colleagues from texas, dr. burgess, who also in the energy and commerce committee and continues to work very hard for the sake of patience -- patients to make sure we come up with an affordable plan for our american families. dr. bureau jells. mr. burgess: i thank the gentleman for yielding -- dr. burgess. mr. burgess: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank him for holding this hour tonight. it is important we have this discussion. we're barely three weeks from the third anniversary of that late-night congressional session where the affordable care act was patsed into law and those of us who were here at the time will remember that this bill that became law, that was voted on late that night, never went through our committee. we had a bill that went through our committee but it never saw the light of day. this was a senate bill that was bounced back over to the house and we were forced to pass it without a single hearing,

without a markup. it basically just came to us and the majority at the time, the democratic majority pushed it through. when you stop and look at what were the american people telling us through the summer of 2009, we all have those very tense town halls in our district, what were people saying house? number one, do not mess up the system that is working well for 65% or 70% of us. number two, if you're going to do anything at all, can you help us with costs? i think we have the answer to those two questions. now, number one, we have messed the system up for the people who are depending upon it and the costs will going through the roof. but when you analyze what this new data means, the real thrust of the cost increases are focused on people who buy in the individual market and people who buy in the small group market. all of the rhetoric from the summer of 2009 through the fall of 2 spring of

2010 was we have to make these changes in our insurance policy why? because we have to help these people in the small group and the small group market and the individual market. this is where the problems occurred. but in fact we've made those problems worse. and they continue to grow in severity day bidet. -- day by day. the committee staff on the energy and commerce committee, on our subcommittee of oversight, has really done an excellent job in compiling this data. look, we don't get much help from the department of health and human services. we say, we need information from you about what the cost structure is going to be of this new health care plan. we don't get a lot of help from them. so the committee staff goes out, actually writes the people who will be in charge of administering the plans for people in the small group and the individual market, and then they compile the data and the data that they compile is all up on the energy and committee

website. these are the individuals, the small group market, to be sure the large group market will be affected, but not nearly as much as those people in the small group and individual market. and it was those people who obamacare was supposed to help in the first place and we've done them the maximum harm. so, a tip of the hat to the commerce staff, the energy and commerce staff, particularly staff on the oversight investigation subcommittee. i think they've done an excellent job in bringing this information to the congress in a very usable form. again, i encourage people to look on the energy and commerce website because this is information that can directly affect you, your family, your business, your children and literally your health care for the next three deakeds. -- decades. i wish this thing had never happened. we're going to have a repeal vote later this week and i welcome the chance to do that. this is the unfinished business of this congress, to undo this dreadful law that has been visited upon the land. but in the meantime, we also need to make people aware of how this law is going to affect

their lives. it's going to be in a big way. if you like what you had, you can keep it, not so much. if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, not so much. obamacare, you're going to pay a lot more to get a lot less. thank you and i yield back. mr. murphy: will the gentleman yield? mr. burgess:, yes, i'll be happy to yield. >> i'm looking at the report that you referenced, that people go go look at online for themselves, and i noticed that your home state of texas has a projected 23% premium increase. is that correct? griff mr. burgess: that's my understanding. mr. griffith: and i noticed that the report says, from the data that was obtained from the insurance companies, that my home state of virginia is going to have a 31% premium increase in the small group, again, not talking about the large group rates. while they will be affected by the taxes. i'm just kind of curious, how come texas is getting off light with only a 23% increase and virginia's getting hit with a 31% increase? can you explain that or is that just another one of the mysteries of obamacare?

mr. burgess: if the gentleman will yield. mr. griffith: i yield back. mr. burgess: well, let me assure the gentleman from virginia, i can promise you with an absolute certainty that there was no favoritism on the part of the obama administration toward the great state of texas. if anything, texas seems to be singled out for special consideration on some other areas, but perhaps it actually relates to the differences in the insurance market and the type of coverage that's sought. i really can't explain that 5% or 6% discrepancy. but what i can tell you, and this is with dead certainly, that the obama administration did not, did not show favoritism to the state of texas or its governor perry. mr. griffith: if the gentleman would yield further. perhapses for a colloquy. i would ask the gentleman if he suspects that this is because up to this point in time this has always been a state-driven

market and therefore there are some differences between the states. but that the vast majority of states, according to this port, are going to be facing significant double-digit increases? mr. burgess: there are going to be double-digit increases. as the gentleman is well aware, there are different state mandates that have governed the state-regulated insurance market over time and that may result in some of the discrepancy that you're seeing. mr. griffith: i would further ask the gentleman if it makes him nervous that the folks who are going to be going out there and get records and make sure that folks are doing what they're supposed to, either paying the tax or buying the insurance are in fact the i.r.s., that would be the same i.r.s. that we found out for political reasons slow walked and made it difficult for some conservative groups, particularly from texas, and other parts of the country, to actually get their tax-exempt status.

does that make the gentleman a little bit nervous? mr. burgess: it should concern and make nervous every man, woman and child in this country, that the internal revenue service is going to be administering their health care in the future. i think that's an important point that the gentleman has brought up. one other difference that -- if i may add, between the cost in texas and the cost in virginia, do bear in mind that texas enacted significant medical liability reform 10 years ago and we have seen the benefits of that and if there's one thing that was the missing link in the affordable care act, it was where was the -- their commitment to reforming the medical justice system in this country, which we all know tends to drive costs up and the creation of defensive medicine which in turn drives costs up. texas has a 10-year history now of caps on noneconomic damages in medical liability suits. i don't know for certain if that has played a rolethe lo premium increase in texas, but

if it has, i'm sure they'll be happy to take credit for it. -- m sure the gentleman mr. griffith: i would point out to the gentleman and i doubt he's aware of this and i don't know the truth or veracity of it, but it is reported in the courthouse news service which is a service for lawyers and press folks, that in california, the i.r.s. has actually been sued because they had a search warrant to go in and look at a specific employee's financial records and in the process, according to the allegations made by the attorney, robert barnes, when they went in, it happened to be an insurance company or a company that had medical records, we're not sure, it was called a john doe company, it hadded me caling --

