[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 19, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H262-H323]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             REPEALING THE JOB-KILLING HEALTH CARE LAW ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, 
proceedings will now resume on the bill (H.R. 2) to repeal the job-
killing health care law and health care-related provisions in the 
Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. When consideration was postponed on Tuesday, 
January 18, 2011, 5 hours of debate remained on the bill, with 30 
minutes equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and 
minority leader or their designees, 90 minutes equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce, 90 minutes equally divided and controlled 
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, 90 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, for 20 consecutive months more than 14 million Americans 
have been unemployed. As much as we would like to solve this problem, 
the Federal Government cannot legislate or regulate our way to job 
creation. We can, however, foster economic certainty that will 
encourage families, businesses, and entrepreneurs to spend, hire, and 
invest. And that is what we will try to do today.
  Almost 1 year ago, Democrats launched a nearly $1 trillion government 
takeover of health care that increases national health care spending by 
$311 billion over 10 years and levies more than $500 billion in new 
taxes on individuals, consumers, and businesses. The 2,700-page law has 
led to more than 4,000 pages of new rules and regulations, and the law 
is only 10 months old. The uncertainty of what this all means for 
individuals and businesses today, and in the months and years to come, 
is having a chilling effect on the country's job creators.
  A number of provisions of the law will undermine job creation and 
economic growth, but perhaps none is as alarming as the employer 
mandate. For the first time in the Nation's history, employers with 
more than 50 workers are required to provide government-approved health 
care coverage. Those who do not or cannot afford to will be forced to 
pay a $2,000 penalty for every worker beyond the first 30. If you are a 
small business owner with 50 workers and you cannot afford to provide 
government-approved health insurance for your workers, adding one 
additional employee to the payroll will result in a $42,000 penalty.

                              {time}  1040

  Some refer to the employer mandate as shared sacrifice. They argue 
that expanding coverage to every individual means everyone must pay, 
but the cost of this provision will result in more than lost dollars 
and cents. Hiring new workers will be more expensive, creating a 
disincentive for job creators to put Americans back to work.
  The employer mandate isn't the only challenge facing employers. Last 
year the administration released a regulation on the so-called 
grandfather provision, a provision intended to protect current plans 
against the law's costly and complex requirements. It is also central 
to the President's promise that, If you like your current health care 
plan, you can keep it.
  Unfortunately, the regulation falls far short of the President's 
promise. By the administration's own estimates, up to 69 percent of all 
employer plans and 80 percent of small business plans will be denied 
grandfathered status in just 2 years. One estimate indicates 87 million 
Americans will face changes to their current health care plans.
  Instead of keeping what they already have, individuals and employers 
will have to pay more for something new and unfamiliar. The more costly 
it is for employers to provide coverage, the more likely existing 
health plans will be eliminated and the need for government assistance 
will grow. And as the rolls for government programs expand, the cost to 
taxpayers will skyrocket.
  At a time when every job creator should be encouraged to grow and 
hire, the Democrats' health care law instead forces employers to choose 
between rising health care costs and government penalties. It is time 
to end the uncertainty facing families, employers, and workers. It is 
time to push ObamaCare aside so America's job creators, both large and 
small, can move forward with the confidence they need to hire new 
workers.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2, the Republican 
Patients' Rights Repeal Act.
  The question is just simply fundamental here, whether or not people 
will be able to have control over their health care needs and their 
health insurance needs, or whether or not we will go back to the chaos 
of the previous system that is dictated by the insurance companies 
where people are thrown off of policies willy nilly, where people are 
not reimbursed for costs willy nilly, given excuses, paperwork back and 
forth, where young people are thrown off their parents' policy when 
they graduate from high school, and whether or not they will have 
insurance or not, or whether people will have the freedom to make the 
choices, to have insurance that will cover them, that will get rid of 
the preexisting conditions that eliminate their coverage, that will get 
rid of the lifetime caps so that those people who contract cancer

[[Page H263]]

or other chronic diseases find out they have run out of insurance at 
the exact moment they need it. No longer will that be the case under 
the current law.
  Now, the choice is to repeal that law and to make it more difficult 
for small businesses to provide insurance. Since the enactment of the 
tax credit under this law, we now see that hundreds of thousands of 
employees have been extended health insurance by small businesses 
employing 50 workers or less because of that tax credit, a tax credit 
that is scheduled to increase.
  So we already see the hundreds of thousands of employees that did not 
have access to insurance because they worked for small businesses today 
have insurance. That's not the reporting of the government. That's the 
reporting of the health insurance companies where people and businesses 
are making applications for insurance.
  So what we see now is young people are once again covered and can 
have the security that they will have health insurance while they go to 
school or while they start a new job that may not have health insurance 
with that coverage. We now see that people who may have had a bout of 
cancer early on know that that will not disqualify them from having 
insurance as they go out and continue to work to provide for their 
families.
  We now see that after 2014 when people change their jobs or they lose 
their jobs, they will have insurance so they will not have to go to the 
poor house because of the insurance costs that they will not be able to 
provide for because they are unemployed. They will not be locked into a 
job that they don't want. They will be able to be entrepreneurial and 
go out and seek a new job knowing that they will have health insurance. 
That's the certainty of this legislation.
  We can now choose the chaos of the current insurance system. We can 
choose the chaos of people getting a letter saying you no longer have 
insurance, getting a letter saying your child is no longer covered, 
getting a letter saying your premium is up 59 percent, as they did last 
year in California. We have seen health insurance premiums jump 
dramatically over the cost of living over the last decade and over the 
last decade have seen more and more businesses shed coverage for their 
employees.
  The Republicans want to believe that there is certainty in that. The 
Republicans want to believe that that's a comfort to the American 
working family. The Republicans want to believe that that's a comfort 
to grandparents who see their grandchildren thrown off their parents' 
policies.
  That's not a comfort. What is a comfort is the freedom to know that 
never again will you have to contest the arbitrary rulings of an 
insurance company about your preexisting conditions, about the coverage 
of your child's health care. Never again will you have to contest 
whether or not you will get help paying for your pharmaceuticals if you 
are a senior. Never again will you have to pay for preventive medical 
checkups to try to keep you healthy if you are a senior. That's the 
certainty that this legislation presents.
  Last night I had a telephone town hall meeting with over a thousand 
seniors in my district, and all of them--almost all of them, I would 
say there were three or four in the call--almost all of them wanted the 
certainty of knowing they were going to get help with their 
pharmaceutical payments. They struggle with the doughnut hole.
  They were appreciative of the $250 check they got last year, and they 
were appreciative of the help they were going to get paying for their 
pharmaceuticals this year. That's the certainty that we ought to reject 
by rejecting repeal of the health care act.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a member of the 
committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).
  Mr. PETRI. Today I rise in support of H.R. 2, legislation which would 
repeal the health care law passed last year. Even if it is unlikely 
that this bill will pass the Senate, I think it's important for the 
House majority to state its position in the clearest possible terms to 
encourage a general reevaluation of the new law.
  Make no mistake. My colleagues and I support health care reform which 
would ensure that all Americans, including those with preexisting 
conditions, have access to affordable coverage. However, the health 
care law that passed last year takes a fundamentally wrong approach to 
achieving that goal and will only make worse our skyrocketing health 
care costs and Federal deficits.
  My State of Wisconsin is a leader in terms of providing efficient, 
high-quality care; and I have been meeting and will continue to work 
with medical providers in my State as well as my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to develop proposals which will reward high-quality, 
low-cost medical services instead of simply giving government more 
control over our health care.
  Only by implementing proposals that rein in out-of-control health 
care costs will we be able to make affordable coverage available to all 
Americans. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this 
important issue.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  As we sit here this morning, there are millions of Americans sitting 
in front of computers or the want ads desperately looking for their 
next job, 15 million unemployed Americans. The question they are asking 
this Congress is why don't you work together to help small businesses 
and entrepreneurs create jobs for our country?
  The answer the majority gives them is we will get to that someday. 
What they are doing today raises some real questions as well.
  A mother has two 4-year-old twins who are diagnosed with leukemia and 
tries to buy health insurance. The insurance company says we won't sell 
it to you because your children have leukemia, or we will charge you 
five times as much.
  We say that should be illegal and the law today the majority tries to 
repeal says differently. A ``yes'' vote for repeal means she is told, 
Sorry, no insurance.
  A person who has faithfully paid his premiums for years and suddenly 
needs a quadruple bypass heart operation receives a letter from his 
insurance company that says, Sorry, we are rescinding your coverage. We 
say, and the law says, that should be illegal. But a vote for repeal 
says, Sorry, you are on your own.
  A pregnant woman who has a very difficult pregnancy and gives birth 
to a child with severe impairments that cost hundreds of thousands of 
dollars each month, the law says, and we say, that the insurance 
company should be legally obligated to pay her bills as long as she and 
her baby need it, no lifetime policy limits.

                              {time}  1050

  But a vote for repeal says she's on her own.
  A senior citizen who runs out of prescription drug coverage the 
Fourth of July or Labor Day, the law says, and the bill says, they 
should get some help to continue to buy their prescriptions for the 
rest of the year. But a vote for repeal says she's on her own. We're 
all on our own on paying the debt. Our President is meeting with the 
President of China today; and as we do that, the majority is adding 
over $1 trillion to the national debt with this vote.
  Ladies and gentlemen of the House, this bill doesn't create jobs for 
the middle class. It creates pain for the middle class. The right vote 
is ``no'' on this repeal. The right course is get back to the job of 
creating jobs for the American people. Vote ``no.''
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to another 
member of the committee, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Wilson).
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your 
leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the many threats of this unconstitutional health 
care takeover is the unfunded State mandates. In my home State of South 
Carolina, newly inaugurated Governor Nikki Haley has correctly warned 
that the Palmetto State cannot afford the health care mandate. Governor 
Haley even went so far as to ask the President to opt out of this 
unfunded mandate. The reason is because the health care takeover calls 
for an additional $1 billion in new State spending.

[[Page H264]]

  The takeover will cripple small businesses. A recent study by the 
National Federation of Independent Business, NFIB, America's largest 
organization of small businesses, has indicated that the mandate will 
lead to the elimination of 1.6 million jobs.
  This law imposes burdens on all Americans. It's a threat to senior 
citizens in that it will lead to waiting lists, deferral services, and 
rationing. It's a threat to our Nation's youth in that it burdens them 
with excessive debt.
  Mr. Speaker, the liberal health care takeover destroys jobs, limits 
freedoms, and expands Big Government.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Woolsey), a member of the committee.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak out in emphatic opposition 
to H.R. 2, the repeal of the Affordable Care Act.
  Mr. Speaker, one of my sons, the father of two and a wonderful 
husband, came home last week to Petaluma from 6\1/2\ weeks in the 
hospital. He has many, many more weeks' recovery ahead of him, but I 
can tell you that this family that still has a huge challenge ahead of 
them would not have a chance without health care, the health care 
coverage that they have.
  This bill, by the way, goes in precisely the wrong direction. Just 
when we should be strengthening the historic reform we passed last 
year, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to tear it 
apart. Have you never experienced another person that had the needs 
that my family has today even if it wasn't in your family?
  Repeal, we know, would leave millions out in the cold, stripping them 
of access to affordable health coverage. In fact, Blue Shield of 
California recently announced a rate increase of as much as 59 
percent--59 percent--for some 200,000 policyholders. Does the majority 
not see the problem with runaway costs that are passed on to middle 
class families already burdened by a deep recession? Do you want to 
return to the broken health care system that had people crying out for 
reform in the first place?
  The claim that cutting government spending is the most important of 
all flies in the face of the CBO that has concluded that their bill 
would add $230 billion--your bill, the Republican bill--$230 billion to 
the Nation's debt by 2021. Do not vote for this.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend 
and colleague, a member of the committee, the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. I thank my friend for yielding me time.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 2, which repeals the job-destroying 
government takeover of health care.
  Voters rejected the ``government knows best'' philosophy in November. 
In contrast, Republicans believe that American innovation and reduced 
government control are keys to successful health reform that reduces 
health care costs. For instance, it's estimated that 1 percent of the 
most seriously ill account for more than 25 percent of all health care 
expenditures. What if we could improve the care of these patients and 
at the same time reduce costs?
  We can. We can by harnessing the power of innovation and health 
research in fields like regenerative medicine. Regenerative medicine 
develops technologies to replace or regenerate organs and tissues using 
the patient's own cells. These treatments could reduce the cost of 
chronic diseases by $275 billion a year. Consider the fact that Dr. 
Anthony Atala at the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at Wake Forest 
University has been able successfully to grow bladders for bladder 
replacement surgeries from the recipient's own cells. Yet despite 
several successful bladder transplants, the FDA insists he go through 
additional clinical trials on animals and spend millions of dollars in 
testing that is clearly unnecessary based on his success with the human 
transplant surgeries.
  The Federal Government's regulatory burden is stifling innovation in 
America, and the government takeover of health care, passed by the 
ruling Democrats last year, will impose more job and innovation-
destroying regulations on health research. Therefore, I urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of investing in new health technology and 
research by voting ``yes'' on H.R. 2.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), a member of the committee.
  (Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
2.
  Over one-third of my constituents in the 15th Congressional District 
of Texas are currently uninsured. With passage of the Affordable Care 
Act, that number, which has risen year after year, is finally coming 
down. I project that the percentage of uninsured individuals could drop 
to only 10 percent.
  Right now, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, children who are 26 and 
under can stay on their parents' policy as they finish school and 
search for a job. With the passage of health care reform in 2010, 
senior citizens who hit the doughnut hole are now going to receive 
rebates and small businesses have had their taxes cut, all the result 
of the Affordable Care Act. If the proposed health care act repeal were 
to pass, it will destroy this progress I have seen in my district and 
in my State.
  The families and businesses in my district cannot afford more 
uncertainty. They cannot afford to go back to the old health care 
system that was not working for millions of Americans and whose 
spiraling costs were driving our Federal budget into the abyss.
  Right now, the Affordable Care Act is extending affordable health 
care insurance to millions of Americans. However, here in Congress, the 
majority party is asking the House to repeal the law we passed without 
holding hearings and without offering a meaningful alternative to the 
American people who are working, who are presently without insurance, 
or who have preexisting medical conditions. Those Americans were 
struggling to pay for hefty premiums to insurers. If there are some 
things that need to be fixed in the present law, we can fix them, but 
throwing out all the progress we have made is not the answer.
  The focus of this new Congress should be reducing the staggeringly 
high 9\1/2\ percent unemployment rate. Instead, we have a bill before 
us today that makes it harder for businesses to provide benefits to the 
employees that eliminate the hundreds of thousands of new jobs that 
were being created in the health and medical fields.
  The Affordable Care Act doesn't reduce jobs; it saves lives. I 
strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to a 
physician on the committee, the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 2, the repeal of ObamaCare. 
For the past 30 years, I haven't been a politician but a physician 
treating patients and delivering babies in rural east Tennessee. And I 
can say without hesitation that we have the finest health care system 
in the world.
  Health care should not be a partisan issue, and I personally have 
never operated on a Democrat or Republican cancer in my life. You can't 
spend $1 trillion and have a bill that's over 2,500 pages long and not 
have something good come out of it. This bill is not, however, good 
medicine for our country.
  The repeal of ObamaCare doesn't mean that we aren't for health care 
reform. Quite the contrary. What I discovered in my own practice of 30 
years was health care was becoming more and more unaffordable for our 
citizens. And we had a group of patients, a group of citizens, who 
didn't have affordable health insurance coverage. This we need to 
address.
  This bill does increase the number of people having insurance, but 
does nothing to control the costs. The other side says that if we 
repeal ObamaCare, it will increase the costs and decrease access.

                              {time}  1100

  Let's take a look at three government-run plans. One is TennCare, my 
State's Medicaid program; the Massachusetts Care; and Medicare.
  In TennCare, we had a plan that had competing interests. It would 
compete

[[Page H265]]

for your business. It was supposed to hold costs down. We saw our costs 
in Tennessee from 1993 until 2004 and 2005 go from $2.6 billion to $8 
billion. It tripled. And what we found was that half the people who 
went on the government plan had private health insurance and dropped it 
and got on the government plan. This plan took up almost every new 
dollar our State took in. We balanced this on the backs of college 
students. We have less highway patrolmen in our State than we had 30 
years ago, and we have 2 million more people. What our Democratic 
Governor did was rationed care by cutting the rolls of TennCare 
patients and also limiting the access to physicians to eight visits per 
year.
  Let's look at Massachusetts Care where there is a mandate right now. 
You are required to buy a good or service and the government decides 
what the right good or service is, not you as the consumer. So what 
happens is it hasn't held the costs down there either. They have the 
highest private insurance premiums in America in Massachusetts. 
Emergency room visits are not down. And why is that? The same as 
TennCare. These plans don't pay for the cost of the care, shifting more 
cost over to the private sector, making it more and more expensive.
  The second thing this mandate does is it empowers lobbyists. How it 
does that is you will see the lobbyists come to us, the politicians, 
and say, Hey, we want this medicine or this device on our plan. And 
these are the people that write the checks to the politicians, so you 
are empowering them.
  Let's finally look at Medicare, a program that started in 1965 as a 
$3 billion program. The government estimators at that time said in 25 
years this will be a $15 billion program. It was over a $100 billion 
program. Today, it is over $400 billion.
  So we have three examples where costs are out of control in the 
government-run plans.
  The senior citizens understand this. When you take $500 billion out 
of a plan, and in the next 10 years we are going to add 36 million 
seniors, three things are going to happen when you have got more 
patients chasing fewer dollars: You will have decreased access, you 
will have decreased quality, and you will have increased costs. That is 
a given.
  We had the President say last year, I will go over this bill line by 
line.
  I have read this bill. I wanted to go over it. I wanted to have 
meaningful health care reform but was denied that privilege.
  Without exception, our States are almost broke, every one of them. 
And we are adding another unfunded Federal mandate to require them to 
pay and implement a plan that is already breaking them, the expansion 
of Medicaid, which is an entitlement.
  Businesses get it also. If this is such a great plan, why have, to 
date, 222 businesses opted out, including McDonald's and, of all 
people, the SEIU, the government's employee union who fought for this 
and then opted themselves out? I find that ridiculous when you see 
that.
  The doctors get it. The doctor fix, the SGR fix is not in this bill. 
It is a cost that was hidden. As doctors are squeezed, they cannot see 
patients that cannot pay the cost of the care.
  Malpractice is not in this bill. I can tell you as an OB-GYN doctor, 
it is over the top. It is almost unaffordable for us.
  So the American people get it. The people of Tennessee get it. And we 
as elected representatives get it. We got that in the election of 
November 2.
  I want to encourage my colleagues to vote to repeal ObamaCare.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I would just say to the gentleman from Tennessee it is universally 
recognized that there was no worse-designed health care plan than 
TennCare; that all you did was extend the benefits and no cost 
containment and no pay-fors, and it damn near bankrupted the State.
  It is also recognized that nowhere have health care costs gone up 
faster than in the private sector, much faster than Medicare because, 
once again, there is not much in the way of cost containment. You just 
reimburse people for the cost.
  This legislation has cost containment, and that is why CBO says, if 
you repeal it, you will drive up the short-term deficit to $30 billion 
and long-term deficit to $1.2 trillion. That is the difference.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), a 
member of the committee.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I appreciate the gentleman's yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2, a bill that would 
repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
  The Affordable Care Act, signed into law in March of 2010, is an 
important first step in reforming our health insurance system, a system 
that everyone knows is broken. The Affordable Care Act provides access 
to the insurance market for millions of Americans, puts in place 
important consumer protections, and reduces our country's deficit.
  This new Congress was elected promising a transparent process with 
input from all Members. This repeal bill, however, has not even been 
considered by a single committee in the House. Members are also being 
shut out of the process.
  I cosponsored four amendments submitted to the Rules Committee; none 
were accepted.
  I cosponsored an amendment to ensure that women continue to receive 
the protections provided by the Affordable Care Act. The Republicans 
did not allow this amendment to come up to the floor.
  I cosponsored an amendment to ensure that all seniors will continue 
to receive the increased benefits in Medicare and that the doughnut 
hole will continue to be closed. The Republicans did not allow this 
amendment to come up for a vote.
  I cosponsored an amendment to ensure that small businesses continue 
to receive the tax cuts provided for in the Affordable Care Act. The 
Republicans didn't allow this amendment to come up for a vote.
  I cosponsored an amendment to ensure that we are responsible stewards 
of our Federal budget and to prevent this repeal bill from adding to 
the deficit. The Republicans did not allow the amendment to come up for 
a vote.
  This new Congress ran on a campaign of lower taxes on small 
businesses and reducing the Federal budget deficit. This bill, however, 
would raise taxes on small businesses and individuals and add a 
trillion dollars to the deficit.
  Just to be clear, a vote for this bill will be a vote for higher 
taxes and increases in the deficit. Although there is an effort to 
bring this repeal bill to the floor today, what is being proposed in 
place of affordable care? Nothing.
  My office has dealt with this for years. Please, vote ``no'' on this 
bill.
  Mr. KLINE. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Roe) to respond to the gentleman from California's comments.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, just to address my colleague from 
California, I would argue that Tennessee has thought this plan well 
out; and the problem with this plan is, when you have more services 
chasing fewer dollars, you are going to create waits in a situation 
where you shifted the cost.
  You talked about the private health insurance costs going up. That is 
true. There is innovation, liability. There are a lot of reasons for 
that, Congressman, but one of the main reasons is an overpromise by 
government programs that shifts costs. We saw that in our State. We can 
do better.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), a member of the committee.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the repeal of 
the government's takeover of health care.
  We are well aware of how the health care law created hundreds of 
billions of dollars in new taxes while doing little to drive down costs 
and causing millions to lose access to health coverage. Even more 
troubling is how dramatically this law grows government and constricts 
individual freedom and American exceptionalism.
  When this laws was passed, the Democrats said it would create 4 
million new jobs. Instead, we got over 2,000 pages of job-killing new 
taxes and less choice. This law was clearly an overreach of government 
control.
  In place of government-run health care, true reform can be achieved 
through multiple patient-centered alternatives, including expanding 
HSAs,

[[Page H266]]

association health plans, and allowing the purchase of health insurance 
across State lines.
  Americans agree. A Gallup/USA Today poll this week confirms that only 
13 percent of Americans support the current law. Simply put, the 
American people want this law repealed, and so do I, as I promised.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, my mother always told me that 
if you have your health, you have everything, which is why I have 
always believed every American should have access to the care they need 
to be healthy.
  Now my colleagues want to repeal health care without an alternative. 
Well, it is easy to say you are against something, but it is much 
harder to come up with solutions. Americans deserve to know how my 
colleagues' plan will protect patients.
  Specifically, women shouldn't get denied care based on gender or have 
to pay hundreds more in insurance premiums than men, nor should they 
need a permission slip to see an OB-GYN.
  The 32 million Americans without insurance need access to coverage.
  Insurers shouldn't deny children coverage because they have been 
sick.

                              {time}  1110

  Medicare must be kept solvent over the long term, and seniors should 
have access to affordable prescriptions. Americans shouldn't face 
outrageous annual premium hikes, such as the 59 percent increase many 
of my own constituents are looking at today.
  The health care reform bill addresses each of these problems and many 
more. It is irresponsible to repeal without a plan to fix the issues in 
our health care system. Further, thanks to Governor Schwarzenegger's 
efforts before leaving office, California is leading the way in 
implementing reforms already authorizing health insurance exchange 
marketplaces to buy affordable insurance. Repeal will cripple health 
reform efforts in my State and leave it without direction going 
forward.
  I can't support legislation that does not offer solutions and goes 
backward. Let's focus on creating jobs and not taking away health care 
from patients.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a new 
member of the committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanna).
  Mr. HANNA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2 so that we 
may replace the well-intentioned but ill-conceived health care law 
signed last year with reforms that increase access to care and lower 
costs.
  We know that the current law raises premiums. We know that it cuts 
Medicare by more than $500 billion. That's unacceptable to the over 
120,000 seniors in my district who rely on Medicare benefits. We know 
it raises taxes, imposes costs on small businesses, and will 
substantially burden New York taxpayers.
  Tomorrow I will vote to instruct committees, including the Education 
and Workforce Committee, to produce thoughtful and improved 
legislation. I look forward to supporting reforms that lower premiums 
through competition; allow folks with preexisting conditions access to 
affordable health care; reform the medical liability system; preserve a 
patient's ability to keep their own plan; and expand incentives to 
encourage personal responsibility for health care coverage and costs.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of the committee.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the budget-
busting legislation that fails to create one new job and returns our 
health decisions to insurance companies rather than doctors.
  Repealing the health reform law would be a big mistake. Instead of 
focusing on job creation or retirement security or fair taxes, we're 
debating repealing a law that protects Americans from insurance company 
abuses and provides fairer and more accessible health care for 
children, for veterans, for seniors, for employees, for employers. The 
law saves the average taxpayer money, and it saves the insured money.
  On Monday, we celebrated Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Dr. King 
fought for an America where everyone regardless of race or class 
background had access to the American opportunity. He said, ``Of all 
the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking 
and inhumane.''
  Today, the new majority is trying to repeal the health reform law 
that we enacted just one year ago. That historic law provides secure 
health insurance coverage to almost all Americans and lowers the 
deficit. The days of ``you're on your own'' are past now. The law 
ensures that health insurance companies actually have to provide health 
insurance, not just in name, but it requires that they spend your 
premium dollars on actually providing health care.
  If this reform law were repealed, Anna's 24-year-old son in Kendall 
Park, New Jersey would become uninsured; Todd from Eatontown would not 
be able to get insurance due to his preexisting condition; and 
thousands of seniors on Medicare, like Howard from Monroe, would not be 
able to afford his lifesaving prescriptions.
  Matthew from West Windsor wrote me to say, ``I just graduated from 
college, and I'm working at a job with no health care.'' He's grateful 
now that he can be on his parents' health insurance plan, but he's 
concerned if this is repealed. He says, ``I have a preexisting 
condition, and shockingly, I truly would be without insurance and in 
deep trouble if this law were reversed.''
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on repealing the health care reform 
law.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to 
another new member of the committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Rokita).
  (Mr. ROKITA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of freedom for every American and 
against the expansion of government. The people of Indiana sent me to 
Washington, D.C. with very specific instructions: Get the government 
out of our lives.
  Therefore, I will be voting yes on H.R. 2. Every honest person in 
this debate knows that this law doesn't solve the problems in our 
health care system. Its solution, to destroy the best health care 
system in the world and replace it with even more inefficiencies, 
government controls, loss of personal freedom and trillions in new 
costs to the taxpayers, will fail.
  And let's not forget that there are programs already in place that 
are supposed to do many of the things the President has talked about 
his law doing. We should start with reforming those. Also, health 
savings accounts, insurance across State lines, covering preexisting 
conditions, and even subsidizing the poor's purchase of a private 
policy should all be implemented.
  Health care is not a right, and if we are not careful, the feel-good, 
empty promises made in this law will bankrupt our country and leave our 
grandkids to pay for it.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), a member of the committee.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Miller.
  I rise today in opposition to a regressive and unfair piece of 
legislation, H.R. 2. We must protect the American people from the 
Republican NoCare agenda. Their agenda for America is simple:
  NoCare if you lose your job.
  NoCare if you or your child has a preexisting condition.
  NoCare if you are a senior in the doughnut hole.
  NoCare if you're under 26 and on your parents' plan.
  NoCare if you get sick and your insurer drops your coverage.
  NoCare if your insurer hikes your premiums higher than you can 
afford.
  NoCare for Indian health care services reauthorization.
  NoCare for community health centers.
  NoCare for closing the disparity gap in America's health care 
delivery system.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this repeal that would take away 
the progress that we are making to protect our constituents. I urge my 
colleagues to stop protecting insurance companies

[[Page H267]]

and, finally, finally, take a step toward empowering the American 
people.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to 
another new member of the committee, a physician, the gentleman from 
Indiana, Dr. Bucshon.
  Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you, Chairman Kline.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2, the repeal of the 
Affordable Care Act. I consider this one of the most crucial votes in 
this Congress. As a cardiothoracic surgeon, I can speak from the 
perspective of a physician who has dealt with the growing need for 
health care reform in our country.
  We all know there are too many uninsured; too many underinsured. But 
a government solution is the wrong approach. This law does nothing to 
address the critical issue in health care today, and that's the rising 
cost of health care.
  Now let's touch on my patients. Sixty to 70 percent of my patients 
are in Medicare. A $500 billion cut in the funding of Medicare and 
decreasing reimbursement for physicians, for hospitals and other 
providers over the course of time will lead to what it has led to in 
every other country that has a government health care system--rationing 
of health care for some of the most vulnerable people in our society, 
our American seniors.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a member of the committee.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Thank you.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important that we focus attention on the substance 
of the debate on health care. Some think that just calling repealing 
health care reform ObamaCare or calling it a job killer when it will 
actually create jobs, or even calling it a government takeover when it 
doesn't even include a public option constitutes the discussion.
  But we need to talk about what is actually in the bill and what is 
actually going to be repealed, because we need to talk about what's 
going to happen to those under 26 that are now able to stay on their 
parents' policies. Repeal will kick them off of those policies.
  We need to talk about what's going to happen to those with 
preexisting conditions. We need to talk about what is happening to 
those who can now get checkups, annual checkups and preventive care 
with no copays and deductibles.

