it has been fueled by large numbers of small donations. and the rnc doing on that front? are you reliant too much on large donors? is it possible for a republican party apparatus to activate grassroots donors at this point? >> i won't buy into that last piece at all. at the biggest digital team in republican politics this year. these people are creative and brilliant. they have grown our presence online dramatically. they can give you all the , our facebook "likes," they have grown or e-mail dramatically.

we have tripled our monthly fund raising. all of that is good. we have a long way to go. business, radio owner might say, we have an opportunity to grow our revenues. we figure out how to do that. we have been very thoughtful, creative at building out our presence online. we have become more of a content provider. in our comparisons with their competitors, in terms of how people share the information that we have without. we are doing all the right things. we can begin to invest more deeply in that. we have a long way to catch up. is comingdonor base and is fired up. the things i may disagree with the president on,

and say that he is not good at, he is darn good at raising money. he has committed to my counterpart six events across the country. it is one commitment he is keeping. he has been to boston, new york, san francisco, chicago, he will be in seattle on the 24th. they have the president and mrs. obama and the vice president. the whole infrastructure of the administration. there's one thing he wants more than anything else, and that is to govern his last two years like he was able to in his first two years without us being a check and balance. if we are out-of-the-way, he will never have another oversight hearing on the irs. all these people who are rightfully concerned about things. they will all get along. legislation will pass. but we will have to under read

it. issafe without darrell would be hard to imagine, what nick? >> what would you do? >> i want to ask you a specific question. the most vulnerable democrats in thoseuntry, what about campaigns have been retooled? >> i'm not going to get into all ,f these ascetics -- specifics but she is a dynamic and impressive individual. a wonderful mother who served her community is mayor. the country saw her in that brief moment during the convention and they loved her. she has been a very successful fundraiser. she has raised in the last quarter 2:1.

she is on a solid track on the fundraising side. locallyuch more engaged then perhaps she had time to be last time. teamnk with that and her and being assisted by some of the top pros in utah, from senator hatch's campaign. we sat down of all of these candidates who wanted to run again. we said to them, what do you think works? what doesn't work? works andat we think didn't work. then we compared notes. nobody wants to go through one of these races to come up short. it is not fun. second place is not a good thing. we did the whole analysis. how would you do it differently? have a she clearly now very good team.

>> we have time for one more. stephanie? we've seen in past presidential elections that the opposition to -- the opposition to obamacare has been part of the presidential election. what are your members going to do to actually give a response or offer -- what can you do? sorry lot of republicans talking about replacing it. that probably won't happen. we did just enough to be the alternative? who are seeingle their premiums go down? >> you have to factor that in. in myin a meeting district on saturday. i was there with a bunch of veterans.

this woman was talking about being put off of her individual land. remember, the other piece of that, were funding comes from, is out of medicare. you have seniors, especially in -- they areand the cognizant that that be a problem. you are taking money out of medicare and putting it into medicaid, that is an issue. andmembers are very capable cognizant of talking about alternatives that we may offer our patients. that doesn't do as much good to put that up on the floor in a comprehensive way. let's be honest, the senate will not take it out. when one party passes something exclusively, and denies the other party the opportunity to offer an amendment on the house

floor, which occurred, then they embrace it. they have owned it and embrace it. it is not delivered. it is washed up and there is a lot of debris on the ground. i think it will be the defining issue of 2014. they have got to explain it. when the other major programs in america were created, they were almost always created a bipartisan votes. , her programs under reagan did those with tip o'neill in a bipartisan way. this was a conscious choice to lock us out. i remember thing henry waxman preconference and saying that i been four years, i chaired a committee, i think there are all kinds of reforms that need to be done. . was part of the process

we did a lot of experimentation was anth care and i employer that paid 100% of the premiums for our workers. public policy, private-sector, nonprofit rural community hot goals. -- hospitals. i told him that too. that is how we were treated. now you keep overpromising. how are you going to fix it? they even admitted in august that it would not be ready. it was over budget. now they say will not work before the end of the year. they have those typical clunky ads promoting it, but you cannot use it. at $3ey are hiring people million between now and the end of the year and they are only working in the more urban areas of the state.

it is a mess. >> last question. >> not him. curious, and paper a lot of people talk about your s, is it time to go back to the recruiting drawing board? >> bethune. -- stay tuned. one sort of you longer-term thing? >> you said that was the last question. >> someone was talking this week about the overarching trends confronting republicans. i think the point of your job is to elect publicans to the house -- one of the things that he

said is that the country is -- there is alike rise in the latino and african- american populations. when these populations rise, you will have a more democratically- oriented electorate. do you worry, not your specific alley, but more generally, about the state of your party? >> sure. to always have a positive agenda. i think we have one. athink we need to be better messaging that agenda. we are not always good at that. we can improve. that agenda needs to cut across emma graphics, age, everything else. it is an agenda about leaving in

the individual as opposed to big government. it is an agenda that frankly i try to promote. what america can be, innovations and what we are. we need to harness that more and create more jobs that pay better. the democrats generally want to divide what is here. president obama and his first campaign, share the wealth. we want to add to the wealth. we want to grow jobs in the private sector. because the companies are successful, they can pay more antics and. i get back to the president's health care law. a depressive on economic growth in every community and

district. hatll just take off my rnc and put on my small business hat. i am hearing from those people in the state of oregon who are very dependent on small businesses, they are saying they cannot afford the affordable care act. they're having to reduce workers. it does not work. and they arereduce facing additional costs. nobody called a news conference to announce that they are reducing their employees. yet it is happening. we are a party that wants them necessarygulated are -- you have competition, but you are growing jobs. you are not shifting jobs overseas. technology -- and in

my part of the world, i grew up orchard. we do not have guest workers then. had not had guest workers then, we would not have had cherry in the bucket. that is a skilled workforce. anybody who writes or not need a refresher course in going out and working in agriculture. it is technical and it is hard work. we have unmet labor needs at all levels in america. we need to improve our education system. address whatwill carl has spoken about. we are the party that believes at our core that americans will figure out how to make things work and the private sector can solve problems. getting back to obamacare, can you imagine any website out there -- they all have their

problems. can you imagine apple rolling out their next product and having this happen to mark do you think the ceo would be there very long? we know better. everything, it is a case for why big government washington does not work. why the future can be writer and better in a different model. >> we look forward to having you come back. thank you very much. >> i appreciate it. thank you. >> here is a look at our primetime schedule on the seas and network. starting at 8:00 p.m., the house

will debate a bill that will allow consumers to keep their health insurance in 2014, even if it does not meet the minimum standards that by the health care law. on c-span numeral two, a briefing by the united nations on recovery efforts in the looking. and on c-span 3, a senate hearing on transparency and oversight. >> this weekend on c-span. road to the white house 2016. got maryland governor martin o'malley in new hampshire for a dinner. follow they congressmen paul ryan at a birthday party fundraiser for the governor iowa. governor o'malley is live starting saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern. here from five of the finalists for this year's national book award for nonfiction. 1996 when thee to

internet art thieves -- with the internet archive's way back machine. >> earlier today the house passed a bill allowing health that do to keep plants not meet the minimum requirements of the health care law. it grandfathers in current lands. -- plans. four republicans voted against the bill. after the vote was over, house leaders air cancer and steny hoyer came to the -- eric cantor and steny hoyer came to the or. this is 40 minutes. 6:30 p.m. on tuesday and wednesday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morni usiness.

last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. on friday, no votes are expected. madam speaker, the house will consider a few suspensions next week a. complete list of which will be announced by close of business today. in addition, the house will consider three bills to increase domestic energy production, create american middle class jobs, and lower the cost of energy for our families. these bills are h.r. 2728, the protecting states rights to promote american energy security act sponsored by representative bill flores. h.r. 1965, the fellow lands jobs and energy security act authored by representative doug lamborn. and h.r. 1900, the natural gas pipeline permitting reform act sponsored by mike pompeo. together these bills represent our continued commitment to

energy independence and putting more money in the pockets of working middle class families. with that, madam speaker, i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that information. i think as the majority leader knows probably as well as any of us, maybe better than most of us, we have four legislative days left in november. and eight scheduled legislative days in december, assuming we do get out on the 13th, which is i understand the last day we are scheduled to be in session this year. having said that, there are a number of pressing items to address. as the majority leader knows, the unemployment protections -- insurance protections for folks expires on december 31. actually i think it's december 28. the permanent s.g.r. fix expires -- excuse me the s.g.r. december expire on