medical records for millions of people in california, they were told those were not financial records and -- but medical records, and they were probably violating hipaa rules, that gives me some concern that perhaps what we're seing in regard to the i.r.s.'s callousness toward political parties and political philosophy and the constitution of the united states, they may also ust have a callous disregard that they can be untouched by anybody when you see that this lawsuit was filed in march and i don't think it got much attention, most people probably thought it wasn't part of their regular pattern but now that we've seen what has happened in other parts of the country in regard to those exemptions, that may be of concern to people that they're out there compiling all these records and again we don't know whether it's true but some of those records that they got

from some of the tea party groups allegedly, alleged by a left-leaning or liberal group, the i.r.s. gave them the information as to who their donors were. is the i.r.s. also fwoning to give out our medical information to folks they that we don't necessarily want to have it? that's a question we have to ask when off scandal leek this at the i.r.s. and it directly impact os ba macare because right now, before obamacare comes into effect, the gentleman would agree with me, the i.r.s. doesn't have anything to do with your medical records but now we're opening up the dor and taking those 16,000 agents, they are like leg to be looking at your medical records and your company's medical policy, it causes me some concern and i expect it may cause the entleman some concern as well. mr. murphy: it is a concern. we know it comes from multiple sources, multiple states, not only going after conservative

group bus going after pro-israel or jew herb fwroups, going into gibson guitar company, multiple thicks where they tend to use a heavy hammer for political purpose, those who may not agree with some others and at this point, there's still certainly a lot of information to be garnered from this but it should give people pause in understanding what happens if you don't cooperate with the health care plan will lead to the folks who try to enforce that. >> i ask you in that regard, if someone sees the premium increases we've been talking about and don't want to buy the insurance, what happens from the i.r.s.'s standpoint or the government's standpoint in general? >> certainly, i think the gentleman -- i thank the wrelt for the question. let's take a wrung man who is going to see -- mr. murphy: let's take a young man who is going to see his health insurance go through the roof. he's a wrung man, healthy, perhaps he's just going to buy

catastrophic health insurance, or maybe not buy it at all. if the i.r.s. catches him, it's a $95 fine. if you're looking at paying thousands a year for health insurance versus $95, quite frankly, the gentlelady from west virginia said they hoped that people would just out of affection for the president buy it anyway, when someone is having a hard time paying for groceries and look a the cost of gas lean having gone up a couple thousand dollars for the average family. mr. griffith: electricity. mr. murphy: you can buy a lot of groceries for $,000 a year. that's months an months of groceriesful they may say, i'll just pay the $95 fine. what also comes up is if they don't have a plan, they can end up in an ambulance or emergency room and sign up when they're there, just loik they do with medicaid. what motivation would there be and an important part of this plan is based on the assumption that people when they're healthy will sign up so we have the money coming in, but i have my

doubts for individuals who are already struggling, they say say -- they may say i'll take the risk. even when it gos up to a maximum fine of $625 or % of income, whatever is greater, i think $495 l say if it's paying for the fine or $6,000 or $7,000 for the insurance, i'll take my chances. not everybody -- even with -- it's the way people make decisions in their life. >> would the gentleman yield? mr. murphy: i yield to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise. mr. scalise: i think it's important how you mention that people make decisions based on price. i go back home to southeast louisiana and talk to families and small businesses trying to figure out how obamacare will affect them, there's a recurring theme and it's something we hear

every single day. small businesses have no idea how they'll be able to comply with that law when they look at the mountains of regular laces. we have recently stabbed up all the pages of regulations and rules that have come out and it's well over seven feet high. a small business that doesn't have maybe five, six, seven employees they don't have an h.r. shop, teams of attorneys and accountants they cant figure all this out. they're asking these questions. but we're also hearing it from large companies that provide really good health care for families throughout southeast louisiana and i hear this from colleagues from other states too. when they look at this law, they say, you know, the president promised if you like what you have, you can keep it. yet that promise is broken. for millions of americans who are facing these costs that have been discussed when you look at the drastic increases that will hit families 73% if you have a good insurance policy that you like, 73% increase for you, if you're trying to get new health care for once, 96% more you'll have to pay because of

obamacare. and i think what's most frightening to families is when they see the new bureaucracy, this is the new bureaucracy created by obamacare. and if you look, i think the most sacred relationship in health care is the doctor and the patient. there should be nobody in between the doctor and patient. when it comes to making health care decisions. under obamacare, look at all of this massive mountain of red tape and agencies that come between families and their doctors in obamacare and at the very top of this, again, most riveting as we brought up before, the internal revenue service. does anybody at the i.r.s. have any kind of medical degree, even e.m.s. training? yet now the i.r.s. is the enforcement agency of obama kear. that was rithing before the an dal that came out last week but in light of the new scandal where the i.r.s. is literally

targeting people, president obama's administration allowing this, not one person has been fired, by the what, the obama administration made a decision to target americans based on their beliefs, based on their values, and that's the agency that will be tasked with enforcing obamacare. they had little credibility before this scandal emerged but in light of this, i think the lead senate architect, max baucus, who a few weeks ago after they wrote the bill they rammed it through, speaker pelosi said, you've got to pass the bill to find out what's in it, now max baucus, one of the author ofse the bill said, it's a train wreck coming down. he's not running for re-election next year. this should not be put in place for any type of government agency coming between patients and doctors. this is the massive bureaucracy that obamacare, this is why we have this vote tomorrow to repeal obamacare. it's a bill i'm proud to co-sponsor but i think the -- i

thank the gentleman from pennsylvania for his leadership in the hearings we've had in the oversight subcommittee of energy and commerce to expose some of this and get testimony from obama administration officials who say, they're not even ready to comply with the legal deadlines in the laws that are coming up in the next few months. this should not be dumped upon in our families whether it's southeast louisiana or anywhere else, we need to repeal this bill and bet back -- and get back to work, like cost and access that are made even worse with obamacare. i'll be happy to yield back. >> i'd like to call on the gentleman from ohio, mr. johnson a member of the energy and commerce committee, who is concerned about his constituents in ohio and what they'll be facing. mr. johnson: i'm honored to join you and the rest of our colleagues here in shearing thoughts on what the american people now should expect in the coming months and years from the administration's so-called historic achievement in health

care reform. it's historic, all right. this mass i bill gives the government control over one ixth of our economy. and the authority to manipulate markets and make health care decisions. how did president obama convince the people to go along with this scheme. he looked in the camera lens and promised two thing. he pledged that this law would cut costs for american family. and he promised that it would make health care more affordable. now i could stand up here and talk about all of the other economic dangers posed by the so-called affordable care act like the ever-mounting costs of implement eags, the instability it causes in programs that seniors relie on. the fact that this bill contributes substantially to the insurmountable debt we're leaving to our children and