                              {time}  1120

  We need to talk about the fact that we are digging senior citizens 
out of the doughnut hole and that repeal will keep them in the doughnut 
hole.
  Insurance reform: No rescissions, no cutting off insurance in the 
middle of a treatment.
  We need to talk about what we are doing as to unreasonable increases. 
That's what you're going to be repealing if you repeal health care 
reform.
  Affordability: All Americans under health care reform in 2014 will be 
able to afford health care. We will be giving tax credits to businesses 
to encourage them to provide health care.
  This bill will create jobs. You will be destroying jobs. And you say 
nothing about the deficits. The CBO has already calculated that you 
will significantly increase the deficit if this bill passes.
  Mr. Speaker, health care reform is a matter of life and death. If 
Republicans want to repeal health care, they ought to be clear and tell 
the public what will actually happen to young adults, those with 
preexisting conditions, seniors, what is going to happen to the 
doughnut hole or insurance abuses or the future of the affordability of 
health care.
  We should not just be resorting to labels and slogans. We have to be 
clear as to what we are doing to the public.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to another new 
member of the committee, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy).
  Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, the Constitution of the United States has limits.
  Surely one of those limits must be that Congress cannot compel a 
private citizen to engage in a private commercial transaction.
  Surely the Congress of the United States cannot compel a person to 
purchase life insurance, because generational debt is a bad thing.
  Surely the Congress of the United States cannot compel someone to 
purchase vision insurance or dental insurance.
  The Constitution of the United States places limits on Congress, and 
it is time that this body honored those limits envisioned by our 
Forefathers. To ask for self-restraint or respect for the Constitution 
should not invite challenges to our humanity or accusations of moral 
acquiescence.
  I am from the upstate of South Carolina; and every time I go home, I 
hear about the need for health reform and about the fear that people 
have with respect to preexisting conditions; but I support a solution 
that is patient centered and not government centered. I support a 
solution that is affordable and not generational embezzlement, and I 
support a solution that is consistent with the Constitution.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a 
member of the committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Tierney).
  (Mr. TIERNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, it is deeply disappointing that, following 
last week's near universal calls for unity and cooperation and amidst 
all of the calls to lower the temperature of political discourse and to 
move to working together to solve America's pressing issues, the new 
Republican majority is moving full steam ahead with an attempt to 
repeal the Affordable Care Act.
  The health care law may not be perfect--that prospect would always 
certainly be open to debate and suggestions on how it might be improved 
might also be open to debate--but instead of working together and 
building on the work that has been done and the progress that has been 
made, we find ourselves here today, debating and voting on a bill, 
which, while it may pass the House, most certainly will never become 
law--nor should it.
  Some may call it political catharsis. Others may call it pure 
theater, plain and simple; but let's be clear: the positive impact the 
existing health care reform law is having on millions of residents and 
families in all of our districts is very real, and the law's important, 
commonsense consumer protections are very popular.
  Specifically, this misguided legislation will spell the end of one 
meaningful consumer protection which I and others fought to get into 
the law. This protection, the medical loss ratio requirement, holds 
insurance companies accountable and ensures consumers are receiving the 
health services for which they are paying top dollar.
  In 1993, many private companies routinely spent 95 cents of every 
dollar on health services. By 2008, in the absence of regulation 
otherwise, many had reduced their spending on health services to below 
75 percent, some to even less than 60 percent of those premium dollars. 
That meant that companies could spend up to 43 cents of your premium 
dollar on executive salaries, advertising, lobbyists, bonuses, 
dividends, and other administrative costs instead of using it for what 
you had contracted for--health care.
  To keep their excessive profits up, you may have been charged ever-
higher premiums or may have been denied care through a number of 
anticonsumer gimmicks. You might have been denied coverage because you 
or your family member had a preexisting condition or because you had 
coverage capped annually or in a lifetime, stopping coverage when it 
was most needed, or, as a parent, you were refused coverage for your 
children under 26 even if they were still unemployed or were working 
someplace where coverage wasn't available.
  All of these injustices are addressed in the bill. Its repeal would 
reverse that. I ask that this misguided bill fail, and I ask my 
colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. KLINE. May I inquire of the Speaker how much time is remaining on 
each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota has 26\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 22 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to

[[Page H268]]

another new member of the committee, the gentlelady from Alabama (Mrs. 
Roby).
  Mrs. ROBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to stand with my colleagues in support of 
H.R. 2 that will repeal the Health Care Reform Act.
  Sadly, this law is less about providing health care for all citizens 
and more about expanding Federal Government.
  It translates into substantial cost, over $500 billion, that must be 
paid for by hardworking, tax-paying Americans. In economic hard times, 
it is our responsibility to ensure that this does not occur. If we do 
not repeal this law, our inaction will serve as nothing less than gross 
fiscal irresponsibility. This must not happen.
  I want to tell you about the owner of the Pizza Hut in Headland, 
Alabama, who will be forced to close his doors due to the costs 
associated with this law. Then there is the gentleman who owns 
pharmacies throughout the Southeast, who told me he has the ability to 
create two jobs but who cannot do so because he doesn't know what the 
Federal Government is going to do to him next.
  Just like our forefathers answered the call to right wrongs, we too 
must answer a call. The citizens in our districts have spoken, and in 
their words, We must repeal this law.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is time that this 
Congress does what President Obama called on Americans to do last week: 
approach our debates and our differences with civility and honesty.
  We appear to be doing reasonably well with regard to civility, but 
less so with honesty. Once again, we tackle health care, and the debate 
is sliding back to one-line attacks and misrepresentation instead of 
the new health care law's merits or its actual impact on real 
Americans.
  The Affordable Care Act has been referred to as a ``job-crushing 
law.'' This is simply not honest as my colleagues across the aisle 
disregard the fact that, since it was signed into law last March, over 
1 million private sector jobs have been added to the economy, with 
207,000 of those jobs coming from the health care sector.
  Some speak of the repeal as if eliminating health care reform would 
have no meaningful fiscal consequences. This, too, is not honest. The 
Congressional Budget Office has estimated full repeal would increase 
the deficit by $230 billion over 10 years and another $1.2 trillion in 
the following decade.
  Some argue that repeal will, in fact, reduce the deficit. If this is 
true, why have we yet to see a positive score that affirms such a 
point?
  Repeal does nothing, absolutely nothing, other than leaving families 
with real health issues no place to go for help.
  What do I tell the parents of the 9,000 children in my district with 
preexisting conditions who will be unable to access coverage when the 
ban on discriminating against children with preexisting conditions is 
repealed?
  When insurance companies can claim cancer or pregnancy as a 
preexisting condition, what will survivors and mothers do for health 
coverage?
  What will the 126,000 so affected individuals on eastern Long Island 
do?
  What will the 2,400 young adults who have been able to stay on or to 
rejoin their parents' health insurance on eastern Long Island do if 
repeal is successful?
  What will the 112,000 Medicare beneficiaries who can now receive free 
cancer screenings and other preventive care do?
  What about the 8,500 part D prescription drug plan recipients who can 
no longer count on the doughnut hole being closed and who will, once 
again, face higher drug costs if repeal is successful?
  Mr. Speaker, simply replacing the positive impact the Affordable Care 
Act has had on American families with inaccurate arguments does not 
solve our problem. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
legislation.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
another new member of the committee, a physician, the gentleman from 
Nevada, Dr. Heck.
  Mr. HECK. Mr. Speaker, increasing access to high-quality health care 
while reducing costs, that was the goal of the recently enacted health 
care law. But no matter how well-intentioned, very few now stand by 
that law in its entirety. The new health care law will cost money that 
taxpayers don't have, and it will cost jobs we can't afford to lose.
  Now is the time to reexamine this misguided law before young families 
are forced to buy something they can't afford or face fines from their 
government, before seniors are forced to find new doctors or lose the 
kind of insurance plans they enjoy now, before small businesses shed 
jobs or are forced to close their doors due to budget-busting 
regulations.

                              {time}  1130

  More access, lower cost. It's safe to say that every American 
supports that idea. As an emergency medicine doctor, I know that I do. 
And working on the front lines of health care I've seen what works and 
what doesn't. Forcing people to buy insurance or fining them, 
eliminating seniors' access to Medicare Advantage, and burdening small 
businesses with onerous taxes don't work.
  What the American people want are solutions that don't cost more 
taxpayer money and don't prevent small businesses from hiring new 
employees; making sure people don't lose their coverage once they get 
sick; letting dependent children stay on their parents' insurance until 
they turn 26; making sure anyone who wants to buy insurance can 
purchase a policy regardless of preexisting condition; and allowing 
consumers choice while creating incentives to purchase insurance that 
fits their needs works. Some of these solutions are there, but there is 
more wrong with this bill than there is right.
  So let's repeal this law that doesn't work. Let's repair those pieces 
that could work. Let's replace it with patient-centered solutions that 
will work. And let's give the American people the health care they 
deserve.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono), a member of the committee.
  (Ms. HIRONO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, Democrats' top priority is creating jobs. We 
want to work with Republicans to achieve this goal, but instead of 
focusing on jobs and growing the economy the new leadership has decided 
to start by debating H.R. 2, which will repeal patients' rights, put 
insurance companies back in charge, and add to the deficit.
  Yesterday, the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee held the only 
hearing the new Congress will have on this bill. We heard from families 
from Maine to Florida, from Rhode Island to Missouri, real people, real 
stories. Freedom was a common thread in their stories. Because of 
health care reform, these families are free from worrying about being 
denied coverage because of a preexisting condition and free from 
worrying about escalating medical debt because of lifetime caps on 
their insurance plans. These families now have a sense of security and 
peace of mind.
  For over 37 years, thanks to Hawaii's landmark Prepaid Health Care 
Act, our families have largely been protected from some of the most 
unfair insurance company practices, but health care reform is still 
helping thousands of families and small businesses across my State. A 
mother in Kailua, Hawaii contacted me to tell me that she can now add 
her 21-year-old son and 24-year-old daughter to her work-sponsored 
insurance plan. This mom used to pay $900 a month for just her 
daughter's health insurance and prescription drugs. Now she pays $300 a 
month to cover both of her children under her company's plan. This 
family used to spend $10,800 a year for health care for one child; now 
they spend $3,600 a year for health care for the entire family.
  I recently heard from a senior in Waimea on Hawaii Island who 
referred to her $250 Medicare doughnut hole rebate check as a blessing 
in these tough economic times. Let's be clear: The Patients' Rights 
Repeal Act will hurt, not help, middle class families and small 
businesses in Hawaii and across our Nation.

[[Page H269]]

  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against H.R. 2.
  Mr. Speaker, listen to Stacie Ritter's story. Stacie is the mother of 
twin daughters, Hannah and Madeline, now 11, who were diagnosed with 
leukemia at the age of 4. Stacie has always worried about her 
daughters' health and having health insurance to cover the stem cell 
transplants and other cancer treatments. Because of health care reform, 
Stacie doesn't have to worry about the twins being denied coverage 
because of a pre-existing condition. This repeal bill will allow 
insurance companies to deny Hannah and Madeline health insurance for 
the rest of their lives. The 19.4 million children in our country with 
pre-existing conditions would face the same fate.
  Listen to Dr. Odette Cohen, from Willingboro, New Jersey, a small 
business owner. The small business tax credits in the health care 
reform law not only lower the cost for her to provide good health 
insurance for her employees, but they also give her the flexibility to 
hire another nurse practitioner. She'll be seeing more patients and 
growing her business and helping the economy.
  According to Forbes Magazine, major health insurance companies around 
the country are reporting a significant increase in small businesses 
offering health care benefits to their employees. Repeal would either 
force small businesses to drop their employees' coverage or businesses 
would bear the full cost of insurance themselves.
  Speaker Boehner has pledged to listen to the people. Because of 
Hawaii's landmark Prepaid Health Care Act of 1974, which mandates that 
employers provide insurance coverage for their full-time employees, 
Hawaii's families have largely been spared from some of the most unfair 
insurance practices. But health care reform still helps thousands of 
families across our state.
  A mother in Kailua, Hawaii contacted me to thank us because she could 
now add her 21-year-old son and 24-year-old daughter to her work-
sponsored insurance plan. This mom used to pay $700 a month for her 
daughter's health insurance and $200 a month out-of-pocket for her 
prescription drugs.
  Now, this mother pays just $300 a month to cover both of her children 
under her company's health plan. This family used to spend $10,800 a 
year for health care for one child. Now, they spend $3,600 a year for 
health care for the whole family. This family is using the money saved 
on health insurance for other household needs, including paying down 
past medical debt.
  Middle class families are saving money because of health care reform. 
Young adults, many of whom are having a hard time finding jobs, now 
have health insurance. Under H.R. 2, thousands of young adults will 
lose their insurance coverage, including 2,500 in Hawaii.
  Here's what else repealing health care reform will do to the people 
of Hawaii:
  193,000 seniors in Hawaii who have Medicare coverage would be forced 
to pay a co-pay to receive important preventive services, like 
mammograms and colonoscopies.
  Medicare would no longer pay for an annual check-up visit, so 193,000 
seniors in Hawaii who have Medicare coverage would have to pay extra if 
they want to stay healthy by getting regular check-ups.
  In Hawaii, 17,959 Medicare beneficiaries received a one-time, tax-
free $250 rebate to help pay for prescription drugs in the ``donut 
hole'' coverage gap in 2010. I recently heard from a senior in Waimea 
on the island of Hawaii who referred to this check as a blessing. She 
was able to use that money to pay for her other medical bills.
  Medicare beneficiaries who fall into the ``donut hole'' in 2011 will 
be eligible for 50 percent discounts on covered brand name prescription 
drugs. Closing the Medicare donut hole is an especially critical issue 
for Hawaii as we are home to the Nation's largest percentage--36 
percent compared to 26 percent--of Medicare beneficiaries that fall 
into this gap of prescription drug coverage. Without repeal, the burden 
of high prescription drug costs would hurt millions of Medicare 
beneficiaries across the country.
  An estimated 28,700 small businesses in Hawaii would no longer be 
eligible for the new federal tax credits that will help make providing 
health care coverage for their employees more affordable.
  Let's be clear, the Patients' Rights Repeal Act will hurt, not help 
middle class families in Hawaii and across our Nation. That's bad 
enough. But this repeal also expands the federal deficit. The non-
partisan Congressional Budget Office reported that repealing the health 
reform law would increase the federal deficit by $230 billion over the 
next ten years and more than $1.2 trillion in the following decade.
  At a time when our focus needs to be on jobs, bills should pass the 
following 3-pronged test: 1) Does it create jobs? 2) Does it strengthen 
America's middle class? and 3) Does it reduce the deficit? On all 
counts, H.R. 2 is a resounding failure. I urge my colleagues to join me 
in voting against H.R. 2.
  Mahalo nui loa (thank you very much).
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to another new 
member of the committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross).
  Mr. ROSS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of 
repealing and replacing the recently enacted health care law that 
nationalizes nearly one-sixth of our country's gross domestic product.
  This past November, the American people sent a resounding message to 
Congress and to this administration that they do not want to pay higher 
taxes for a one-size-fits-all health care system that replaces doctors 
with bureaucrats. Instead, the American people want complete control of 
their health care dollars and health care decisions, and they want to 
be able to take their policies with them from job to job without being 
penalized by the Federal Government.
  Americans need privatized health care that forces competition in 
order to achieve affordability, choice, and innovation. As a small 
business owner, I understand that adding $104 billion in taxes and 
compliance costs to our unstable job market creates a massive burden on 
our taxpayers and is not the best way to encourage economic growth.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. KLINE. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. ROSS of Florida. Imposing new regulations on small businesses by 
mandating employers provide health insurance stifles economic growth 
and makes it difficult for businesses to survive.
  We can bring down costs and increase affordability by allowing the 
free market to create robust competition. One commonsense reform is to 
allow for the interstate sale of health insurance. By breaking down the 
barriers to the sale of health insurance, American citizens will have 
the ability to choose the plan that best fits their needs at a rate 
that is affordable to them. By allowing competition, we bring costs 
down and provide the best possible product for the American people.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, in 1986 over 66 percent of America's 
employers provided retiree health insurance. In 2009, that number had 
collapsed to 29 percent. What the health care bill did was use a tried 
and true method of setting up a reinsurance program that we use for 
flood insurance, terrorism insurance, and to insure the nuclear energy 
industry.
  This fund, which will cost-share and cost-spread the high claims of 
older 55-plus Americans, is a program that employers have stampeded 
into. Over 4,700 employers have entered into this program. Over half 
the Fortune 500, many whose corporate logos are right here--something 
that Coke and Pepsi and AT&T and Comcast can come together on--are 
voting with their feet because this is a program that works.
  Mr. Speaker, public employers are also taking advantage. This map 
shows yellow States who have not entered the program. If you notice, no 
yellow States have not entered the program. All 50 States with 
Republican governors and Democratic governors have entered into this 
program, States who are suing the Federal Government to overturn the 
health care bill--they know a program that's going to work to make sure 
that their health care costs are going to be controlled and spread. 
This means that police officers, teachers, people working in 
corporations who are 55 and up can retire with confidence, opening up 
opportunities for young Americans which clearly the prior system was 
not going to allow.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill will blow up this program, which employers who 
are voting with their feet say will work. That is not creating jobs. 
This program creates jobs. It lowers costs for employers and provides 
an avenue for young people to have a future in this country.
  We should vote ``no'' on this legislation. Let's grow America's 
economy. Let's preserve the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to another 
physician, the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Fleming.

[[Page H270]]

  Mr. FLEMING. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. Speaker, repealing ObamaCare is an imperative for four reasons. 
First, while it increases the numbers under coverage, it will 
ultimately sharply reduce access to care. Like Canada and Britain, 
socialized medicine will mean carrying an insurance card that will 
entitle you only to less choice, longer waits, and rationing.
  Second, while the health care system is now hard to navigate, under 
ObamaCare it will be a nightmare. With over 150 new mandates and 
agencies controlled by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats and IRS 
agents, to whom will we turn when the system fails us?
  Third, as yet another entitlement program financed through a Disney 
fantasy of accounting, it will add to the current entitlement fiasco in 
Washington, exploding the budget for many generations to come.
  And finally, with higher taxes and more constrictions on businesses, 
employed Americans will continue to decline or become an endangered 
species altogether.
  Let's repeal the worst legislation in a generation, ObamaCare.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Can I just say to the gentleman from 
Minnesota, I think I'm starting to understand the physician shortage in 
the country; most of them are in the Congress, apparently.
  Mr. KLINE. And we're so happy to have them.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Tonko).

                              {time}  1140

  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I am committed to working with my colleagues 
to create jobs. But here we are, debating repeal of health care reform 
instead of focusing on job creation. In fact, health care reform was a 
good start. Since enactment in March of 2010, private-sector job growth 
has grown by some 1.1 million jobs. Among those, over 200,000 jobs were 
created in the health care sector alone. That is why my top priority 
remains job creation and growing our economy--not obsessing on 
repealing a bill that is working.
  If my friends on the other side of the aisle are successful, then 
seniors, young people, and small businesses in the capital region of 
New York would be hurt. Take my constituent Tim from Albany, New York, 
for example. Tim is forced to dig into his pocket to pay for 
prescription drugs even though he is a retired pharmacist on Medicare. 
However, health care reform provides Tim extra assistance in paying for 
his prescriptions and ensures that the so-called doughnut hole payment 
will be no more in the very near future.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased, following the comments 
of the gentleman from California, to yield 1 minute to another 
physician, a new member of the committee, the gentleman from Tennessee, 
Dr. DesJarlais.
  Mr. DesJARLAIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2. As a 
practicing physician for nearly two decades in Tennessee, I stand 
before you as an expert witness to failures of a government-run health 
care model. ObamaCare takes the problems I've seen in my home State and 
expands them to a national level.
  This bill raises taxes, increases spending, and will add $701 billion 
to the Federal deficit. Most importantly, ObamaCare will ultimately end 
up restricting patients' access to quality health care by placing 
Washington bureaucrats between patients and their doctors.
  Moving forward, we do offer solutions. We must work towards reducing 
waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare, instituting meaningful tort 
reform--thus reducing the practice of defensive medicine. We can 
accomplish these goals without the creation of a giant, new Federal 
bureaucracy.
  By voting to repeal this unnecessary health care bill we will 
effectively put a stop to the creation of a massive entitlement program 
that we did not want, we do not need, and we cannot afford.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Bass).
  Ms. BASS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2.
  In survey after survey, the number one issue facing our country is 
jobs. Last year, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said the 
number one issue we should be working on is jobs. Well, the health care 
reform act is a jobs bill.
  In the seventies and eighties I worked in several hospitals in the 
Los Angeles area. During those years, there was such a severe shortage 
of health care providers that hospitals recruited nurses from Canada 
and the Philippines. Right now, there is an estimated shortage of 
400,000 nurses nationally. Right now, there is an estimated shortage of 
50,000 doctors. Right now, there are waiting lists of several years to 
get a slot in nursing schools and other allied health professions.
  So if there is a shortage of medical personnel right now and health 
care reform expands coverage to 30 million people, then can someone 
explain to me how health care reform is not a jobs bill?
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2, repealing 
the government takeover of health care passed by the 111th Congress.
  Now, I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and many of 
their supporters in the mainstream press don't like us to use that 
term, but let me defend it for a moment. When you order every American 
to buy health insurance--whether they want it or need it or not--that's 
a government takeover of health care. When you order almost every 
business to provide government-approved health insurance or pay higher 
taxes and send their employees to government-run health exchange 
programs, that's a government takeover of health care. When you pass 
legislation that makes it all run with hundreds of billions of dollars 
in higher taxes, mandates, bureaucracies, and even public funding of 
abortion against the wills of the overwhelming majority of the American 
people, that's a government takeover of health care--and the American 
people know it.
  Last year, House Republicans pledged that if the American people gave 
us a second chance to lead this Congress, we would repeal and replace 
their health care reform with health care reform that focuses on 
lowering the cost of health care insurance without growing the size of 
government. And we're keeping that promise today.
  Now, some in the cynical political class are saying this is a 
gimmick, it's an empty gesture. Well, we have another term for it on 
our side of the aisle--it's a promise kept. And House Republicans are 
here to stand with the American people and say with one voice, We can 
do better. We can do better than their government takeover of health 
care. We can pass legislation that will be market-based, patient-
centered. But it all begins with today.
  So I urge my colleagues to join us in repealing this government 
takeover of health care before it ever takes effect and then work with 
us as we build health care reform that is worthy of the American 
people.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to explore one of the aspects of 
this repeal promise that's being kept.
  Thus far, there are hundreds of thousands of seniors who have gotten 
$250 rebate checks to help them pay for prescription drugs. I would ask 
anyone on the other side, what does the legislation say about whether 
or not the seniors will have to repay those checks to the government?
  I would yield to anyone who can answer.
  Mr. KLINE. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Patients' 
Rights Repeal Act.
  Proponents of this bill contend that the current health care law will 
destroy jobs, but CBO estimates of $230 billion support the fact that 
it is the repeal being debated today, not the health care law, that 
would harm jobs

[[Page H271]]

and drain funds from potential job-building appropriations.
  Essentially what is being repealed are the protections afforded to 
taxpayers through the recently enacted health care legislation, the 
relief given to American taxpayers who were for so long paying the 
bills for uncompensated health care costs--which we never hear 
mentioned over there--and the progress our country made last year to 
come out of the dark ages as one of the only three developed countries 
in the world that do not provide universal health care.
  Forty-eight hundred seniors in my district and over 1 million seniors 
in the country were relieved last year by the doughnut hole rebate. But 
repeal would reintroduce that stress. Nearly 44 percent of non-elderly 
constituents in New Jersey and 134 million Americans nationwide have 
preexisting conditions.
  Repeal would reintroduce the hopelessness these Americans felt in the 
past as health coverage denied and stole their ability to access 
quality health care. Repeal would remove nearly 1.2 million young 
adults from their parents' health care plan--including my grandson 
who's 23 and is on his mother's plan--and remove their ability to take 
preventative measures now to avoid becoming a burden to the system.
  I urge defeat of this bill.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, I'll take about 10 seconds to respond to my friend, the 
gentleman from New Jersey, about the $250. It's not contemplated in the 
legislation, nor is it our understanding of the scoring that there is 
any intention of that $250 being brought back from those seniors.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, as a health care 
professional for almost 30 years, I actually sat down and read all 
2,000 pages of the health care bill. And as I read through the measure, 
I became increasingly alarmed at the level of control over an 
individual's health that would be vested in the Federal Government.
  I've spent my life working with those facing life-altering 
disabilities and diseases. And I've been quick to point out that while 
we have the best health system in the world, there must be 
improvements. That is why I am supporting the repeal of the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act--and I believe there are plenty of 
reasons for my colleagues to join me.
  The law mandates purchase of a government-defined insurance plan, a 
mandate that the President opposed on several occasions when running 
for office. As a result of failing to live up to this promise, the 
Justice Department is now attempting to defend the mandate on the 
grounds that it is a tax.
  According to the nonpartisan Medicare Actuary, because of the law, 
national spending will increase by more than $310 billion over the 
first 10 years. The law will not lower health care costs, despite 
numerous claims that we've heard.
  According to a Congressional Budget Office analysis, health insurance 
premiums could rise by an average of $2,100 per family. This increase 
comes despite promises of lower premiums.

                              {time}  1150

  Mr. Speaker, if this law remains in place, up to 35 million people 
could lose health care access. According to the former CBO Budget 
Director, the health care law, quote, ``provides strong incentives for 
employers, with the agreement of their employees, to drop employer-
sponsored health insurance for as many as 35 million Americans.''
  The National Taxpayer Advocate issued a report that suggests 40 
million businesses will be impacted by the new IRS 1099 filing 
requirements. This will require vendors and small businesses to do 
paperwork on any transaction over $600. In addition, the Taxpayer 
Advocate does not believe that this will result in improved tax 
compliance. This provision is so unrealistic that even the President's 
Small Business Administrator has called for its repeal.
  Mr. Speaker, we must repeal and replace this law and continue 
together as the entire Congress, not just two parties, and move forward 
with commonsense ideas that will include better access, affordability, 
quality, and promote patient choice. I encourage my colleagues to join 
me and vote for repeal.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. I am going to cite two Republicans who give good reasons 
to oppose this legislation and keep health care reform. One of the new 
Republicans, when he didn't think he was going to get his insurance 
immediately, said, ``What am I, not supposed to have health care? It's 
a practicality. I'm not going to become a burden for the State because 
I don't have health care, and God forbid I get into an accident and I 
can't afford the operation. That can happen to anyone.'' He succinctly 
summed up the reason why everyone should have the same opportunities as 
Members of Congress have to have health care.
  But more importantly, in a more intentional way, one of the most 
revered doctors in the world, former Republican majority leader, 
Senator Bill Frist, said yesterday that he urged the Republicans to 
drop the charade and build on the legislation. He said if he would have 
been here, he would have voted for the bill. And it was important to 
consider the bill the ``law of the land'' and move on from there. ``It 
is the platform, the fundamental platform, upon which all future 
efforts to make the system better for the patient and the family will 
be based.'' And that is a fact. It has strong elements. I support Dr. 
Frist.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a member of the 
committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts).
  Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  I rise today in support of House Bill 2. This simple two-page bill 
seeks to repeal the new unconstitutional health care law that will 
create a massive new entitlement program, cost taxpayers more than $2 
trillion per decade, increase taxes, and impose job-destroying mandates 
on businesses, cut Medicare by hundreds of billions of dollars, and 
further increase health care premiums for individuals by more than 10 
percent.
  The goal is not only to repeal the new health care law, but also to 
replace it with real reforms, debated openly through the ordinary 
legislative process, that are truly about reducing health care costs--
reforms such as allowing small businesses and individuals to join 
together in national group plans to cut premium costs; allowing 
individuals to purchase health insurance across State lines, thereby 
increasing competition for their businesses; and enacting medical 
malpractice liability reform legislation.
  I will continue to push for commonsense reforms that are focused on 
truly reducing health care costs for all Americans. I urge my 
colleagues to support H.R. 2.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Peters).
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, with unemployment in Michigan at over 12 
percent, I am not going to support a bill that raises taxes on small 
businesses. Let us be clear. Voting for the Patients' Rights Repeal Act 
will eliminate the Small Business Health Care Tax Credit. Small 
businesses have faced outrageous increases in their health care costs 
over the past decade. This tax credit helps reduce that burden and is 
already making a real difference.
  The L.A. Times reported that small businesses are signing up for 
health care coverage for their employees, despite the bad economy, 
since the tax credit took effect. Among firms with three to nine 
employees, there has been a 46 percent increase in the number offering 
health benefits. But this bill would put a stop to that.
  The Detroit News reported that last week more than 126,000 small 
businesses in Michigan would lose the tax credit under this bill. The 
last thing that small businesses in Michigan and across the country 
need right now is higher taxes. But that's exactly what this bill would 
deliver.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and join me in 
standing up for our small businesses.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a new member of the 
committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Barletta).

[[Page H272]]

  Mr. BARLETTA. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of repealing the health care 
law. I believe everyone should have access to affordable, quality 
health care. However, the law passed last year does the contrary. It 
makes health care less affordable; it diminishes the quality of care; 
it forces seniors out of their Medicare drug coverage, and it prevents 
small businesses from getting Americans back to work.
  In my district, we have the highest number of seniors in 
Pennsylvania, and the $206 billion in cuts in Medicare Advantage will 
cause 7.5 million seniors to lose their retiree drug coverage by 2016. 
Small businesses face a $2,000 fine per employee if their plans do not 
meet a bureaucrat-approved standard.
  At a time when the unemployment level in my district is over 9 
percent, Congress must not discourage job creation by placing mandates 
and levying penalties on those who will get us back on track towards a 
more prosperous Nation.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, while America desperately wants more and better 
jobs, Washington Republicans want to waste time today debating a health 
care repeal charade. But let's look at what health care reform repeal 
would actually do.
  In my congressional district alone, repealing this law would allow 
insurance companies to deny coverage for up to 360,000 individuals with 
preexisting conditions, including up to 45,000 children. Let's mend 
this act, don't end it.
  A repeal would eliminate health care tax credits for up to 19,000 
small businesses and 164,000 families. Mend it, don't end it.
  A repeal would eliminate new health care coverage options for 3,100 
uninsured young adults. It is time to mend it and not to end it.
  In 50 years, Mr. Speaker, health care reform will stand beside Social 
Security, the GI bill, and Medicare as a pillar of American health care 
and humane values. The people of that time will not understand why it 
was hard to pass in the first place or why we are spending time today 
rehashing old business. It's time to fix health care reform's remaining 
deficits and to mend it, not to end it.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the 
time remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 8\1/2\ 
minutes; the gentleman from Minnesota has 15 minutes.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to another new member of the 
committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
  Mr. KELLY. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, last week Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said 
that the economy cannot begin to recover until small businesses 
prosper. Well, the overreaching and burdensome requirements of 
ObamaCare will hurt small businesses. And their benefits are not even 
certain. Small companies, which account for over half of the private 
sector economy, are more likely to struggle than survive under this 
law.
  If I had followed the plan prescribed for my dealership after the 
government takeover of General Motors, I would have lost the business 
that my father started 57 years ago. We need to address the years of 
hard work and the spirit of entrepreneurship that will be destroyed 
under this law.
  Small employers have limited autonomy under ObamaCare. The Federal 
Government is dictating what benefits they must offer and then 
punishing them for expanding their operations or paying their people 
more.
  The choices for small business under ObamaCare are: provide 
government-mandated health care and face ruinous costs, or drop the 
coverage and pay fines just to keep those folks employed.
  If we burden small businesses with the requirements set forth in this 
law, we hamper the recovery of the U.S. economy and damage the spirit 
of free enterprise that has made America great for over two centuries. 
ObamaCare should be replaced with a smaller, more commonsense program.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, in an effort to balance the time here--we 
have an embarrassment of riches in numbers of speakers; that's what 
happened in November--I yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, 
the gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

                              {time}  1200

  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support for H.R. 2, repealing 
last year's misguided health care law.
  Whether it's dropped coverage, higher costs or lost jobs, the 
unintended consequences of the administration's plan have piled up. I 
don't think the law is salvageable. We must craft a bipartisan 
replacement that actually lowers costs and expands access to care 
without raising taxes and slashing Medicare.
  Americans want consensus-minded reforms to expand coverage for 
preexisting conditions and prevent insurers from imposing unfair caps 
or canceling policies. They want reforms that provide more choice over 
how to spend their health care dollars, like purchasing health 
insurance across State lines and expanded health savings accounts. And 
they want commonsense legislation to curb junk lawsuits and to stop the 
costly practice of defensive medicine.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in fulfilling the wishes of voters 
and repealing ObamaCare. Then we can work together on reforms that 
deliver the high-quality, low-cost care the American people deserve.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
chairman of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, the first rule of the physician is ``do no 
harm.'' The government takeover of health care does a lot of harm, and 
the damage will get worse.
  Just on pure economics, it's a bitter pill. Small businesses are 
bracing for tax increases and higher costs. They are dropping coverage; 
they are holding off on new hires. The Federal Government is taking on 
a new open-ended entitlement it can't afford, and that at a time of 
historically high deficits, annual deficits and a national debt. 
Washington yet again is building a new bureaucracy to tell people what 
to do.
  The Federal Government has no business making private medical 
decisions that ought to be between you and the doctor. It violates the 
principles on which this country was established, American 
exceptionalism. America is not Europe. Our system is based on the 
individual, on choice, on freedom, on individual initiative and 
competition.
  The mandate that asks individuals to buy health insurance is an 
intrusion on our personal liberty and a violation of our constitutional 
principles.
  Allowing taxpayer money to pay for abortions is reprehensible and 
cannot be allowed to stand.
  We can address the issues in our health care system without the 
government running everything and spending uncontrollably. We heard 
what the American people said last November and in our town halls. To 
get health care right, we have to start by repealing a misguided law 
that is bad policy and bad medicine.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McNerney).
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the health care 
law and in opposition to its repeal. The health care reform, which was 
signed into law last year, is clearly not perfect and could be 
improved. However, the law as enacted will have significant benefits to 
millions of American citizens, to businesses, to local governments, and 
to the country as a whole.
  The benefits to individuals in need of health care with preexisting 
conditions, the seniors, the young adults under 26 years of age, and 
many other groups are well known and will be missed if the law is 
repealed.
  But most significantly, the law will drive down the cost of health 
care by encouraging and incentivizing quality care and good outcomes in 
health care treatments instead of encouraging potentially unnecessary 
procedures. It rewards quality rather than quantity of health care. 
This will ultimately reduce the cost, both public and private, of 
health care in this country.
  Because of these reasons, I strongly oppose repeal of health care 
reform.