31, and if we do not do something with respect to them, there will be a substantial increase -- decrease in the reimbursement to doctors serving medicare patients. i know that the majority leader has and we have people who are willing to work together to address these issues, but knowing that there is usually uncertainty at the end of the session, i would ask the gentleman if he can give members a sense of scheduling for the coming month, that is december. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i thank the gentleman. i would say to the gentleman we certainly had three conference reports. we are looking at hopefully completing with the senate. one is the wrrda conference report that we voted on the house this week to go to conference. the other is the farm bill conference report, as well as the ndaa, the national defense

authorization act. i would say to the gentleman, madam speaker, those are certainly the conference reports we'd like to see resolved so we can have a vote in the house. the gentleman correctly points out that the sustainable growth rate formula an its program expires at the end of the year. certainly our committees are at work trying to see a way forward as well as trying to seek out the proper budgetary plan rs necessary for the that's been put forward by energy and commerce as well as the committee on ways and means. i know there's been some bicameral discussions on that as well and hopeful we can resolve that. . knowing that we have to act by the end of the year. i point out to the gentleman that there is considerable work being done on the issue of patent reform and hope that that comes to the floor prior

to the end of the year. and obviously the larger item having to due with the budget committee conference, headed up by chairman paul ryan, and in the body, senator patty murray, and look forward to resolution there. certainly the intention, madam speaker. with that i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the majority leader for that information. i'm pleased that he added to the wrda farm bill, ndaa and the patent reform issues, the budget conference. my view, as the majority leader probably knows, that the important thing we can do for our economy is to get our country on a fiscally sustainible long-term path. account majority leader give us some information on the status of the budget conference, certainly from a public perception? it appears not much progress has been made, which is

worrisome, given that the targeted reporting is the -- the legislative directive is to report by the 13th. as mr. ryan has pointed out, perhaps unfortunately so, there are no consequences of that not occurring. i had urged myself, as the majority leader may know, that the report out by friday of next week, the 22nd of next week or thursday of next week, o that we could have the conference report on the week we come back in december after thanksgiving, can the gentleman give us any idea where he thinks the proceedings of the conference committee on the budget stand, and i yield to my friend? mr. cantor: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding and would say that the gentleman's correct. certainly the sooner the better as far as i'm concerned about

any resolution on the budget committee conference. i know that the gentleman has spoken to chairman ryan as well as the other body's chairman. in speaking to chairman ryan, he tells me that there has been a lot of discussion, not only public discussions in meetings but certainly his meeting with the chairman from the senate in trying to find a way forward. as the gentleman knows, the issue that's central to these discussions is not unlike the issue that's been under discussion for sometime here and that is, how do we go about seeking reform of some of the mandatory programs and in trying to reach resolution there in exchange for a commensurate relief on the across-the-board budget cuts that are currently in place. i don't know, madam speaker, whether they're going to meet

the deadline next week or not, that the gentleman says will be preferable. i know that our chairman is very mindful that the quicker the better so we can get on about our work in the house. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. he mentions the sequester. of course, everyone that has spoken about the sequester, including myself, the majority leader and mr. ryan have indicated that the sequester is not the way to reduce spending. it is a meat ax approach which is having very adverse consequences, both to our national security instruct ureks and i think almost everyone -- security structure, and i think almost everyone in the joint chiefs have made that point. on the domestic discretionary side, the sequester doesn't work and the proof of that, of course, is we haven't considered any of those bills on the floor and the one we did

we pulled, the transportation-h.u.d. bill. so i'm hopeful -- and i know mr. rogers and is and senator mikulski, chairs of the appropriations committee, hoped they'd get a number early on. that's why the 22nd would have been a preferable date so that is a day we can mark bills. obviously if there is no agreement on the 302-a, as the gentleman knows, very difficult to try to bring those bills together in a conference because they're so far apart. so i'm very hopeful that the majority leader will use his good offices to urge resolution of the budget conference differences and a report out as soon as possible so that we can get to that process. the gentleman, i'm sure, shares my view that the shutting down of government is extraordinarily disruptive, both to the general public and to those who work for the federal government. so that it would be incumbent upon us, i think, to try to get out of this gridlock on the

budget process that we've been in. so i would urge him to exercise whatever -- and he has substantial influence to try to get us to a resolution of this issue. i will tell him i will do the same. another issue which you did not mention, mr. leader, is immigration. as you know, this issue passed very handedly through the united states senate on a vote of 68-32, and i'm very hopeful that we could move this legislation. we, i think -- i think the senate bill or a variation of the senate bill would pass. we've introduced an alternative with which we have republican co-sponsorship, as the gentleman knows, h.r. 15, which is a comprehensive immigration bill which incorporates the security provision that was adopted unanimously in this

house by the republican-led homeland security committee. so we believe it has bipartisan components to it, and the balance of the bill had bipartisan support in the united states senate. the gentleman knows, you passed a number of bills out of your committees. one of them -- and they were passed, of course, with partisan votes. we do not believe these bills are bills that we would support, but we're wondering whether any of them will be brought to the floor. h.r. 2278, which is to strengthen and for theify the enforcement act, which would allow state and local authorities to enforce immigration laws. that is bad policy but it did come out of the republican-headed committee in the judiciary committee. m wondering whether that might be brought to the floor,

mr. leader. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i'd say to the gentleman, i think he does know, we've had the discussion before, about the majority's position on the senate bill. we don't support the senate bill and the speaker, i think, spoke out on that this week. our members don't support the senate bill. we've said all along, chairman goodlatte and his committee are going about a much more deliberate are a tiff -- deliberative process to try to address the problems with the broken immigration system. i do think, i would tell the gentleman, there's consensus on our side of the aisle as well as his that the system is broken and needs to be fixed. certainly there are differences on how to go about doing that, but we remain committed, as does the chairman, in frying to move in a step-by-step -- in trying to move in a step-by-step manner in the various issues involving immigration reform, but not do it the way the senate did, because as we've seen, many of

those who actually voted for the senate bill in the other body have now said me regret that vote or they perhaps would do something differently. i guess it's up to the house to try and address it in a way much more deliberatively to try and fix the problems that exists so we don't see them happen again. and i would say to the gentleman, the house will continue its work, and in any way, as the gentleman knows, the news of this week unfortunately has been many, many americans very unhappy with the work product coming out of this town as far as health care is concerned. i would pause it to the gentleman, a bill like obamacare or a bill like the senate immigration bill produces the kinds of impact and effect that we're seeing this week and last week and the prior. we don't want to commit that

same mistake. we want to be smarter about it. as the gentleman knows, our committees are hard at work in trying to identify how we can help people in their health care right now since they're facing the very real prospects of not having the health care insurance and plan that they like. contrary to the promises that were made, when that comprehensive bill was passed back several years ago. and the same way the senate bill, the immigration bill was passed with not a lot of focus on the detail. we intend to try and focus on the details of immigration reform, try and come together, see if we can actually have some positive reception on the gentleman's side of the aisle, both in this house and the one across the way as well as the white house to actually work together finally to produce a bipartisan outcome that will be satisfactory. cause none of these partisan

bills have ended up working. you see obamacare, case in point. that's why we have the train wreck that is upon us. it was a strictly partisan bill that came out of the congress, house and senate, and look what's happened. so i say to the gentleman, we do care about the immigration issue and want to go about reform in a smart way, and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments, madam speaker. i wish that they had been demonstrated on the farm bill and on the homeland security appropriation bill, both of which were reported out of ommittee on a bipartisan basis but was very partisan on the floor of this house. i thought that was unfortunate but that's what happened. but the gentleman, i'd like to repeat my question. the gentleman said he wanted to deal with the immigration bill in a very thoughtful, considered way and he did not support the senate immigration bill. i was not surprised at that response. i know he does not support the immigration bill. the speaker has made that very clear. he does not support it.