grandchildren. but that's not foremost in the minds of those individuals that i represent along the highway river in eastern and southeastern ohio. as the american people continue to search for good-paying jobs, families in my district are trying to figure out how to stretch their paychecks to cover another trip to the grocery store. or buy clothes for their kids. or purchase another tank of gas for their car. and now we're see regular ports that indicate most families will have to factor in health care premium increases into their budgets as well. all because the affordable care act policies, mandates, taxes, and -- the affordable care act policies mandates taxes and fees. does that sound affordable? it doesn't to me or to the

people i represent along the ohio river. i'm proud to serve on the energy and commerce committee. i was recently given the opportunity to question gary cohen, the director of the office within h.h.s. that's in charge of implement eags of the health care law. i asked him directly whether premiums would go up or down for the american people. remember, the president promised us lower costs. mr. cohen briefly told the -- toed the party line saying absolutely we'll see lower costs. but he went on largely throughout the questioning to repeatedly say, we'll simply have to wait and see. they don't know. that sounds oddly familiar to me. it reminds me of when the minority leader, the gentlewoman from california, tried to convince the american people that congress needed to pass the affordable care act in order to find out what was in it. well, we're now findin what's in it.

and it is a train wreck. wouldn't the responsible thing have been to do the job correctly the first time? let me cite some thumbs -- numbers brought to light by our investigation. individual consumers in 90% of states will likely face premium increases. in my state of ohio, men purchasing an individual policy will face increases ranging from 32% to 52%. ohio employers purchasing small group policies could see a projected increase of 28%. nationwide, new businesses could see increases of 96% while existing businesses would be burdened with 73%. and age and plan mandate forced on insurers could punish --

could push premiums up as high as 413% in some cases. now do these numbers support the pledge made by the president that americans would see lower costs? or to they highlight the dishonesty as a means of pushing a terrible law through congress? based on these facts, mr. chairman, it is hard to argue that the affordable health care act will ever become more affordable as long as that law is on the books. hard evidence to support the looming premium rate shock should scare the administration as much as it scares the american people. american families. businesses. and health care providers throughout the nation, particularly along the river where people are still struggling to make ends meet from day-to-day. i appreciate the time and with that i yield back.

mr. murphy: will the gentleman yield for a question before he yields back? mr. johnson: absolutely. mr. griffith: the gentleman said he thought the rates would go down. my recollection was, and correct me if i'm wrong, part of the position was, well, we don't know for sure but bethink they'll be lower than what they would have been if we hadn't passed the law but higher than what they were when we passed the law? mr. johnson: that was pretty much the case, i started to challenge him to a monopoly game because that's funny money. that's a way of manipulating the numbers. that's more of the dishonesty that's being perpetrated on the american people with this law. mr. griffith: on everything we have gotten to so far, it appears their numbers have not been right. they told us they could produce

a long-term insurance plan and they couldn't make the numbers work. then we had the whole situation with the catastrophic illness und that was supposed to until the bill was passed until january, 2014, they ran out of money the first of march. and those numbers weren't right and they apparently thought they had enough money built into the budget and give the secretary large latitude to take money out of various funds to make things happen, but now she seems to be going around the country asking the very companies that she's overseeing as a part of her job, she is going out and asking them for money because they didn't calculate how much money they were going to need to sign everybody up to get into obamacare. every time we turn around, we find something new where their numbers were always funny number

s and it seems to me your point is exactly right. not only going to cost the people of southern ohio, but going to cost the people of southwest virginia and every part of these united states more money than was ever projected and going to come out out of the pockets of the working poor and hurt them the most. mr. johnson: absolutely. every time we ask mr. cohen, who are premiums going to go down for, he couldn't tell us. he couldn't tell us the premiums were going to go down for anyone. are they going to go down for the young, old, women, men, he had no answers. we'll have to wait and see. that's a far cry from the promise that the president made of lowering costs and making health care more affordable. mr. griffith: that was the promise given to so many

americans why they supported this image. and look, we as republicans, we know there are a number of things. mr. murphy: we want to make sure we are preventing illnesses and make sure we are caring for those who are ill. the high-risk pool, the door was close odd that, many people will not be getting additional care. we want to make sure that doctors can be paid for coordinating care. making sure there is follow-up and the patient can call with a question, nobody gets paid for that. they do get paid if they have more tests and fee-for-service plan and tough for doctors to try and help reduce costs. we would like to see the costs go down even more and we support that. we don't want to see people cut and if people have a pre-existing condition they

ought to have an opportunity to maintain insurance. we don't agree with this massive bureaucracy that mr. scalise showed us before that will require a lot of taxes, 10 years' worth of taxes and already we see health and human services running out of money and have to call up other groups and say can you give us more money to convince people that this is a good idea. mr. griffith: we know these costs are going to continue to climb for many people. mr. murphy: people aren't sure what is going to go on. these costs are going to continue. let me point out something very important, mr. speaker. i worry about how the american families are going to afford this. the electricity rates will go up and continue to go up. this administration is pushing al-fired coal plants closing

down and gasoline prices have gone up thousands of dollars for families, unemployment is 7% for years, hundreds of thousands are put out of work because of the aspects of this health care bill. it is tough for families to say how are we going to pay. how are they going to pay for 96% more for those to get a new because more and 413% of some of the age issues. these are tough concerns for american families. and ones that they are asking us to then say please, repeal this bill and let us get to something that really works that help the uninsured, to help those that are ill and help puth doctors back in charge. we are deeply concerned about those issues as they go on and quite frankly, these costs are going to be ones that people

can't afford. i want to recognize another one of my colleagues, mr. lance, who wants to speak to this bill who is dedicated to making sure he is dealing with the affordability. mr. lance: in my judgment, the affordable care act was a poor piece of legislation. in 2009 and 2010, when the leaders of the then house democratic majority were rallying support for the president's health care legislation, the american people were told that health insurance premiums for individuals and small businesses would decrease under obamacare and that was stated repeatedly. three years later, we have come to learn that this is just not the case. internal documents from the