[[Page H273]]

  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, the claim that this new health care law will 
somehow cut our budget deficit is proof that logic does not always 
prevail here in Washington, DC.
  This is a $2 trillion additional entitlement; and just like past 
entitlement programs, this one will be far more costly than projected.
  As a result, our budget deficit is going to increase unless we repeal 
this. It's going to increase our dependence on China and Japan to 
finance our debt.
  The credit-rating agencies say we are on the verge of losing our AAA 
credit rating and this debt contagion, you all see it, is continuing to 
spread across Europe. Let us take this important step. Repeal this $2 
trillion fiscal train wreck and begin work on market-based solutions 
that will actually lower health care costs.
  This will give us some hope in the future of bringing that budget 
into balance and not hitting that fiscal train wreck.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a new 
Member of this body, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).
  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, Americans have wanted health care reform for 
some time now, but they don't want what passed last spring.
  This is a 2,000-page bill that gives us more mandates and more 
regulation. It doesn't accomplish the goal of reducing cost and 
increasing access; and it puts our health care decisions in the hands 
of bureaucrats, not in the hands of patients and family members where 
it belongs.
  There is a better way. With today's repeal, this is the first step. 
Tomorrow we begin the process of replacement with commonsense market-
based solutions that are going to bring costs down, solutions like 
competition across State lines, portability, price transparency, tax 
parity, and allowing folks who have preexisting conditions to obtain 
coverage.
  I look forward, starting tomorrow, to working with not only my 
friends here on the right but also my colleagues here on the left to 
craft a bill that's going to work for the American people.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Larsen).
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in 
opposition to this patients' rights repeal and deficit explosion act.
  The bill before us today, according to the nonpartisan CBO, is going 
to add $230 billion to our national debt. We should not stand for that. 
The bill before us today is going to repeal efforts that we put in 
place to be sure that young adults can get on to their parents' 
insurance plans. If we repeal this, it is going to knock 20,000 young 
adults in Washington State alone off their parents' plans.
  If we repeal this bill today, it's going to take away help for 45,000 
seniors in Washington State who are relying on the efforts that we have 
done over the last couple of years to be sure that we are closing the 
Medicare doughnut hole. Repeal of the health care reform law is going 
to put those folks back into the doughnut hole.
  Finally, we ought to oppose repeal of this bill because of the simple 
fact that there is a young woman in my district who has severe mental 
health illness and her family was able to take her onto their health 
care plan because of the provisions we have put in there about 
preexisting conditions. That family is now saving $10,000 a year out of 
pocket.
  I am asking folks to oppose the repeal of this bill.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire again as to the time 
remaining on each side, please.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Lucas). The gentleman from Minnesota has 
10 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California has 6\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, then at this time I am pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Long).
  Mr. LONG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2. In this country, 
we have the finest doctors, the finest nurses, the finest protocols, 
the finest facilities in the world. That's not a government-run system.
  I swore to uphold the Constitution 2 weeks ago today in this, the 
people's House.
  The people have spoken, and they don't want Washington bureaucrats 
coming between them and their doctors. They would like to make their 
own decisions.
  You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but that's exactly 
what the majority tried to do last year by using 10 years of taxes to 
pay for a 6-year program, increasing spending by $2.6 trillion. Now, 
that's not what I would call affordable when it's one-sixth of this 
Nation's economy.
  When I think of the 2,000-page bill, I think of a big block of cheese 
out there, pretty tempting looking. Well, the Americans I hear from, 
they don't want that cheese. They want out of the trap of government-
run health care.

                              {time}  1210

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from 
California.
  So we have several dozen new Republican Members of this House, and as 
a result, the first thing we are going to do is to attempt to repeal 
health care.
  Let me review what has happened. These new Members came into office, 
and they were all given the opportunity to sign up for health insurance 
coverage for their own families; and unless they had better coverage, 
most of them took that opportunity. But now in the very first 
legislative act of this new Congress, they are going to deny that 
opportunity for coverage for their own constituents.
  So their children are covered--their spouses are covered--but what 
about the children of their constituents? What about their loved ones? 
What about their businesses? They have full employment now. But what 
about their constituents whose employers will not be able to provide 
coverage for their own constituents when they repeal this law? This law 
was modeled after the plan that Members of Congress have now and that 
our new colleagues were only too happy to sign up for.
  I think this is the height of hypocrisy. Do unto others as you would 
do unto yourselves. Treat your constituents as you have treated 
yourselves.
  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).
  Mr. DOLD. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 2. And what 
we've heard today on both sides of the aisle is how this is going to 
affect small business. Well, I run a small business. That's where I 
came from. And let me tell you that this is going to have a devastating 
impact on small business.
  What this law did is it addressed access to insurance. It does not 
address cost or quality. These are the things that we need to address. 
My health insurance rates for the people that I work with each and 
every day last year went up 44 percent--44 percent.
  There is no question that we need reform. We need a healthy debate. 
We need openness in this body to actually discuss what needs to be 
going forward in health care. What we had last year was anything but. 
There was no bipartisanship in what happened last year. The only 
bipartisanship in last year's bill was the opposition to it.
  I welcome the opportunity to reach across the aisle to Members on the 
other side, to work with them to craft a bill, one that will talk about 
malpractice reform, one where the government will not come in between a 
decision that you make with your physician.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. KLINE. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. DOLD. We have an opportunity here, an opportunity for real 
reform. We want that. We need that. The American people have demanded 
it. From American businesses and people all across the United States, 
they demand it.
  And from the other side who said we came in and had health care 
reform, I did not take the congressional plan. We know we can do 
better, and I ask my colleagues on the other side to support H.R. 2.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, we have two remaining 
speakers.

[[Page H274]]

  Mr. KLINE. We're in that time of trying to balance here.
  At this time, I will yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Florida 
(Mrs. Adams).
  Mrs. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of repealing the 
government takeover of health care and replacing it with commonsense 
reforms that will reduce the costs and increase the access to quality, 
affordable health care for especially my constituents in Florida.
  The American people have soundly--soundly--rejected the Democrats' 
flawed government takeover of health care, and it is time to show them 
that their voices have been heard.
  The existing health care law moves this country in the wrong 
direction by raising taxes, cutting Medicare, restricting private-
sector job creation, and putting power into the hands of Washington 
bureaucrats rather than into the hands of individuals themselves. 
Individuals want to make their own health care decisions. They don't 
want government making them for them.
  Repealing the current health care law is the first step towards 
keeping our pledge to the American people that we are serious about 
cutting spending, creating jobs, and limiting--limiting--the 
government's role in our everyday lives.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland).
  (Mr. SOUTHERLAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. SOUTHERLAND. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding me 
this time.
  I rise in support of this legislation. As a third-generation small 
business owner following the footsteps of my father and my grandfather, 
I understand how crushing the tax burden is going to be upon small 
business.
  The NFIB estimates that 1.6 million jobs will be lost by 2014 due to 
this insurance mandate; 66 percent of those job losses will occur in 
small business. James Edens, the owner of Edens Heating and Air in 
Tallahassee, stated to me that he will not hire, he cannot hire 
additional staff, due to the uncertainty.
  Repealing this legislation will provide much-needed certainty to 
small businesses around this country, allowing them to hire and invest 
in their employees.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Runyan).
  Mr. RUNYAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2 to repeal the 
2010 health care legislation. The law that we seek to repeal today is 
not the best way to provide cost-effective, quality health care for all 
Americans.
  I support enacting incremental reforms such as enabling individuals 
to purchase coverage across State lines, allowing small businesses to 
pool together to purchase more affordable coverage, and prohibiting 
insurance companies from denying coverage to those with preexisting 
conditions.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2. Let's work together on 
reforms that truly reduce costs and provide quality health care.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. May I inquire of the Chair how much 
time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota has 5 minutes 
remaining; the gentleman from California has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. So in the hours that we've spent thus far during this 
debate, we could have been debating ways to help small businesses and 
entrepreneurs create jobs for the American people, but we did not. 
Instead, we have gotten the slogan, ``job-killing health care bill.'' 
The slogan is very much at odds with the facts.
  The fact is that since the health care bill was signed by the 
President, the private sector has generated 1.1 million new jobs. The 
fact is that the chief economist for Barclays says he believes that the 
economy is on track to add many, many jobs this year, probably 200,000 
or so per month is his projection.
  We've heard about protecting the children and grandchildren of the 
country against mounting debt. For years, there has been an 
understanding here that the referee in budget disputes has been the 
Congressional Budget Office, through Republican and Democratic 
majorities. Republican, Democratic, and Independents, they are the 
referee who decides what the rules are. So the Congressional Budget 
Office was asked by Speaker Boehner to score this repeal, and they came 
back and said, Well, Mr. Speaker, this is going to add over $1 trillion 
to the national debt over the next 20 years. The majority didn't like 
what they said, so they just chose to ignore it and make up the rules 
as they go along.
  But what they haven't done as they've gone along is still answer the 
fundamental question we started with this morning. When a mother of two 
4-year-old twins goes to buy health insurance and the health insurer 
says, ``I'm sorry, we won't insure your family because your 4-year-olds 
have leukemia,'' should that be legal or not? That's the question.
  The law the President signed in March says it should be illegal. This 
repeal says, let's go back to the good old days where the insurance 
companies made that decision.
  We are not going back. We should go forward as a country to create 
jobs for our people and end the charade we've seen on the House floor 
here this morning.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I had two more speakers en route. They are 
not here. So I plan to close, and I will reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I want to thank all of our colleagues who participated in this debate 
today. I think it has shown some fundamental disagreements and some 
fundamental differences.
  First of all, there is the strong suggestion here from an NFIB study 
that was done before this law was ever written, that has nothing to do 
with this law, saying you might lose jobs. But what do we see since the 
law has passed? We see that for employers of under 10 employees, health 
care coverage has risen by 10 percent because we've made it less 
expensive for small businesses to offer that health insurance.

                              {time}  1220

  That is not a self-interested study. What you see from United Health 
Care, the largest health insurer in the country, 75,000 new customers 
to their health plans from employees of small businesses because the 
small businesses find it affordable to extend health insurance as a 
benefit of working for that small business.
  Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Kansas City says the number of small 
businesses buying insurance since April, the first month after the 
legislation was signed, has jumped 58 percent.
  Small business employers are for the first time able to extend 
affordable insurance to their employees, and that is why the job 
creation that Mr. Andrews referred to of a million jobs since the 
passage of this bill has continued and expected to continue. That is 
why it is different than the history prior to the Obama administration 
where over 8 years almost 800,000 jobs were lost during those years of 
the Bush administration.
  But there is something more important in this legislation, and that 
is whether or not families will have the control of their health 
insurance destiny, whether they will have the freedom to make these 
choices. Many on the other side of the aisle said this is a 
bureaucratic system. Has anybody, any family in America, any single 
mother, any spouse, any child, any grandparent, met a more bureaucratic 
system than the American health insurance system? There is no more 
bureaucratic system.
  When you send in your premium, they tell you you sent it to the wrong 
place. When you send in your bill, you sent it to the wrong person. 
When you send it to the right person, they say that person has left 
their job. When you say, I went to the doctor, they say you should've 
called us first. When you say, I had emergency surgery, they say, you 
should've called us first; we're not covering it.

[[Page H275]]

  You want to talk about bureaucracy, ladies and gentlemen, and that is 
why this legislation is growing in popularity, because small businesses 
see, senior citizens see, parents with children under 26, they see a 
chance to liberate themselves from the most arbitrary, the most 
capricious system in our entire free economy, and that is the insurance 
companies. Everybody has been run around the block by their insurance 
company. It is something that they all share.
  It is almost the same problems they share with their cable company, 
not quite. That is not as dramatic as here because this is life and 
death. This is the security of your family. This is whether or not you 
can change jobs. This is whether or not your children will be 
protected. This is whether or not your parents will be able to afford 
their prescription drugs, because that is what this legislation enables 
and gives the freedom to American families to have.
  Repeal, we go back into the clutches, the clutches of these 
bureaucrats spread across the world. In the insurance company, you call 
for help and you reach somebody in another country, in another time 
zone with no understanding of the emergency that your family, your 
child, your parent, your grandparent faces. Nobody wants to go back 
there, ladies and gentlemen. Nobody. They have been there for 50 years, 
and health care costs have gone up faster than any other segment in our 
economy. Faster than anything you can imagine. Faster than a speeding 
rocket, faster than a speeding airplane. Faster than Superman, health 
care costs have gone up because of insurance bureaucracies.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I actually don't know anybody who 
is supporting the red tape of the insurance company. What I find 
interesting is that we think it is a better solution to add thousands 
of pages of new government regulations and thousands of new government 
bureaucrats on top of that system and think somehow it is going to be 
better.
  Let me address a couple of things that have come up in this debate 
and some things that we discussed in the past. One of them is the cost 
of this bill. Other committees have talked about it and will again.
  There have been claims today that repeal will cost the taxpayers 
variously $230 billion or a trillion dollars based on what the CBO has 
said. We find that incredible that repealing this job-killing 
legislation is actually going to cost us money. So the question comes 
why are these things different.
  It turns out there is a wonderful piece in The Wall Street Journal 
today that addresses that specifically. I will just quote it. It says: 
How then does the Affordable Care Act magically convert a trillion 
dollars in new spending into painless deficit reduction? It is all 
about budget gimmicks, deceptive accounting and implausible assumptions 
used to create the false impression of fiscal discipline.
  We heard some words today addressing that fact. Some of our 
physicians pointed out that in order to get the numbers to add up, you 
have to assume that we are going to continue to punish physicians who 
are providing Medicare services. And there is nobody in this body who 
believes we are actually going to do that. Nor did they believe that we 
were going to do it when that sort of gimmicky accounting was used to 
justify the cost in the first place.
  We have heard discussions about how this is a very good deal for 
businesses large and small; and yet if you look at associations, 
organizations that represent businesses across America, they are saying 
today, not just 6 months ago or a year ago, but saying today that they 
support repeal of this job-killing legislation. And a short list, just 
some of them are the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the 
National Retail Federation, the National Restaurant Association, the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the International Franchise Association, the 
America Bankers Association, American Hotel and Lodging Association, 
the National Stove and Gravel Association, and on and on. Businesses do 
not like this government takeover of health care, and they support 
repeal. This is not a good deal for businesses.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle chose to focus their 
remarks on a handful of provisions included in the law that are more 
attractive than tax hikes, penalties imposed on employers, and higher 
health care costs. And no one is disputing that such provisions exist, 
but it is wrong to suggest that the only way to reform health care is 
to bankrupt our Nation with this albatross.
  I believe we can improve health care without orchestrating a 
government takeover. That is why I look forward to casting my vote to 
repeal this law so we can move forward to carry out the wishes of our 
constituents. Repeal is the first step toward the right kind of reform.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous 
consent that any minute or two that I have left be granted to the 
chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee during that portion of 
the debate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Michigan will control the time.
  There was no objection.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all persons in the 
gallery that they are here as guests of the House and that any 
manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation 
of the rules of the House.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, if I may just ask how much extra time I might 
have been given by the gentleman from Minnesota.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 1\1/2\ additional minutes.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, today we take a step toward compassionate, innovative, 
and job-creating health care. It is ironic we must end something to 
realize a new beginning, but that is exactly what ObamaCare has 
compelled us to do; and that is precisely what we will do today.
  It's time to be honest with the American people. Remember the 
Hippocratic oath? First, do no harm.
  ObamaCare produces the opposite of growth, compassion, and innovation 
in health care. It destroys jobs, busts budgets, creates an 
unsustainable set of mandates on individuals, employers, and States. It 
will stifle innovation and the development of life-saving medicines. It 
will make health care more expensive, not more affordable.
  Mr. Speaker, that is not compassionate. That won't produce 
innovation, and that's why repeal is the first step toward a better 
beginning. What is compassionate about forcing employers to provide 
insurance that they cannot afford to employees who will lose their jobs 
due to ObamaCare? What is compassionate about creating a rigid new 
entitlement that States are commanded to fund with money that they 
simply do not have? What is compassionate about cutting over $200 
billion from the Medicare Advantage program, leaving seniors with fewer 
services, higher co-pays, and more out-of-pocket expenses? What is 
compassionate about shackling more Americans with greater government 
dependence?
  ObamaCare was created--erected--on a foundation of false promises: if 
you like your health insurance, you can keep it; health care premiums 
will go down; employers will not drop coverage; seniors won't see any 
changes in their Medicare benefits.
  Today we know that those were only slogans--sound bites in a cynical 
sales pitch--and certainly not promises kept. Yes, today repeal will 
pass in the House. We will then embark on reform that I believe can be 
supported by both Republicans and Democrats.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. UPTON. I yield myself an additional 1 minute.
  Ensuring those with preexisting conditions have access to affordable 
coverage, we'll do that. Allowing families to include their children up 
to 26, we'll do that. Medical liability reform to reduce the unneeded 
cost of defensive medicine, we'll do that. Provide incentives for 
employers rather than penalties and mandates that will cost jobs and 
depress wages, we will provide those incentives. Yes, we will.

                              {time}  1230

  Those are just some of the principles that I believe we can agree on 
with both sides of the aisle.
  So first is repeal; then replace. I'm ready for the challenge to put 
real health reform back together that is bipartisan rather than 
partisan and

[[Page H276]]

achieves the goal of lower health care costs for every American family.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  I strongly oppose this effort to repeal the health care bill. 
Millions of Americans are already benefiting from this legislation: 
insurers have stopped discriminating against sick children; seniors are 
saving money on prescription drugs; and small businesses are receiving 
billions of dollars in tax credits to provide health care coverage. 
Repeal will roll back these benefits.
  The repeal bill reminds me of the story of Robin Hood, but in 
reverse. Repeal will take essential health benefits from millions of 
struggling American families and give new powers and profits to the 
insurance companies. If we repeal health reform, there will be no 
prohibition on discrimination against over 100 million Americans with 
preexisting conditions; no prohibition on insurance companies canceling 
your coverage when you get sick; no prohibition on lifetime caps and 
annual limits; no required coverage for young adults on their parents' 
policies; no assistance to seniors struggling to afford the cost of 
drugs in the doughnut hole; no free annual checkups and preventive care 
in Medicare; no tax credits for families and small businesses to pay 
for health insurance.
  These changes will affect every congressional district in the 
country. My staff has been analyzing what the impacts of repeal will be 
in each district. These are now available on our Web site. They tell a 
compelling story.
  We have a new Member on our committee from West Virginia. In his 
district, repeal will mean increasing prescription drug costs for 
12,000 seniors and taking new preventive care benefits from over 
100,000 Medicare beneficiaries.
  We have another new Member on our committee from New Hampshire. In 
his district, repeal will mean eliminating tax credits for nearly 
17,000 small businesses. In my own district, repeal would mean over 
50,000 constituents would lose protections against rescissions. And 
these aren't just statistics. Behind every number is a real person with 
real problems, like diabetes or breast cancer or a child with special 
needs.
  Repeal is a boon for the insurance companies but an enormous setback 
for American families. If we pass this bill, the insurance companies 
can raise their rates, discriminate against millions of Americans with 
preexisting conditions, and cut off coverage when someone becomes sick.
  There are many reasons to oppose repeal. The health reform bill is 
creating thousands of new jobs. It will cut the deficit by curbing the 
growth of health care costs, saving taxpayers over a trillion dollars.
  This is why I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this legislation. If 
there's a change the Republicans want to make, let them propose it. But 
don't throw it all out the window and say they're going to do all these 
things we've already done.
  I urge Members to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman emeritus of 
the Energy and Commerce Committee, Joe Barton, whose State could lose 
perhaps 64 hospitals that would close with the continuing of ObamaCare.
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman and look forward to 
working with him as the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. Speaker, before I begin to discuss health care, I would like to 
say that our prayers continue to go out to Congresswoman Giffords in 
Arizona. We are very gratified to learn of her continuing progress. We 
hope that some time in this Congress she does come back to the House 
floor and give her voice to the voice for her constituency. We all miss 
her and we wish her the very best.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here today because the existing law of the land 
on health care is fatally flawed. Most of us think it is 
unconstitutional. We think it is overreaching. We think the Federal 
Government is intervening more and more into the daily practice of 
health care between the doctor-patient relationship. And we think it 
needs to be repealed before it does irreparable harm to our health care 
system, which is the best in the world.
  We think that on basic principles it's unconstitutional. We believe 
that you shouldn't have the Federal Government mandate that an 
individual has to have health insurance, whether he or she wants it. 
That particular constitutional question is wending its way through the 
courts and we hope soon to have an answer to that question.
  We want to repeal today so that we can begin to replace tomorrow. We 
want to deliver on our Pledge to America that we meant it when we said 
if the American voters gave us the majority, we would repeal this 
existing law, and that is step one. But step two is to replace it. I 
see that my good friend from California, Congresswoman Eshoo, is on the 
floor. She and I have an amendment in the new law on biosimilars that 
passed with a huge bipartisan majority, and we hope that that's one of 
the things that will be kept. We do believe that we should be able to 
do something on preexisting conditions. We do believe that children 
should be allowed to stay on their parents' plans until the age of 26. 
So there are some things in the new law that we think are worth 
keeping. But until you sweep away the bad things, we cannot begin to 
work on the good things.
  So, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, we hope that we can repeal it 
on a bipartisan basis in the House and, under the leadership of Mr. 
Upton and Mr. Camp and others, begin to replace it tomorrow.
  Please vote to repeal this law today.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the control of the balance of the 
time of the Energy and Commerce Committee to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey who chaired the Health Subcommittee in the 
last Congress and who has done a great deal to advance this 
legislation, Mr. Frank Pallone.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from New 
Jersey will control the balance of the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PALLONE. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 
minutes to the dean of the House of Representatives and the House 
sponsor of the health reform legislation, the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Dingell).
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. I thank my good friend.
  Well, so much for openness and transparency. We're going to do all 
this without any hearings, without knowing what's going on. But I'm 
going to tell you a little bit on my Republican side of the aisle here 
about what this is really going to do:
  Insurance companies will be able to deny 292,000 individuals in my 
district, including 33,000 children, an opportunity to have health 
insurance, and this will be because of preexisting conditions. They're 
going to increase the number of uninsured in my district, the 15th of 
Michigan, by 20,000. They will increase the costs to hospitals of 
providing uncompensated care in the 15th District alone by $182 
million. They're going to cost each American $1,000 more because the 
uninsured are going to go in and get health care anyhow.
  I want to tell you what is going to happen with one young lady who 
has a terrible condition called endometriosis. She is going to receive 
now health insurance through the legislation passed because that 
insurance will flow to her until she is 26 on her father's insurance. 
But you're going to take that away from her. And you're going to see to 
it that the doughnut hole doesn't close because of the fact that you 
are saying no longer is this law going to be in effect.
  We want to see to it that the American people benefit from this. The 
repeal that you're talking about today will see to it that they do not. 
What's it going to do to the deficit? Add $1.4 trillion to the deficit. 
It's going to do more than that. It's going to add $230 billion to the 
annual deficit. And it's going to see to it that Americans can no 
longer be assured that they are going to not have their health 
insurance canceled because of a sickness which occurs to them. It is 
going to

[[Page H277]]

hurt small business because it's going to take billions in tax benefits 
away from small business who would do this.
  I urge the House to vote down this outrageous piece of legislation.

                              {time}  1240

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the chairman of the 
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida, 
Mr. Cliff Stearns.
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, let me give you some important reasons why 
we need to repeal this law.
  Yes, you will create jobs--but in an ever-expanding Federal 
bureaucracy. The Joint Economic Committee reported this bill creates 
over 150 new Federal offices. With that, of course, small businesses 
must comply, are mandated to comply, with all the new and many 
regulations.
  Now, if this bill is so good, why is the Obama administration giving 
a pass to over 220 organizations and corporations that have received 
exemptions from this law, including many, many unions?
  With the proposed $500 billion cut in Medicare and the increase in 
taxes that is already occurring, this law is simply not credible. With 
record unemployment, this law will hurt small businesses and prevent 
job creation, adding burdensome taxes, and it will not increase growth 
in this country.
  Republicans will replace this bill with a health care law based upon 
choice, competition, and the traditional American exceptional value 
system, which is compassion--but compassion with accountability. We 
need to repeal this law.
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to thank my colleague from Florida, who just 
spoke, for saying and admitting that health care reform does create 
jobs, because, if you listen to the Republicans, they have been saying 
over and over again that that's not the case. But he finally said, yes, 
it does create jobs.
  That's what we really should be doing here. We should be creating 
jobs and improving the economy, not talking about repealing health care 
reform, which already is providing so many benefits to many Americans.
  Yesterday, I saw a statement from our former Republican majority 
leader, Senator Frist from Tennessee, who said that we shouldn't do the 
repeal. He recognized the fact that this legislation, this health care 
reform, is actually making a difference in people's lives and that we 
should build upon it, as Senator Frist said, a Republican, rather than 
just trying to do an outright repeal, which is a complete waste of 
time.
  Now what I am hearing from my constituents is that they like the 
benefits that are already coming out from health care reform, whether 
it is eliminating all the discriminatory practices, like lifetime caps 
or preexisting conditions or annual caps, or being able to put your 
children up to age 26 on your policies. These benefits have already 
kicked in, and Americans actually like the benefits. They understand 
why they are helpful to them.
  The only group I can think of that actually would benefit from repeal 
is the big insurance companies. Unfortunately, that is the bidding, if 
you will, that the Republicans are doing, the other side of the aisle. 
The insurance companies want to continue to increase premiums by more 
than double digits. They don't want to cut into their profits.
  One of the things that kicked in on January 1 is a provision that 
says that 80 percent of your premiums have to actually go to provide 
benefits. They can't go to the shareholders or to the profits of the 
insurance companies. The insurance companies are the only ones that 
benefit from repeal because they can raise premiums, they can have 
discriminatory practices, and they can just increase their profits.
  I will use an example. I think the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) used this example before about someone who has breast 
cancer.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.
  Now, because of the policies of the health insurance reform, if 
people have breast cancer and there are recurrences, they will not 
experience lifetime caps or annual caps. They will be able to go back 
and have chemotherapy or whatever is necessary.
  Those are the types of benefits that have kicked in, and they should 
continue. We should oppose repeal.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, before I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. Speaker, perhaps the gentleman from New Jersey didn't listen to 
me when I just spoke.
  It's creating 150 new government agencies, and these are all 
government jobs. So, if you're talking about increasing jobs, they're 
government jobs.
  It also includes $500 billion in taxes, burdensome 1099 paperwork 
requirements, according to a study by the Nation's largest small 
business association, the NFIB. I would like you to talk about that 
1099.
  These employer mandates that are in the health care bill are 
terrible, and it is estimated they will wipe out 1.6 million jobs over 
just 5 years.
  So I caution the gentleman from New Jersey to listen carefully to my 
speech.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted we have the opportunity 
today to revisit the health care bill that was passed last year.
  I am delighted because, first of all, when it came to the floor last 
year, this bill affected every aspect of health care in America, and we 
did not have the opportunity to offer one amendment on the floor. In 
addition to that, this bill takes $500 billion out of Medicare, which 
means less money to nursing homes, hospitals, and Medicare 
beneficiaries. Then the claim that this would reduce the deficit by 
$138 billion was calculated by including 10 years of tax revenues under 
this bill but only 6 years of expenditures.
  How can you claim that we are supporting insurance companies by 
repealing this bill when the insurance companies supported the bill, 
and they supported the bill because it mandates that small businesses 
and individuals buy health insurance?
  So I would urge the repeal of this legislation, and then we can fix 
health care the way it should be fixed.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, this Republican bill is the wrong prescription for our 
country. It isn't just a repeal; it's a bad deal.
  It's a bad deal for small businesses and middle class families, who 
would lose tax credits included in the new law to help them pay for 
health insurance.
  It's a bad deal for grandma, who will face higher costs for the life-
saving medications she needs. It's a bad deal for pregnant women, who 
could be denied coverage when they need it the most.
  Lydia Swan, my constituent, shared her story with me during the 
health care debate last year. Lydia was pregnant when her husband 
switched jobs. Her new insurance company said her pregnancy was a 
preexisting condition, and they wouldn't pay any expenses. So Lydia was 
insured, but she wasn't covered.
  That is wrong. It is just plain wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, a newborn child should be a pleasure and not a 
preexisting condition. New parents expect some sleepless nights. They 
don't expect their insurance company to deny coverage for the 
pregnancy. New parents should worry about the baby and not about the 
medical bills.
  The new health care law closes the book on these kinds of insurance 
company abuses. Let us not today reopen it once again. Say ``no'' to 
this Republican bad deal that takes away patients' rights and freedoms, 
and say ``yes'' to a health care system that protects American 
families.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, before I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts must not be familiar

[[Page H278]]

with a waiver under the Medicaid program called Katie Beckett--the 
poster that he showed us of the young child with preexisting 
conditions. This program Katie Beckett still exists. There is a waiver. 
There is opportunity for children with preexisting conditions to get 
coverage.
  The Democrats are also disingenuous when they claim credit for 
immediately covering children with preexisting conditions. ObamaCare 
got it wrong. They did not guarantee that children would have their 
preexisting conditions covered. It is ironic that this legislation was 
actually drafted incorrectly.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
  (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, my friends on the Democrat side are 
supporting this bill based on 10 pages of the legislation: immediate 
access to insurance for the uninsured, an extension of dependent 
coverage, no lifetime or annual caps. Ten pages. This health care law 
was 2,990 pages. This is only volume 1.
  What do you find when you go through the entire bill? This is what 
they are defending their bill on? This is only volume 1 of 4. And 
what's in here?--a $500 billion cut to Medicare, a $500 billion cut to 
Medicare for our seniors.