and frankly, the majority of republicans have made it clear that they do not support the comprehensive immigration reform bill. however, mr. leader, what i asked you was, are you going to bring h.r. 2278, which presumably passed out of the judiciary committee presumably in a thoughtful, considered, discreet way, that is dealing with individual subjects, which is the strengthen and for theify enforcement act which is to strengthen immigration laws, my question to you, mr. leader, are you going to bring that bill to the floor or any of the other four bills which i'll mention as well to the floor so that presumably you believe those were considered in a thoughtful way, were reported out of your committee, reported out with all of your republican, i believe, voting for it, at least 20 of them

voting for it, my question to you is, are you going to bring that bill to the floor? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i'd say to the gentleman, madam speaker, certainly under consideration, timing of when we bring that bill to the floor, and i would then again reiterate that chairman goodlatte is trying to take a holistic approach to the immigration reform issue. the bill that the gentleman mentioned is obviously one of the pieces in trying to figure this out and do so in a way in a we can affect positive result, not just result for result's sake. i direct the gentleman's attention, madam speaker, to what's going on with obamacare right now and how many millions of americans are extremely disappointed in their government and certainly in the representations that were made by the white house and the president so far as that law is concerned. i don't think that we ought to be engaging in those kind of commitments when you can't deliver. so, again, we want to be working together, want to be

deliberative about this process and hopefully we can move forward in a way that is expeditious and thoughtful. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank you, the leader. i said i wanted to mention the other bills because we understand, a, you'd like to talk about health care without focusing on anything else. i get that. we have a disagreement. we'll see whether the american people believe making sure that affordable, quality health care is available to all americans is something they're for or whether they're against. we'll see on that. that issue was joined in the last election. that last election didn't have much effect in this body in terms of the issues that were contended in that election. but let me ask you about h.r. 2132, which is supplying knowledge-based immigrants and lifting levels of stem visas act. as the gentleman knows, a lot

of people very interested in this issue. this would eliminate the diversity visa program, transfer 50,000 green cards available in that program to a employers ogram that can use to hire foreign workers with advanced stem degrees, masters degrees, h.t.d.'s,est etc., from universities. it was -- ph.d.'s, etc., from universities. it was passed 20-14 with an overwhelming republican vote, if not unanimous vote. again, the gentleman indicates that we want to consider the immigration issue on a thoughtful, discreet -- that is, as the speaker said, bill by by. is there any expectation that the gentleman has that that bill will be brought to the floor before we adjourn for the year, and i yield to my friend? mr. cantor: madam speaker, i'd say to the gentleman, if he calls in the not-too-distant

past, his side opposed to that bill when it was brought to the floor. have to bring bills to a result. and unfortunately, as the minority opposed stabling green cards to dipalomases on that bill that was brought in the past, we're trying to figure out a way where we can bring something forward, actually get it across the finish line with the other body. so i yield back. mr. hoyer: the majority leader knows and i know he has 218 votes. on his side of the floor. as a matter of fact, he has substantially more than that. if this bill is so good, if the last bill was so good, bring it to the floor and pass it. that's what your speaker says you want to do. you want to pass bills item by item. what is happening is you're passing bills out of committee and they languish there. just as the farm bill to which the gentleman referred in the early part of our discussion languished in the last congress.

and was not reported to the floor. mr. cantor: madam speaker, would the gentleman yield? hoyer highway certainly. mr. cantor: i would just say to the gentleman, the purpose is not just to make sure that, you know, a vote occurs and then nothing happens. the purpose is to pass bills and then allow for the bicameral effort to get a result. that's the frustration. and if the gentleman would also note, on the farm bill we actually have a conference committee ongoing now. and so the reason we employed the process we did was to get in a position that we could actually get a result. not just say we did something and fail to deliver for the people. so i would say to the gentleman again, these bills that he's bringing up all fit into the larger puzzle. we need some indication from the white house and from the majority in the senate that they'll actually work with us, record iven the track that this administration has amassed since 2009, there's not a lot of indication they're

willing to work together. and again i would point to the prospects of that being what's key. because this week is demonstrative of what happens when you just move without bringing everyone teeth. the -- bringing everyone together. the effects of this health care law are going to be lasting on people. they're scared to go to the exchanges, they're worried they're not going to have insurance. this is the impacting result of passing laws by just one body exectsing the other body to just go along. we can't do that now because we are two separate bodies and we need the white house and the senate to cooperate with the majority in the house. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that point. he passed a homeland security bill he knew the senate wasn't for. he passed appropriation bills he knew the senate wasn't for. he passed, madam speaker, the farm bill amendments that he

knew were not going to be supported in the senate. so i'm asking him, madam speaker, we think immigration is a critically important subject. we believe immigration is in fact broken. we have an alternative. he doesn't like our alternative. i understand that. we understand that on this side. perhaps the american people also understand. they don't like our alternative. it passed with 68 votes in the united states senate. he now says people have changed their mind. maybe that's the case. but it passed with 68 votes in the united states senate. they don't like it. madam speaker, i understand that. i get it. they don't like the health care bill. by the way, madam speaker, i'm starting to get that message. pretty thick, takes some time, but on 46 votes to repeal or to undermine, i get it. you don't like that bill. you think it's a bad bill. we have a disagreement on that, mr. leader. however, apparently we don't have a disagreement on the fact that the immigration system in

america is broken. so what i'm asking you, you have passed out of committee, you've passed out of committee the agricultural guest worker program. creates a new temporary worker program. that also passed on a partisan vote. none of these votes were bipartisan. there was no effort to work with the democrats on the committee, to bring a bipartisan bill. unlike mr. lucas or mr. carter who brought bipartisan bills to the floor and saw them turned into partisan pieces of legislation, with the help frankly of the majority party. now, i'm asking you, the agricultural guest worker act, are we going to bring that to the floor? again, a discrete, thoughtful, i'm sure, on your side of the aisle, addressing of a broken program. but if we don't bring it to the floor, we don't consider it, we can never get to conference, which is what the gentleman says he wants to do. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i'd say to the gentleman again.

track record of this administration and the majority in the senate has indicated an unwillingness to sit down and talk. they've not done so, certainly the white house has not done so on the immigration issue, did not do so on the health care issue and again it doesn't help the american people for this instistence on my way or the highway kind of mode of operation. and we've gotten the message now. if it's going to be my way or the highway we'll try and do whatever we can to help people, as we did today on the floor. a bipartisan vote. because the gentleman continues to say that we don't like the health care bill, that's true. i think the american people have spoken out pretty loud and clearly over the last 10 days or so, indicated by the white house and the president's move yesterday. obviously the law is not working. right? we don't want to get into another situation like that.

we want to make sure we work together. comprehensively, because there is step-by-step actions that need to be taken. but we need results. we need the white house to sit down and talk to us. we don't need any more speeches, we don't need any more press conferences by the president. we need some actual talk and on the immigration issue they've just not come forward. they've said, my way or the highway. and i'd say to the gentleman, that's not how you work in bipartisan process. the gentleman complains about partisan action on the floor. well, there is an inherent partisanship when you have a majority vs. a minority. is he will of the house reflected on the votes here. well, the senate's controlled by the gentleman's party. so is the white house. so to get any kind of result such as the farm bill, we're going to need a bipartisan

result. he is correct on that. but it doesn't mean that if we pass something in the house it automatically has to be something the senate will support. , so again, i would say to the gentleman -- so, again, i would say to the gentleman, let's all try to work together. i think our side has indicated a willingness to do that. obviously we want toad to go and get these conference -- we want to go and get these conference reports out but we have not seen a willingness on the part of the gentleman's party, this president, to say, we can work together to affect positive immigration reform, not just my way or the highway. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank, madam speaker, the gentleman for his observations. i'm somewhat amused, i must say, madam speaker, because there are few people in america who believe it's our party that's my the highway. in america w people who didn't see 198 democrats vote to keep their government working. not my way or the highway. we didn't get what we wanted, we didn't want that number that was

passed, 198 democrats, without exception, voted to keep this government open. 198 democrats voted to pay the bills of the united states of america. it wasn't a question of my way or the highway. it wasn't a question of repeal or i will vote to shut down the government. 147 republicans, madam speaker, voted to keep the government shut down. because they didn't get their way. 147 republicans, including in both instances, the chairman of budget committee, mr. ryan, voted to not pay the bills of the united states of america. 147. and they voted against the majority leader's advice and against the speaker's advice. that's a problem. i agree with that, it's a problem. but no matter how much, madam speaker, the majority leader president and the united states senate that are

undermining, in fact the united states senate has been passing time after time after time bipartisan bills and sent them to the house. where they have languished or been opposed. and finally, finally they were supported. that was true in the violence against women act. it was true on a bill that the speaker -- the majority leader and i were for, madam speaker. and that is for giving sandy relief. he couldn't get more than 25% of his party to support that. all i'm saying is, if immigration is a problem, and we all say it is, and you think it needs to be dealt with in a discrete way and you've passed bills out, why don't you bring them to the floor? h.r. 1772, the legal work force act, makes e-verify immigration status programs for perspective employees mandatory. again, i presume that this is one of mr. goodlatte's thoughtful, considered steps to fix a broken immigration system.