nation's largest health insurance companies reveal the health care laws, policies, mandates, taxes and fees, will cause major premium increases for the individual, small group and large-group markets and it would be onerous on young people when the economy is not as strong as any of us would like. many small businesses are feeling the impact of higher monthly premiums. this week, i heard from a small business owner in the district i serve, susan schwartz of system builders in westfield, union county, new jersey and she is seeing her company rates jump by nearly 40%, 40% in one year, mr. speaker. we must work together to provide much-needed relief to the small and large businesses being crushed under this burdensome law. thank you, chairman murphy, and

certainly commend you for your efforts and the efforts of the energy and commerce committee which i'm a proud member for your leadership in that committee. one of the subcommittee chairs. the committee as a whole under mr. upton's leadership and all of us in congress that believe that this law was poorly designed and will lead to massive increases in premium payments for many of the american people. mr. murphy: mr. speaker, how much time do we have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: four minutes. mr. murphy: i'll wrap up with a couple of comments. i thank the energy and commerce staff for bringing out this important study. we wished we had this information a couple of years ago when members were called upon to blindly support this bill and so many other organizations called upon us to support this bill. there are going to be high costs and people are going to make

decisions about what kind of health care they are going to have, can they afford it and they will see it on gasoline, utility prices and worries about their jobs. they are going to be making decisions do i not have health care now and the i.r.s. charging me $95. that's not what we should be doing. out of care and concern, for every mother and father and grand parent and child in american, to make sure we work on an affordable health care plan to make sure that people who have pre-existing conditions are not cut, make sure that the high-risk pool has money in it to help those, not use money for other purposes there and make sure we are working on prevention and caring for the ill. that is what we should be doing to make health care affordable, not offering a 96% increase for those getting a new plan, up to 73% for those keeping their insurance and 413% for others.

look, we understand some people are going to see their health insurance rates go down, many will see them go up. and mr. speaker, i know a number of people have commented, but i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the topic of my special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. murphy: i thank my colleagues for speaking tonight and i thank the staff being part of this and i thank the american people continuing to communicate with us to understand, we want to make health care affordable and we think the affordable care act is neither. and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. culberson of texas for today.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the request is granted. under the speaker's announced the of january 3, 2013, chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky, mr. massie, for 0 minutes. . massie: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to speak in opposition to h.r. 684, and s. 743, the marketplace fairness act otherwise known as the internet sales tax or the interstate commerce sales tax. i'm concerned that this new tax on american consumers passed the senate too quickly without enough debate and has the quiet support of several members here in the house. unfortunately, many of my colleagues opposed to the bill

here in the house have taken a quiet wait-and-see attitude. they don't want to rock the boat. it's time to quit being quiet. the american public deserves a full and open debate on this bill before any legislative action is taken in this body. this evening, my colleagues and i will begin that debate. i'm confident when members and their constituents grasp the full ramifications of this piece of legislation, they will oppose it as well. many states in this country are in dire financial straits. they have lavished overly generous pension employees and offered tax credits and financial incentives to favorite businesses. promised more then they can deliver. state governments bear the responsibility for their financial situation. yet they are looking to the federal government for a bailout. make no mistake, this internet tax is the bailout they're

seeking. without raising taxes, state governments can expect billions of dollars of americans' hard-earned money to flow to their treasuries. and how would this happen? by passing a bill. who else is for this bill? large retailers. they have got lots of representatives up here talking to us. they are on the internet and off the internet, but for this bill. they are weary of competing with small and anymoreble businesses and that's natural to have barriers because it's an economic fact that in the absence of innovation, profits go to zero in the long run. but how do we create barriers to entry in the united states? how do we compete through innovation? america is a country of innovation. you can invent something. make a new piece of music.

be nicer to your employees than the other company is or come up with a new way of manufacturing your products. but i suggest to you, mr. speaker, the representatives in washington to impose financial hardships on your competitors is not the american way. some have said this bill is about states' rights and i'm a strong proponent of states' rights, but this bill does nothing to protect states' rights. this bill changes the very fabric of the united states of america by subbing people and businesses in one state to the taxes and regulations of another state. this is unprecedented. for the first time in history, this bill would grant states jurisdictions beyond their physical borders. if this bill passes, we will have a virtual united states of america where borders no longer mean anything.

justice marshall ruled that the power to tax was the power to destroy. and we were reminded by the i.r.s. that the power to tax is the power to harass. i urge members to consider the implication of granting states authority over individuals in other states. before my colleagues get into the details of this new tax, i would like to point out that no one, not a single person has argued that this bill will help our economy. . . opponents must argue that it will add burdensome tacks, it is bad for our economy. i now yield to the gentleman from florida. >> i thank the gentleman from kentucky an thank you for your leadership on getting out ahead of this and leading the charge.

and you're right, this is not going to be god for the economy. people will say it's not really a tax increase because these are use tacks that are already due. the fact of the matter is this will hurt consumers because they are going to, in fact, have to pay more. that is not the recipe for success in a high unemployment, low-growth economy which is what we have now and have had for a number of years. n terms o-- in terms of making consumers pay more in taxes, i for one am sec of putting the interest of government ahead of the interests of the people. mr. desantis: our job is not just extract as much money as possible from our fellow citizen bus to establish a framework to protect their freedom and liberty this bill obviously doesn't help do that. in fact it would hinder it. and it would hinder it by making it more difficult for consumers so make it more difficult

on up and coming new businesses that do business online. this bill represents taxation without representation and the reason it does that is because the bill would require online businesses to determine, collect, and remit taxes to states with which they have no physical connection. so if you have a business in florida that does online sales and you sell to somebody in california, you're going to be responsible for determining california sales tax, collecting it, and then sending it to california. the problem is, if you have no physical connection to that state, you have no way to hold tax happy politicians in states leek california accountable for the decisions they make in terms of taxing, spending, and regulation. and i would say also, people say that there are local stores who have to pay sales tax, you sell online to somebody out of state, you're not having to pay the tax, we don't require any stores

on a local sale to figure out where the consumer came from and then send the tax over to that state. they simply collect the tax that's due in their state. so the compliance requirements are completely different. indeed, there are over 9,600 taxing jurisdictions in the united states. this bill specifically permits audits from the other states that have sales tax and from indian reservations and we have several hundred federally recognized indian tribes. this will create a huge compliance burden for our small businesses and i don't think it's good policy to saddle small businesses in florida with red tape and compliance costs. why would any floridian want an up and coming business to face a tax audit from a state like california or illinois? i would say, as the gentleman from kentucky pointed out, especially in light of what we're seing with the malfeasance committed by the i.r.s. out of