                              {time}  1250

  What else is in here? Five hundred billion dollars of tax increases. 
What else is in here? Six years of benefits for 10 years of cost. What 
else is in here? A new entitlement program.
  Our Nation is broke. It is broke because of our entitlement program, 
and this law added a new entitlement.
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to what I think is really an 
unwise, unwarranted, and unfair effort to repeal the historic health 
care law which has brought much-needed insurance reforms to the 
American people.
  For the first time in our Nation's history, Congress passed 
legislation to ensure that every American has a comprehensive health 
insurance plan just as Members of Congress have. We've reduced the 
deficit by $143 billion over 10 years and $1.2 trillion over 20.
  I want to tell an important story which I think underscores why 
repeal is wrong.
  Ronit Bryant in my district was battling stage four breast cancer--
that's the worst--when her HMO decided to stop paying for her 
treatment. In the middle of her treacherous ordeal through a 
mastectomy, chemotherapy, a bone marrow transplant, and radiation, she 
was also battling her insurance company in Federal court where she had 
to listen to lawyers argue over whether her life was worth saving or 
not. A woman of less strength would never have made it through this. I 
am proud to say that Ronit made a full recovery. She watched her 
children grow, and she went on to become the mayor of one of the major 
cities in my district, Mountain View, California.
  So a 50 percent discount on prescription drugs for seniors makes 
sense. Prohibiting rescissions--what was done to Ronit, eliminating 
that makes sense. Allowing children to stay on their parents' insurance 
policy until the age of 26 makes sense. Thirty-five percent tax credits 
for small businesses make sense.
  What the Republicans are doing today does not make sense. It's wrong 
for America; it's bad for Americans, and I urge my colleagues to reject 
it.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the 
Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I might just respond: ObamaCare spends over 
$1 trillion but leaves 23 million people uninsured.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been 
arguing that we can't afford to repeal ObamaCare. I would argue just 
the opposite. Our country cannot bear the true cost of ObamaCare, and 
it must be repealed.
  Our repeal would mean that Americans with employer-provided health 
coverage will keep their current plan, yet the administration estimates 
that seven out of 10 individuals will lose their current coverage under 
ObamaCare.
  Our repeal means that half of all employers--as many as 80 percent of 
small businesses--will be able to keep their current plan rather than 
lose it over the next 2 years. The administration's estimates reveal 
that their own onerous regulations will force most businesses to give 
up their current plans, subjecting them to costly new mandates that 
will increase premiums.
  Our repeal means that 7.4 million more seniors will participate in 
Medicare Advantage plans, according to the Medicare actuary. Our repeal 
also means that the Medicare Advantage beneficiaries will not face an 
average increase of $873 per year in out-of-pocket costs between now 
and 2019.
  Our repeal means that individual health insurance premiums will not 
increase by $2,100.
  Our repeal means that taxpayers will not face $569 billion in tax 
increases scheduled to take effect over the coming years.
  Our repeal means that the economy would keep an estimated 750,000 
jobs that will be lost because the incentives included in ObamaCare 
actually discourage individuals from working, according to the CBO.
  Our repeal means that national health spending will go down by $310 
billion, according to the Medicare actuary.
  Our repeal means that seniors' part D premiums won't increase by 4 
percent in 2011 or rise up to 9 percent in 2019 as CBO estimates would 
happen under the current law.
  Without repeal, employer retiree drug coverage will drop from 20 
percent of retirees to 2 percent by 2016, according to the Medicare 
Trustees Report.
  Finally, repeal means that States will avoid a massive forced 
expansion of their Medicaid programs, at a cost of $20 billion to the 
States, at a time when they cannot sustain Medicaid.
  The costs of leaving this job-slashing health care law in effect are 
much too high. It must be repealed.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I am very, very sorry that my Republican friends have chosen to put 
this repeal bill through. In light of the events in Tucson, we all say 
we are going to work together. The American people want us to work 
together. This is not the way to do it. If there's a problem with the 
bill, we should tweak it or change it. We shouldn't repeal it. If there 
is a problem and things need to be changed, we should put our heads 
together and try to do it.
  The Republicans say that they want to cut costs in government. The 
CBO says that this bill will save us $230 billion over 10 years and 
$1.2 trillion over 20 years; and the first thing the Republicans bring 
up is to repeal this bill, which will add to the deficit.
  This is political theater. It's a charade. This isn't going to be 
repealed. Let us put our heads together and figure out what makes 
sense.
  All important bills that were put in in the past 50 or 60 years, from 
Medicare to Medicaid to Social Security to the civil rights bills of 
the 1960s, they needed to be tweaked as we saw what the problems were. 
I'm willing to change the bill, but repealing it is the absolutely 
wrong way to do it.
  I am delighted to revisit this issue because we can finally get the 
truth out. The American people understand that right now, if they have 
a preexisting condition, they cannot be denied coverage. An insurance 
company right now, with this bill, cannot say, ``Sorry, you have a 
lifetime cap or an annual cap and we're not going to insure you.'' The 
insurance company now can't deny your 24- or 25- or 26-year-old child 
insurance to be on your plan. We are finally closing the doughnut hole 
to put more money in the hands of senior citizens.
  This is what the Republicans would repeal. They say that this is a 
government takeover of health care. No, it isn't. And if they had 
better plans for health care, they were in power for 6 years with the 
President and both Houses of Congress and they did nothing to make 
health care affordable for the American people.
  Let's work together. Let's change the bill. Let's tweak the bill. 
Don't repeal it.

[[Page H279]]

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the vice chair of the 
full committee, the gentlelady from North Carolina, Sue Myrick.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, we oppose this health care law for many 
reasons. I'm especially concerned about the negative effect it may have 
on the ability of our doctors to care for their patients as they see 
fit.
  It creates well over 156 bureaucracies, programs, and regulatory 
systems which will further regulate and control the way medicine is 
practiced, paid for, and allocated. Doctors who practice medicine as 
small business owners are already forced to dedicate significant 
resources and manpower to keep up with the bureaucracy of reimbursement 
alone.
  This law does nothing to slow the growth of Medicare and Medicaid 
programs--we know those are two huge problems we have to deal with--but 
it will surely add to the regulatory burdens faced by doctors, 
patients, and, most importantly, the American people, who are going to 
have to foot the bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Congress from 
Texas, I supported the health care reform law proudly. Texas has some 
of the highest rates of uninsured in the United States.

                              {time}  1300

  Twenty-six percent of our Texans are uninsured--6.4 million 
residents--compared with the national average of only 16.7 percent. 
Over the past 8 years in Texas, employer-based insurance coverage has 
dropped 18 percent. Now, only 48 percent of Texans have health 
insurance provided by their employers--well below the national average.
  Texas has some of the highest health insurance premiums in the U.S. A 
family of four making $44,000, the average premium out-of-pocket is 
$6,548--almost 15 percent of their income. In Texas, our State 
Department of Insurance report to the legislature acknowledged the 
positive impact of the Affordable Care Act.
  The State of Texas Department of Insurance concluded the Affordable 
Care Act will have a positive impact on the State and help Texans gain 
access to private insurance coverage. As the Department of Insurance 
report states, ``the removal of underwriting restrictions, new premium 
rating reforms, availability of subsidies and limitations on out-of-
pocket expenses for low- and middle-income families should make it 
easier for many low-income Texans to obtain private insurance.''
  In our district in Houston and Harris County, 40 percent of my 
constituents were uninsured when we passed the Affordable Care Act in 
March of last year. Repeal, H.R. 2, would be a major setback to what 
we're trying to do in our own district.
  To cite a few local statistics from the repeal on my constituents: 
increase the number of people without insurance by almost 217,000; 
allow insurance companies to deny coverage to at least 102,000 people 
in our district, including at least 12,000 children with preexisting 
conditions; eliminate health care tax credits for 14,600 small 
businesses and 177,000 people; increase prescription drug costs for 
4,400 seniors in my district who fell into that doughnut hole except 
for health care reform.
  My Republican colleagues want to work on improving it. I'm here to do 
it, but repeal is not the answer.

   Biennial Report of the Texas Department of Insurance to the 82nd 
                              Legislature

                            (December 2010)

               (Mike Geeslin, Commissioner of Insurance)


                                Texas Department of Insurance,

                                  Austin, Texas, December 31, 2010
     Hon. Rick Perry, Governor,
     Hon. David Dewhurst, Lieutenant Governor,
     Hon. Joe Straus, III, Speaker.
       Dear Governors and Speaker: In accordance with Section 
     32.022, Texas Insurance Code, I am pleased to submit the 
     biennial report of the Texas Department of Insurance 
     (Department or TDI). The report summarizes needed changes in 
     the laws relating to regulation of the insurance industry, 
     provides information on market conditions, and includes 
     reviews required by Senate Bill 1 (81st Legislature, Regular 
     Session).
       The Department is available to discuss any of the issues 
     contained in the report and to provide technical assistance. 
     Please contact me or Carol Cates, Associate Commissioner of 
     Government Relations, with any questions or if you need 
     additional information. Thank you for your consideration.
           Respectfully Submitted,
                                                     Mike Geeslin,
                                        Commissioner of Insurance.


      Texas Department of Insurance: Securing the Future of Texas

                                Mission

       To protect insurance consumers by: regulating the industry 
     fairly and diligently promoting a stable and competitive 
     market providing information that makes a difference.


                                 Values

       We have a passionate commitment to service in the public 
     interest. We are:
       Responsible Stewards: accountable, efficient, effective 
     ``Using resources wisely''.
       Professional: knowledgeable and fair ``Adhering to the 
     highest ethical standards''.
       Collaborative: cooperative, inclusive, diverse ``Respecting 
     others' opinions and expertise''.
       Resilient and Creative: open-minded and proactive 
     ``Learning from the past to enhance the future''
       Balanced: fulfilled and well-rounded ``Celebrating personal 
     and professional successes''.


 Senate Bill 1--Rider 18: Review of Health Insurance Availability and 
                             Affordability

       The 81st Legislature included in Senate Bill 1 a directive 
     to the Texas Department of Insurance to conduct a review of 
     ``the accessibility of health benefit plan coverage for and 
     the affordability of health benefit plan premiums for low-
     income families and families not eligible for employer-
     sponsored insurance.'' Following is a summary of the results 
     of the review.
       Like many states, Texas has struggled with increasing 
     healthcare costs and insurance premiums that have prohibited 
     many individuals from obtaining affordable health insurance. 
     The rising cost of insurance affects individuals at all 
     income levels and employers of all sizes but is particularly 
     challenging for low income workers and small business owners. 
     In 2009, the U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey 
     (CPS) reports that 6.4 million Texans were uninsured for the 
     entire year (Table One). Of the Texans who have health 
     insurance, slightly more than half (53.8 percent) have 
     private coverage, down from 56.9 percent in 2007 and lower 
     than the national average of 63.9 percent. Texas workers are 
     less likely to have employer-sponsored coverage with 48.2 
     percent of Texans enrolled in employment-based plans compared 
     to a national average of 55.8 percent.

               TABLE 1: SOURCES OF HEALTH INSURANCE--2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              National
      Source of insurance          Number         Texas        average
                                               percentage     (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private Insurance.............    13,257,000          53.8          63.9
    Employment................    11,893,000          48.2          55.8
    Individual................     1,531,000           6.2           8.9
Government Insurance..........     6,925,000          28.1          30.6
    Medicaid..................     3,951,000          16.0          15.7
    Medicare..................     2,730,000          11.1          14.3
    Military..................     1,052,000           4.3           4.1
        Total Insured.........    18,224,000          73.9          83.3
        Total Uninsured.......     6,433,000          26.1          16.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2010 Annual
  Social and Economic Supplement.
(Note: Numbers may not add up to totals as some people have more than
  one type of insurance.)

       Like other states, the majority of uninsured in Texas live 
     in families with low to moderate incomes (Table 2). Detailed 
     analysis of 2008 CPS data shows that 59 percent of the 
     uninsured (3.5 million people) reported family incomes below 
     200 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL). Another 12 
     percent had incomes between 200 and 249 percent FPL. The data 
     also confirms that individuals with lower incomes were much 
     more likely to be uninsured than those with higher incomes. 
     Forty-five percent of individuals under 50 percent of FPL 
     were uninsured compared to only 14 percent of individuals at 
     250 percent or higher.

                                 TABLE 2: UNINSURED RATES BY POVERTY LEVEL--2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Percent
                                                                      Number        Percent of       uninsured
           Income as a  percentage of  poverty level                uninsured          total       within income
                                                                                     uninsured       category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under 50%......................................................          817,821           13.5             45.5
51% to 99%.....................................................          793,071           13.1             39.0
100% to 149%...................................................        1,064,129           17.5             37.0
150% to 199%...................................................          897,803           14.8             33.7
200% to 249%...................................................          703,379           11.61            31.9
250% or Higher.................................................        1,800,667           29.7             14.3
                                                                ------------------------------------------------
    Total......................................................        6,076,870          100               25.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2009 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.

       While most states have experienced declining rates of 
     employer-sponsored coverage in recent years, the decline in 
     Texas is more pronounced. Since 2001, the percentage of 
     Texans with employer coverage has dropped from 58.5 percent 
     to the current rate of 48.2 percent, an 18 percent decrease 
     in eight years. Additional data from the annual Medical 
     Expenditure Panel Survey--Insurance Component (MEPS-IC) 
     indicates that even when firms offer insurance, many 
     employees are ineligible or choose not to purchase coverage. 
     The MEPS-IC survey, administered by the federal Health 
     Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) collects 
     detailed information on employer-sponsored insurance, 
     including data for both large firms (defined as 50 or more 
     employees) and small businesses (2-49 employees). Table 3 
     summarizes information on both insurance offer rates and 
     participation rates for large and small businesses and 
     clearly indicates important differences based on firm size. 
     Some of the more significant findings are:

[[Page H280]]

       Most large firms (94 percent) offer health insurance 
     compared to only 34.2 percent of small firms.
       Nearly half (49.1 percent) of employees in small firms work 
     for an employer offering coverage, compared to 95.7 percent 
     of employees in large firms.
       Of those employees with employer-sponsored health coverage, 
     more than 3.8 million work in large firms compared to 653,162 
     workers in small firms.
       More than 1.3 million workers have access to coverage in a 
     large or small firm but are not enrolled. Not all are 
     uninsured; some have other coverage, such as a spouse's 
     employer-sponsored plan. However, a large number of these 
     eligible workers are uninsured and have not enrolled due 
     primarily to costs.
       Although most large employers offer coverage, many workers 
     are not eligible. More than one million workers in large 
     firms do not qualify for their employer-sponsored plan 
     because they work part time, are temporary or contract 
     workers, or have not worked long enough to meet the required 
     waiting period. Again, however, not all of these workers 
     are uninsured.
       More than one million employees in small firms also do not 
     have access to coverage. Most of these workers (1,038,936) 
     are employed in firms that do not offer coverage. Another 
     169,415 workers are not eligible for coverage offered by 
     their employer.

  TABLE 3: EMPLOYER SPONSORED INSURANCE: OFFER AND PARTICIPATION DATA--
                                  2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Texas Insurance Enrollment Data       Small firms      Large firms
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Total number of firms..............          324,554          125,685
2. Total number of employees..........        2,041,132        6,375,152
3. Percentage of firms that offer                 34.2%            94.0%
 insurance............................
4. Number of firms that do offer                110,997          118,144
 insurance............................
5. Number of firms that do not offer            213,557            7,541
 insurance............................
6. Number of employees working in             1,002,196        6,101,020
 firms that offer insurance...........
7. Percentage of employees working in             49.1%            95.7%
 firms that offer insurance...........
8. Number of employees working in             1,038,936          274,132
 firms that do not offer insurance....
9. Number of employees eligible for             832,781        4,947,118
 coverage.............................
10. Number of employees who are                 653,162        3,818,716
 enrolled.............................
11. Percentage of all employees that                32%              60%
 have employer-sponsored coverage.....
12. Number of employees who have                179,619        1,128,402
 access to coverage but are not
 enrolled.............................
13. Number of employees who do not            1,208,351        1,428,034
 have access to coverage..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2009 Medical
  Expenditure Panel Survey-Insurance Component.

       Of those employers that do not offer coverage, extensive 
     research shows the most common reason cited is the increasing 
     cost of insurance. Consistent with national trends, Texas 
     employers and employees have experienced significant premium 
     rate increases over the past ten years, despite a number of 
     programs and industry efforts to hold down costs. As Table 4 
     below indicates, average premium costs across all firms 
     (including both fully insured and self-funded) have more than 
     doubled in the past ten years.

                           TABLE 4: AVERAGE EMPLOYER-SPONSORED INSURANCE PREMIUM COSTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Average annual premium   Average annual premium
                             Year                                 for single coverage      for single coverage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999..........................................................                   $2,336                   $6,208
2000..........................................................                    2,627                    6,638
2001..........................................................                    2,924                    7,486
2002..........................................................                    3,268                    8,837
2003..........................................................                    3,400                    9,575
2004..........................................................                    3,781                   10,110
2005..........................................................                    4,108                   11,680
2006..........................................................                    4,133                   11,680
2008..........................................................                    4,205                   11,967
2009..........................................................                    4,499                   13,221
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey-Insurance Component 1997-
  2006, 2008-2009 (No survey available for 2007).

       Though most employers are challenged by significant premium 
     increases, higher rates are usually more difficult for small 
     firms (those with 2-50 employees) to absorb. Because a small 
     employer's rates are based on the age, gender and health 
     status of the employer's workers and their dependent 
     enrollees, rates can vary significantly from the average cost 
     based on a group's specific demographics. Generally, groups 
     with younger, healthier employees will pay lower premiums 
     while groups with older, less healthy workers will pay higher 
     rates. An employer with even one worker with a pre-existing 
     condition may see their group rates increase by up to 67 
     percent based on health status underwriting factors. TDI data 
     shows groups that are subject to a combination of the highest 
     allowed rating factors may see premium rates for individual 
     employees in excess of $20,000 a year, a cost that is higher 
     than maximum rates charged for coverage in the Texas Health 
     Insurance Pool for individuals who are uninsurable in the 
     individual market.
       Over the last 10 years, the Department of Insurance has 
     conducted significant research to collect information on 
     uninsured Texans and uninsured small businesses, why they 
     have no coverage, how much they can afford, and options to 
     assist them with purchasing coverage. Through a federal State 
     Planning Grant administered by HRSA, TDI conducted multiple 
     focus groups, surveys, and community events across the state. 
     Though some of the study findings are somewhat dated, many of 
     the conclusions are likely still applicable given the high 
     cost of insurance and continued high uninsured rate.
       Beginning in 2002 and continuing through 2006, TDI hosted 
     more than 60 focus group sessions with individuals, small 
     business owners and their employees in 20 different cities 
     across Texas representing all of the major geographical areas 
     of the state. Focus group sessions were attended by uninsured 
     individuals or small employers who were unable to provide 
     insurance for their employees. The personal stories expressed 
     at these focus group sessions underscored the challenges many 
     consumers face when trying to find affordable health 
     coverage. (For additional information on the research 
     findings, please see TDI reports at: http://
www.tdi.state.tx.us/health/spg.html.)
       The primary conclusion from these discussion sessions was 
     that health insurance remains unaffordable for many of these 
     individuals and employers. The vast majority of participants 
     expressed willingness to pay for insurance, and most had 
     attempted to buy coverage within the past year but could not 
     find a benefit plan that was affordable. More than 90 percent 
     of the attendees were employed or owned their own business, 
     and many participants expressed frustration with the fact 
     that ``average, working, responsible citizens'' could not 
     afford coverage.
       Even when employer coverage is offered, many employees 
     decline to enroll due to employee premium payments and cost 
     sharing requirements. While the majority of employers pay at 
     least half the cost of the premium for employee-only 
     coverage, employer contributions for both employee and 
     dependent coverage have declined as more employers struggle 
     to keep up with increasing premium costs and other economic 
     pressures. Employees increasingly are asked to share more of 
     the cost of coverage through increased premium contributions 
     and higher cost-sharing policy provisions, particularly in 
     the small group market. In 2009, the MEPS-IC data show small 
     employers in Texas reported the third highest individual 
     deductible levels in the country at $1,634, compared to a 
     national average of $1,283. Large employers had the sixth 
     highest individual deductible at $990 compared to a national 
     average of $882. For family deductibles, small employers 
     reported the sixth highest average ($3,210 compared to $2,652 
     nationally), and large firms were at the second highest level 
     ($1,883 in Texas compared to $1,610 nationally).
       In addition to premium contributions and deductibles, 
     enrollees in group health plans face other out-of-pocket 
     expenses, including co-payments and coinsurance, which vary 
     depending on the type of service provided (i.e., primary care 
     visits, specialist visits, emergency room services, hospital 
     admissions, etc.). The data included in Table 5 illustrates 
     average costs for some of the most common cost-sharing 
     provisions in 2009 but is not inclusive of all expenses an 
     enrollee pays under a typical health plan.
       These data underscore the relatively high cost low income 
     families incur to enroll their families in employer-sponsored 
     benefit plans. While some workers may find employee-only 
     coverage affordable depending on the employer's actual 
     contribution rate and the employee's overall financial 
     circumstances, adding family coverage would likely be cost-
     prohibitive for most low-income workers up to 200 percent of 
     poverty, and for many even above those income levels. Add 
     these premium contribution requirements to high family 
     deductibles and other coinsurance expenses, and most low 
     income families are likely unable to afford employer 
     sponsored coverage. Table 6 shows the cost of the average 
     employee contribution for individual and family coverage as a 
     percentage of the 2010 income levels for each poverty level 
     listed (100, 150, and 200 percent of federal poverty level, 
     FPL). For workers with health plans that require higher 
     employee premium payments than the average, the cost of 
     coverage as a percentage of income will be even higher.

    TABLE 5: AVERAGE COST SHARING REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYER-SPONSORED
                             INSURANCE, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Small firms     Large firms
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Total Employee-Only Premium.....          $4,391          $4,523
Average Total Family Total Premium......         $12,674         $13,288
Average Individual Deductible...........          $1,634            $990
Average Family Deductible...............          $3,210          $1,883
Average Co-payment for an Office Visit..          $26.03          $23.44
Average Percentage Coinsurance for an             19.08%           18.0%
 Office Visit...........................
Average Employee Payment for Employee-              $588           $1079
 Only Coverage..........................
Average Employee Payment for Family               $3,924           $4036
 Coverage...............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2009 Medical
  Expenditure Panel Survey-Insurance Component.


[[Page H281]]


 TABLE 6: AVERAGE EMPLOYEE PREMIUM CONTRIBUTIONS AS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME BY FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL (FPL)--2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Small firms
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Avg. employee contribution for employee-
                                only coverage ($588) as percentage of
                                        family income by FPL
                                Avg. employee contribution for family
                                coverage ($3,924) as a percentage of
                                        family income by FPL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Family size                                                    Poverty level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                100% FPL      150% FPL      200% FPL      100% FPL      150% FPL      200% FPL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family of 1.................         5.4%          3.6%          2.7%            --            --            --
Family of 2.................         4.0%          2.7%          2.0%         26.9%         18.0%         13.4%
Family of 3.................         3.2%          2.1%          1.6%         21.4%         14.3%         10.7%
Family of 4.................         2.7%          1.8%          1.3%         17.8%         11.9%          8.9%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                                                           Large firms
 
                              Avg. employee contribution for employee-
                               only coverage ($1,079) as percentage of
                                        family income by FPL
                                Avg. employee contribution for family
                                coverage ($4,036) as a percentage of
                                        family income by FPL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Family size                                             Poverty level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family of 1.................        10.0%          6.6%          5.0%            --            --
Family of 2.................         7.4%          4.9%          3.7%         27.7%         18.5%         13.8%
Family of 3.................         5.9%          3.9%          2.9%           22%         14.7%         11.0%
Family of 4.................         4.9%          3.3%          2.4%         18.3%         12.2%          9.2%
 

       While premium amounts alone exceed the budgets of many 
     Texas families, out-of-pocket expenses (co-pays, co-
     insurance, and deductibles) add to the burden. Using 2007 
     MEPS-IC data for average costs of out-of-pocket expenses for 
     non-elderly enrollees adjusted for private coverage in Texas, 
     Texans pay an average of $631 annually per person in out-of-
     pocket expenses. Table 7 illustrates this with examples.

            TABLE 7: IMPACT OF HEALTH COSTS ON TEXAS FAMILIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example A: Family of four with a household income of
 200% FPL:
    Annual income....................................            $44,100
    Average annual premium...........................            $13,221
    Average annual employer premium contribution.....           ($9,197)
    Average annual employee premium responsibility...             $4,024
    Average annual cost of out-of-pocket expenses....             $2,524
        Average annual cost to family (% of income)..     $6,548 (14.8%)
Example B: Individual with an income of 200% FPL:
    Annual income....................................            $21,660
    Average annual premium...........................             $4,499
    Average annual employer premium contribution.....           ($3,508)
    Average annual employee premium responsibility...               $991
    Average annual cost of out-of-pocket expenses....               $631
        Average annual cost to Individual (% of            $1,622 (7.5%)
         Income).....................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       While the vast majority of Texans with private insurance 
     coverage are enrolled in an employer-sponsored benefit plan, 
     an estimated 1.5 million residents have purchased some type 
     of individual medical insurance. The individual market offers 
     a wide variety of options designed to meet varying healthcare 
     needs. Some policies provide comprehensive coverage similar 
     to benefits included in an employer-sponsored plan while 
     others provide more limited benefits. Other plans provide 
     supplemental coverage to Medicare or only cover certain 
     diseases, such as cancer. People shopping in the individual 
     market have the opportunity to choose the plan that best fits 
     their needs and financial situation, which vary widely among 
     consumers.
       Unlike the group market, it is important to note that 
     individual health insurance is subject to strict medical 
     underwriting requirements that determine whether or not a 
     person is eligible to purchase coverage. People with pre-
     existing health conditions or a past history of health 
     problems are often declined coverage or may receive plans 
     that exclude coverage for certain services related to their 
     pre-existing condition. Premiums are based on the applicant's 
     medical status, age, gender, and area of residency, and are 
     usually significantly higher for older applicants or people 
     with health conditions.
       Although TDI does not collect detailed enrollment or 
     premium cost data on the individual market and is unable to 
     determine the number of enrollees by type of plan, the 
     insurance association America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) 
     conducted a survey in 2009 of insurers participating in the 
     individual health insurance market. Limited data on state-
     specific results show that average annual premiums in Texas 
     for a comprehensive health insurance policy were $3,208 for 
     single coverage (i.e., one person) and $6,459 for family 
     coverage. Single policies had an average annual out-of-pocket 
     maximum limit (the maximum amount a person would pay for 
     eligible healthcare services) of $5,000, while family 
     policies had an annual limit of $10,000.
       Because the individual market allows carriers to medically 
     underwrite applicants and select only those individuals that 
     meet the carrier's specific requirements, some applicants 
     will be unable to purchase individual coverage at any price 
     from any carrier. Though the federal Patient Protection and 
     Affordable Care Act (PPACA) of 2010 prohibits carriers from 
     denying coverage of dependents based on health conditions 
     beginning with new policies issued on or after September 23, 
     2010, this provision does not extend to adults until 2014. 
     Individuals who cannot obtain coverage in the individual 
     market and have no access to group coverage may obtain 
     insurance from the Texas Health Insurance Pool (THIP, 
     formerly Texas Health Insurance Risk Pool) or the newly 
     created federal Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP).
       THIP was created by the Texas Legislature to provide 
     insurance for individuals who are unable to obtain coverage 
     from the commercial market. It also serves as the Texas 
     alternative for individual health insurance coverage under 
     the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability 
     Act of 1996 (HIPAA), guaranteeing insurance to qualified 
     individuals who lose coverage under an employer-based plan. 
     Eligibility and premium rating requirements are established 
     by law.
       The federally operated PCIP was created under the recently 
     enacted federal healthcare reform legislation, PPACA. 
     Beginning in 2014, PPACA requires insurers to accept all 
     applicants regardless of health status. To assist individuals 
     with health conditions who cannot obtain commercial coverage 
     prior to 2014, PPACA includes provisions for federally or 
     state run insurance programs. Texas opted for the federally 
     operated insurance pool, PCIP. The PCIP functions in many 
     ways like the THIP, but there are some critical distinctions 
     which significantly affect cost, eligibility and covered 
     benefits.
       Both THIP and PCIP provide comprehensive health coverage 
     for individuals with previous health conditions. To enroll, 
     individuals must be legal U.S. citizens and a resident of the 
     state, and must provide evidence that they were declined 
     coverage for insurance or have a current or previous medical 
     condition that makes them uninsurable. However, PCIP requires 
     an individual be uninsured for at least six months before 
     they are eligible to enroll. This provision precludes 
     enrollees in the THIP from enrolling in the PCIP.
       Premium rates for coverage in THIP and PCIP vary 
     dramatically. Rates for THIP are set at twice the average 
     rate (200 percent) for standard coverage offered in the 
     commercial market and are adjusted semi-annually to reflect 
     changes in the market rates. Rates also are adjusted based on 
     the age, gender, and geographic location of the enrollee, 
     which reflects variations in local healthcare costs and 
     expected healthcare utilization. Rates are higher for 
     individuals with a history of tobacco use. Enrollees may 
     choose from a range of deductible options and plan cost-
     sharing limits, with annual deductibles from $1,000 up to 
     $7,500. Higher deductibles will lower the premium rate for 
     the enrollee. Due to the variability of rating factors, 
     monthly premium costs vary widely from a low of $160 a month 
     for an individual age 18 or lower with a deductible of $7,500 
     to a high of $2,207 a month for a male age 60-64 with a 
     deductible of $1,000. In 2009, 13 percent of THIP enrollees 
     selected a $1,000 deductible, 38 percent a $2,500 deductible, 
     37 percent a $5,000 deductible and 10 percent a $7,500 
     deductible. The average monthly premium was $620.
       Premium rates for PCIP are set at the average standard rate 
     in the commercial market and vary based on the age of the 
     applicant and the plan they select. Monthly premiums for 
     Texas enrollees beginning January 1, 2011 are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Age  0-   Age     Age     Age     Age
            Plan type               18     19-34   35-44   45-54    55+
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard........................    $174    $261    $313    $400    $567
Extended........................    $234    $351    $422    $539    $749
HSA.............................    $181    $271    $325    $416    $578
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Plan descriptions available at www.pcip.gov/
PC1P_%20pamphlet_benefits_summary.pdf.