all i'm asking is, now for the fourth time, will you bring one or more of these bills to the floor? we may not be for them, but at least they put, as the gentleman keeps saying, a bill before the house so the house can work its will. and frankly if they're defeated, bent would be income upon us to move in a different direction -- incumbent upon us to move in a different direction. but if they're just sitting there, without consideration of the house, without the ability of the house to work its will, then it continues to cause inaction on a subject that all of us have expressed needs action. if the gentleman wants to respond to that i'll yield. if not i'll go on to another subject. want to go on to another subject? rather than go on to another subject, let me urge the

gentleman, again. because when the gentleman says, let the house work its will, that's a wonderful phrase. hopefully it resonates with the american people. but the house is not allowed to work its will. ultimately, as those bills i've just referenced, we did work our will. because, and we worked our will frankly with mostly a majority of democrats and a minority of republicans joining together to pass critically important legislation for this country. we couldn't get the majority of your party to vote for many of those bills. but i would ask the gentleman, if he really wants the house to work its will and he believes that h.r. 15, the comprehensive immigration bill, is a bad bill, bring it to the floor and see if the house thinks it's a bad bill. see if the house believes that it's a bill that is not worthy

to be considered and passed as a fixing of a broken immigration system. i would urge my friend to bring that bill to the floor. he has the power to bring that bill to the floor. i would urge him to do so. and i yield my friend time. mr. cantor: we don't want a repeat of what's going on now with obamacare. that bill, constructed as it is by the senate, last-minute-ditch effort to get it across the finish line, i think that there is a lot that can be done, a lot better in that bill -- done a lot better in that bill and the gentleman knows that as well. if he doesn't share my opinion then we can agree to disagree on that. and i would just say again, let's be mindful, madam speaker, of what happens when you put together a bill like obamacare and the real consequences to millions of americans right now, scared that they're not going to even have health care insurance that they have today come

january 1. and there are plenty of reasons for that. the mishaps with the websites, the call centers, the stolen identities, all the things that don't seem to be working right now are scaring people out of even considering in a rational way what's going on. because how could they? there is no answers being given. and i would say to the gentleman, largely due to the unfortunate architecture of that bill. and some of which could be blamed on the process by which it was put together. we don't want to make that mistake again. and i would say to the gentleman, i look forward to working with him in a deliberative, thoughtful approach, not bringing up the senate bill, because we're not going to do that. i've said that to the gentleman. and hopefully we can work in a much more positive way. with that i yield back. mr. hoyer: in closing, madam speaker, let me simply observe that this is somewhat ironic. because the gentleman has repeatedly said he doesn't like

the senate bill. i hear that. he then says we need to consider a more thoughtful way of doing this. i get that. i then pointed out that the committee, which is headed by mr. goodlatte, republican leader of the judiciary committee, has passed a number of bills, presumably in that quest for a more thoughtful consideration to fix a broken system. . the gentleman has not said he's going to bring any of those bills to the floor, so he knows what he's against, madam speaker. he knows what his party is against, madam speaker, but he cannot tell us what he's going to do to fix a broken system because apparently the four bills that i spoke about are not being brought to the floor, are not part of the solution of which the gentleman speaks and

that's regrettable. and let me say in closing, madam speaker, i hope we can work in a bipartisan fashion. it didn't occur after the election where the very issue was whether or not we need to extend affordable health care to millions of people to some 30 million, 40 million, 50 million people who didn't have health care security. they continue to be scared. they continue to be presented with a message that this is a failed program. frankly, before it even starts. now it has started in terms of access. it doesn't start, as the gentleman starts, until january 1. but for some people, it has started. for some parents with children with a pre-existing condition who could not get insurance, it's working. for young people that couldn't find a job and were

less than 26 years old, it was working. for seniors who were confronted with a doughnut hole that put them deeply in debt for prescription drugs they needed for life-saving and life-quality enhancements, it is working. it is working for those people that did not go bankrupt and won't go bankrupt in the future because they are not the limits that could be imposed upon them when they get really sick. so, yes, we'll have a debate on that, but it ought not to simply divert us from all of the other issues that we need to deal with, the budget. we need to get this country on a fiscally sustainable path. i know the leader agrees on that. we need to fix a broken immigration system. i know the leader believes that as well. and we need to invest in growing our country. get rid of the sequester, because the sequester is going to hurt our country. and frankly, i think the leader agrees on that. we may not agree on how to do it but i think he agrees on the

objective. so madam speaker, on all of those, we ought to be giving our best efforts, not in a partisan way, but in a bipartisan way, as americans, not as democrats and republicans. and i would yield back the balance of lesniewski, thank you for joining us. >> good to be here. >> the house is scheduled to have a series of debate involving energy security. can you tell us details? >> looks like with the house is planning to do in this getaway week is a number of measures accessuld sort of expand

to domestic energy production and the movement of domestic energy. there is a natural gas pipeline measure that would set faster guidelines for requiring the energy regulatory issue permanent. there is a measure that would essentially block the federal government from regulating hydraulic fracking in certain cases and states where existing regimes and oversight already exists. >> how's the house democratic leadership announce support for any of the upcoming bills? >> i have not heard what house leadership would plan to do. house republicans have said they are planning to set rules for a debate on these rules. it means in essence that you

might expect there to be some .ort of partisan opposition energy matters are difficult in each chamber. there are some democrats that have regional differences that emerge that cause some of them to side with republicans. >> in the senate, they have a series of procedural votes involving a u.s. circuit court nomination and a bill on compounding pharmacies. the judicial nomination vote in the senate is the last of they have anhat attempt to break filibusters the circuit court of appeals in the district of columbia. it is generally viewed as the second highest court in the land. the republicans have opposed previous nominees and/or making

a series of arguments and the democrats still think this is an effort by republicans to try to keep the balance of the court tilted in a way that is favorable to republicans despite there being a democratic president. lingeringcy bill is on the senate floor for a while. it is an agreement increased fda --rsight and regulatory oversight regulatory. that is running through the procedural hurdles although there is no real substantive objective to it at all. there is just you -- there is a dispute over an amendment that is not at all related to the bill. >> on monday, work is suspected on some major amendments they plan to -- is expected on some major amendments they plan to do. >> one goes interesting. ,henever a debate ends

compounding pharmacy bill, there's going to be no sorted each hop button -- no shortage of a hot button debate. the one more related to dental that is the biggest deal is them sexualey in which assault cases are prosecuted and investigated within the military. there is a disagreement between two camps, one that has been lit by senator jill a brand -- gil another about whether the chain of command should be removed in terms of how these cases and other military justice matters are brassd with the military generally opposing the idea of undercutting or -- the chain of command. >> is there a timeline?

assaulten the sexual issue and what is going on with the other issues that might come up, including the oversight of the intelligence programs and on this issue with potentially upping sanctions against iran, it is not clear yet because these amendments often take time to process. we have not even talked about any of the normal sort of disagreements about combat systems and ships and readiness and actual sort of nuts and bolts military issues. the idea originally was to get the bill off of the senate floor before thanksgiving in time for the thanksgiving break. but that is becoming increasingly unlikely because of the number of issues that seem to be piling up. secretary kerry was

on capitol hill to talk about relations with iran. any senate committees plan to move forward with new sanctions against iran? >> senator carl levin who is the chairman of the armed services committee has been saying in recent days that he is hoping that the banking committee that has jurisdiction over this matter i merely will move forward with marking up a new round of sanctions against the iranian regime as early as next week and he is asking for the -- for that in a bid to keep the debate off the defense bill. as of this moment, nothing has been scheduled yet. the white house and secretary and others in the administration are -- administration really don't want to see this right now

given the ongoing negotiations with that country and the other stakeholders involved. anythingot want to see that could potentially upset the balance and -- balance in the talks. there are a few more hawkish senators pushing for that. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> tonight on c-span, the u.s. house debate a bill allowing insurance companies to extend it some policies through 2014. a preview of the 2014 elections with national republican commission he -- commission chairman greg walden. then, remarks from the secretary john kerry.