washington, d.c. the i.r.s. is at least somewhat accountable to the people, at least in theory, because we can always vote out the administration that oversees the i.r.s. if you have an out of state tax audit, you don't have any political representation so why would they care about your rights? they're not going to care about your rights, they're going to care about getting their revenue. i want to say something about fairness. people say, you have brick and mortar, local stores versus internet businesses, but i would suggest that that distinction is illusory. the reason why is many companies that do business online are brick and mortar companies. i have a business in my district in ormond beach, florida, called coastal modo, this is a gentleman who put his entire life savings into this business, they have grown to have five employee they make custom wheels for harley davidson motorcycles and they ship them worldwide but they have employees showing up every day to work there so they are bock and

it's essentially brick and check. i would also endorse what the gentleman from kentucky said, that the tax would give large companies a competitive advantage because any time you saddle businesses with more compliance cost, that will create barriers to entry for smaller companies and the big businesses are always able to comply more easily. and look, i want companies of all sizes to do well. big businesses, if they're doing well, god bless them. i just don't want to tilt the playing food in favor of them and make it more difficult for new businesses to start and grow. the internet is one of the most pro-growth, pro-opportunity inventions in all of human history. it literally gives anybody the chance to move a product. if you have an idea, you can go online, you can put that out and you can be successful. it's much easier with the internet to have a successful business than it was 100 years ago. you're able to get into the market more cheaply and more

affordably. that's not something we should try to undermine. that's something we should want to continue to per pro mote. foinlly, i would just say, is it fair to burden florida businesses in order to fund excessive spending in states that suffer from severe fiscal mismanagement? for example in california, you have county administrators retiring with a $400,000 pension for life. so we're going to put burdens on our companies to be able to send money other there so they can fund that extravagance? and i would also note that a lot of that money goes to funding union dues that end up helping fund political campaigns. bhy would -- why would we want to do that? the bottom line is, the bill is bad for consumers, representatives taxation without representation, it will stymy small business growth and create perverse economic incentives. our political system right now is suffering from an accountability crisis. the last thing we need to do is expand government and add to

this problem. i yield back to the gentleman from kentucky. mr. massie: thank you to the gentleman from florida. he makes an excellent point on the sales tax audit burden on small businesses. i'd like to give you two examples of companies in my district. these are literally mom and pop shops. one of them, the wife is the c.f.o. and the husband runs the company. and in the other one, the father owns the company and the son works there every day. they were both subjected to sales tax audits in one state. let me tell you how the sales tax audit begins and how it ends. the way it began was with a phone call. that for many small businesses is the worst phone call of their life, of their business lives. because they know what they're going to have to endure. so let me give the example of this farm store who underwent -- that underwent a sales tax audit. he was required to prove that every sales tax exempt sale he made in the previous years was

in fact exempt from sales tax under kentucky state law. the sales tax auditors will pursue you to the end of the earth if they think there's another dime to be found. they pursued him with much vigor. he spent weeks looking for records, trying to prove that these were in fact sales tax exempt because if they were not, he owed the sales tax on all of those sales. how does this kind of audit end? it ends with a white flag. there's no way to prove, there's no way to find every shred of paper for every transaction that you've ever had in the past years so you finally settle with the sales tax auditors. can you imagine that? you'll be open to sales tax audit, which i've just described new york 45 different states. maybe it only happens once every 10 queers in your state, maybe that's the average. but on average, you'll get four and a half sales tax audits a year which brings me to the next small business in my district

where the wife is the c.f.o. this business was subjected to a sales tax audit and an.r.s. audit in the same year. in fact this year. this business owner came to me and said, can you pass a bill that would keep me from having to go through two audits in the same year in it's just not fair. i've got a state tax audit and a federal audit in the same year. this is killing my business. my wife can't work on anything but these audits. can you imagine if that business is now subjected to 45 audits, 45 different states? i can't let this individual down. hat we're talking about -- while we're talking about sales tax audits, it's up to the states to decide what's exempt and what's not. every state has a different rule. the only way to know if you've complied, is it for a farm, for education, for resale, is for the retailer to submit all of those sales records,

information, if you will, othen individual that purchased them to the state where the individual lives. this is rife for corruption. just as we saw with the i.r.s. recently. now they know what music you down loaded, what muse exyour down loaded maybe you bought some gun magazines, they'll know about all this and it's just rife for corruption and for exploitation. with this, i'd like to yield to my good friend and colleague from the state of montana. >> thank you for coordinating this special order here tonight, i appreciate it greatly. we are here to shear our strong opposition to the so-called marketplace fairness act. this is a bill that mandates small businesses to collect sales tack on behalf of other cities and states when selling over the internet. thlem is this would

fundamentally change how online purchases are taxed and impose another burden on small businesses across the country but especially in places like my home state of montana. mr. daines: we often say, you know you're a native montanan if you voted against a sales tax twice. but in my home state we have a balanced budget requirement and not only did our state balance its budget this year, we're running a surplus. and we've done that without a sales tax. and washington should do the same. we should learn how to balance -- they should learn how to balance their budget and they don't have to impose a sales tax on business ace cross the country. but even though we don't have a sales tax, under this legislation, montana small businesses will be forced to collect sales tacks for up to 9,600 cities and stays, none of which go become to the people of montana. let me be clear. this isn't just a bill that hurts no sales tax states like montana, it hurts small businesses in every state

burdening businesses that depend on internet sales with added costs and more paperwork an more regulations. proposers of the bill say it's about fairness. they say this bill will help prevent the supposedly widespread practice of showrooming where customers visit a physical store and buy the goods online or customers can get -- where customers can get a better price or avoid paying sales tax. cord proponents, showrooming is destroying our brick and mortar businesses. ladies and gentlemen, this is not only misleading, it's wrong. at the national -- as the "national journal" reported a recent pricewaterhousecooper report showed, this practice occurred less than 2% of the time. the survey found that 10 times as many consumers research products online so they can go buy them at the local brick and mortar shop. think about that. we've all had that happen to us. we may go online and shop but