       While both programs (PCIP and THIP) provide comprehensive 
     coverage, PCIP has no waiting period for treatment of pre-
     existing conditions, an important benefit for this population 
     since all enrollees have some pre-existing medical condition 
     as a condition of eligibility. By contrast, the THIP includes 
     a 12 month pre-existing condition exclusion waiting period 
     for most new enrollees (with exceptions for enrollees with 
     creditable coverage and some enrollees with continued 
     coverage under a previous employer plan). This means that, 
     while individuals in PCIP are immediately eligible for 
     benefits for their pre-existing condition, enrollees in THIP 
     must wait 12 months before pre-existing conditions are 
     covered.


                    Impact of Federal Health Reform

       The federal health reform Patient Protection and Affordable 
     Care Act includes significant private insurance market 
     provisions

[[Page H282]]

     that will dramatically alter the insurance market in Texas 
     and other states. The law includes a series of reform 
     requirements that begin in 2010, with the most dramatic 
     changes occurring in 2014. With a few exceptions, most of the 
     initial reforms effective in 2010 through 2013 will primarily 
     affect individuals who already have insurance coverage and 
     will have little impact effect on individuals who are 
     uninsured or who are enrolled in public plans. However, 
     beginning in 2014, several federal requirements should 
     significantly assist lower income families and employees 
     obtain affordable health insurance, including the following:
       Advanceable tax credits will be available to families 
     earning up to 400 percent of federal poverty level to 
     purchase affordable health insurance;
       Insurance plans must meet certain benefit requirements and 
     cost-sharing provisions designed to ensure benefit plans 
     provide comprehensive services with limited out-of-pocket 
     costs to enrollees;
       Most large employers will be required to offer health 
     insurance benefits that meet minimum requirements or may face 
     penalty payments;
       Insurance plans are prohibited from denying coverage based 
     on an individual's health status;
       Insurance plans will not be able to increase premiums based 
     on an individual's health status or gender, and premium rates 
     for older individuals are limited; and
       Insurance Exchanges will provide access to health insurance 
     plans that meet standard benefit requirements and provide 
     simplified application and enrollment procedures for 
     individuals, small businesses and Medicaid/CHIP enrollees.
       The provisions listed above will require federal 
     regulations and, in some cases, state legislative and/or 
     regulatory action to fully implement. Until the details of 
     these requirements are finalized, it is impossible to predict 
     the long-term impact on the affordability of insurance 
     coverage. However, the removal of underwriting restrictions; 
     new premium rating reforms, availability of subsidies and 
     limitations on out of pocket expenses for low and middle 
     income families should make it easier for many low-income 
     Texans to obtain private insurance.

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Walden), whose State would be devastated with the Medicare 
Advantage cuts.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, 42.7 percent of Oregon's seniors--that's 
about 200,000 in Oregon, nearly 41,000 in my district--were enrolled, 
at the time this law was established, in Medicare Advantage programs.
  You know, under this bill, under this new law, Medicare gets whacked 
by $500 billion, and the reports indicate one out of two seniors might 
lose their Medicare Advantage across the country.
  Look, I want a patient-centered health care system. It's your life. 
It's your health. You should have the right to choose your doctor and 
your hospital and make those decisions. We will address, with our 
replacement bill, preexisting conditions, making sure kids who are in 
college or up to 26 or whatever the age is decided by the committee are 
going to be able to be covered by your insurance.
  But I'll tell you what. In the law that is on the books today, it 
drives up the cost of health care, it drives up premiums, and it adds 
to the Nation's debt when you look at it in the long term, according to 
CBO.
  The manager at Taurus Freight, a small freight logistics business in 
Bend, Oregon, told me recently, because of the 1099 reporting provision 
in this bill, she's going to quit buying from various businesses, 
consolidate. It's going to cost jobs and put new headaches on small 
businesses.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. UPTON. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. WALDEN. And I think that's one of the big arguments here that I 
get from the people out in my district is: Why did the government take 
over this, put all of these other provisions in, ram a bill through the 
House that creates this new trillion dollar entitlement that costs jobs 
and doesn't drive down the cost of health care?
  We can do better than this, given the chance. And under the 
Republicans, the committees will actually have a chance to work on a 
bill for replacement and everybody can participate from both sides of 
the aisle. And we will get it right and get to a patient-centered 
health care system in America that does reform the current system and 
drives down costs.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I speak to you today on behalf of the 
women of America, the millions of whom I will never meet but are set to 
receive countless protections from the Affordable Care Act by the time 
it is fully implemented in 2014.
  Health care reform is a major victory for women, and any attempt to 
repeal or defund this legislation is simply unfair to us, our 
daughters, our mothers, and our grandmothers. The fact of the matter is 
that the Affordable Care Act ends the widespread discrimination that 
has existed and will come back against women in the health care system.
  It took us decades until we passed this bill to make it illegal, 
finally, for insurance companies to charge women higher premiums and 
stop the egregious practice of charging them 48 percent more and to not 
cover domestic violence victims. Yes, that's right. In eight States and 
the District of Columbia, insurance would not cover victims of domestic 
violence on the grounds, I assume, that it might happen again.
  Equally egregious, women were routinely denied health insurance if 
they had children. In many places pregnancy was considered a 
preexisting condition, as were D&Cs. But both of those reprehensible 
practices are outlawed in the passage of the Affordable Health Care.
  Thanks to the new law, women do not have to worry any more about 
being treated as second-class citizens or being discriminated against 
for being a woman.
  But that's not where the benefits end. When it's fully implemented, 
all maternity services will be included in health insurance plans. They 
will no longer be able to deny coverage or charge higher premiums for 
people who have had C-sections or pregnancy.
  I speak to you today on behalf of the women of America, the millions 
whom I will never meet, but are set to receive countless protections 
from the Affordable Care Act by the time it is fully implemented in 
2014. Health care reform is a major victory for women and any attempt 
to repeal or defund the legislation is simply unfair to us, our 
daughters, our mothers, and our grandmothers.
  The fact of the matter is that the Affordable Care Act ends 
widespread discrimination against women within the healthcare system. 
Now the Republican Majority is proposing to replace this legislation 
with a resolution, another promise to America. What do they promise? 
Quite simply, that they will figure out a new healthcare plan at some 
point in the future, and in the meantime you're on your own.
  It took us decades to finally make it illegal for insurance companies 
to charge women higher premiums, and to stop the egregious practice of 
discrimination against domestic violence victims. It is unfathomable to 
take these protections away in exchange for a vague promise of some 
help down the road.
  Prior to passage of the Affordable Care Act, women faced severe 
discrimination from health insurance companies. Through a practice 
known as ``gender rating,'' women who purchased insurance on the 
individual market faced the prospect of paying 48 percent more in 
premium costs than men.
  Equally egregious, women were routinely denied health insurance 
coverage if they had been victims of domestic violence. Shocking as it 
is, insurance companies often classified domestic violence as a ``pre-
existing condition'' and it was completely legal for insurance 
companies to deny coverage to domestic violence victims in eight states 
and the District of Columbia.
  No more. Both of these morally reprehensible practices are outlawed 
with the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Thanks to the new law, 
women no longer have to worry about being discriminated against for 
being born a woman.
  This is not where benefits for women end. By the time the Affordable 
Care Act is fully implemented in 2014:
  Maternity services will be included in all health insurance plans 
offered as part of the health insurance exchanges.
  Insurance companies will no longer be allowed to deny coverage or 
charge higher premiums for women with ``pre-existing conditions'' like 
C-sections or pregnancy.
  Insurance companies will no longer be allowed to place ``lifetime 
limits'' on health benefits for women, and end care when it is needed 
the most.
  Women who do not have access to insurance through employers will be 
able to obtain insurance through health insurance exchanges. These 
exchanges are being designed as we speak to offer a wide selection of 
health insurance plans at competitive rates.
  Women will receive free preventative health services, from mammograms 
to pap smears.

[[Page H283]]

  The ``donut hole'' in Medicare Part D will be closed through the 
Affordable Care Act, helping women pay for healthcare as they grow 
older.
  All these benefits and protections are provided to women while 
lowering our Nation's deficit--a priority of both parties.
  The choice is clear. For the health and well-being of our Nation's 
women, we must end this ill-advised attempt at repeal, and implement 
the valuable protections of the Affordable Care Act.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, before I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan), I yield 30 seconds to the gentlelady from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, in reference to the comments that were 
just made about women in the health care law, I would just remind the 
body one of our primary concerns with this legislation was the way in 
which women would be adversely impacted when you look at the 
comparative results board and the fact that they were going to change 
the ratings that were coming from the task forces, and it would be more 
difficult for women under the age of 50 and over the age of 75 to get 
mammograms. And I use that as an example.
  We need this bill off the books.
  Mr. UPTON. Again, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Sullivan).
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of legislation to 
repeal ObamaCare. This health care law is bad for patients, bad for 
doctors, bad for small businesses, and terrible for our troubled 
economy.
  I hear from small business owners across the First Congressional 
District every day. Many are being forced to cut back on health 
benefits. They can't afford to hire new employees, and they are scared 
to death that ObamaCare will put them out of business.
  Not only is this unconstitutional to force the American people to 
purchase government-approved health insurance, but this prescription 
for disaster has put our Nation on a path to bankruptcy by adding 
billions of dollars to our already record-setting deficit.
  In addition, ObamaCare actually reverses over 30 years of bipartisan 
efforts to keep tax dollars from funding abortions, which I find 
reprehensible.
  Mr. Speaker, repealing ObamaCare is not the end of the debate over 
reforming our health care system. It's the first step in implementing a 
health care system that works for all Americans without costly, 
unconstitutional government mandates that destroy jobs.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, over and over today I've heard supporters 
of this bill saying it is just the first step, then maybe they'll think 
about fixing the bill. Well, tell that to the millions of Americans who 
are now reaping the benefits of the legislation, who, if this actually 
became law, would lose what they have only just now gained: Citizens 
whose children suffer from diabetes or asthma and have finally been 
able to get coverage; citizens like the small business owners I met 
with last fall in Denver who, because of the health reform law's tax 
credits, are finally able to get health insurance for their employees; 
and citizens like the next generation of our country's leaders, like my 
young neighbor who has type 1 diabetes and is going to college but 
knows he will have insurance and he can stay on his parents' insurance.
  I keep hearing ``repeal and replace,'' but, frankly, Mr. Speaker, 
that's not what we're doing today. We're repealing these benefits that 
help millions of Americans and we are replacing them with nothing.
  If the proponents of this bill really intended to cover these things, 
why didn't they just put the 10 pages that my colleague talked about in 
the bill? The reason is because, if you want to give benefits like this 
to millions of Americans, to young people, to women with gender 
disparity, and to small businesses, you have to have comprehensive 
reform.

                              {time}  1310

  We all know it. And that's why we need to resist this effort. We need 
to resist repealing this legislation. And we need to work together 
across the aisle to implement it in a way that helps every single 
American.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, before I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Terry), I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas, 
Dr. Burgess.
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  You know, the fact is on those tax credits for small business, they 
are so confusing--and I hear this from my small businesses all the time 
back home--no one understands how to actually make those benefits work. 
And they are time limited. They will soon expire.
  But here's the real deal. If you really wanted to help small 
business, let's repeal that 1099 provision. Why was it even in there? 
Well, one reason, so the IRS could enforce the mandate. But the other 
reason was maybe they're going to need a value-added tax in order to 
pay for this monstrosity. Let's repeal it and get it done the right 
way.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I embrace this opportunity to repeal this 
trillion-dollar tragedy. That's the cost of it over 6 years; yet in 
order to make their numbers work so they can come here and argue that 
this is deficit neutral, they only have benefits for 6 years. It's full 
of gimmicks like that. The reality is that it's raising taxes to the 
amount of $569 billion. That is a job killer. And it hurts senior 
health care by taking $523 billion out of Medicare over the next 10 
years and puts bureaucrats in charge of your health care. That's wrong. 
That's a tragedy.
  What we will do right is in the next phase. Starting very soon in our 
committee, we will begin an open process, not the one that was used 
where a bill was written in the Speaker's office and then driven to the 
House floor with no amendments allowed. We will do this right. We will 
have the people involved. This whole body will be involved. Even the 
other side of the party is going to be involved in our committee, which 
we weren't allowed before. So we will do this right and do it right for 
the American citizens.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I have heard talk on the other side of the aisle about 
small business, but I would point out that repeal would eliminate tax 
credits for small businesses. In Mr. Burgess's district, there are up 
to 13,600 small businesses that are eligible for the tax credit, and 
repeal would force these small businesses to drop coverage or bear the 
full costs of coverage themselves.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
misguided and costly legislation. First, I think we should be spending 
our time here on creating jobs instead of rehashing settled law. 
Secondly, I want to speak on behalf of the millions of Americans 
already benefiting from the strong consumer protections in this law. 
Across the country, parents now know that their children can be insured 
after graduation from high school or college.
  Seniors in the dreaded doughnut hole have received help to pay for 
prescription drugs and now can have a free physical each year. And 
women no longer have to worry about paying higher premiums, because 
insurance companies often consider females a preexisting condition. And 
all Americans are now eligible for free preventive screenings. People 
already sick can no longer be dropped from their plans. Lifetime and 
annual coverage limits, that fine print that can thrust a family into 
bankruptcy just because someone gets sick, these are gone. Because the 
law bans insurance companies from excluding folks from preexisting 
conditions, people who need insurance the most can now have access to 
it.
  For some of my colleagues, these important provisions may seem 
abstract; but for my constituent Gwendolyn Strong and her family, this 
law means everything. Before, the Strongs lived in constant fear that 
Gwendolyn, diagnosed with spinal muscular atrophy, would reach her 
policy's lifetime limit and then become uninsurable because she has a 
preexisting condition. But the consumer protections in the Affordable 
Care Act mean that Gwendolyn will receive the care that she needs, and 
her family is protected from bankruptcies.

[[Page H284]]

  A vote for this misguided bill will put the future of the Strong 
family and millions of other families at risk again. The impact is 
real. In my district, Medicare benefits will be taken from 100,000 
seniors. It will raise taxes on over 16,000 small businesses. And none 
of us can afford the $230 billion that repeal will add to our deficit. 
That's why I am urging my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, for 
the sake of the Strong family, for the sake of all families, vote 
``no'' on H.R. 2.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, Dr. Murphy.
  Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, Republicans agree, and we 
want families to keep their kids on their plans if they wish. And last 
Congress that's why we offered proposals that would have allowed 
dependent children to stay on their parents' plans. But once again, the 
other side is trying to hide 3,000 pages of a law by discussing only 10 
pages. We all want to work on this, and we will achieve this in the 
replacement bill.
  But the other side also fails to mention the other part of this 2,900 
pages that will ignore what's going to cause health insurance premiums 
to go up 17 percent because of this care plan. What good is coverage on 
a policy if a family can't afford it?
  On another issue, chronic illness consumes 70 percent of health care 
costs and 90 percent of Medicare. The health care bill, however, cuts 
$500 billion from Medicare, and much of that by eliminating chronic 
care management that otherwise could save lives and money. So for 7.4 
million seniors on Medicare Advantage, if you like your plan, you can't 
keep it.
  So what does chronic disease management do? UPMC in Pittsburgh 
reduced hospitalization rates for diabetics by 75 percent. Washington 
Hospital in Pennsylvania cut readmission rates 50 percent for heart 
disease. And Gateway Health Plan reduced asthma readmissions by 28 
percent. It's better care at lower cost; but the health care bill says 
if you're sick, you're on your own.
  Tragically, it pays to amputate the feet of a diabetic, but won't pay 
a nurse $5 to make sure you are following up on prescriptions, 
therapies, diets, and treatments. The new law does have a pilot and 
grant program to be sure, but you will find no reimbursement code for 
disease management. That's why we must repeal and replace this bill for 
the sake of our seniors and for the sake of our children.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2, the Patients' 
Rights Repeal Act.
  Day after day, new studies are showing just what's at stake in this 
debate over health care reform. The Department of Health and Human 
Services released a staggering report stating that up to 129 million 
Americans with preexisting medical conditions could lose their newly 
enacted protection from insurance company discrimination. The CBO has 
reported that this Republican repeal bill would add $230 billion to the 
Federal debt. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid found that 
repealing health care reform would reduce the solvency of the Medicare 
program by 12 years.
  Repeal of last year's health care reforms would raise insurance costs 
for people in my home district of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and across 
the country, whether they are small business owners, retirees, working 
Americans, or recent college graduates. Health care reform took power 
away from the insurance companies and gave it back to the American 
consumers. Repeal of this reform would allow private health insurance 
companies to go back to the practice of cherry-picking low-risk 
customers and sticking it to the rest of us. What's more, it would 
increase prescription drug costs for seniors who fall into the doughnut 
hole, raising the average cost of prescription drugs for these seniors 
by over $500 this year and by over $3,000 in 2020.
  In a nutshell, the Republican repeal means this: children with 
preexisting conditions denied coverage; young people up to age 26 can't 
stay on their parents' plans; pregnant women and breast and prostate 
cancer patients could be thrown off their insurance policies; seniors 
will pay more for their drugs; the deficit will increase by $230 
billion; small businesses pay higher taxes.
  That doesn't sound very good to me. Repeal helps no one, no one but 
the insurance industry. I adamantly oppose this effort to repeal this 
health care reform bill.

                              {time}  1320

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, before I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas, Dr. Burgess, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, with my slow drawl, I don't 
think in 30 seconds I can refute everything the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania had to say--but 120 million people with preexisting 
conditions, they would all have to have hang nails and fever blisters 
to have preexisting conditions. And if you believe those statistics, 
I've got a beach I can sell you in Pennsylvania.
  This business about $230 billion savings, we've already discussed 
that. They use 10 years of revenue and 6 years of charges. It's smoke 
and mirrors.
  And, finally, on the issue of the doughnut hole, the drug companies 
have already solved that problem.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas, Dr. Burgess, the vice chair of the Health Subcommittee.
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important that we have this vote today, and it is 
important that we vote to repeal this legislation. Let me be clear: I 
was for and supportive of reforming the health care system, but the law 
that was passed does not do what was necessary to be done.
  We heard from our constituents over and over again in the summer of 
2009: don't mess up what we all have and please do something to help us 
with costs. We ignored them on both counts.
  I am troubled because of the drafting errors in this law. I am 
troubled because we have had not a single oversight hearing in the 10 
months since this law was passed. And I am troubled because from the 
start the government takeover of health care has provided numerous red 
flags to which Congress has not responded.
  Secret deals: what about the five groups of health care providers, 
doctors, insurance companies, medical device manufacturers, drug 
companies, who were all invited down to the White House, along with a 
labor union, to kind of come up with some ideas for health care reform. 
They came out to the Rose Garden and said, We saved $2 trillion. I 
simply asked for that information in a committee hearing and was 
denied. $2 trillion in savings, and I am asked to believe that no one 
wrote anything down?
  This was not transparency; this was a photo op. How could we ever be 
expected to be legislators if we are not even knowing that the ending 
was written before the bill was even on the floor?
  The President promised the American people that there would be open 
hearings and meetings that would be televised on C-SPAN, but that 
didn't happen.
  Amendment after amendment was offered in committee. Some were, in 
fact, accepted by Chairman Waxman and the Democrats, but then the bill 
went to the Speaker's office. The Speaker, along with the White House, 
rewrote the bill. It doubled in size, it came to the floor, and it was 
pushed through.
  Why even have the committee hearings if Speaker Pelosi and the White 
House are going to rewrite the bill to suit their needs?
  Inattentive construction was all over the place in this legislation. 
The President kept saying, if you like what you have, you can keep it. 
But apparently that's only true for some people.
  Now, many people felt that Members of Congress actually ought to take 
what they were forcing the American people to take.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. UPTON. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. BURGESS. But, in fact, that was not true. Members of Congress are 
required now to be covered under the exchange. Their staffs are 
required to be covered under the exchange.
  But are there exemptions? Yes, committee staff and senior leadership 
staff

[[Page H285]]

are not required to be covered under the exchanges; neither are the 
White House occupants. It ought to be the same for everyone. These 
loopholes need to be closed.
  The difficulties in this bill are just too legion to mention. If it 
could have fixed the problem, I would have been for it; but it is a 
destructive and pernicious blight, and the expansion of the Federal 
debt truly does threaten the very fabric of our Republic.
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to mention the gentleman from Texas was 
decrying the HHS study about preexisting conditions. These are very 
serious preexisting conditions: heart disease, cancer, asthma, 
arthritis, high blood pressure. They are people that have had their 
policies canceled or they couldn't get insurance because of these 
preexisting conditions. I don't think they should be belittled.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, today's health care repeal debate reminds me 
of tennis great John McEnroe's famous rant, ``You can't be serious.''
  Everyone knows this vote is symbolic, putting off for another day the 
hard work of revising portions of this historic law that need 
attention, or adding provisions that would greatly improve the law.
  There is no disagreement about the need to repeal the 1099 
requirement for small business, but we should also add provisions to 
allow the government to bargain for lower drug prices and create more 
competition among health care plans. To me, that's what the public 
option was for.
  Health care changes already in effect are helping people in my 
district. Five thousand seniors received $250 last year to help cover 
the doughnut hole portion of their Medicare prescription drug costs, 
and they will get 50 percent drug discounts this year; 49,000 people 
under age 26 are now covered by their parents' insurance plans; 1,100 
local families who went bankrupt due to health care expenses before the 
law was enacted no longer fear lifetime limits on insurance coverage; 
people like Elleni M., who suffers from Graves' disease and has gone 
without health insurance since 2000, can no longer be denied coverage.
  There are similar statistics and stories in every congressional 
district.
  But let me highlight one more issue brought into stark relief by the 
recent rampage in Tucson. Our colleague, Gabby Giffords, and other 
shooting victims received top-notch, timely care at the University of 
Arizona Medical Center's level 1 trauma facility. Such facilities give 
victims of severe injuries a 25 percent greater chance of survival. The 
law the House is poised to repeal expands level 1 trauma care through 
Medicaid and discretionary grants.
  My home is home to the Harbor-UCLA Medical Center level 1 trauma 
center, and that's where victims of a natural disaster, a terrorist 
attack, or another Tucson-like massacre will be brought. We can't be 
serious if we cut aid to level 1 trauma centers.
  Mr. Speaker, bipartisanship is hard, and it sadly won't start with 
this vote.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the repeal of this 
measure. The health care law this body passed last year means well, but 
we all know that it will never deliver on the promises that my 
colleagues have made.
  Let me tell you why this is not a rant and why we are serious. 
Earlier, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe) spoke to the body on 
this. ObamaCare makes the same fundamental mistakes that TennCare in 
Tennessee made. Do we not learn from our mistakes?
  ObamaCare and TennCare bet that the near-term cost incurred by 
Washington's health care mandates will be made up by long-term savings. 
That's 10 years of revenue for 6 years of expenses. Tennessee lost that 
bet, and it nearly bankrupted the State. Unless we repeal ObamaCare, 
America will go down the same road.
  We know hundreds of mandates, thousands of mandates, and hundreds of 
bureaucracies don't add up to a savings. By repealing and replacing, we 
can keep the promises we made last year, better care at lower cost; but 
we can do it in a way that will deliver through competition, not 
mandates.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I met with everyday Americans 
in Chicago who shared with me their personal stories, tragic stories 
but common stories, about how our flawed health care system has 
devastated their lives. At its core, access to health care is a moral 
issue.
  Midge Hough told me how her 24-year-old daughter-in-law, Jennifer, 
and her unborn child both died because Jennifer could not find health 
insurance because of a preexisting condition. Her preexisting 
condition? A prior pregnancy.
  By the time emergency health care was mobilized, it was too late for 
Jennifer and her baby. She left behind her husband and a 2-year-old.
  Today, the Affordable Care Act mandates that pregnancy is no longer 
considered a preexisting condition.
  David Zoltan has diabetes, and because of his preexisting condition 
he couldn't get insurance after losing his job 2 years ago. He is 
holding the insulin that he needs to live; but thanks to the Affordable 
Care Act, David has coverage under Illinois' preexisting-condition plan 
and no longer ends up in the emergency room to get his lifesaving 
insulin.
  The Republican plan puts the insurance companies right back in the 
driver's seat to decide who they will and won't insure based on 
profitability, how much they will charge, what benefits they will 
cover.
  The Affordable Care Act ends insurance company abuses, creates rules 
of the road, and puts Americans in charge.

                              {time}  1330

  The Republican plan is not health care. For millions of Americans, it 
means no care.
  Mr. UPTON. I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, prevention of discrimination against people 
with preexisting conditions was something we presented last year. It is 
something that's going to be one of the hallmarks of our replace bill. 
I hope the gentlelady supports us in preventing discrimination against 
preexisting conditions. That's part of the actual replacement that we 
are going to put forward that is real reform.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the Member from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
  Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee. Mr. Speaker, this health care reform 
bill was a bad bill passed at the wrong moment. It is, in my opinion, 
one of the major reasons why we face such economic uncertainty in this 
country. Businesses don't know what it will cost to hire somebody. 
Businesses don't know what's coming down. Employers don't know what the 
world is going to be like. And consumers feel the same way.
  Now, in the course of this debate, we've talked about the issue of 
preexisting conditions and how the Republicans are not going to allow 
for preexisting conditions to be included in their alternative. Nothing 
could be farther from the truth. Republicans have consistently offered 
proposals to give individuals with preexisting conditions medical 
access to affordable health care coverage; but we will do it in a way 
that will be predictable, it will be fair, it will be competitive, it 
will save costs, it will make health care transparent, and it will keep 
premiums down. We have an opportunity now to make changes that should 
have been made from the very beginning.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, could I ask again about the time remaining 
on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 18\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan has 23\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PALLONE. At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. My 
first observation is, after hearing my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle this morning, it reminds me of the movie ``Groundhog Day,'' 
the same

[[Page H286]]

thing over and over again, same old same old.
  My advice would be that taking your notes from 2009 and 2010 are 
stale and irrelevant today. Now some, I guess the cynics out there, are 
wondering why you would proceed with this measure as soon as you took 
over the majority. Some would say that it is just political theater, 
but I venture to guess that there's another reason: time is not on your 
side. The more time you allow for this bill and its full 
implementation, you lose your argument because you're wrong.
  You said it was a government takeover of health care. Wrong. Time has 
proven you wrong. You said it would be costing thousands and thousands 
of jobs by now. You were wrong. And with the passage of more time, that 
only will be solidified that you misread it.
  I'm not questioning your intent or sincerity, but you just were 
simply wrong. Because what happened in the interim? People found out 
that they were able to get insurance for their children despite 
preexisting conditions. They could keep their children up to age 26 
years on their policies. Seniors were helped with the problems they 
faced with the doughnut hole. That's what's happened. So I understand.
  You were in charge for 12 years and did nothing. We moved forward 
with something meaningful, and all you can think of is to go back to 
the inaction.
  And you say ``replace.'' Then why do you force repeal without a 
discussion to the American people of what you want to replace it with? 
Isn't that a fair assumption? You were wrong in 2009. You were wrong in 
2010. And you are wrong today.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members to 
address their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, before I yield 1 minute to Dr. Gingrey of 
Georgia, I would like to yield 15 seconds to Dr. Burgess of Texas.
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the chairman. And I would address to the 
chairman: the gentleman who previously spoke must understand that this 
legislation was litigated in front of the American people for the last 
2 years. They rendered their verdict, and the jury verdict in November 
was, ``We reject what you have done. We want something better.'' That's 
what this process is about today.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I would yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas who 
just spoke was right about not causing thousands of job losses. It cost 
4 million lost jobs since the Democrats took over in 2007.
  Mr. Speaker, I have seen a number of posters here this morning 
showing really fairly well-to-do people struggling with health care 
issues. I don't have a poster; but if I had one, it would show men and 
women all over this country in cities holding soup cans in line 
waiting, hoping desperately to get a job. And I will guarantee you, 
every one of them would take those jobs even if they didn't have health 
insurance.
  The point here, Mr. Speaker, is the Democratic priority was entirely 
wrong. Yes, it's something they've been wanting to do since the 1930s; 
and, yes, it's something the American people didn't want since the 
1930s. Every time it's come up, the American people don't want the 
government to take over health care. They have rejected it time and 
time again.
  We will vote for H.R. 2 and pass it. And if the Senate and the 
President want to ignore the will of the American people, they do it at 
their own peril.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I hear talk on the other side of the aisle about jobs, but I would 
point out that under Democratic policies, including health reform, 
there's been a strong private sector job growth this past year. In 
2010, there have been 12 straight months of private sector job growth. 
And under the Obama administration overall this past year, we have 
created a total of 1.3 million new private sector jobs.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, with the exception of a liberal in 
Congress, the only person that would suggest that this ObamaCare law 
would actually reduce the deficit has got to be an Enron accountant.
  If you look at this bill, it rations care, it raises health care 
costs for families--yes, that was scored to raise the cost of health 
care. It's actually pushing thousands of doctors out of the practice of 
medicine.
  This job-killing bill is not reform. What we need to do is go back to 
the table and actually repeal this and replace it with real reform. But 
if all of my colleagues on the other side are correct in what they're 
saying about what's good about this, then why is it that when this bill 
was in committee, we actually brought up an amendment that said, if 
this is so good, all the Members of Congress have to join the 
government option. Guess what happened, Mr. Speaker? Every single 
member of the committee who voted for this bill voted to exempt 
themselves from it. So clearly that tells you, if you're not willing to 
put your money where your mouth is, it's not good law.
  Let's repeal this and start over with real reforms that actually 
lower the cost of health care, that address real problems like making 
sure people with a preexisting condition can't be discriminated 
against. Let's restore the doctor-patient relationship. That starts 
with repeal.
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Inslee).
  (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I'm opposed to this effort to repeal a bill, 
a reform bill without anything to replace it at hand. It's asking 
Americans to jump without a parachute and without a net. And it's the 
wrong thing to do because we are a country that has always moved 
forward.
  I want to mention two ways this bill moves forward which we should 
not repeal. One is that we have finally addressed this horrific 
geographic disparity where physicians and hospitals get treated 
differently, unfairly around the country. We finally are fixing that, 
long, long overdue.
  And, second, this bill really helps us move forward to reduce waste 
in our medical industry. A Dartmouth study suggested as much as 30 
percent of all the things we do have been wasted in health care because 
we haven't had the right incentives.
  Where I come from in Washington State, we're doing things that we 
need to export around the country to stop waste in medicine. At 
Virginia Mason they just won the national Leapfrog to the Top Award, 
where they've saved over $1 million a year just by bringing 
efficiencies in how you provide supplies. At GroupHealth, they've 
reduced the readmission rate by about one-third by bringing 
efficiencies to the system.
  At the Providence-Everett Hospital, I was so impressed when I met a 
Dr. Brevig, a cardiac physician, who brought some efficiencies in how 
they handle cardiac patients. So instead of moving the patient all 
around, they bring the physicians to the patient. Do you know what? 
They've knocked almost a full day off the time you have to be in a 
hospital, and they've reduced the infection rate by almost one-half, 
improving quality.