later, hillary clinton and former first lady laura bush. up, -- commerce bill today.air's it would allow insurance companies that -- companies to continue some policies that don't need vendors of the health care law. bill,amber passed the 261-157. the debate is one hour 20 minutes. pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. upton: mr. speaker, across generations presidencies are often associated with one famous utterance. ask not what your country can do for you. the only thing we have to fear, tear down this wall. and our current president will be no different. if you like your health care plan, you can keep it, period. for the last three years the president repeated this promise in selling his signature law,

and he did so with the knowledge that it would not be met. millions of americans, including nearly a quarter after million in michigan, took the president at his word and now unexpectedly are receiving cancellation notices. they are confused, worried, and upset. today we stand with those families with the keep your health plan act. this bill is to help provide peace of mind to folks like the farmer in bangor, michigan, who just found out after purchasing his family's insurance for the last 30 years, that he will be able to keep their plan no more. and the sticker shock will be unbearable as the premiums double and their deductible jumps nearly 3,000 bucks. sadly they are not alobe. -- alone. for millions of americans it's cancellation today, sticker shock tomorrow. for the last six weeks the white house stood idly by ignoring the pleas of millions. as administration allies

panicked, the white house went from attacking our thoughtful bill to makeping an end around congress with a universal fix. our straightforward, one-page bill that says if you like -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. mr. upton: our straightforward, one-page bill says, if you like your current coverage, you should be able to keep it. the president should heed his own advice and work with us, the congress, as the founders intended, not around the legislative process. everyone today should embrace the keep your health plan act, and our efforts to protect americans from the damage of this law should not stop there. let's keep the promise. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: mr. speaker, i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. waxman: this bill is not a

bill to let people keep their health insurance plans. the president took care of that issue yesterday. what this bill is another vote to repeal the affordable care act. it would take away the core protections of that law. this bill creates an entire shadow market of substandard health care plans. it will destabilize the health insurance exchanges, raise premiums, and continue to allow insurers to discriminate on the basis of pre-existing conditions. the bill takes away the core consumer protections and a part of the law. under the republican bill, insurers could cherry pick the best risks and destabilize the insurance market for everyone else. that's why we would have them

repeal the law people would still be out of a chance to get insurance. i understand the concern of many members that individuals should be able to keep their health insurance if they like it, but there's a profound difference between providing relief for individuals whose policies have been canceled, which is what the president did yesterday, and recreating the discriminatory, inefficient insurance market that we had before health reform, which is what this bill would do. we need to have some perspective on this issue. for those currently in the individual insurance market, nearly five million people, they will be eligible for a tax credit worth an average of $5,000. over a million more people will be eligible for medicaid, which means additional savings. because of better coverage that protects them from crippling

medical costs, millions more will lower their out-of-pocket costs. and the 25 million americans without insurance will finally get a good deal on quality coverage. no one can be denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions. no one can see higher rates because they get sick. no one can see their rates go up. running up against annual coverage limits or realize too late that their plan didn't cover the key benefits that they need. this week we learned that 1.5 million people have already applied for coverage. a faster signup rate that experienced in massachusetts. even with all the technical problems we have had. in my state of california, nearly 400,000 people have begun applications in the first month. there will be a total of six

months to sign up, this program is going to work. . these are significant signs of progress. they show us we're on our way. on our way to dramatically expanding health insurance coverage in this nation. this bill will take us backwards. i urge a no vote and i retain the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. tipton: mr. speaker, i would yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. walden. -- mr. upton: mr. speaker, i would yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. walden. mr. walden: i rise today for the voice of oregonians who have already received their cancellation notices. they've been told the policy that they like, that they wanted to keep they cannot have any longer. i was down in my district for eight straight days last week. 36 meetings, 12 counties, 2,476

miles on the road from day in the morning to late at night. i'm going to tell you, there are people like chuck and jan medford who have gone into retirement, who had health insurance, got notice that their plan is being canceled. from mitchell to ben from enterprise, to medford, all over. not only are their plans being canceled, the replacements are coming back, for example, with -- back, folks, with deductibles that are $15,000 when they were paying a couple thousand. the premiums are going up in some cases double or more. some of them may get a subsidy. a lot of them won't. and now they don't have the plan they were promised that they could keep. and another thing that's insidious that's going on below the surface, meeting after meeting, hours are being cut back, people are losing their jobs, they're getting less take-home pay because of

obamacare. this is a problem all across america. the promise that you can keep your plan was never to be kept and they knew it and they continued to say it and it wasn't true. people are losing their plans, they're losing their coverage and they're losing access to the specialists that may save their lives. that's right. they won't be able to keep their doctors. they may. but if the doctor's out of network, there's no cap on what they will pay in terms of a deductible. so financially you take away their access to health care, the prices have gone up, the access and oh, by the way, in many cases they've lost their jobs or their hours have been cut back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. rangel, who played such an important role in drafting the affordable care act. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes.

mr. rangel: let me thank mr. waxman, congressman waxman, for giving me this opportunity. the majority said that presidents are remembered by certain things and that this outstanding president will be remembered because he said if you have a plan and he didn't say no matter how bad it is, you can keep it. i think he will be remembered historically of being the first president in the united states of america that has told people that for the first time every american will have access to affordable health care. on the other side, history's going to record them, too. that they never said that they had any concern at all and never million n for the 30 people that every day are waiting for this plan to go into effect. and that they would publicly

acknowledge that they don't want to improve upon mistakes that may have been made, but they want to derail, to destroy and to eliminate and to repeal universal health care for americans. i say this, the president apologized yesterday and i apologized to those people without insurance today for the united states congress. if you believe that the administration has done something wrong, for god's sake, let's work together to correct it. but to just ignore the fact that 70% of americans already have good insurance and it's going to be improved, to ignore the fact that 30 million people's lives and their legacy is not -- is in jeopardy because they can't afford to have serious illnesses, and to believe that those that belong to the 5% that

really gets caught in what we're supposed to be fixing today, i tell you that there's no evidence at all that the republican party wanted to fix anything for the uninsured of america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. upton: mr. speaker, i would yield one minute to the gentleman from georgia, dr. gingrey, a member of the health subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for unwp -- for one minute. mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, the gentleman from new york just said it. universal health care. single-payer system. government takeover of 1/6 of our economy. that's what they wanted from the very beginning. i rise today in support of h.r. 3350, the keep your health plan act now. the obama administration's health exchange enrollment announcement on wednesday is one of the myriad reasons we must pass this bill. frankly, these long-awaited numbers did not come as a surprise to us. a mere 100,000 registered for health care on the new marketplace when they anticipated 500,000.

according to health and human services' report, the number does not distinguish even between those who have actually paid a premium and those who just select the plan by kicking a button on the website. mr. speaker, the number of americans who have had their health plans canceled is in the millions, exponentially higher than those who have received coverage under obamacare. this disastrous law was destined to fail from the start. we on this side of the aisle, the republicans, and indeed the american people, have known for three years that this plan is unworkable for small businesses, it's unfair for physicians and their patients and it's unaffordable for we the taxpayer, we the people. i urge my colleagues, support h.r. 3350 and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: mr. speaker, i yield to the top democrat on the health subcommittee of energy and commerce, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone, two

minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. waxman: two. the speaker pro tempore: or three minutes. mr. waxman: three. the speaker pro tempore: for three minutes. the gentleman from new jersey is now recognized for three minutes. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you, mr. waxman. unfortunately today's bill is a ruse. it claims to make things better but all it does is to make things terribly worse and republicans will hide behind the sound bite and be behind the nice feeling of the title. but what this bill really does is to go back to the old broken health insurance system. this is just another attempt for the g.o.p. to repeal the provisions of the affordable care act. they've made it their mission to push the a.c.a. to failure and the only consequence of this bill is just that. seriously damaging the insurance provisions of the affordable care act and the millions of americans who are expected to benefit from the improved coverage and premium and cost-sharing subsidies available through the new health insurance market place. now, the g.o.p. claims the bill allows people to keep their health plans, but actually it allows all policies with few

benefits and sometimes higher prices to be sold to new enrollees. one of the major goals of the a.c.a. was to improve the quality of health insurance policies sold on the private market. beginning in 2014 health insurance plans can no longer deny coverage for adults with pre-existing conditions or charge those individuals more for coverage. and there are a lot of other discriminatory practices that are eliminated by the a.c.a. but we need to be open to constructive changes to make this law work, to the best of its ability. but that's not what the g.o.p. is doing today. no one believes that the republicans care about ensuring that people have health insurance. if they did, then republicans would not for purely political reasons refuse to expand medicaid with those republican governors in the states where now five million hardworking americans across 26 states will not have medicaid expansion because of the republican politics. mr. speaker, yesterday the president took some action to help americans who want to renew

their old insurance policies. ultimately, though, i hope that those americans who want to renew those old policies will look at the quality plans available in the new affordable care act marketplace and like what they see. because in most cases they'll be able to purchase better coverage at a lower price than their original policies. so when they need care, they'll have it, not with these old policies that for the most part are not going to provide them with good health insurance. so i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. this is just another repeal effort on the part of the republicans, they're not serious about trying to provide health insurance and this will accomplish nothing for the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. upton: mr. speaker, i would yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, chairman emeritus of the energy and commerce committee, mr. barton, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. barton, is recognized for two