you may not want to pay the shipping costs, may not want to have the time it takes to receive the fwoods, may want to be buying that bike for their child so you go downtown and buy it at the brick and mortar store. furthermore the study states, and i quote, we also can't emphasize enough that the physical store remains the center priest of the purchase journey for many cant gores. in nine out of 11 cat gores, in fact, the majority of consumers use physical store rrs researching and buying the products they want. i no many times i'd rather headdowntown to boozman, montana, to purchase a product i researched online to avoid shipping fees an the wait time. i know a lot of montanans feel the same way. but i also have to ask, what is fair about forcing a small business that relies on internet sales to learn the ins and outs of 9,600 different tax jurisdictions or be subject t.d. tax audits as the gentleman from montana just -- from kentucky wrust mentioned not just from one state but from all 46 states

that collect sales tax? inposing these unreasonable stan dands -- standards on online sales but not also on brick and mortar sales is not only unfair but unworkable. i have heard from many montanans about ho what this will mean for them and how it will affect their ability to remain profitable. i'm concerned too. i spent nearly three decades in the private sector. prior to serving in congress the last elected office i held was student body president in high school. i was in the business world. i had to fight through regulations and pay taxes. i know if you're a small business owner forced to comply with 9,000 different tax codes, which by the way, small business owners, it's nearly impossible for any small business to do that, you're not investing in your own business, you're not hiring new employees, or growing our product base or promoting innovation. you're spend manager time an more capital dealing with regulations and mandates, more time with lawyers and accountants and we can't forget

the threat this holds for principles of our nation's tax policy, that is, states must not be allowed to extend their taxation and regulatory authorities beyond their borders this internet tax would do away with the physical presence standard which dictates a state can only require a business to collect a sales tax if it's physically present within its boundries. furthermore, the people don't want online sales tax. 84% of consumers were opposed to this bill, 75% of small online retailers are opposed. those numbers send a clear message that the american people are opposed to this proposal. i ask my colleagues this, remember,s the people's house, we're here to represent our districts and our states and do what's best for them they have problem back in this town of washington, d.c. is it's the big businesses, the big corporations, that have lobbyists here to be their voice here on the hill. we need to be the voice tonight for the small business people who don't have lobbyists here in washington, d.c. because they can't afford them. imposing a new tax burden in these precarious economic times is not what small businesses an

cond -- and consumers need. one of the fastest ways to slow down growth and innovation is tax and regulate it. this bill is a $23 billion tax increase coming out of the pockets of hardworking american families, so let me be clear, the so-called marketplace fairness act is a job killing tax hike that hurts american small businesses and hurts american consumers. and i promise i will continue to fight this bad piece of legislation. mr. massie: i would like to remind my colleagues that mr. daines represents the great state of montana who has gotten by a sales tax. we have 50 states competing with different models with how to run their government. this interstate commerce tax is out harmonizing tax laws and

taking away the competition. my fair state of con techy has a sales tax of 6% and i don't think it's fair we impose a sales tax on the state of montana. their businesses aren't subjected to a sales tax audit if they don't have to collect a sales tax. he is too modest in not reminding us he is coming from the state of montana that has no sales tax. . is marketplace act while congressmen and senators, we can force the states to collect these taxes, we cannot go into other countries and force them to collect taxes. what will happen is a lot of our online retailers will move across the border where they enjoy the advantage of collecting those sales taxes and no way to impose that tax.

some say this is not a new tax. don't call it a new tax. while others say it's not a tax increase. don't call this a tax increase. like a duck acks and walks like a duck, it is a duck. i call it a tax. some will say, consumers already owe this tax. at the end of the year on april 15, they are supposed to pay the sales tax that wasn't collected in other states. that's not true. they don't owe a sales tax, because states long ago conceded that they don't have any authority to tax an event which occurs outside of their physical borders. they just can't do it without a physical presence. but states resented that they couldn't tax in other states. so they created something called

a use tax. and i say the use tax is a contrived tax. they can't tax an event outside of their borders so they try to tax something inside their borders, so it is contrived in a sense that it is owed if you didn't pay a tax on it already. what kind of a tax is that? it is an uncollectable tax and states haven't exerted much effort to collect that tax. we aren't here to become tax collectors of the states. and i want to remind the states. a large portion of my district is rural. we don't have stores to buy everything that they would like to be able to purchase. a lot of folks go online. folks who are disabled who can't get to the store go online. this will punish those individuals who have the least mobility because they are online shopping and diminishes opportunities for businesses in

rural areas by taxing those businesses that don't have a marketplace immediately in their vicinity. look, we have heard from big business. we have heard from lobbyists and state governments but there is someone absent and it is our constituents and we need to hear from them. and to address that issue, i yield to the gentleman from florida. >> i thank the gentleman from kentucky. you started by talking about the federalism, the ability to choose different tax laws, whatever laws and this would facilitate higher taxes. it's a thumb on the scale of higher taxes because it gives states the right to tax beyond their borders. i want florida to be more like montana. and i think that bears repeating . mr. desantis: here are some of the folks who have written in.

chris writes in, please tell the folks that it relates to higher costs for consumers. a weak economy cannot afford this. andrew, this will be the 21st smooth holly.y of jay writes in and says the internet tax is an inappropriate extension of the states' powers. another, a revenue grab pi plain and simple, no taxation without representation, is that vage? tiffany says, if you tax the internet it's like taxing air. and then glen writes in, remind them of how the stamp act went. so i have some more, but i will yield back to the gentleman from kentucky. mr. massie: those comments bring up a very good point.

if this is a finger on the scale for higher taxes, states get to arbitrate and decide what gets taxed. right now we have exemptions for farm products and what not. but some states tax professional services in the transaction. and of course, this bill opens up financial service transactions in one state to consumers in another state. but where does this end? as senator baucus stated in the other chamber, not just the financial world would be open to taxes on their services, but also possibly attorneys, architects, engineers and accountants. one can only imagine by not asking the states to simplify their system in return for the benefit of having the system collect taxes, we are having them impose more taxes on

businesses. i would like to hear a few more comments from our constituents. mr. desantis: it may hinder an online business i have just started. it is already making business pay. mark says that the tax won't help local stores but will protect online incumbents from new competition. taylor writes in and says i like the internet tax about as much as i like getting teeth pulled. we have another fellow who says, it hurts small businesses and it is wal-mart versus amazon with consumers in the middle and this is a great comment from ian, internet tax will hurt one of healthy emaining sectors in the economy. and i yield back. mr. massie: i think we don't