                              {time}  1340

  At Children's Hospital, they are building a hospital which uses 30 
percent less square footage than the average hospital.
  These are the types of efficiencies that we need to reduce the rate 
of medical inflation. This is one of the reasons that the Congressional 
Budget Office found that this bill will actually reduce the deficit by 
$230 billion. Let's keep moving forward and not go backwards. Defeat 
this bill.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Latta).
  Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong opposition to 
ObamaCare. ObamaCare will single-handedly have more negative 
ramifications on the American economy than any bill passed in our 
Nation's history. If not repealed, the $1.2 trillion government 
takeover of health care will increase the cost of care, eliminate jobs, 
and cause budget deficits and the national debt to explode.
  The Democrats' health care takeover contains $569 billion in taxes, 
increased government spending, a half-trillion-

[[Page H287]]

dollar cut in Medicare, increased costs to the States, and mandates on 
businesses. All of these are hurting the economy and making it harder 
for small businesses to create jobs and get people back to work. We 
need greater competition and more choices for consumers.
  Since this bill became law last spring, I have heard the same message 
across the Fifth Congressional District: Businesses aren't hiring new 
employees, buying new machinery, or expanding their businesses because 
of increases in costs under the legislation. Imposing these higher 
costs on businesses will lead to lower wages and fewer workers.
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I heard the gentleman from Louisiana say that Members of 
Congress were not in the exchange, and that is simply not the case. And 
I don't want to hear it repeated from the other side of the aisle. This 
current bill that we passed says that Members of Congress have to go 
into the exchange and have the same health care benefits through the 
exchange as any other American. So don't keep repeating that because it 
is simply not true.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Burgess) to respond to that.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, it is important that Members of Congress 
understand the parameters here. Indeed, we are required to buy our 
health insurance in the insurance exchanges as provided under the 
health care law. There are no insurance exchanges as they exist right 
now, so it is anybody's guess. We are probably still under the Federal 
Employees Health Benefits Plan, but nobody is actually certain about 
that. What is certain is that there were exemptions. There were 
exemptions for senior staff, senior leadership staff, committee staff, 
the White House, and political appointees in the Federal agencies. 
Everyone should be treated equally. Some are not more equal than 
others.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Latham).
  Mr. LATHAM. I thank the chairman of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to understand and remember how 
we got here. When the Senate passed their bill on Christmas Eve of 
2009, there was not a soul on either side of the aisle in the House of 
Representatives who thought that that turkey would work. The bill that 
they passed, everybody knew it was bad. So when it became procedurally 
impossible to change it, the Democrats decided to push for this bill 
that everyone understood would not work, and that is what we are 
dealing with today.
  I think it is very promising that now--Iowa just yesterday joined a 
lawsuit so there is a majority of the States in this country that now 
say let's repeal this, that the individual mandate is unconstitutional.
  So not only are we stuck with a horrible bill, an unconstitutional 
bill that everyone knows and understood back then would never work, now 
they want to preserve this. We have got to repeal this and replace it 
with commonsense reforms that will actually work for the American 
people.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 14\1/2\ 
minutes and the gentleman from Michigan has 18\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, we can do better. There are many 
reasons to start over on health care reform. Do it right, and listen to 
the American people.
  Number one, the current bill further destroys jobs at a time when we 
need jobs.
  Number two, it actually increases our health care costs.
  Three, it increases government spending.
  Four, it raises taxes on hardworking families and small businesses.
  Five, it takes away our choice of physicians.
  Six, it cuts Medicare for seniors. Good-bye Medicare Advantage.
  Seven, it threatens our world-class quality health care system.
  Eight, it will add to our already growing budget deficit.
  Nine, it includes taxpayer funding for abortions.
  Ten, it is unconstitutional. And there are many, many more.
  I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2, and let's 
start the process of repealing this bill, the current health care 
reform bill, and replacing it with a bill that America deserves and 
America wants.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of hundreds of 
thousands of Wisconsin families who have already begun to benefit from 
health care reform. I am mindful of the children, young adults, and 
seniors who would lose access to affordable health care coverage should 
the measure Republicans are pushing today to repeal our recently passed 
health care law come to pass.
  Over the years, I have heard thousands of stories from constituents 
about their struggles to find access to affordable health coverage. 
This year, my constituents' calls and letters have changed. They have 
transformed into stories of thanks and gratitude.
  I think of Kate of Fitchburg, Wisconsin, whose family has already 
seen the benefits of this law in the short time its provisions have 
been in effect. Kate recently shared with me how her 16-year-old 
daughter, Maggie, had been unable to receive affordable health care 
coverage because she was born prematurely with a genetic anomaly that 
requires frequent doctors' visits. However, as a result of health care 
reform, Maggie is no longer denied health coverage because of her 
preexisting condition. Kate also has the peace of mind knowing that 
once her daughter becomes an adult, she can remain on Kate's health 
insurance until she turns 26.
  Additionally, Kate's parents are both on Medicare and have fallen 
into the prescription drug doughnut hole. As a result of our recently 
passed health care law, they have already received additional help to 
pay for their medications.
  Unfortunately, Kate's family would no longer enjoy these benefits 
should this measure we are considering today to repeal the health care 
reform law succeed. And Kate's family isn't alone. Under repeal, 
147,000 young adults in Wisconsin would stand to lose their insurance 
coverage through their parents' health care plans. And once again, 
people would be discriminated against because of preexisting 
conditions. And 46,000 Wisconsin seniors would face higher prescription 
drug costs. I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Harper).
  Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, the so-called Affordable Care Act is nothing 
short of politics above economics. This penalizing law is loaded with 
excessive constraints and oppressive Federal mandates on States. As 
Medicaid rolls rise, State revenues continue to fall, and this law only 
increases the challenges governors face in their attempts to balance 
their budgets.
  Instead of granting State executives the authority to tailor their 
Medicaid programs to their State's diverse populations, the Affordable 
Care Act implements a one-size-fits-all maintenance of effort provision 
which restricts States from changing their Medicaid programs.
  Republicans want to provide States with the flexibility they need to 
manage their health programs. This is simply one reason why I am 
committed to repealing this carelessly crafted health care law and 
replacing it with reforms centered on decreasing costs and protecting 
our middle class jobs.
  Mr. PALLONE. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Lance).

                              {time}  1350

  Mr. LANCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2, an 
important first step toward implementing sustainable health care reform 
that our Nation can afford.

[[Page H288]]

  The health care law passed last year includes sleights of hand to 
mask the true cost of the measure. For example, 6 years of entitlements 
and subsidies are paid by 10 years of taxes, and premiums are collected 
for the first 10 years for a long-term care program with no benefits 
during that period.
  Douglas Holtz-Eakin said it best when he wrote in today's Wall Street 
Journal that the health care law is ``all about budget gimmicks, 
deceptive accounting, and implausible assumptions used to create the 
false impression of fiscal discipline.''
  Failure to repeal the health care law will add an additional $700 
billion to our national deficit in the next 10 years. However, we can 
work together in a bipartisan capacity to enact commonsense health care 
solutions that lower health care costs without raising taxes or adding 
to our national debt.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana, Dr. Cassidy.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, I discuss this bill as a doctor who has 
been treating the uninsured for 20 years.
  Now, opponents of repeal argue that this gives Americans insurance, 
but what in truth it often gives is Medicaid. Now, Medicaid is a 
Federal-State program, which is often called ``welfare medicine,'' and 
it is a program which is destroying State budgets.
  Last spring, the New York Times spoke about how this has implications 
for patient care. They spoke of a woman on Michigan Medicaid with 
metastatic cancer who could not find an oncologist because Michigan 
Medicaid had been cut so much because of Michigan's budget problems.
  Carol died a week after the article. That's Medicaid.
  Now, the supporters of the ObamaCare bill believe that more people on 
Medicaid is good. Republicans disagree because what happened in 
Michigan is happening across the Nation.
  Last year, before this bill was passed, 20 States cut Medicaid 
payments, and 39 cut provider payments. This is threatening to bankrupt 
them. Now imagine what happens when their rolls double. Mandating that 
16 million more Americans get put on Medicaid is not health care; it is 
a way around State budgets. It is the illusion of coverage for 
patients.
  Let's repeal this law and pass real reform.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie).
  Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I believe the health care bill passed last 
year will not only burden American families but will also bankrupt 
already struggling State governments.
  It has been estimated that the health care bill will saddle Kentucky 
with a $303 million unfunded mandate. This burden will leave fewer 
resources available for public education, infrastructure projects, and 
other worthwhile State efforts.
  It is not just Kentucky. States all across the Nation face the same 
dilemma. They are facing already difficult budget situations, and will 
soon be strapped with higher Medicaid costs as a result of the health 
care law. Further, the law prohibits States from altering their 
Medicaid offerings, essentially removing their ability to contain the 
rising costs.
  We must stop this law from going into effect and from further 
burdening our State governments and American families. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Let me thank the ranking member for the time and 
certainly thank him for his leadership on our committee.
  Mr. Speaker, as we debate the Republican proposal to repeal health 
care reform, I hope--I truly hope--that the American people will open 
their eyes and realize that this legislation will put insurance 
companies back in charge of their health care.
  I don't know about my friends on the other side. I don't know what 
kind of districts you represent, but I represent a low-wealth rural 
district in eastern North Carolina. My constituents need affordable 
health insurance. They need access to health care now.
  In my district, this repeal would allow insurance companies to deny 
coverage to 261,000 individuals with preexisting conditions. It would 
eliminate health care tax credits for up to 11,600 small businesses and 
193,000 families. The number of people without health insurance in my 
district would grow by 56,000 people. It would increase the costs to 
hospitals for uncompensated care by more than $65 million, and it would 
increase prescription drug costs for 7,300 seniors who hit the Medicare 
drug doughnut hole.
  So I take great offense to any effort to repeal health care reform. 
This repeal would only lead to bigger Federal deficits and higher taxes 
for small businesses. Children, students, seniors, and small businesses 
owners would be devastated by losing these protections.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my Republican colleagues to stop playing politics 
with health care.
  Open your eyes, and see the pain of America's working families. 
Listen to the silent majority in your districts, not the loudest people 
in your districts. Reject this repeal effort, and let's debate ways and 
means of creating jobs in America.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Olson).
  Mr. OLSON. I thank my colleague from Michigan.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 2.
  Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues have come to this floor tonight to 
highlight the numerous job-destroying provisions in this new health 
care law. They have outlined serious threats to our health care system 
and our economy.
  Now I would like to highlight something that was not included in the 
law--medical liability reform.
  My home State of Texas has implemented liability reform with positive 
results. It is a model for America to follow. Before reform in Texas, 
doctors could not afford to stay in practice. Frivolous lawsuits were 
forcing them to close their doors. Now, with reform, they are 
flocking--flocking--to Texas.
  Here is the proof:
  Since implementation in 2003, we have seen a 60 percent increase in 
the number of doctors practicing in our State--60 percent--and a 27 
percent drop in the cost of medical liability insurance premiums.
  We must repeal and replace this economy-busting health care bill by 
enacting meaningful health care reform. On November 2, we made a 
promise to the American people. Today, it is a promise kept.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. McKinley).
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, this law needs to be repealed for a host 
of reasons, especially because of its impact on small businesses and 
seniors.
  Recently, I spoke to an owner of a coal mine in West Virginia which 
has 24 employees. She told me the act has caused her annual premiums to 
increase by $84,000.
  It was the wrong approach, and it will cost jobs.
  Let's not lose sight, though, of our most vulnerable citizens in our 
society--senior citizens. The law's $500 billion in cuts to Medicare is 
unconscionable. Reducing benefits for some senior citizens and 
jeopardizing access to other care is unacceptable to those of our 
Greatest Generation.
  Congress should never have broken its promise that it made decades 
ago by cutting the health care senior citizens deserve. Let's repeal it 
and replace it with something that is bipartisan, that lowers costs, 
that saves jobs, and that protects our senior citizens.
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield myself 15 seconds, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. McKinley mentioned seniors.
  I would point out that, beginning in 2011, the health care reform 
provides a 50 percent discount for prescription drugs for Medicare 
beneficiaries. There are 12,100 Medicare beneficiaries in 
Representative McKinley's district who benefit from these provisions. 
Seniors benefit from this bill, and if you repeal the bill, those 
seniors are going to have a loss.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H289]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would like to note, at the present 
time, the gentleman from Michigan has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining; the 
gentleman from New Jersey has 10\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. UPTON. I would just say I was hoping I was going to get a few 
extra seconds from people yielding back their time, but that apparently 
is not the case.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, the 
gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Cory Gardner.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. Speaker, I am here to talk about jobs. I want to highlight a 
story about what is happening to one company in my district when it 
comes to this health care bill, one company in my district that employs 
130 people, a manufacturing a company, one of the few left in the 
country. Even during the worst of the recession, this company kept 
every single employee employed by having them paint houses and rake 
leaves instead of firing them, because they felt obligated to their 
employees.
  Without this health care bill, they predicted that their health care 
costs would increase by about 5 percent. With this health care bill, 
their cost will increase by 20 percent--an additional $200,000 a year--
to afford the cost of the health care bill. That's six people that they 
could have employed and hired and put to work, providing them with 
benefits, but instead we passed a job-destroying health care bill.
  It is time for this Congress to act to fulfill the promise it made to 
America, the promise to repeal this bill and to put in its place 
solutions that will actually increase the quality of care and decrease 
the cost of care. The time is now. Let's act before we lose one more 
job.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui).
  Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the bill before us. 
This bill would cost the American small business owner dearly.
  In Sacramento, over 88,000 small businesses are eligible to take 
advantage of the tax credits provided under the current law to help 
offer and afford meaningful health insurance coverage.
  Gordon, the owner of a communications firm in midtown Sacramento, 
covers 100 percent of his 13 employees' health insurance premiums. This 
is the firm's second highest expense next to payroll. As a result of 
the tax credits in the Affordable Care Act, Gordon's company is 
expecting to save roughly 25 percent in employee premiums. This frees 
up much-needed capital so Gordon's business can prosper and expand.
  Another small business that will grow as a result of the tax credits 
is a small cafe owned by Pat and Kim in downtown Sacramento. They 
currently employ four full-time employees who receive full benefits and 
25 part-time employees. With the savings they are planning to see from 
the tax credits, Pat and Kim will be able to hire another full-time 
employee.
  This is the type of job creation that we need to help repair our 
economy and see small businesses thrive again. That is why repeal is so 
dangerous and why the Affordable Care Act is so critical to small 
businesses in Sacramento and throughout our country.
  For these small businesses, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
this bill.
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Pompeo).
  Mr. POMPEO. Madam Speaker, last week, Kansas Attorney General Derek 
Schmidt filed to join a Federal lawsuit challenging the 
constitutionality of ObamaCare, and I want to applaud Attorney General 
Schmidt, Governor Sam Brownback, and the 25 other States that have 
taken on the duty of correcting what this Congress did 
unconstitutionally last cycle.
  Our Nation was founded on liberty, and that liberty was enshrined in 
our Constitution. They gave to us, as Members of Congress, certain 
powers, enumerated and very limited. The ObamaCare law strikes at the 
heart of that constitutional principle and for the first time requires 
every citizen of America and Kansas to buy a health care product or 
face a stiff penalty. Never before has Congress required anyone to buy 
a private product in this way. It can't be right. If that power were to 
exist in Congress, our power would be unlimited, and that's not how our 
Founders intended it.
  I urge every one of my fellow colleagues to take aim at this law 
which threatens our liberty, our health care system, and jobs in 
America and Kansas.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, about a year ago, I got a call from Donna, a mother 
who lives in Plainfield, Vermont, and this was her story:
  She has a son who had his first job. It paid like 9 bucks an hour and 
it came with no health care, but they were excited that her son was 
getting out in the workforce, learning discipline, learning self-
responsibility. But he lost the health care because he was no longer on 
her policy. He got into an accident. He's fine, but he has $20,000 in 
medical bills that were uncovered. That is a burden on him and it's a 
burden on the family. When she learned that we passed health care that 
included coverage for her 21-year-old son, she was ecstatic. It 
relieved an enormous burden on this family because they knew that their 
son would have coverage.
  This repeal bill is taking away that coverage for Donna's son. Why?
  The question that we have is different from the campaign where we 
made our arguments. We now are in Congress and we have a mutual 
responsibility to decide whether we are going to spend our time here 
continuing to make partisan political points or making practical 
progress for the American people.
  You have some good arguments about the health care bill and about 
what reforms we need, and we've got to wrestle with the cost of health 
care. No matter how we pay for it, the cost can't go up higher than 
wages and salaries. But what we should do is improve what we have, 
correct what must be corrected, and get rid of what doesn't work. But 
to throw it all out, all these insurance reforms--health care for 
Donna's son, preexisting conditions, preventive care for seniors where 
by getting care in time it's going to save us money--that's the wrong 
thing to do.
  When does it make sense to toss out the good rather than correct the 
bad?
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I appreciate what the gentleman from Vermont just said. I want to 
assure him that as we look at the replace piece of this, that element--
to make sure children under the age of 26--will, in fact, be covered. I 
made that point in the Rules Committee 2 weeks ago, and we will be 
doing that again in the days to come.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Kinzinger).
  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, for the last 10 months, I 
have traveled around my district and I've heard from people through the 
campaign and then now as a Member. I heard from people that we need to 
repeal this health care bill. The folks back home get it. They 
understand that this is a budget-busting bill that is going to add 
mountains of debt on our children, and it's job killing to the tune of 
hundreds of thousands of jobs a year.
  Recently, 200 economists came out and recognized that this is a 
``major barrier to job growth'' and ``creates massive spending 
increases and a crushing debt burden.'' The path to affordable health 
care starts with being able to buy insurance across State lines, 
providing reduced premiums, and also we have to have lawsuit abuse 
reform. That is a key element to getting health care costs down. 
Ultimately, we have to have reforms, though, that will protect the 
doctor-patient relationship that is so sacred in America and in 
medicine.
  So today we begin working to carry out the voice of the people by 
implementing health care solutions that will reduce costs, increase 
accessibility, and protect American jobs. Today we begin advocating for 
the next generations of Americans, not advocating for the next election 
in America.

[[Page H290]]

  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Madam Speaker, I would just like to point out again--we've said it 
over and over again--that the CBO, which gives the official estimate, 
says that over the next 10 years the health care reform saves $230 
billion, and after that, for 10 years, over $1 trillion.
  The Republicans can't get away from the fact that if they repeal this 
bill, all that is going to do is increase the deficit significantly, 
because our bill, the current law, actually reduces the deficit.
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia, Morgan Griffith.
  Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I believe the minimum 
essential coverage provision penalty is unconstitutional.
  I took an oath to uphold the Constitution. This time last year, as a 
member of the Virginia House of Delegates defending that Constitution, 
I was proud to cast my vote for House Bill 10, which mandated no 
Virginian shall be required to buy health insurance.

                              {time}  1410

  Our attorney general has joined the fray and filed suit in court and 
is winning. As Virginians, we did not accept the change of George III, 
nor will we accept the change of ObamaCare.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time at this 
point.
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the 
great State of Michigan, Dr. Benishek.
  Mr. BENISHEK. Madam Speaker, before coming to this House, I have 
actually been taking care of patients for the last 30 years, and as a 
surgeon, I work with patients to provide care and earn their trust. The 
doctor-patient relationship is the very foundation of the practice of 
medicine. Unfortunately, the health care law passed in the last 
Congress does not build the doctor-patient relationship; it undermines 
it. Full of hidden costs and red tape, the law overregulates and limits 
patient choices.
  We need to repeal this bill, start over, and craft health care 
legislation that actually puts patients first and puts them in charge 
of their care. Repealing this bill is not the end of health care 
reform. This gives us a second chance to tackle the problems of our 
system while focusing on what makes our system great.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Weiner).
  Mr. WEINER. I thank the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee and 
my colleagues.
  You know, we're at about the halfway mark of this debate today. So I 
think it's time for us to kind of take a little review and also offer 
people listening at home kind of a viewer's guide to what they have 
heard and what they are likely to hear coming forward.
  There are basically three formations of the argument by the 
Republicans:
  First, they start by making stuff up. You kind of have to wonder if 
any of them actually read the bill: 137 new agencies--not true; new IRS 
agents--not true; death panels--not true; Members aren't covered--not 
true; no tort reform in it--not true.
  You know, I want to just advise people watching at home playing that 
now popular drinking game of you take a shot whenever the Republicans 
say something that's not true, please assign a designated driver. This 
is going to be a long afternoon.
  Then there are my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle that 
are basically pursuing the ``we don't really mean it'' strategy. My 
good friend, the new chairman, Mr. Upton, started his remarks with this 
long litany of things they are going to do in the new bill. They're 
going to have coverage for preexisting conditions. They're going to 
have help for the doughnut hole. They're going to make sure there are 
incentives for small businesses to offer insurance. You know what they 
call that, my colleagues? They call that the bill they're repealing. It 
sounds very strange, but they want to repeal the bill but they still 
want to give it a big hug and embrace as if they support the things.
  And then, of course, there is the old fallback, and this is a 
particularly powerful one for the newer Members who are just joining 
us. It's kind of the bogyman strategy. You know, you pull those canards 
out of the sky: It's socialized medicine. Socialized medicine? Giving 
people incentives to go to private insurance companies? How is that 
socialized medicine? If that's the case, you all have socialized 
medicine.
  Now, it's worth noting that this is the same Republican Party who 
last year in their budget alternative and this year in their campaign 
manifesto said, We want to end the Medicare program as we know it. I 
mean, they don't talk about it much, but that's their philosophy. And 
we have a fundamental disagreement about it. They say there is going to 
be a government takeover of health care. Really? Who's taking over what 
health care plan?
  We're offering people tax incentives, small businesses tax incentives 
to go buy private insurance plans. You know, this was a proposal first 
made by Republicans that was adopted. We decided that that was the way 
to go.
  But stay tuned, ladies and gentlemen. This is the sign of a 
philosophical division. You have one side that stands up for patients 
and for citizens and for businesses and the other side which is a 
wholly owned subsidiary of the health insurance industry.
  But we've seen it. Whether they're making up things, whether they're 
creating bogymen, or whether they're saying, Well, no, we don't really 
mean it, this is a harbinger.
  And I would say to Americans watching at home, think what side you're 
on. If you're in love with insurance companies and want them to succeed 
and you don't care about anything else, by all means, this is your 
team. These are your guys. But if you believe that we need to make sure 
that people get health insurance, that they're not passing along their 
bills to the taxpayers each and every single day, that you believe in 
programs like Social Security and Medicare, these are your guys.
  This is kind of your half-time wrap-up for the debate that we're 
having here today. And those are the two sides. Ladies and gentlemen, 
pick your side.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). Members will 
address all of their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas, Dr. Burgess.
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the chairman.
  Remarks to the Speaker.
  All right, Madam Speaker, who loves insurance companies? Was it the 
party that gave them a constitutional mandate that drilled their stock 
prices through the roof last March 23? Maybe it was.
  We talk about new agencies and that the Republicans are misleading 
the American people on how many new agencies are created. Your own 
Congressional Research Service said the actual number of new agencies 
is in excess of 150 but the actual number is unknowable. They took a 
phrase from former Secretary Rumsfeld in that regard.
  What about the new agencies? What about the Office of Consumer 
Information of Insurance Oversight? Where did that come from? 
Authorized in the bill? I think not. Appropriations in the bill? Your 
guess is as good as mine, but they're out there today hiring people and 
renting space.
  The Independent Payment Advisory Board. Is that just a canard or is 
that a real phenomenon that threatens the financial solvency of every 
hospital, public or private, in this country?
  Exchanges. Good idea? Bad idea? We can have that debate. But it is 
the subsidies within the exchanges that are intolerably high and paid 
for by taking the money out of our seniors' Medicare system.
  These are the problems. These are the issues that should be debated. 
We're talking about modest changes on the margins.
  The real fundamentals of this bill are so deeply flawed and the risk 
to the American public because of the expansion of the deficit is so 
real, it requires the repeal of OB taken today.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Madam Speaker, again, Dr. Burgess talked about impact on hospitals. I 
want to point out that the health care reform law benefits hospitals by 
covering more Americans and thereby reducing the costs of providing 
care to

[[Page H291]]

the uninsured. Repeal would undo this benefit, increasing the costs of 
uncompensated care by $249 million annually for hospitals in his 
district.
  I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
  Mr. WEINER. I want my colleagues to understand, to say that you're 
not going to give them insurance, who do you think then pays for those 
uninsured? Who do you think then comes in and pays? It is your citizens 
in your towns, States, and cities. That's who pays for the uninsured 
and all of us who wind up footing the bill.
  You talk about responsibility. What about the responsibility not to 
pass the bill along to everyone else?
  Mr. UPTON. May I inquire how much time is left.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 5 minutes 
remaining; the gentleman from New Jersey has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. UPTON. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Canseco).
  Mr. CANSECO. I thank the gentleman from Michigan.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of repealing the $2.6 trillion 
Washington takeover of health care.
  I spent the past year speaking with thousands of Texans in the 23rd 
District. The message I received was explicit and distinct: Repeal and 
replace the jobs-destroying health care law.
  We must reform health care in America. However, we must do so in a 
way that doesn't destroy jobs but ensures the American people can get 
the health care that they need when they need it, at a price they can 
afford, and doesn't put Washington bureaucrats in charge of America's 
health care.
  Mr. PALLONE. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. The first time I stood on the floor to 
speak, I spoke to read the United States Constitution. Now I rise to 
defend this great document that I carry with me every day by advocating 
for the repeal of the unconstitutional health care bill, ObamaCare.
  Let me convey the thoughts and feelings of the people from my home 
State, South Carolina.
  To the last Congress I ask: Where in this document, the United States 
Constitution, or in the writings of our Founding Fathers leads you to 
believe that we as free Americans should not be able to choose and pick 
our own doctors? What leads you to believe that the government takeover 
of health care is even constitutional? And why didn't you listen to the 
millions of Americans who yelled at the top of their lungs that we 
don't need or want the government to be in control of our health care 
decisions?

                              {time}  1420

  I think it's time we return this House to the people, and we can 
start by repealing the job-killing, socialistic, and out-of-touch 
health care bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I want to respond, because if 
the Constitution means anything, it also shows that as Members of the 
House and the Senate, the legislative branch, it's not our job to 
decide constitutionality. My opinion is just as important as yours. 
It's the nine people over in the Supreme Court that the Constitution 
gives that authority to.
  And I think the health care law is constitutional, because all those 
companies serve all of our States. It's across State lines. The 
commerce clause works that way. So hiding behind the Constitution--and 
we read it here on the floor--this bill will be constitutional because 
Social Security's constitutional, mandatory insurance in our States is 
constitutional. So we can have that argument. It doesn't do any good.
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Guinta).
  Mr. GUINTA. I thank the chairman from Michigan for yielding the time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise to add my voice to those calling for repeal of 
last year's misguided overhaul of our national health care system. 
Seldom has a well-intentioned desire, in this case making the system 
work better, strayed so disastrously off course.
  The new law destroys existing jobs, inserts government between you 
and your family doctor, and allows Washington to still spend more 
money, more borrowed money. Even worse, it fails to accomplish its 
primary goal. Instead of making health insurance more affordable, 
premiums today remain sky high for individuals and employers.
  Now we have a two-part opportunity before this Congress. First, we 
must repeal last year's unconstitutional legislation. Then we need to 
begin the process of delivering what Americans are demanding, a 
patient-centered health care system that is effective, efficient, and 
simply reduces costs.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  The gentleman from New Hampshire, if he votes for this repeal, he is 
eliminating new health care coverage options for 1,900 uninsured young 
adults, increasing the number of people without health insurance by 
24,000 individuals, and increasing the cost to hospitals of providing 
uncompensated care by $35 million annually in his district.
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 2 minutes. 
The gentleman from New Jersey has 1\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland, Dr. Harris.
  Mr. HARRIS. Madam Speaker, as a physician delivering care in labor 
and delivery for 26 years, I know that the last thing we need is a new 
government bureaucrat looking over our shoulders when I am in that 
delivery room administering an anesthetic to a mother for an emergency 
cesarean section to save her baby's life. But that's exactly what 
ObamaCare will do if we don't repeal it.
  Instead of the last Congress making sure that the baby born that day 
has a real chance at the American Dream by creating jobs and solving 
America's long-term fiscal crisis, they added over $2 trillion to our 
children's and grandchildren's debt with that job-destroying ObamaCare 
bill. That's why we should repeal it today.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, in this debate the truth should be told about the 
Republican repeal. In fact, the Republican bill should come up with a 
health warning that their measure is dangerous to America's health. For 
many people, the issue of having health coverage is a matter of life 
and death, and I would say there are so many benefits that we have 
pointed out during this debate that already exist for the average 
American that to talk about repeal at this time and eliminate those 
benefits for those people that have preexisting conditions that 
wouldn't be able to get coverage, or would face lifetime caps or 
rescissions, it simply needs to be told that the fact of the matter is 
that right now there are tremendous benefits that are coming to the 
average American from this legislation. And to repeal it at this point 
makes absolutely no sense. It's completely a waste of time.
  We have no indication that this repeal would ever go to the Senate or 
ever be considered by the President. And I just wish that my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle, instead of wasting their time talking 
about this repeal that is going nowhere, would instead focus on the 
economy. Focus on jobs. When I talk to my constituents, that's what 
they want us to deal with.
  We just began this session of Congress about 2 weeks ago. The focus 
should be on the economy, on jobs, on trying to do what we can to 
improve the lives of the average American. We have tremendous benefits 
that exist under this health care legislation now. Why focus our 
attention, in this first 2 or 3 weeks of the Congress, on this repeal? 
It makes absolutely no sense.
  And I would ask my colleagues, after today, please, let's focus on 
jobs. Let's focus on what we can do to improve the economy. Let's not 
continue this debate on health care, because actually what my 
constituents want is they want this bill to unfold. They like the 
benefits that have already come forward. And a lot more benefits will 
accrue. Most Americans will ultimately be covered by health insurance, 
and that's the key. Let's focus on jobs and the economy and stop this 
ruse about health care repeal.