minutes. mr. barrett: the surprise gentleman from texas -- mr. barton: the surprised gentleman from texas is recognized. i appreciate the chairman. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. barton: mr. speaker, we're here today to begin the long ocess of amending, hopefully improving and if that's not possible, at some point in time repealing the affordable care act. the president, as everybody knows by now, repeatedly said that if you like your health insurance you can keep it. well, it hases been proven that even when -- well, it has been proven that even when he said it that was not true and yesterday the president admitted as much when he said, for the next year he would try to honor that promise, if only in the breach. the upton bill actually correctly honors that promise the correct way, by legislatively saying that insurance can continue to provide these private policies and i would assume some

employer-sponsored policies, regardless of whether they meet the new minimum standards under the affordable care act. the bill does not require insurance companies to do so. but it does allow them to do so. and it is our hope, as sponsors of the bill, that many of those companies will do so and it is a reasonable expectation that millions of americans, given that choice, will actually keep the plans that they have and that they like. at some point in time, though, mr. speaker, this bill is not the end of the process, it is the beginning and we need to come back and fix the rest of the bill, the law, excuse me, or perhaps even change it or repeal it. i have a bill that i hope will be brought to the floor at some point in the near future that will make obamacare voluntary. let the henry people -- american people choose what parts of the law they like and if they decide they don't like some parts or all of the law, they wouldn't be

compelled, mandated to continue to use some of these new policies. so, mr. speaker, i want to commend chairman upton and subcommittee chairman pitts for bringing this bill so expeditiously to the floor and i would hope that we can have a unanimous vote in support of it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: mr. speaker, the gentleman will not get a unanimous vote. at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the chairman of the ways and means committee, mr. levin -- to the running backing -- ranking member of the ways and means committee, soon to be chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan voiced for three minutes -- is recognized for three minutes. mr. levin: mr. speaker, the republicans are on a mission of destruction. nothing will satisfy them except that very mission. the upton bill is another weapon in that mission.

what the republicans fear most of all is that the health care reform will eventually work. the upton bill is a bill to make sure that it does not work. the president has taken a step to help people keep their policies. the upton bill opens the door to anyone at all, to make sure that health care reform is not workable and that the private market cannot work. so back to the time of 50 million uninsured, so back to e time of cancellation for pre-existing conditions, so back to the time of no cap, so the alternative is bankruptcy. eight years ago the medicare drug program that republicans had passed got off to a rocky

start. did we democrats pounce on it for political gain? no, we put the country first and helped make the program a success. the republicans are marching in the opposite direction. destroying really instead of making something work . let's work together to make it work rather than destroying what americans want, a healthy health program for all americans. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. upton, is recognized. mr. upton: i yield one minute to the majority leader of the house, mr. cantor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia, mr. cantor, is recognized for one minute.

mr. cantor: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the chairman, the gentleman from michigan. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the keep your health plan act. many americans today are worried, they are worried about their jobs, worried about saving for their children's college education, or worried about saving for their retirement. and now, mr. speaker, millions of americans are worried about coming home, opening their mailboxes to find out that their health care coverage has been taken from them because of the president's health care law. the president repeatedly said that if you like your health care plan, you could keep it. we knew this was a promise he could not keep and now it's a promise he has broken. as a result, millions of americans across the country are receiving cancellation . tters just like this one

mr. speaker, this letter was sent to me by a constituent of mine, his name is bruno, from richmond, virginia, bruno is self-employed. and he purchases his health care plan through anthem blue cross blue shield. a few weeks ago he was shocked to receive this letter because this letter clearly reads, to meet the osama bin laden -- the requirements of the new law, your current plan can no longer be offered. purchasing a new plan could potentially cost mr. gore thousands of dollars. why should he or anyone else be forced off their plan if they want to keep it? working families across america were counting on this president could keep his promise. now they are counting on us to ease some of the pain that his health care law has brought on them. yesterday president obama

announced that he was going to be making some unilateral changes, but the changes he proposed and the ones we are proposing in the house, have some very clear differences. the president's plan restricts coverage previously available to only those who already had it. while forcing others to rchase a plan from healthcare.gov or another coverage that may not fit their needs. the white house doesn't even know how they are going to implement the plan they announced yesterday. this proposal we are talking about here, chairman upton's plan, aims to help americans keep their health insurance and give their neighbors a chance to buy the same plans rather than forcing them on to a faulty website to buy new coverage they may not like or cannot afford. under this legislation, there

is no confusion. the keep your health care plan act removes the impediment in the law that restricts insurance plans from being offered. the only way to completely stop any more cancellation letters like the one mr. gore received is through a full repeal of obamacare. today, however, we have an opportunity to stand united and pass a bipartisan measure that aims to slow the growing number of americans harmed by this law. i would like to thank chairman upton for his hard work, dedication to the issue. i urge all my colleagues in the house to support this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: mr. speaker, at this time i wish to yield three minutes to the dean of the house, the chairman emeritus of the energy and commerce committee, and longest standing member in support of universal health care coverage, the

gentleman from michigan, mr. dingell. mr. dingell: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from michigan, mr. dingell, is recognized for three minutes. mr. dingell: i express great affection and respect for my dear friend from michigan, the gentleman, mr. upton, who serves the house and his constituents well. however, this is a regrettable piece of legislation. it's nothing more than the kind of insurance policies which are being authorized by it that were sold by snake oil salesmen around this country which gave no relief, no help, no benefit to the american people. the sad situation is that this not only allows the -- some people to keep their policies, but it allows a lot of state salesmen to run around the country selling bad policies which undo almost all the protections which we have put

in to the affordable care act. things like protections against pre-existing conditions. the fact a woman might be buying a policy she could be charged for, under this legislation or a new policy issue by some sneaky insurance company. the harsh fact of the matter is this is not a help to citizens. the president said yesterday he was going to take steps to correct the problems. if we really want to have this done properly, then that is the way to do it. let's work together to have these matters corrected properly. let us see to it that the american people get the protections that they need against against abusive practices and not return to them. h.r. 3350 allows new sales of bad policies which contain

programs and practices borrowed by a.c.a. to new and gullible purchasers. the ones that we seek to protect. as i observed yesterday, the insurance companies feel that this is going to cause huge confusion in the market, and they do not think this legislation, average citizen, has been sold a bill which is just plainly false. he is not going to be benefited by the h.r. 3350. he is simply going to be afforded the opportunity to buy bad policies. whereas what we want to do is to see to it that if he has his policy he could keep it. the fact of the matter is he can keep it, and it doesn't

need the legislation before us. the legislation before us simply assures that folk can run around selling bad policies under fictional and false misrepresentations to do hurt to the american people who, frankly, need protection against the abuses that the affordable care act put in place. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. upton, is recognized. mr. upton: mr. speaker, now i yield one minute to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise, a member of the energy and commerce committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for one minute. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. speaker, for yielding and for the gentleman from michigan for bringing this bill, which i support. we all heard that promise, if you like what you have you can keep it. probably the most often repeated promise that barack obama made in his five years as president. and yet the president's finally acknowledging that promise will not be kept to millions of americans who are losing the good plans they like.

they kept saying they didn't know this was going to happen, by the way, mr. speaker, because back in 2010 the administration had a report that said over 60% of private plans would be canceled under the president's health care law. i have seen it myself in my district. i've got chris from covington, aaron from sly deltha have gotten letters saying they are going to lose the plans they have because the president's health care law. the president's answer was it was a lousy plan. mr. speaker, it was not a lousy plan for chris or aaron or the millions of americans that are losing their plans. they liked their plan. some washington politician shouldn't be able to say, i don't think it's good enough so i'm going to take it from you, even though it's right for your family. let's put patients and doctors back in charge of these decisions. let's empower hardworking families to be the ones in control of their health care decisions, not some washington politician. i urge the passage of this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. speaker, at

this time i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from illinois, ms. schakowsky. testimony mr. speaker, my mistake, i yield three. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois is recognized for three minutes. ms. schakowsky: the number one cause of personal bankruptcies in this country is the cost of health care. most of those people are so-called insured. these are the policies that are being covered that people find out when they get sick that they really aren't insured. and major goal of obamacare is to protect every consumer from the worst abuses of the private health insurance industry. starting next year no consumer can be denied coverage or charged more due to a pre-existing condition. this means that 129 million americans will no longer have to live in fear that they could one day be unable to obtain affordable coverage needed to

maintain their health or even to save their lives. the upton bill would turn back the clock. the upton bill would allow insurers to cherry pick among all health care consumers, the young, healthy, by offering nonobamacare compliant policies, leaving only the old and sick to purchase coverage in the marketplace. this is something they wanted to do and have been doing for decades. this is going to drive up premiums, and allow just the type of discrimination that obamacare absolutely ends. speaker boehner said yesterday, we have, currently, the best health care delivery system in the world. are you kidding me? with millions of people, tens of millions of people uninsured and tens of millions more with bad policies that don't cover this. rather than taking steps to weaken obamacare, my republican colleagues should be taking this opportunity to build on

obamacare. as the president did, to fix it. last week i spoke with the director of the illinois department of insurance about some of the unreasonable rate increases my constituents have faced in the past, and their concern about the new rates being quoted in letters they receive from all from their insurers this fall. he told me he doesn't have the authority he wants to protect consumers from excessive premiums. this authority includes the ability to deny or modify any unreasonable premium. illinois isn't alone. today republicans denied us the opportunity to address this by refusing to consider legislation that would move us forward, provide rate modification authority in every state. instead choosing to move a bill that would drive up premium rates and undermine obamacare's new benefits and protections. i want to caution people, rather than reup with some of the policies they had, check it out. what's really covered?