hear or listen as much as we should. and on this issue, it's very important. those are the people who are going to bear the burden of this new tax and i will call it a new tax. it's unprecedented in our constitution and in the history of our country. i want to end this discussion tonight the way it began and the way i said it would end, no single individual who is a proponent of this tax has told me it's going to help the economy. in fact, when i point out that it will increase taxes on consumers, when it will increase burdens on small businesses and will apply pressure to offshore our online retailers, they all ultimately concede those points. this is not good for our country. the resistance to this bill comes from our constituents and also bipartisan as well. so hopefully by bringing light

to this today, we will begin the conversation, begin the debate that doesn't happen out in the open and shed some light on this issue. thank you. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced , the of january 3, 2013 chair recognizes the gentleman , mr. perry, ania for 30 minutes. the gentleman is recognized. mr. perry: thank you, mr. speaker. do we live in a banana republic? e living under a dictatorship? just recently, just this evening, the i.r.s. acting

chief, steve miller, resigned and i suppose that's damage control and that's how we are going to fix this. heads are going to roll. just recently, mr. miller wrote to members of congress at least twice to explain the process of reviewing the applications for tax-exempt status without disclosing tea party groups were targeted. in july of last year, he testified before the house ways and means committee and didn't mention it. he didn't mention the additional scrutiny. i'm sure it must have slipped his mind. it couldn't have slipped his mind because he was asked about it specifically. now we are supposed to trust these answers that are forth coming at this time and continuing to be revised but initially, they claimed the process of flagging groups was contained to low-level staffers at a cincinnati office.

and first we heard it was a couple hundred, 75 and now 200 and now 500. we trust much do someone that continues to change their story and if it was low-level folks at the agency, how come the guy at the top just resigned. the buck stops there or should it stop there? and according to the report by the inspector general, they knew about the problem by june, 2011, they knew about it. they are testifying in front of members of congress and misleading members of congress. forget members of congress. what about the american people. what about the god-fearing tax paying members that were targeted? what about them. according to the i.g. report, the i.r.s. was not only targeting tea party organizations but going after groups focused on government spending, government debt, taxes

and education on ways to make america a better place to live. really? i mean maybe i'm being targeted because i'm looking through that list and those are things that i stand for. those are things that most of my constituents stand for. it also started targeting groups criticizing the group for educating americans about the constitution and bill of rights. since when? since when is it a problem to criticize your government? isn't that one of the fundamental things that this nation was founded on? and now we are going to have the i.r.s. come after us and is it bad that we educate americans about the constitution and bill of rights? is that a bad thing? according to the i.r.s., it is. the use of the i.r.s. to target political opponents of an administration is one of the

greatest dangers of the tremendous powers of this federal agency. is this a banana republic? sirnl this can't happen in america. these are things that happen in rogue nations that there are political diss departments that come to -- dissidents that come to america. does it then end with us going to jail as political dissenters, against some ideals that the administration in power has. i'm going to read an excerpt to the federal law. it prohibits any employee of the executive office of the president and vice president as well as cabinet secretaries from requesting, directly or indirectly that the i.r.s. investigate any particular taxpayer with respect to the tax liability of such taxpayer. it is important for the rule of

law and it is important for the rule of that that congress pursue its oversight function to get to the bottom of the scandal. we don't just want to get to the bottom of the scandal to make sure it never happens again, we need to find out who instigated it, it is hard to believe it was just some low-level employees who took it upon themselves. i must ask everybody, what is their impetus, who would take it upon themselves, what employee--- what low-level employee would take it upon him or herself to investigate tea party groups and groups with the name patriot in their organization. what's in it for them? i suspect you're having a hard time coming up with the answer just as i am. how long has this been going on? apparently it started in february of 2010. it lasted about 27 months. the last appeal that was

approved was in champaign, illinois, in february of 2010. what was happening in february of 2010? first of all if you own an ipad right now, you couldn't get one in february of 2010 because there were none available, it wasn't on the market. if you remember back then, there was a volcano over iceland stopping air travel to europe. there was the freshwater horizon that blew up in the gulf killing many workers and destroying the veerment or contaminating the veerment in the gulf. that's how long ago this has happened. that's how long this has been going on and that's how long people in this administration new about it and said nothing. i don't know what this means for tea party organizations and patriot groups and the like. if i quote julian bond, the former head of the naacp, he calls the tea party the taliban of american politics. the taliban of american politics. i would suggest to you that they

are exactly opposite that and the actions of the american people are more in keeping with the taliban-like tactics. these folks are continually ridiculed for being, oh, opposed to government intrusion in their lives and worrying about conspiracies and what the government's -- what kind of personal things about them the government is looking into and what they're doing with it and it's all very conspiratorial and they're seen as kind of cooky back jobs. apparently they're right. -- cookey whack jobs. apparently they're right. who knew? a director in the i.r.s. fast tracked an aply pation for the president's half brother. it took one month. meanwhile, 27 months went by with organizations with the name tea party or patriot couldn't receive the same consideration. did front line employees do this? i've got to question that. it just doesn't add up and

again, day by day we hear more and more. the first thing that came out recently was that rogue employees did that and at one point only one employee. really? one employee out of 106,000 that work at the i.r.s., that's what we're supposed to believe? are we supposed to change our trust level and our belief level every day as new reports come out with new information that countervails the information of the day before? i mean, we got to ask, look, the government asked its -- asks its citizens for all kinds of information. whether you're a farmer and the agriculture department forces you to complete a a survey under penalty of law an folks call up their congressman, call me up in their district office and say, why must i fill this out. why do they need all this information? what is this relevant information? that's the ag department census. maybe it's fair, maybe it's not,

i take issue with it. but in this case, i really take issue with it. because in this application and in their find, the i.r.s. find, they looked at what books members were reading. what books. are we going to have a book burning next? they looked at facebook posts, resumes of officers, minutes of meetings sin the organization's inception. i ask you, what does any of that have to do with your tax status? or does it have to do with something else? does it have to do with your political status? and who you may disagree with? 31 organizations, information was released to organizations like pro publica, maybe that's the goifpk that and maybe we don't know the extent of how many other organizations were leaked this information and what did they do with it? did they maybe use it to target candidates in political leches to make sure they lost because they disagreed with their

ideology? look, we understand that we oftentimes disagree on ideology on policy, but we expect a fair and level playing field. and we certainly expect the government to provide that. that's government's role. that's watch the government's core missions. in this case, obviously the government was working for one team and decidedly against the other team. what does that mean to all americans? some -- some applications were under review at the i.r.s. for three years. you could see this -- sue the i.r.s. after 270 days for inaction. for three years these things went dormant. who is responsible? you know, we've had a host of scandals in this town from time immemorial. this administration is at some point no different than the rest. but on one point it has been. no one is every responsible. people take responsibility but no heads roll, nothing happens to anyone.