[[Page H292]]

  Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, to close our debate, I yield the balance of 
my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).
  Mr. HULTGREN. I thank the chairman from Michigan for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, the so-called Affordable Care Act has clearly failed 
to make health care more affordable. Since the passage of this law, I 
have heard from local families throughout my community concerned about 
what this will mean to their pocketbooks and from small business owners 
who are concerned about how they will keep their doors open.
  Making health care affordable requires that we address out-of-control 
costs, such as lawsuit abuse reform. This issue was completely and 
inexplicably ignored in this act. The act has also created paralyzing 
uncertainty and new layers of bureaucracy, putting new demands on 
businesses in the form of mandates and new taxes, forcing them to 
comply with yet-to-be-written regulations that prevent them from hiring 
and stalls the economic recovery that we need so dearly.
  After this vote, I look forward to working with all of my colleagues 
to find ways of lowering the cost of health care, maintaining a 
patient-focused system, making health care more accessible to all 
Americans, and working with families and businesses to find quality 
insurance. This act failed to accomplish such commonsense goals. In 
fact, it made matters worse. Therefore, I will vote for its repeal, and 
I encourage all of my colleagues to join with me on both sides of the 
aisle and vote ``yes.''
  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.
  The Democrats' health care law is fundamentally flawed; and we will, 
having listened to the will of the American people, vote to repeal it 
today. The problem with this law, among its many faults, is it puts 
government at the center of health care decisions, not doctors and 
patients. Instead of families deciding what coverage is best for them, 
this law has the Secretary of Health and Human Services making that 
choice. Instead of families and employers deciding how much they can 
afford, the IRS is making that decision.

                              {time}  1430

  Instead of families and employers deciding if they need health 
insurance, the government is mandating they purchase it.
  This is all about the government. It's Washington knows best, and 
it's wrong. By virtually every measure, this law is a failure. The 
health care law fails to control costs. It fails to let Americans keep 
the insurance they have and like. It fails to protect jobs and, in 
fact, hurts job creation at a time when the unemployment rate has 
remained above 9 percent for 20 months. It fails to ensure seniors have 
access to their doctors and hospitals, and it fails to prevent tax 
increases from hitting middle class families.
  Let's review the facts. The health care law makes health insurance 
more expensive for millions of Americans. Well, according to the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Democrats' health law will 
increase premiums for millions of families by up to $2,100 on average 
by 2016--$2,100 more expensive than it would have been if Congress had 
done nothing, almost $3,200 more expensive than the Republican 
alternative we offered last Congress.
  The Democrats' health care law forces millions of Americans out of 
the health care plan they have and like. The Obama administration has 
predicted that as many as 7 out of 10 employers will have to change the 
coverage they offer their employees because of the Democrats' health 
care law.
  The health care law discourages employers from hiring new workers, 
increasing wages, or retaining existing employees. There are over $500 
billion in new job-destroying taxes, many of which hit middle class 
families.
  With all these taxes and new regulations, it's no wonder that major 
employer groups such as the National Federation of Independent 
Business, the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber 
of Commerce, as well as Business Roundtable and The Business Council 
call the Democrats' health care law destructive and dangerous.
  The health care law jeopardizes seniors' health care. Again according 
to the Obama administration's own actuaries at CMS, the massive 
Medicare cuts contained in the Democrats' health law could threaten 
seniors' access to care and cause providers to stop treating Medicare 
patients.
  Entitlement expansion is not health care reform, and giving new 
powers and regulations to departments like HHS and letting the IRS hire 
up to 16,000 new auditors, agents, and other employees is not the same 
as empowering doctors and patients, and it isn't the job creation 
America needs.
  The American people know that like a tree that's rotten at the 
center, we must cut it down and put something new in its place. That's 
what we are doing today, cutting the government out of the waiting 
room, out of the doctor's office and out of your medicine cabinet.
  Once we have done that, we will begin tomorrow to implement step-by-
step commonsense reforms that actually lower the cost of health care 
and actually respect the doctor-patient relationship. This House, this 
majority, Republicans, have heard the American people loud and clear, 
and we will not let government dictate your health care coverage. We 
will repeal this law, and we will continue our effort until Americans 
are again free to choose their health insurance plan, to choose their 
doctor and to choose what is best for them, their family, and their 
business. This is a Congress dedicated to empowering the American 
people, not increasing the size, scope, and cost of the Federal 
Government.
  I urge my colleagues to vote with me to repeal this job-destroying 
and cost-increasing health care law.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, health care reform is an American family law. 
Repealing it would hurt families all across our Nation. Repeal would 
mean rescission, taking away benefits from millions of Americans, 
giving power back to health insurance.
  Let's be clear: This law is working. Repealing it would have real-
life consequences for millions of Americans.
  As many as 19 million kids in our country have health problems 
considered preexisting conditions. In the past it could have led health 
insurance companies to drop their coverage. This new law changed that. 
One example--there are millions: One mother in my district, Felicia 
Tisdale, said she has been anxious about her daughter's health 
insurance since she was diagnosed with diabetes at age 3. Ms. Tisdale 
and others like her no longer have to worry about their children being 
denied coverage.
  More than 1 million young adults are already benefiting from the 
provision that allows them to stay on their parents' plan until they 
turn 26. Just one example: A constituent, Sean McCarthy, an auto 
worker, told me in a letter that his two children, ages 19 and 23, 
could not afford to stay in college, but he was grateful that the new 
law at least enabled them to get health insurance by joining his plan.
  And then seniors, millions, millions have seen their out-of-pocket 
drug costs go down under this new law. Nearly 3 million Medicare 
recipients have received a reimbursement check in the mail in the last 
year relating to the doughnut hole.
  One gentleman who I represent, Harry Wimble of Warren, Michigan, 
wrote to me, thankfully, that his wife received $250 that she otherwise 
would not have. He said his wife paid thousands of dollars out of 
pocket in 2010 because of the doughnut hole.
  Repeal would mean releasing insurance companies once again to impose 
unreasonable premium increases, to deny insurance to whomever they 
please whenever they please, to set annual lifetime benefit limits, to 
discriminate against women through higher rates and arbitrary 
definitions of preexisting conditions. Repeal would mean retreat, 
retreat, from moving America ahead.
  We will fight that retreat. It will not happen.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and 
Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. I rise in strong support of this legislation to repeal 
ObamaCare.

[[Page H293]]

  Madam Speaker, Americans expect a new Congress to make job creation a 
priority and get our country back on the path of fiscal responsibility. 
Any serious plan to achieve these goals must begin with repeal of 
ObamaCare.
  Madam Speaker, I represent 10 rural counties in northern California 
with chronically high unemployment rates. Last year I spoke with the 
owner of a restaurant chain based in Redding, California. He had 
originally planned to open 10 new locations this year, creating 
hundreds of new jobs. But because of the higher labor costs imposed by 
ObamaCare, he has decided not to expand at all.
  At the other end of my district in California's Capay Valley, I have 
heard from a family-owned farm that delivers fresh produce to residents 
across the State. They are facing a staggering $1.7 million in costs 
from the new health care mandates. Add these to thousands of similar 
stories across the country, and it's clear that this law will have a 
devastating impact on workers and employers alike.
  That's why the National Federation of Independent Business and the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce are urging Congress to vote ``yes'' on repeal. 
My friends on the other side claim that ObamaCare will reduce the 
deficit. Yet no one truly believes that a new trillion-dollar 
government entitlement is the solution to a deficit crisis caused by 
reckless spending.
  As 200 respected economists wrote just this week, the assertion that 
ObamaCare is ``paid for'' is ``based on omitted costs, budgetary 
gimmicks, shifted premiums from other entitlements, and unsustainable 
spending cuts and revenue increases.''
  These economists conclude that ObamaCare could actually increase the 
deficit by more than $500 billion the first decade and by nearly $1.5 
trillion the following decade.

                              {time}  1440

  Madam Speaker, Republicans are committed to advancing genuine reforms 
that reduce the cost of health care, but we must begin by doing away 
with this bad law that moves our health care system in the wrong 
direction.
  Vote ``yes'' on repeal.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. Thank you so much. I wish when the dust settles and we 
have an opportunity to sit together with our Republican friends that we 
can come up with a reform called ``truth in advertising'' as we label 
these bills.
  What was a national bill and has been signed into law now is being 
referred to as the ``Democrat ObamaCare job-killing threat to your 
natural life'' bill. And of course this is misleading perhaps to a lot 
of new Members because they should know, as the listeners to this 
debate should know, that this ain't repealing nothing.
  It's an obligation that some people feel that they made to their 
constituency who elected them who thought perhaps that that's all you 
had to do was put in a bill.
  But under 2 minutes, I can't get into this how to repeal a law; but 
it starts off with a vote in the House, then you have to get a vote in 
the Senate, and then you have to override a veto by the President of 
the United States.
  So if this is done for political reasons, I have always been able to 
find some good, no matter how this thing is misconstrued, in letting 
people who follow debate know this is not going to take away the 
benefits that you received under the Affordable Care Act, that you will 
continue to receive these preliminary benefits now, and as the years go 
forward and you find that you're in need of service or some one of your 
dear ones, you would find that the bill that people were screaming had 
to be repealed that we would have joined in recognizing that this is 
the political theater part about it, but we will be forced to review 
the bill, improve it if we can, and at the same time be able to say 
that it's not a Democrat bill, but the Congress in support of the 
President of the United States saw fit after all of these decades of 
not recognizing the right of our citizens to have health care to come 
together and have a bipartisan effort to provide this care.
  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a true American hero, a 
distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I rise in support of freedom and free enterprise. This is America 
where the Constitution and freedom and free enterprise are the 
hallmarks of this great democracy. I think one of the most compelling 
reasons people went to the ballot box last fall and cast their vote was 
they felt angry that those in power were disregarding personal 
liberties and trampling the U.S. Constitution.
  As you know, under ObamaCare the Federal Government forces freedom-
loving Americans to hand over their hard-earned money for a mandatory 
product, in this case health insurance.
  That's just not how it should be done in a democracy. In a democracy, 
you have the freedom to choose if you want to buy something. In a 
democracy, you have the freedom to choose if you want to purchase 
health insurance. In a democracy, you have the freedom to choose just 
to say no.
  This vote is about freedom and free enterprise and what's best for 
the future of America. As a constitutional conservative, I say vote for 
freedom and repeal ObamaCare.
  I will close with some words from Patrick Henry: ``The Constitution 
is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people. It is 
an instrument for the people to restrain the government--lest it come 
to dominate our lives and our interests.''
  Let's stand up for freedom and repeal ObamaCare.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 10 seconds.
  Almost 50 million people have no health insurance. For most of them, 
there is no freedom to choose. There's no ability to obtain it.
  It is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to a fighter for health 
care for many, many decades, Mr. Stark of California.
  Mr. STARK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to repealing health 
reform. Instead of focusing on job creation, my friends across the 
aisle want to refight the health reform debate and take away patient 
protections that are already helping people get the health care they 
need.
  It bears repeating: health reform is already helping millions of 
people in America. These aren't just numbers; they are real people. In 
my community, I received a letter from a young woman named Stephanie 
Blazin from Castro Valley, California. Stephanie recently graduated 
from college, married and moved to California where her husband was 
pursuing a graduate degree. She was lucky and quickly got a job. Then 
within her first few weeks of the job, she found she was pregnant. This 
should have been an exciting time for a young couple to start a family. 
Instead, she learned that her pregnancy was a preexisting condition and 
she had obtained no coverage for any medical needs surrounding it. She 
said to me, The first thought through our minds were tainted by how we 
were going to financially handle this pregnancy and a baby.
  Fortunately, because health reform is law and she is under age 26, 
Stephanie was able to quickly change her health insurance to obtain 
coverage on her father's health insurance. She now has full coverage 
for her pregnancy.
  Under the Republicans' plan, Stephanie would be stuck with NoCare. 
That's the Republican plan. By repealing health reform, the GOP plan 
would provide no protections for people's health, NoCare if you lose 
your job, NoCare if you have a preexisting condition, NoCare if you are 
a senior in the doughnut hole, NoCare if your insurer hikes your 
premiums and you can't afford it.
  The Affordable Care Act has finally enacted fair rules for insurance 
companies. The Republicans want to take those protections away and put 
the insurance industry back in charge.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Republican NoCare bill.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and 
Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, to those middle class Americans 
listening to the debate today, let me speak to you. This is your life. 
This is your health. You deserve the right to make your own decisions 
about your health

[[Page H294]]

care rather than being forced into some government-run plan that is 
centered around what Washington needs and not what you need.
  Thanks to the last Congress, this is your new health care plan. We 
had our staff spend 4 months, weekends and evenings, going through all 
2,801 pages of that bill, and we just said, tell us how it works. And 
this is the answer. We couldn't even fit the whole bill on one page. 
This is one-third of all the new bureaucracies. At the bottom line, 159 
new Federal Government agencies, commissions and bureaucracies in 
between you and your doctor.
  Now, is this the health care reform you were hoping for? If ObamaCare 
is so great for families, why are health care costs going up and going 
to go up even higher? If it's so great for small businesses, why are 
they here today in Washington pleading for us to stop it? And if it's 
so great for seniors, why have so many been forced out of their 
Medicare Advantage plan? They can't even see a local doctor anymore 
because so many local doctors can't see them. They can't afford to 
cover Medicare senior patients.
  Health care is too important to get wrong, and ObamaCare got it 
wrong. American families, our seniors and our businesses deserve 
better; and the right place to start is to start over. Repeal ObamaCare 
and let's come back with some commonsense reforms America can embrace.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to another long-
time fighter for health care for Americans, Mr. McDermott of 
Washington.
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, a very famous Republican 100 years ago 
proposed that we have national health insurance in this country. And he 
also said this--his name was Teddy Roosevelt by the way--``It's not the 
critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man or 
woman stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.
  ``The credit belongs to the man or the woman who is actually in the 
arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives 
valiantly; who errs, who comes up short again and again, because there 
is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually 
strive to do the deeds; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great 
devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows 
in the end the triumph of achievement, and who at the worst, if he 
fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall 
never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor 
defeat.''

                              {time}  1450

  Now, I have been here for 23 years, and since the Republicans 
defeated the efforts of the Clintons in 1993-1994, I have waited for 16 
years for my cold and timid friends to make one proposal that will deal 
with the preexisting condition question. We have 125 million Americans 
who cannot go out and get insurance, who cannot leave their job if they 
have insurance through their job because they have a preexisting 
condition, and you have been silent for 16 years. Now you want to come 
up and throw this away.
  Why don't we just settle down and we can make some amendments to this 
bill. I think there are some things wrong with it. There is a lot of 
stuff that I didn't get into it when it came through this House. I am 
sure that there are some things that you would like. But throwing it 
away is a political farce. You know it isn't going to work. You have 
admitted it isn't going to work. It is never going to pass, and so we 
go through.
  Let's get the vote out of the way. Vote ``no.''


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All Members are advised to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Nunes), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, at enormous cost and in the face of 
tremendous opposition across the country, the previous majority in 
Congress forced on the American people a great socialist experiment in 
government health care. No area of the American health care system was 
left untouched by ObamaCare.
  In the name of reform, the Democrat majority expanded a broken 
government program, Medicaid. They cut funding from what is already the 
Nation's largest unfunded liability, Medicare. And then, basking in 
their glory, they added a whole new entitlement program to our 
catastrophic national debt.
  The American people were never told the truth. They were promised 
health care choices but saw them taken away. They were promised they 
would save money but saw their health care get more expensive. The most 
in need were promised access to health care through Medicaid, a program 
that is not only bankrupting the Federal Government but the State 
governments as well.
  Madam Speaker, the clock was unfortunately turned back last year. 
Failed socialist policies reemerged from the dust bin of history, and 
it was a dark chapter for our Nation. Instead of improving the lives of 
all Americans by fixing our broken health care system, starting with 
Medicare and Medicaid, the Democratic majority subjected the American 
people to class warfare, anticapitalist hate speech and vitriolic 
rhetoric. Bathed in excesses of power, they passed a bill that, by 
their own admission, they hadn't read, and then lectured the American 
people claiming that we have to pass the bill first so we can find out 
what was in it.
  Madam Speaker, the American people have read the bill, and they have 
rejected it. Today the House will repeal ObamaCare, and we will ensure 
that this renaissance of socialism in America is the shortest living 
political era in our Nation's history.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  I am disappointed that this diatribe about socialism comes to the 
floor today.
  Madam Speaker, I yield now for a unanimous consent request to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).
  (Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BACA. Madam Speaker, I oppose this repeal of the health bill that 
is good for my district.
  Madam Speaker, right now, Democrats and Republicans should be coming 
together to create new jobs, help struggling middle class families, and 
reduce the deficit. But instead of dealing with the problems of today, 
our Republican friends want to turn back the clock. Now is the time for 
job creation, not job elimination.
  We have heard some say that health reform will bankrupt our Nation. 
But we know that is not true. In fact the Congressional Budget Office 
has confirmed that health reform lowers the deficit by over $1 
trillion.
  We have heard some say that the business community cannot afford 
health care reform. But we know that repealing reform actually 
increases taxes on America's small businesses, by eliminating health 
care tax credits.
  Repealing the health care reform law means:
  Discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions--
jeopardizing coverage for up to 305 thousand individuals in my 
District;
  Gender discrimination that allows insurance companies to charge women 
higher premiums than men for the same coverage; and
  Higher prescription drug costs for seniors on Medicare--including 
over 5 thousand seniors in my District who will be thrown back into the 
``Donut Hole.''
  Hospitals in my District are already busting at the seams. They can't 
afford the $146 million in uncompensated care costs that repeal would 
bring.
  I refuse to go back home and tell parents in my District that 56 
thousand of their children will no longer be able to find insurance 
because of pre-existing health conditions.
  We must continue to move forward and focus on job creation. Now is 
not the time to return to the failed policies of the past.
  Let's stand with American families and say ``no'' to more insurance 
company control; ``no'' to increasing the deficit; and ``no'' to all 
efforts to repeal health reform.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Pastor).
  (Mr. PASTOR of Arizona asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 2 and I am 
disappointed that the House has acted to repeal the landmark health 
reform legislation we passed last year.

[[Page H295]]

This act represents a huge step backwards in ensuring that everyone has 
access to affordable health care. This bill flies in the face of the 
idea that health care is a right and that everyone deserves access to 
care.
  The repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 
111-142) and the health provisions in the Health Care and Education 
Reconciliation Act (P.L. 111-152) will have a major impact on the 
people in my district. Without maintaining the strong protections 
enacted under these laws, hundreds of thousands of people in the 4th 
district, including 60,000 children, could be denied coverage because 
of a preexisting condition. Additionally, nearly 5,000 seniors on 
Medicare will face immediate increases in the cost of their medication, 
while an additional 58,000 will be forced to pay out of pocket for 
preventive screenings for conditions such as breast and colon cancer. 
And with our economy struggling to get back on track, repealing health 
care will deny hundreds of small businesses and thousands of families 
in my district crucial tax credits to help offset the cost of coverage.
  I have long supported the idea that health care is a right, not a 
privilege. It is with that in mind that I strongly oppose this 
misguided action.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), another fighter for what 
matters to Americans.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
yielding me this time.
  Madam Speaker, it is unbelievable that with so many people out of 
work and millions of people uninsured that the first item of this new 
Congress is to take health care away from people who just got coverage. 
More people have insurance today because of the Affordable Care Act; 
more small businesses are offering health insurance to their workers. 
For the first time in the history of our Nation, we are headed in the 
right direction. We are making health care a right and not a privilege.
  The repeal will force seniors to pay for more drugs. It would kick 
young people off of their parents' insurance. We will go back to a time 
when insurance companies were allowed to discriminate. And once again 
it will allow insurance companies to put profits above patients' 
health.
  We must not turn back. We have come too far. We cannot go back. The 
American people are counting on us to do what is right, what is just, 
what is fair. We made a promise of health care to the American people. 
We must keep that promise. Vote ``no.'' Keep the promise of health care 
for all of our citizens.
  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Tiberi), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. TIBERI. Madam Speaker, I rise in favor of this bill to repeal the 
government health care law that was passed in 2009. This issue was 
front and center of my campaign, as I am sure it was in many of the 
campaigns of the people in this body today. Most of my constituents in 
central Ohio opposed the 2,000-page bill that became law, and are just 
beginning to find out what's in it. Sure, they knew about some of the 
good things like dealing with preexisting conditions, which most of us 
on this side of the aisle support doing something with as well. But 
they didn't know about the medicine cabinet tax, for instance. That's 
right, flexible savings account changes. No more over-the-counter 
medicines for moms who are buying that infant Motrin for their babies. 
And next year, a cap of $2,500 for that flexible savings account. They 
didn't know about the health savings account withdrawal tax that will 
impact many Americans across our country.
  A majority of my constituents want a patient-centered approach, not a 
government-centered approach; an approach where doctors and nurses are 
at the center of the process, not government bureaucrats in Washington, 
D.C.
  In addition, Madam Speaker, a third of my seniors who are on Medicare 
Advantage like the health care they have. Apparently, they won't be 
able to keep it under this provision of the law.
  So, today we have an opportunity, and the debate is over whether we 
change what we have, repeal it and replace it with something better, 
something that is patient centered and patient focused.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Neal), a member of our committee.
  Mr. NEAL. During the course of the campaign, we heard that this was 
going to be repeal and replace. What we have in front of us is simply 
repeal, because there has never been a credible alternative offered for 
replace.
  This legislation is modeled after a modest, market-driven proposal 
offered by that left-winger, Mitt Romney; that left-wing advocate, Bob 
Dole; and, yes, that champion of liberal causes, Richard Nixon.

                              {time}  1500

  This is an amalgamation of a series of proposals offered over many 
years. But what do we hear? The usual scare tactics: ``ObamaCare''--16 
years ago, it was ``ClintonCare''--``government takeover,'' 
``socialism,'' and the best one of all, ``death panels.''
  People wonder why the language here is so charged, why it is so 
incendiary. It is because of the lexicon it has chosen for the purpose 
of scaring the American people. As President Bush said, If you need 
health care, go to the emergency room.
  Remember what this proposal does: It removes 57 million people with 
preexisting conditions from insurance. It eliminates provisions for 2.4 
million young adults to maintain health care on their parents' coverage 
until they are 26. This bill would allow a return to discrimination 
toward a woman based on higher premiums if she has had breast cancer or 
perhaps even if she has been a victim of domestic violence or had a 
child.
  This bill that is proposed by our friends on the other side would get 
rid of a lifetime cap on out-of-pocket expenses. Why is that important? 
I dare them to challenge the following statistic: Half the bankruptcies 
in America are health care related. People lose their jobs. They lose 
their homes. They lose everything because they get sick.
  I hope we oppose this repeal measure or at least until we hear a 
replace proposal.
  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member 
of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, the Democrats' health care law 
has only been in place for 10 months. Yet the problems and negative 
effects are already painfully clear and well documented. The American 
people stood against it when it was forced through Congress last year, 
and they took out their frustrations on this bill at the ballot box, in 
November, with a mandate to repeal it.
  This government takeover of our health care system will not improve 
access to health care or lower costs for families and small businesses. 
It is just not in the math if we use the same math that is used by the 
rest of the country.
  Since this law was passed, premiums have increased again, putting 
more families in the difficult position of choosing between keeping 
their health insurance, paying their heating bills, or putting food on 
their tables.
  In addition to failing to achieve any key goals of health care 
reform, this law imposes new taxes, penalties, fees, and paperwork 
burdens on small businesses that drive our economy. The National 
Federation of Independent Business has found the employer mandate alone 
will cost 1.6 million jobs, with about half of those lost by small 
businesses.
  Face it. ObamaCare massively increases taxes. It massively cuts 
senior benefits. It creates over 100 new agencies, commissions, and 
boards, and that will massively increase costs. Over 100 new agencies 
mean more Federal employees, more tax dollars required, more 
complications in access to health care, and it brings the IRS into your 
private health care decisions for the first time--without addressing 
the key drivers of health care costs. Adding more taxes and regulations 
on job creators will only serve to prolong the economic problems and 
high unemployment rates we are experiencing.
  This is too big of a burden for our economy to wait. We need to start 
over by repealing this bad law now and by beginning the process of 
producing commonsense reforms and fiscally responsible solutions. We 
can reform health care in a way that improves quality, reduces costs, 
and increases access, all without burdening our economy or increasing 
the debt that will be owed by our children and grandchildren.

[[Page H296]]

  As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, I look forward to 
following through on our promise to replace the current law with 
proposals that actually accomplish these goals of reforming Washington, 
bringing private market reforms, reducing costs, and dealing with 
defensive medicine through real debate, real hearings, real markups, 
and bipartisan input.
  As an original cosponsor of H.R. 2, I urge all of my colleagues to 
join me in supporting this repeal.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished 
member of our committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to 
the repeal of the Patients' Bill of Rights.
  As Congress debates this legislation to repeal the historic health 
care reform law, it is important that our constituents know what 
working families, small businesses, and seniors stand to lose.
  Repealing the health care reform law would remove new protections for 
57 million Americans with preexisting conditions. That includes over 
8,000 children in my district. It will end the chance for 2.5 million 
young adults to remain on their parents' plans until they are 26 years 
of age. In my district, over 4,000 young people will lose this 
coverage. It will increase prescription drug costs for more than 10,000 
seniors in my district who hit the Medicare part D doughnut hole. These 
seniors will pay another $500 this year and, between now and 2020, 
another $3,000. Some 16,000 small businesses in my district alone will 
pay higher taxes.
  Repeal will increase the deficit by $230 billion over the next 10 
years and more than $1.2 trillion over the following decade. Repeal 
will shorten the life of the Medicare program by 12 years, putting 
Medicare benefits and the seniors who depend on it at great risk.
  So when you consider these facts, it is clear that repealing the 
health care reform law is bad for families, bad for small businesses, 
and bad for seniors in my district and across our great country. I urge 
a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member 
of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Reichert).
  Mr. REICHERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I am here today to say that I am going to vote ``yes'' 
to repeal this health care bill because I think the American people 
deserve better.
  There were promises made in this bill--promises, promises, promises. 
There were promises made and, unfortunately, promises that were broken. 
Think back to last year. Think back to what the American people were 
promised in this bill. Three promises come to mind: One, Americans were 
told that the overhaul would make health care more affordable. Two, 
they were told that this would make health care more efficient. Three, 
they were told that they could keep their health care if they liked it.
  The American people deserve to hear the truth, and the American 
people deserve better. It is their health. It is their life. Here is 
the truth: Over $500 million worth of taxes on small businesses and 
American families across this country and $500 billion cut from 
Medicare.
  Here are some examples: a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices, 
wheelchairs, and walkers; a 3.8 percent tax on employers; an additional 
tax penalty on employers who don't provide a certain amount of health 
care for their workers; a 40 percent tax on so-called ``Cadillac'' 
health care plans--and government paperwork bureaucracy.
  There is a requirement that you fill out a 1099 form for employees, 
requiring the hiring of 16,000 IRS workers. Who is going to pay for 
that?
  Remember this promise President Obama made and others made: You can 
keep your health care if you like it? President Obama himself said, 
Well, there might have been some language snuck into this bill that 
runs contrary to that promise.
  Madam Speaker, the American people deserve better. The American 
people deserve the truth. It is their health and it is their life.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 5 seconds.
  The truth is we moved to repeal 1099. It was opposed by the now 
majority.
  Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a member of our committee.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman.
  People deserve a serious debate on a serious subject. Unfortunately, 
while serious in tone, what we are hearing from my colleagues is not 
serious in content. I have listened to people come to the floor 
repeatedly, talking about a government takeover of health care, which 
was judged by Politifax to be the political lie of the year for 2010.
  Indeed, we instead built upon the current system that is a balance to 
meet the needs of the American people.
  We had another serious element that has crept into the approach from 
my Republican friends--the disregard of Congress' nonpartisan budget 
referee. It is reckless and unprecedented. It has never happened in 34 
years. These are the people who provide impartial information, which is 
being imagined away by our friends on the other side of the aisle.
  Yes, it will require Congress to follow through on the legislation to 
realize the savings, but the answer is not to turn our backs on reform; 
it is to make reform work. The current bill builds on the current 
system. It incorporates elements of reform that have been supported on 
a bipartisan basis for years.