hospitalization, emergency room coverage? how many times can you go see your doctor? go to the marketplace. it will be fixed. and pick a plan that is going to provide you with the real coverage, the essential benefits that you need that are provided under obamacare. we want to protect you from junk plans that are out there, but we want to let you reup in plans that actually offer you the kind of coverage you want. that was essential in what the president did yesterday. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. upton: thank you, mr. speaker. at this point i yield two minutes to the republican whip, the gentleman from california, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. mccarthy: thank you, mr. speaker, i thank the chairman for his work in keeping the pledge to bring this bill to the floor. i rise in support of h.r. 3350, the keep your health care plan. from the start obamacare's been a disaster. first, the individual mandate was a bad idea before.

even more dangerous now. because it's forcing people to choose health care they do not want, cannot afford, isn't right for themselves and their families. second, the president's credibility continues to crumble. as independent news sources have confirmed, that he intentionally broke his promise to every american about whether they could keep their insurance under this law. we will continue to see the shock waves of obamacare. today, it is the fact that americans cannot keep their coverage. tomorrow, it will be the staggering and unexpected cost. next month it will be about losing access to their doctor and the list continues to go. no administrative fix will undo the harm this law has caused. republicans believe that we must try and help americans who have been harmed by obamacare. that is why today we'll pass a bill to allow americans to continue to enroll in plans currently offered without facing the individual mandate penalty.

what the american people and our constituents need is certainty. the only approach that continues to provide them certainty is the bill before us today. our bill allows americans a choice. it lets individuals keep their health care plan while giving others who currently are uninsured an escape hatch from obamacare. our bill will allow individuals, whether they are a mother of a sick child, a small business owner, or a young invincible adult to keep their current plan. the national federation of independent businesses and senior groups such as 60-plus are urging congress to fulfill its duty and pass this bill. i urge my democratic friends to join with us. many of them voted for this bill. they stated they had an intent that americans can keep their plan. today is their opportunity to keep that pledge. i yield back. mr. waxman: mr. speaker, at this time i yield two minutes to the gentleman from the state of

washington, dr. mcdermott, who is the ranking member of the health subcommittee of ways and means. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for two minutes. mr. mcdermott: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, my mother used to say, patience is a virtue. i haven't seen so much panic on this floor since 9/11. now, the fact is that a couple of members who used to be here, jay inslee who is now governor of the state of washington, mike criedler, who is the insurance commissioner of the state of washington, have already said this. ll not implement because it is not good for the people of the state of washington. they've looked at it, we have worked hard to implement the affordable care act. and now we have a bill out here run no hearings whatsoever, out here, and we're told there

will be no confusion. there will be nothing but confusion. you have 50 insurance commissioners around this country who are going to be suddenly given a bill after we write some rules and regulations here that require the insurance companies to sell policies to people. i can't believe what i'm hearing. i thought the republicans believed in the free enterprise system. this is socialism. this is government saying to insurance companies, you must sell a policy to somebody next year that you sold to them this year. when did we shift on the republican side to the congress telling an insurance company who they have to sell a policy to or what's in the policy? i only have two minutes. up the bill does not say -- mr. upton: the bill does not say must sell.

mr. mcdermott: the fact is they're going to have to put the policy out there. they've been work and implementing this law for three -- they've been working and implementing this law for three years and now six weeks before it actually begins to take effect, we run in here and say, wait a minute, wait a minute, you got to start selling policies like the ones that you sold last year. do you think they didn't think through what they're doing? i mean, i don't understand the free enterprise system -- i don't understand, the free enterprise system is lions and they're eating antelopes. i urge a no vote on this because you're going to create endless confusion in this country in the insurance market. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. upton: i yield myself 15 seconds. the gentleman needs to read our bill. it doesn't say that the insurance companies must sell those policies. that may be in the senate bill, it's not in this bill. i would yield one minute to the vice chair of the energy and commerce committee, the gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. blackburn. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady from tennessee is recognized for one minute. pleakbleak thank you, mr. speaker. i thank -- mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the chairman for the superb job he has done on bringing h.r. 3350 to the floor. and i thank him for listening to millions of americans who have been so forthright in saying, we do not want the president's health care law, it is destroying our access to the health care that we like, it is taking away our health care plans. never has there been a federal mandate who has just swept so many people aside and said, you must buy this product. some of you have asked why we're doing this. let me tell you why. we're doing it for my constituentses like caroline and lucie and cindy and wilma, all small business owners, all female heads of households who have written us and have said, we are being forced out, forced out of the plan that we like.

we're being forced away from the doctor that we like, we're being forced to buy a product we do not like. i thank the gentleman, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, rosa delauro. from connecticut, rosa delauro. a state that also starts with a c. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized for two minutes. ms. delauro: since this republican majority took office we have taken vote after vote after vote intended to disrupt, delay, defund or outright repeal the affordable care act. last month this house majority shut down the federal government. they threatened a catastrophic debt default in order to gut this law. now when the affordable care act is going into effect, are we supposed to believe that this republican majority is putting forth a good-faith effort to

improve the bill? it doesn't wash and it defies imagination. this bill is designed to weaken the health care law, to roll back the clock on the reforms we worked so hard to pass. it takes us back to the unacceptable state of our health care system before we passed the affordable care act. remember the health care system was failing people. every year health costs skyrocketed. small businesses priced out of the market. employers asking for higher contributions and co-pays and dropping coverage. people with pre-existing conditions were being socked to be on their own. every year more people had no insurance whatsoever. this bill allows insurers to continue to provide substandard health insurance plans to families. even to new customers. americans on these plans will be denied access to preventive services with no out-of-pocket costs. it takes us back to a time when people were not guaranteed

coverage for maternity, pediatric care, hospitalization, where where families faced annual caps, lifetime caps. it takes us back to a health insurance market that rejects people with pre-existing conditions. once again this republican majority is trying to put insurers back in the driver's seat. let them control the health of american families. this majority was never interested in reforming our broken health care system. they've never been interested in the affordable care act and now they are not interested as well. this is a cynical, transparently political bill. oppose it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. upton: mr. speaker, i would yield one minute to the chairman of the oversight and investigation subcommittee on energy and commerce, dr. tim murphy. one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. murphy: mr. chairman, the majority is very concerned about

health insurance plans and very concerned about those people who have lost their plans. when this bill was originally marked up a couple of years ago in the energy and commerce committee, repeatedly we heard from members of the other side of the aisle saying that if people liked their plan they could keep it indefinitely. this needed a fix several months ago and the president of the united states said he wants republicans and democrats to work together for a solution. we're offering to work together. and yet the president has said he would veto this. but the president offered only a partial fix. it would lead to more confusion. the question is, it will lead to class action suits against insurance companies who fail to comply with the law and many states are saying this partial fix is not sufficient. we need a legislative fix. we need a way the people can still have their option for buying their plan. and what we have to see here is this is a bigger problem for american families who have found that their insurance is lost and they want to be able to keep it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: mr. speaker, may i inquire how much time is left on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 10 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from michigan has 16 3/4 minutes remaining. mr. waxman: at this time i yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is ecognized for two minutes. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this bill. which will undermine the providing of health care at affordable prices for millions and millions and millions of americans. we said to those americans that, prior to the adoption of this act, if they had a policy they could keep it. that was accurate. now, it didn't say that the insurance companies would have to continue to offer it, which as i understand it, that side of the aisle wouldn't be for in any event. but the fact of the matter is, that statement was correct.