timely, there's a firing and we're not sure this guy had anything to do with it. but i would ask you this, the president says he finds out this information that you fiend out, the public, on the same day you find it out. that seems odd to me. he's the leader of the country. we know he can't know every sittle -- every little thing in every agency, we can't know that, that's why he hire people, smart people, to run those organizations for him. but he is the leader of the country. when this is going on for a couple of years and they know about it, shouldn't we be concerned that he doesn't know anything about it? isn't that a failure of leadership? i think that's a great question. and i think that -- i think that it's bad that our president says he doesn't know and that he truly doesn't know. i don't see that as a good thing. mr. speaker, the american public increasingly has a trust issue with this administration who is now in damage control.

we understand that they have to be. mr. speaker, while they're in damage control, it is the people's business -- is the people's business, the legitimate people's business, being conducted now? where was their focus on these issues when they could have been stopped or averted and where is it now and what is the cost of that? i would also say to you this, as a person who has led organizations myself, at the top is where the culture starts they feel person at the top, he or she, determines the culture of that whole organization and the people within that organization survive or do not survive by going along and learning to fit in with that culture. and if everything below that starts eroding, you can only at some point look toward the top. and i would submit to you under the current scenario of the last week's events that we might really be seeing the advent of the evidence of a culture of

corruption that has been going on for more than just a few days. i mean, let's just go through a couple of them. i know you know it's coming, it starred with fast and furious and i can tell you i don't feel like i've gotten the answers, i don't think the american people have gotten the answers they've been looking for and i don't think justice has been served for those folks, particularly the one agent on the border who lost his life over that. and of course there's benghazi which information cons to come out even as we speak including emails today that show that the state department and the white house changed the intelligence talking points, changed them why? why change them? why not tell the american people what happened? especially when apparently you know what happened. is it because it shouldn't have happened and didn't have to happen because -- but there was no inaction when something could have changed? we heard that, well we couldn't get folks there in time. well, listen, we can do a lot of things in this town but one

to do is to predict the future. and i don't know who in the white house or who in the department of state predicted that the attack would only last so long. you know, years ago when i was a little kid, i watched hostages in iran be taken and that lasted for over -- well over a year. 470-something days or something like that. well, i mean, how did we know, how did the department of state, how did the white house know that this wasn't going to be the same scenario? that these folks weren't going to be held captive for years and years? and the united states held hostage? they just assumed, whatever they assumed, i guess, it's just interesting. we don't know the president's whereabouts in that period of time. i don't know if we'll ever know. but it's interesting that there's no culpability. there's no accountability. folks at the state department, we were told, well, there were some low level folks that were responsible for the security of misfortune, missteps, at the

consulate and they've been reassigned. four people are dead. families don't know why -- why their children died, their brothers or sisters, husbands, fathers, they don't know. to what end? they still don't know. and if we left it up to this administration who keeps on stone walling and just motering out the information as only -- only as fast as we can pull it out of them they may never know. is it embarrassing? americans are forgiving. if a mistake was made, in good faith, a mistake was made. we're all human. but was a mistake made in god faith or was a mistake made, scratch that, was it a precalculated decision for political purposes? an if it was, that is indeed reprehensible. and i'm sure that is indeed embarrassing and there will be a cost to that. maybe this is the motivation we don't know. then there's the justice department wiretaps at the a.p. the attorney general recused

he recused himself. he recused himself of what? i'm not sure of the timeline there. does that mean he knew that the justice department was going to tap the a.p.? one of the largest wire services in the world? did he know and say, well, there's an investigation going on so i'm going to stay out of it and left it to his deputy? i mean, we don't know what to trust but i can tell you this, according to the department of justice, their media subpoena requirement is the approval of the attorney general which is required before a government attorney can issue a subpoena to a member of the news media. that's not my words. fr t comes right from 28c 2k50s.10. 52 major media organizations have spoken out against this. this is not a liberal-conservative thing. this is a freedom of the press, this is an issue that crosses all lines.

i mean, the press shield act has been introduced in the senate. it was introduced years ago, a couple of years ago, when democrats held the house, the senate, and the presidency. now it's being reintroduced and retouted. really? if it was so important, if it's so important now, why didn't you pass it then. why did you wait until now to reintroduce it and make a big teal of it i would suggest that that's more damage control. it's more political gamesmanship, trying to just smooth over a bad situation. the justice department wiretap at the a.p. led right to this house gallery. i wonder about jurisdictional issues. doesn't the executive office have a separation of powers duty? i mean, can the executive office wiretap the house of representatives? what about the senate? isn't it curious that the house of representatives is controlled by the majority party which is

republicans, so the wiretaps come here but they don't go to the senate, where arguably most of the reporters hang out because that's where things are really happening most of the day but no wiretaps there. i fwess it's just coincidence, mr. speaker. let's move on. -- i guess it's just coincidence, mr. speaker. health and human services secretary sebelius out solicitting funds to pay for obamacare. is that appropriate or is that not a little scandalous. is she shaking them town? are we just now waiting for the next shoe to drop on that and get some information about that? there's another one waiting in the wings as we speak. the e.p.a. es for foya requests, -- for foia requests are usually waived, they were waived for 92% of green groups friendly with the e.p.a. interestingly, in the same period of time, the thieves were

tissue the fees were universally aflide conservative groups. mr. speaker, we have a trust issue. we've had a trust issue in the house of representatives with the administration for some time and the american people are starting to realize that they, too, have a trust issue. and it is unfortunate. it is unfortunate because at a time when congress is generally speaking close to an all-time low approval rating, what we need is uplifting things from the most transparent organization in history to make sure the american people know they can trust their government even though they don't always agree. sometimes they disagree with policy but if it's out front, give somebody your rationale, you tell them, this is why i think we should do what we should do, the citizen says i don't agree but you're our