now, subsequent to that, there were policies offered and insurance companies knew and policy holders should have known, because it was in the law , that they would be subject to minimum requirements. why? because as the heritage foundation said when it originally came up with this idea, everybody ought to take personal responsibility. i've heard a lot of talk on your side of the aisle, mr. speaker, about personal responsibility. i believe in that. the upton bill, as everybody knows, will skew the risk pool and encourage adverse selection. anybody who knows anything about insurance knows that if you have adverse selection, the prices for those who need insurance will go up very substantially while, yes, the prices for those who don't need insurance will go

down. very sharply. and very frankly, if all of us knew we would never be in an automobile accident, we wouldn't have to have automobile insurance. except of course the law in almost every state requires us to have it. so that others will be protected as well. now, ladies and gentlemen, this bill is no secret. may i have 30 additional seconds? mr. waxman: i yield the gentleman an additional one minute. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: this bill is offered by people who, according to their own rhetoric, want to repeal the affordable care act. that's a fair position. but now they are trying to do so with a trojan horse they call the upton bill. that in effect will fix what people are concerned about. the fact of the matter is it will not fix that problem, but

what it will do is undermine the ability of millions and millions d millions of people to have health security. i would urge my colleagues to defeat this trojan horse. i would urge my colleagues to say to the american people, look, we are prepared to work together. the president has offered a compromise which will have the effect of not opening up the policies to everybody, but to those people that had a policy. that is a reasonable step to take. that is a step that perhaps we can talk together and get accomplished. but let's reject this bill and let's stand with the millions of people who want affordable, quality health care for themselves and their families and, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan

voiced. mr. upton: mr. speaker, i would yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, a member of the house subcommittee on energy and commerce, mr. lance, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. lance: thank you, mr. speaker. and i rise in strong support of chairman upton's legislation, which will provide much-needed certainty and relief for millions of americans, including 800,000 in new jersey. regarding this issue, "the new york times" editorializes this morning that the president has damaged his credibility and it is uncertain how he can earn it back, earn back the public's trust. i would suggest support of this bipartisan legislation will earn back the president's trust. this matter should be addressed legislatively and permanently and not administratively and temporarily as the president suggested yesterday. it is time for us to work together. i strongly support chairman upton's legislation and i am sure it will pass in a

bipartisan fashion and there will be bipartisan support in the other house. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. california. mr. waxman: mr. speaker, we reserve our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. upton: mr. speaker, i would yield two minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, a member of the health subcommittee, dr. cassidy, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. cassidy: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, for the last 30 years i've worked in a hospital for the uninsured and what i've learned is that unless you trust the families, unless you give power to the patient, you truly cannot make good medical decisions. and so it comes to mind, i mean, my gosh, this is an email i got from someone who is my age, mid 50's, she says that we just got a letter from our health care provider, we had a major medical with a $10,000 deductible. we've lost that. we were told the insurance is not acceptable as written so now our new policy has a $7,000 deductible and it costs us

$10,000 more a year. the deductible goes down by $3,000, their people are upup by $10,000. this is not -- the premium up by $10,000. frankly, i don't know if we can reconstruct the private insurance market, it may have been decimated by the affordable care act. the last chance probably was the resolution on the senate side in which it was pointed out that as many as 80% of americans would lose their individual policies, but every democrat voted against that resolution. but, if there's a hope it is the keep your health plan act, which allows the policies to be resold , to occasionally be tweaked and, by the way, to be sold to others. preserving if you will the power of big numbers which is key to the insurance industry. now, the other options the president, the others on the senate side don't allow these policies to be sold to others and so without allowing that, of course they are eventually going

to be actuarialy unsound and collapse. it is a sleight of hand, which is disingenuous in terms of its intent. we must give power to the patient, we must trust families we should pass the keep your health plan act. allow families to make their own decisions. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is ecognized. mr. waxman: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from new york, ms. velazquez. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for two minutes. ms. velazquez: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, let's be clear about the bill before us today. this bill is not an attempt to help americans keep their insurance plans. the president already announced a plan to help address that goal. instead, this bill takes a meat

cleaver approach, allowing insurance companies to market inadequate policies to new enrollees. remember the bad old days when pre-existing conditions were discriminated against? this bill brings back that practice. remember women paying more for coverage simply because of their gender? that's a ok under this bill. remember the insurance company stopped paying when the consumer came down with an expensive illness? that's back, too. what about small businesses? facing double digits hikes in their premium costs. if we want to take up targeted legislation helping those whose policies are being discontinued, then let's do that. but let's call this bill what it is. a return to the days when insurance companies preyed on working families.

and the 36th attempt to -- 46th attempt to repeal the affordable care act. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. upton: mr. speaker, i would yield one minute to the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mckinley, a member of the energy and commerce committee, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. mckinley: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to be the voice for the citizens of the first district of west virginia and support house bill 3350. let me share just two of the messages of thousands we have received. linda writes, i am losing my health insurance due to obamacare. my policy has been canceled. i'm being forced to enter the exchange. i liked my current polcy. under the exchange i'll be forced to pay $200 more. i am being hurt by obamacare. this simply isn't fair. and sherry told us, my parents, both retired, received a letter from their insurance company

letting them know their new rates starting in january. the increase is so much they can't afford it. i pray that they can continue to receive the health care that they choose so they can continue to be healthy. they deserve better. mr. speaker, these are only two of the stories out of the thousands we could share. consequently i'm urging my colleagues to support this particular legislation. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: mr. speaker, we reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. upton: i might ask parliament inquiry, how much time remains on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has six minutes. the gentleman from michigan has 12 3/4. mr. upton: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. gardner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. mr. gardner: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the chairman of the committee for his work on this bill and the legislation before us.

. speaker, 250,000 coloradoans have had their health care plans canceled. i joined them. here's my letter as one of the insurance policies i held, one of the insurance policyholders in colorado, i, too, had my insurance canceled. over 250,000 people who had health care plan, they were told they could keep, but they won't be able to. know elfrom eastern colorado called me to tell me his insurance has been canceled. insurance he liked, he was promised by the president he would get to keep. mr. speaker, he tells the story that he has two kids, a third on the way. he tells the story that his premium is going to go up by about $400 as a result of the changes under the health care bill. and that with the addition of his third child, it will go up another $300 more a month. this family doesn't make much money.

for eastern colorado, they do better than others. they bring home $500 a month. -- 5,000 a month. to see that kind of health care cost increase when they were promised if they like their health care bill they could keep it is simply wrong. we have been accused in this bill of rolling back the law. this bill does one thing, it rolls back a broken promise. it rolls back a broken promise so that we can keep our health care plans so that the 250,000 people in colorado can keep their health care plan. and, in fact, it does go back. it goes back to a time when president obama promised the american people that if they liked their health care plan they could keep it, period. it goes back to a time when kathleen sebelius, secretary of h.h.s. said, if you like your health care plan, you can keep it. it goes back to a time when the majority who passed the legislation in the house and in the senate said, if you like

your health care plan, you can keep it. period. i thank the chairman for his leadership. i thank the speaker. yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon, member of the ways and means committee , mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you. i appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. the expectation that somehow the elements of the affordable care act would not be implemented is simply false. people can keep health insurance, but there are always going to be the new standards to make sure that people no longer have insurance in name only. that's what we heard about repeatedly in the efforts to try to reform the health care system. people had great health care plans until they got sick.

we have minimum standards going forward. and all plans will be required to meet those standards. that was in the law and that is reasonable. we are in the midst of the greatest, most significant reform of health care in a generation. and it's already having significant effects. medical inflation, medical cost inflation, is at a 40-year low over the course of the last three years. we have significant expansion of coverage already. hundreds of thousands of people in lower incomes have been able to have access to health care for the first time. small businesses that had been burdened for years by health care costs now get access to tax credits. and it gets better for them going forward. it is, i think, ironic for people to talk about somebody losing access to a doctor who is no longer in the network.

that happens every year. it happened previously. it will happen in the future. unless you're going to somehow sentence doctors to participate in plans. you can't force them. and shedding crocodile tears because there are some plans .hat are canceled in this individual insurance market, routinely 40%, 50%, 60% every year are turned over. i sat on the floor -- may i have 30 additional seconds? mr. waxman: yield additional 30 seconds. mr. blumenauer: i sat on the floor and heard my colleague from oregon, mr. walden, talk about a very attractive family from southern oregon that are somehow going to now face $12,000 deductibles. i want to do a deep dive with greg, find out what is going on with that family. because what we have found people have been using obamacare as an excuse for some things that are going to happen