                              {time}  1510

  Now all of a sudden there is the disregard we heard for a proposal 
signed into law by Republican Governor Mitt Romney.
  Instead of repealing reform, we should be focusing on strengthening 
it. Americans deserve a serious debate about a serious subject, hard 
work to make reform work, not a ritual of going through the motions of 
repeal which everybody in this Chamber knows will still be in effect at 
the end of debate, at the end of the year, at the end of the Congress. 
The American people deserve better.
  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member 
of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. 
Boustany.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, I rise in favor of repeal of this bill 
because it's going to fail on cost, it's going to fail on coverage, and 
it's going to fail on quality.
  First, cost. Premiums are going up. In fact, they're going up even 
higher and at a faster rate than they would have if we had done nothing 
in many cases.
  With regard to the deficit, there are a number of gimmicks in this 
bill: double counting, excluding the doc fix, creating new 
entitlements, such as the CLASS Act, which is a Ponzi scheme. And, 
finally, it does not account for the discretionary spending for this 
massive increase in the bureaucracy that's going to be created. Taxes 
are going to go up on innovation, especially medical innovation.
  On coverage. What kind of coverage are we expanding? Medicaid 
coverage. That's a ticket to the emergency room. It doesn't lead to a 
good doctor-patient relationship, and it's ultimately the most 
expensive and inefficient way to provide health care. And those costs 
are going to be passed on to the States.
  And on quality. Let me relate an instance from my own medical 
practice as a cardiovascular surgeon. I was once called to see a 
patient who was 101 years old. He had carotid artery blockage and was 
getting ready to have a stroke. He had imminent symptoms. I was 
skeptical. I went to see the guy. This fellow was vigorous, strong 
handshake, lived by himself, independent, worked in his own yard, took 
care of himself without any help, and so I chose to do the carotid 
operation on him. Thankfully, it was successful, and it gave him 6 more 
years of a high-quality life as a result of this. He died from some 
unrelated cause later. But in the absence of that, he would have had a 
stroke. He would have been in rehab, in a nursing home, acute care, 
lots of expense, no quality to his life.
  Madam Speaker, there is an art and a science to medicine, and the art 
involves the doctor-patient relationship. It's built on mutual trust 
and understanding, knowledge of the patient, trust on both the patient 
and the doctor's part to do what's in the best interest of the patient. 
But not only

[[Page H297]]

that; the doctor-patient relationship is where costs are incurred and 
quality occurs. This gentleman would not have had the quality of life 
if he had not had this operation and if this law had been in existence, 
which would have delayed or prohibited such treatment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Could I ask you, Madam Speaker, how much time there is 
remaining on each side of the Ways and Means Committee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has 
28\1/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) has 
24\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  What the reform did was to make sure that the doctor-patient 
relationship was maintained and that there would be millions more 
patients in the United States of America.
  I now yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of the Ways and 
Means Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KIND. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Madam Speaker, shortly after passage of the Affordable Care Act, a 
young mother in my congressional district, Beth Ferstl, wrote me a 
letter, and she wrote it on behalf of her 13-month-old son Henry. In it 
she wrote: ``My son had a stroke before he was even born. He wanted to 
personally thank you for passing this historic health care bill, but 
he's only 13 months old; and between juggling neurologists, OT, PT and 
speech therapy, he hasn't found the time. Let me be his voice. As a 
voter, as your constituent, as a mother, thank you.''
  I contacted Beth to find out what her family's situation was in this 
particular case. She told me that because little Henry had a stroke 
before he was born, literally by the time he took his first breath in 
life, he was uninsurable because he had a preexisting condition.
  Now, I've been to Iraq four times, I've been to Afghanistan twice, 
I've met with our troops in the field. I thought I met the bravest 
people in the whole world, our men and women in uniform who are laying 
their lives on the line every day for us to better secure and make safe 
our Nation. But if my Republican colleagues can move forward on this 
repeal today and look into the eyes of little Henry Ferstl and not only 
say to him, not only do we have the ability to do something to help you 
but chose not to, but today we choose to take it away from you, then 
you guys have got to be the bravest people in the world because I can't 
do that. No one should be able to do that to the 20 million children 
that have preexisting conditions throughout this country that this bill 
fixed.
  A young man, 21 years old, in Black River Falls came up to me after 
the vote and thanked me. I asked him why, is there something in 
particular that he was most concerned about in this bill? He said, 
Yeah. A couple of years ago my younger brother needed a kidney so I 
donated him one of mine. Because I did, even though I am perfectly 
healthy today, every insurance company I've contacted is treating me as 
if I have a preexisting condition and they will not insure me.
  We can do better than that. That is what the Affordable Care Act is 
all about, to address these injustices. I encourage my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on repeal.
  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, a joyful member of our 
committee, Mr. Pascrell.
  Mr. PASCRELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  There is not one Member of Congress in these distinguished Halls that 
has not been called upon to help a constituent who has been threatened 
to have their insurance taken away from them. Whether it was heart 
disease, whether it was cancer, asthma, high blood pressure--I've been 
through many of them. And isn't it interesting that when the 
congressional office intervenes, they give things a second thought. It 
should not be that way.
  Who are the 2,000 economists we're talking about that are wondering 
about this health care act? Are they the same ones who predicted 
enormous increases in the economy of the United States in the last 10 
years? Oh, those 10 years we wish to forget, we have amnesia.
  Whether it be in town halls or small groups, when I have asked 
individuals to raise their hands if they were against closing the 
Medicare doughnut hole, allowing children to stay on a family's health 
plan until 26, ensuring Americans are not denied insurance for 
preexisting conditions, no one raises their hand. In the last debate I 
had, Madam Speaker, just before the election, my opponent didn't raise 
his hand and I went through 18 of these very specific parts of the 
health care legislation.
  In my district alone, repeal will increase the number of uninsured by 
66,000. I can't vote for this repeal. I can't let them down or their 
insurance will go up.
  How about the business person? Sixty percent of businesses who go 
into bankruptcy it's because of the health care bills they can't 
afford. I can't let them down either.
  Before I conclude, I want to make this point, Madam Speaker: last 
October, Federal Judge Steeh found the mandate constitutional because 
by forgoing insurance, individuals are making an economic decision to 
pay for their health care costs later out of pocket. That's how we get 
stuck with the bill. We need to end this.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.
  Mr. PASCRELL. That means that the people of Texas pay, the people of 
New Jersey pay, the people of California pay. In essence, everyone pays 
for those who don't have insurance. Let's get straight on this. We 
can't afford this, and we must reject repeal.
  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member 
of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. 
Heller).

                              {time}  1520

  Mr. HELLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in support of H.R. 2.
  Last year the previous Speaker of the House told Members that we 
needed to pass the health care bill so that we could find out what was 
in it. Now Members and the American people have had the opportunity to 
read it, and they don't like it. What they have found includes a $1.2 
trillion price tag and more than 100 new Federal programs and onerous 
mandates that reflect how out of touch the previous majority was with 
the American people.
  This Congress will reject these policies, replace them with market-
based reforms that will provide greater access and affordability of 
health care. Repealing the bill would help more Nevada employers and 
their workers keep the insurance that they currently enjoy. An 
estimated half of all employers and 80 percent of small businesses will 
be forced to give up their coverage under current law, which I find 
unacceptable.
  Uncertainty in the business community means fewer jobs created. In my 
home State, where unemployment persists at more than 14 percent, it 
also means thousands of Nevadans continue depending on unemployment 
benefits when what they want is a decent job to provide for their 
families.
  Furthermore, we must act to prevent last year's bill from further 
impacting the pocketbooks of hardworking Americans who are already 
struggling. Repealing this bill will protect Nevadans from predictable 
health care premium increases of at least $2,100, block a $570 billion 
tax increase on all Americans, and keep Nevada's seniors in their 
current Medicare Advantage plan while preventing higher prescription 
drug prices.
  Madam Speaker, this Congress is in the business of cutting red tape, 
not creating it. I strongly support passage of H.R. 2. I look forward 
to working with my colleagues to pass meaningful legislation that will 
promote better, more affordable medical care.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to a valued member of 
our committee, the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this legislative stunt 
to repeal health care reform, and I'm going to tell you why.

[[Page H298]]

  There are 600,000 of my fellow Nevadans who have no health insurance. 
This doesn't mean that they don't get sick. It means that they wait 
until they're very sick and then they go to the emergency rooms to get 
care. Every hospital in southern Nevada is operating in the red. Why is 
that? Because the cost of providing health care to the uninsured in 
emergency rooms is astronomical.
  But there's more. If we repeal this bill, we will be eliminating the 
preexisting condition ban. If you have a preexisting condition, which 
at least 129,000 people in my congressional district have, you will not 
be able to get any insurance at all.
  If we repeal this bill, all of those 20-somethings who are living at 
home and because of the economy they can't find a job, they're not 
going to be able to stay on their parents' health care plan. That's 
26,000 people in my congressional district, including my two children.
  The health care reform bill eliminates lifetime caps. Ask Jazelle 
Scott, age 8, or Michael Braun, age 5. They both have juvenile diabetes 
and they both have already exceeded their lifetime caps. Better yet, 
why don't you ask their mothers how they're going to be able to afford 
the lifesaving medication for their children if this bill is repealed.
  And what should we tell our seniors, the millions that fall into the 
doughnut hole that this law starts to close? We changed our minds? And 
who's going to ask the 8,900 seniors in my district who received the 
$250 check last year to help with the high cost of their medications to 
return the check? I'm not going to do that. Or the discount that 
they're going to be receiving this year on prescription medication, 
it's not going to be available? I'm not going to do that to them. And 
are we going to take away the preventative health care benefits that 
will help 90,000 seniors in my congressional district alone? I won't do 
that.
  And what about the 16,000 small businesses who will now be eligible 
for health care tax credits? We're saying small businesses don't want 
that? I know at least one. Thousands more have contacted my office. Ron 
Nolson has a small family business. He also wants to be able to provide 
health care insurance for his employees.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.
  Ms. BERKLEY. Finally, for those who are truly concerned about the 
deficit, the CBO, the nonpartisan arm of Congress, explicitly stated 
that repeal will cost $260 billion over 10 years. It appears that those 
who shout the loudest about the deficit want to add to it.
  Let's fix what needs fixing, and let's not repeal this lifesaving, 
life-enhancing legislation. And we need to do the doctors fix, too.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and 
Means Committee and deputy whip, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Roskam).
  Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  You know, the past year we have had an incredible national 
conversation about this issue, health care, and it has been robust and 
dynamic, and it has brought about a sense of clarity. You know, 
oftentimes we tell people, look, if you want to participate, 
participate in the ballot box. Make your voice heard. And I really 
don't think there's any arguing that last November people made their 
voices heard, and they said with real clarity that they want this bill 
repealed and they want it replaced with something that brings health 
care costs down and deals with preexisting conditions.
  Employers in my home State, Madam Speaker, just got hit hard with the 
new tax increase that got jammed through by the Illinois General 
Assembly. Seventy-four percent of employers in the Midwest have 
recently, in surveys, said that this bill that we're talking about 
repealing would have an adverse impact on their hiring decisions.
  Now, it's with no sense of irony that now-Minority Leader Nancy 
Pelosi, when she was Speaker, said that we have to pass the bill so 
that you can see what's in it. Well, she did, and we do. And the 
American public does. And the American public said, Enough. They 
understand that what has to happen is that businesses have to be able 
to thrive and to hire and to grow and be dynamic.
  If we repeal this and replace this with the type of thoughtful health 
care initiative that is going to be forthcoming, I think we will do a 
world of service to everybody that we're trying to help, and that is to 
change this economy so that people want to hire again.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of the 
Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. I thank my friend from Michigan for yielding the time.
  Madam Speaker, today we consider the first major piece of legislation 
of the 112th Congress--the first.
  Does this legislation create one job? Not one single job will be 
created by this legislation. In fact, if this bill were to become law, 
over 4 million jobs that will be created over the next 10 years will 
not come to fruition.
  Does this bill reduce the deficit? This bill does not reduce the 
deficit by one penny. In fact, if it became law, it would increase the 
deficit by $230 billion.
  Does it strengthen our middle class? No, this bill will not 
strengthen our middle class. It will devastate the lives of millions of 
Americans who are finally free from the fear that they or their 
children will not have health insurance.
  I've heard from so many throughout my constituency and throughout 
this country of the importance of what this bill has done for their 
lives. I'm not going to go back and tell them today that that's all 
undone.
  And despite what you may say on the other side of the aisle, if this 
bill becomes law, 3 million people in this country who have received 
checks for $250 will have to pay that money back. There is no 
alternative. You can say what you want. But as this law is written, 
that's exactly what will happen.
  For the 20 million children who now have insurance, who's going to 
pay the costs for what they have incurred so far? Are their parents 
going to pay it? Are they responsible for it?
  Republicans are not offering a single solution to this problem. They 
can't even tell you what their secret plan is. It's part of the Harry 
Houdini health care strategy--now you have health care, now you don't. 
Our constituents deserve better.
  But don't just take my word for it. Independent sources have 
confirmed the danger that repeal will cause to our country--stopping 
job creation, exploding the deficit, and even shortening the life of 
the Medicare trust fund by 12 years.
  This bill is clearly wrong for our economy and it's clearly wrong for 
our country. We cannot go backwards, no way, no how, not now, not ever.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the 
Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Gerlach).
  Mr. GERLACH. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, it's been almost 1 year since many of us here in the 
House offered a sobering prognosis about the devastating side effects 
the massive $2.4 trillion health care plan would have on our small 
businesses, our seniors, and our families.
  Last year many warned that concocting a scheme centered on expensive 
government mandates, $500 billion in new taxes, and bigger bureaucracy 
would weaken our economy and is simply the wrong prescription for 
bringing about meaningful change to a health care system that truly 
needs a strong dose of reform.

                              {time}  1530

  Well, that prognosis has turned out to be painfully accurate. Small 
business owners are furious over the ever-increasing insurance premiums 
that continue to this day, and the 1099 mandate, which requires them to 
send a slip of paper to the IRS for every business transaction of $600 
or more. A new 2.3 percent tax on innovators in our thriving medical 
device industry is also choking off investment and hurting job growth. 
And that's jeopardizing approximately 20,000 jobs in Pennsylvania 
alone.
  And all the enactments, tax hikes, and mandates could put an 
estimated 700,000 Americans out of work at a time when unemployment 
hovers at 10 percent. Let there be no mistake: Reform is needed. But 
not big government,

[[Page H299]]

high tax solutions. No, we need commonsense ideas, ideas that would 
lower costs by creating more competition among insurance companies, 
allowing greater freedom of choice for consumers to buy insurance 
across State lines, and eliminating lawsuit abuses that drive up costs 
by as much as $150 billion every year.
  We have the opportunity, starting with a ``yes'' vote today, to begin 
working on true reforms that will lower costs and increase 
affordability and accessibility of health insurance. So let's start 
that process with the right reforms today, together.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is my special privilege to yield 1 minute to our very 
distinguished leader, the gentlewoman from the State of California (Ms. 
Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, today a bill has come to the floor to repeal patients' 
rights, to put insurance companies back in charge of the health of the 
American people, and to balloon the deficit. Yesterday, in the one and 
only hearing on this very important bill, the repeal of patients' 
rights, Democrats heard from Americans benefiting from the health care 
reform. Nothing speaks more eloquently to the success of health care 
reform than their own personal stories.
  After hearing from seven of them yesterday, I said I wished the 
entire Congress could hear your stories. I wish our Republican 
colleagues would have had a hearing so they could hear from you the 
difference this has made in your lives and the difference it's making 
in the lives of millions of Americans. So I told them that I would 
share their stories with you.
  First, we heard from a young woman, Vernal Branch, who was diagnosed 
with breast cancer 15 years ago. The good news is that Vernal survived 
breast cancer. The not so good news is that she has a preexisting 
medical condition for the rest of her life. As she told us yesterday, 
the Affordable Care Act changed all that. What she said was the 
Affordable Care Act, ``represents protection from the uncertainty and 
fear that came with being denied health insurance coverage because of 
my past disease.'' She said, ``It represents freedom for my husband and 
me to make important choices about our lives and careers.''

  Repeal of the patients' rights that is being proposed today would 
mean that 129 million Americans under the age of 65 like Vernal would 
lose their health insurance because they have preexisting medical 
conditions.
  Next we heard from a mom, Lori Bresnan. She has a 22-year-old son 
suffering from celiac disease. Still a student, he was facing the 
prospect of finishing school and entering the workforce without 
insurance but with a preexisting medical condition. Because of the law, 
Lori said, ``We are thrilled we have the option to keep him on our 
insurance in this interim when families so often struggle to keep their 
kids covered.''
  In a similar vein, Alexander Lataille, a new graduate, struggling to 
find work in this economy even though he has two degrees, one in 
atmospheric science and one in social science--he wants to be a 
meteorologist--said that if he lost his ability to stay on his parents' 
insurance plan until age 26, he would be faced with a choice, ``either 
to pay my student loans or to get health insurance.'' He actually said, 
``I would have little choice in the matter. I would need to pay down my 
college loans first and go uninsured.''
  Repeal, as being suggested by our Republican colleagues, would mean 
that over 1.2 million young Americans like Lori's son and Alexander 
would lose their insurance coverage that they received through their 
parents' plans.
  We next heard from Ed Burke, who has testified before. He told me he 
had testified at the invitation of Speaker Gingrich years ago. For much 
of his life, Ed Burke has suffered from hemophilia. Two of his brothers 
do too. They have three brothers with hemophilia. Though he has health 
insurance, he has faced the constant worry that his treatments could 
surpass the plan's lifetime cap. Repealing patients' rights has a clear 
impact for Ed. As he said, ``I will lose the freedom to keep my job if 
efforts to repeal my protections are successful.''
  Repeal, as is being suggested today, would mean that over 165 million 
Americans with private insurance coverage like Ed would again find 
themselves subject to lifetime limits on how much insurance companies 
will spend on their health care.
  Next we heard from a small businesswoman, a doctor. Dr. Odette Cohen 
is a small business owner from Willingboro, New Jersey. She said she 
will be better able to afford to give her employees health care 
coverage because of the reform. But she also told us a very personal 
story, it was very powerful, about her two cousins, Rhonda and Roger. 
Both of them were diagnosed with cancer about the same time. Rhonda 
worked for a large corporation. She had health care. She had an early 
intervention. And she received aggressive care and life-giving care. 
Roger, however, received only pain treatment in the emergency room. He 
worked for a small business that didn't have health insurance. So he 
couldn't have that early intervention. Rhonda is alive and well. Roger 
died.
  As Dr. Cohen said, ``The choice to work for a small business versus a 
large company should not be a choice between life and death in the 
United States. But it was the choice for my cousin.'' Repeal, as is 
being suggested today, would mean that more than four million small 
businesses like Odette's, Dr. Cohen's, would lose the opportunity to 
receive tax credits to provide health insurance to their employees. As 
we know, small businesses are the engine of job creation in our 
country. Odette told us that she wanted to attract the best talent, and 
she wanted to have health insurance for them in order to do that.
  We next heard from Claudette Therriault. She and her husband, 
Richard, are seniors on Medicare. Richard is a diabetic, and his 
insulin alone costs $1,000 a month. When Claudette and Richard fell 
into the doughnut hole, she said, ``We had to choose between defaulting 
on our loan for our home or my husband's health. Well, we chose my 
husband's health,'' she said. ``But changes made are starting to end 
the doughnut hole, so families like ours aren't forced to choose 
between staying healthy and paying the mortgage.''
  Repeal would mean that over 2.7 million Medicare beneficiaries would 
again fall into the doughnut hole, and Medicare would no longer pay for 
an annual checkup for 44.1 million seniors.
  One of the most powerful testimonials--I say this as a mother and a 
grandmother--was from Stacie Ritter. Stacie has 12-year-old twin 
daughters, Hannah and Madeleine. Well, they are 11, almost 12. Can you 
imagine having these beautiful daughters, Hannah and Madeleine? They 
are 12 now. When they were 4 years old they were both diagnosed with 
cancer. Both of them, the twins.

                              {time}  1540

  At 4 years old, diagnosed with leukemia, Hannah and Madeline faced 
stem cell transplants, chemotherapy and total body irradiation. But as 
their mother, Stacie, said, ``We were very fortunate at the time. My 
husband had full coverage through his employer.'' But because of the 
additional cost of health care, ``We ended up bankrupt, even with full 
insurance coverage.''
  She told the stories about how the insurance company refused to do 
this, that and the other thing. But in any event, today Hannah and 
Madeline are healthy, happy 12-year-olds; but they still have a 
preexisting condition. According to Stacie, ``My children now have 
protections from insurance discrimination based on their preexisting 
cancer condition. They will never have to fear the rescission of their 
insurance policy if they get sick. They can look forward to lower 
health insurance costs and preventive care.''
  The repeal suggested today would mean that 17 million American 
children with a preexisting medical condition could lose their health 
insurance because they have preexisting conditions. It would change 
everything for Hannah and for Madeline.
  In Congress, on behalf of these Americans, Democrats have made a firm 
commitment that we will judge every proposal that comes to the floor by 
whether it creates jobs, strengthens the middle class, and reduces the 
deficit.
  The repeal of patients' rights fails on all three counts. In fact, 
consider the cost to our Federal budget. According

[[Page H300]]

to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, repeal would add $230 
billion to the deficit over the next decade.
  Just less than a year ago on this floor I quoted the late Senator 
Kennedy, many of us did, our inspiration in all of this, calling health 
care reform ``the great unfinished business of our society.'' By 
completing that great unfinished business of our society, now patients 
and their doctors are in charge of their health, not insurance 
companies.
  Because of the wonderful testimony that we had yesterday, which was 
representative of what Members of Congress have told the Rules 
Committee, told our colleagues and told us from our districts across 
the country, because of their stories of success of this bill only 
being in force for a few months--these provisions, most of them, only 
went into effect since September--because of them, because of Hannah 
and Madeline, because repeal would be devastating to so many Americans, 
I am pleased to join a broad coalition in opposing it, every 
organization from the AARP to the UAW and everything in between, the 
Catholic Health Association, Easter Seals and the NAACP.
  I think we should send a strong message today with a great vote 
against this repeal, which is so harmful to the health of the American 
people, which is so damaging to our fiscal health as well, and to have 
people know that we want to have what is best for them.
  We all want them to think that in order for them to have the same 
kind of access to health care that we do, we should say to them, ``Run 
for Congress.'' We want them to have it because Congress has acted upon 
their needs, their strengths and the strength of our country.
  I urge a ``no'' on the repeal.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and 
Means Committee, the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Price.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, over the past 4 years the previous majority took every 
opportunity to expand the reach and the scope of the Federal 
Government. You see, they believe in government solutions. We believe 
in people.
  We believe in solutions that embrace people and individuals. Now, as 
a physician with countless personal stories, those solutions in health 
care mean patient-centered solutions, not government-centered 
solutions.
  It's important to repeal this bill for many reasons, but two very 
specific reasons. First, it's exactly what we said we were going to do. 
If given the privilege of leading once again, we would vote to repeal 
this bill. And, second, it's the principled thing to do. If you think 
about it, all of the principles that we hold dear in health care, 
whether it's accessibility or affordability or quality, or 
responsiveness of the system, or innovation of the system so that we 
have the highest quality, or choices, choices for patients--none of 
them, none of them are improved by the current law or the bill. 
Premiums are increasing, jobs are being lost because of the bill. 
Quality is being defined by bureaucrats, not by patients or families or 
doctors.
  The good news is that there are positive solutions that embrace 
fundamental American principles that allow us to solve these challenges 
without putting the government in charge, and that's exactly where we 
will lead over the coming months and, yes, over the coming years.
  Madam Speaker, the status quo in health care is unacceptable. The 
bill that was passed is destructive to both principle and to patients. 
The work we will begin tomorrow, after we vote to repeal today, will be 
focused on patients, on people, and not the government.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to an active former 
member of our committee, the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Higgins).
  Mr. HIGGINS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, since 1970, health care costs have increased an 
average of 9.9 percent a year, far outpacing inflation and creating a 
drag on our economy by increasing the expense of new hiring and 
undermining new business investment in this Nation.
  This trend is unsustainable. Yet while costs are increasing, the 
quality of coverage is declining. Last year, the inability to pay 
medical bills caused 62 percent of all personal bankruptcies in this 
country, even though the filer had health insurance in 75 percent of 
these cases.
  That is 868,000 American families who went broke last year simply 
because they got sick, did not have insurance or their insurer refused 
to cover their bills. This is unacceptable.
  I often say that health care reform needed a start, not a finish, and 
that we will be amending and improving the law for years to come.
  However, the bill before us today takes us back, not forward, with no 
persuasive plan to reduce costs, improve quality and coverage. This 
challenge deserves a more serious response.
  I urge opposition to the bill.
  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished 
member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Buchanan).
  Mr. BUCHANAN. Madam Speaker, I stand before you today as a self-made 
businessman with 30 years of experience. I have been fortunate to 
create thousands of jobs, meet payrolls, and balance budgets.
  As the past chairman of the Florida Chamber, which represents 137,000 
businesses across Florida, the number one issue 7 years ago when I was 
chairman and the number one issue today is affordable health care for 
small businesses.
  They are the job creators. They create 70 percent of the jobs. The 
Business Roundtable says today that the average employee for their 
family of four is $10,000. This bill does nothing to bring down the 
costs. In fact, in the next 10 years it's going to go from $10,000 to 
$30,000.
  I was with a pharmacist the other day, a private pharmacist. He 
employs about 20 to 30 people. We talked about various things. I didn't 
go there to talk to him about health care; but he brought out his 
health care bill, just got it, it went up another 22 percent. It went 
up 20 percent the year before.
  I don't know who my friends on the other side are talking to, but 
most small businesses in Florida that I know, they are very, very 
concerned about health care and the escalation of the costs going 
forward. It's a job killer.
  With a national unemployment rate at 9.5 and even higher in our State 
of Florida, this law is going in the wrong direction. We need to be 
working with small businesses on solutions to help them grow, succeed 
and provide health care at affordable cost.
  They do create, as I mentioned before, 70 percent of the jobs. You 
can't get the job unless we can help small businesses obtain affordable 
health care.

                              {time}  1550

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes 
to another distinguished former member of our committee, Ms. Sanchez of 
California.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, it's no secret 
that our economy is still sluggish. So our top priority in this 
Congress should be about creating jobs. It's certainly my top priority. 
And I want to work with Republicans to meet that goal. Instead, House 
Republicans are focused on repealing patients' rights, putting 
insurance companies back in charge and ballooning the deficit. American 
families have suffered and waited far too long for the freedom and 
security that affordable health care provides. And now the Republican 
majority is trying to take that freedom and snatch that security away.
  If Republicans have their way, families will once again lose their 
benefits when insurers unfairly cancel or cap their coverage. If 
Republicans have their way, children with disabilities and pregnant 
women won't be safe from discrimination by insurers. If Republicans 
have their way, seniors in my district will be forced to return the 
$250 in prescription assistance they received under the Democratic 
health care reform bill, and millions of hardworking Americans will 
lose the freedom to start their own business because they will be 
afraid of giving up the health insurance tied to their current job.
  This is a costly plan for seniors, children, and families in my 
district and

[[Page H301]]

for the taxpayers of America. To stand up for families that deserve and 
need our help, we must reject this plan. I urge everybody to vote 
``no'' on the repeal of health care. I thank the gentleman from 
Michigan.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the 
Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I would like to share a 
perspective from an employer in my district. Visiting this small 
business, actually a few hundred employees but still considered a small 
business, we toured the plant. He shared with me the benefit plans for 
the employees. He went on to say that orders are coming in, but they 
are refraining from hiring new people because of the uncertainty of the 
cost of hiring a new employee. This shows that the health care bill, 
primarily, is causing uncertainty in the employment sector and causing 
employers to hold back on hiring new people. This is not good for our 
economy. It's not good for our deficit. Most importantly, it's not good 
for the American people. And that's why I'm extremely concerned with 
the $20 billion tax on medical device makers that will just increase 
the cost of cutting-edge medical technology for consumers and patients 
themselves.
  Madam Speaker, we need a patient-centered health care plan, one that 
does not depend on new government programs, one that focuses more on 
patients, and one that will cause a lot of the problems to go away.
  Mr. LEVIN. Could you please tell us, Madam Speaker, the time 
remaining on each side for our committee?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Mr. Levin of Michigan has 15\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. Mr. Camp of Michigan has 15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is now my privilege to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the very 
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. Every time 
we take on this bill to repeal the very important freedoms provided by 
the health care reform law, it's really a critical minute that we are 
not focusing on jobs. We should be debating how to create jobs, how to 
get our economy going and how to reduce the deficit. Instead, 
Republicans want to add $230 billion to the deficit and to empower 
health insurance companies--mind you, health insurance companies--to 
take away patients' rights in their own health decisions that they 
should be making with themselves and their health care physicians, 
nurses, and providers.
  This repeal gives insurance companies much, much, much too much 
power. Literally, their idea is to return to the same failed system 
that has left 50 million people, including 7\1/2\ million children, 
without health care. In the current economic environment, where more 
people are without coverage and where jobs are scarce, making it more 
difficult for people to access health care or to keep their health care 
coverage is downright wrong. Repeal of the law would set us back where 
once again health care would be a privilege for those who can afford it 
rather than a basic human right for each and every American.
  When I voted for health care reform, I said it was in the memory of 
all of those who died prematurely because they had no health care and 
also in honor of and support for those who will now live longer and 
healthier lives because they would have health care. Repealing this 
health care law really is morally wrong, and it's fiscally 
irresponsible.
  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished 
member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Schock).
  Mr. SCHOCK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
repeal of this job-killing health care law. How many times as American 
citizens did we hear the President say on national television, ``If you 
like your health care coverage, you can keep it?'' But for the rest of 
the Americans, let me talk to you. Well, ladies and gentlemen, wake up, 
because if you are one of the 80 percent of Americans who have an 
employer-provided health care plan that you like, you're about to lose 
it.
  Simply put, the burdens placed on employers by this new law are too 
costly. The estimated cost for an employer to provide the ``minimum 
essential benefits'' package as prescribed by this bill will cost them 
per full-time employee $12,250 a year. As we speak, businesses all 
across America are crunching the numbers and figuring out that it's 
financially more beneficial for them as companies to pay the $2,000 per 
employee penalty and dump their employees into the government-run 
health care plan. The result, of course, will be that the 80 percent of 
Americans who currently like their health care coverage will be put in 
a government-run system that, of course, will be riddled with 
inefficiencies and limited options. Think the DMV or FEMA for your 
health care plan.
  Additionally, this health care legislation is riddled with job-
destroying regulations, burdens, and tax increases that will stifle 
private-sector growth and smother economic recovery in this country.
  According to the National Federation of Independent Business and the 
Chamber of Commerce, this will cost 1.6 million jobs as it currently 
stands. I urge passage of this repeal.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is now my privilege to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you very much, Chairman Levin. I 
really appreciate it so very much.
  I have listened for the last 2 days, and I have heard my friends from 
the other side refer to this as ObamaCare, so derisively, mean-
spiritedly. But let me assure you what we're talking about that is the 
law of the land today is not ObamaCare. It is America's health care for 
all the American people. It is the health care for that senior citizen 
who is sitting down at her kitchen table thankful that she now has a 50 
percent discount on all of her prescription drugs, and she does not 
want to see this repealed. It's for that youngster who can now be on 
his parents' insurance until he's 26 years old in these tough economic 
times. The American people want this and do not want to see it 
repealed.
  And I want to say to the American people, have no fear, let not your 
heart be troubled. This law will not be repealed. Yes, they will vote 
for it today. But it's not going to be taken up in the Senate, and it's 
not going to be signed by the President. So what do the American people 
say about this? They want us to be concerned about jobs. And certainly 
if we have to deal with this health care, why should we not be dealing 
with some of the critical issues? The American people do not want this 
bill, this law, repealed. They want it fixed. They'd love to see 
Democrats and Republicans working together on the 1099s. Sure, there's 
too much paperwork for small businesses. Let us work on that. This 
medical liability issue, the number one reason why kids are not going 
into medicine, let us work on that. And the reimbursement rate for our 
physicians. The American people want us to fix it, not repeal it.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the 
Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lee).
  Mr. LEE of New York. Madam Speaker, today we are doing what we 
promised the American people we would do after the November election. 
We will vote to repeal last year's massive health care law. Most 
importantly, we will also vote to begin replacing this massive new 
government entitlement with commonsense reforms that actually remove 
costs from our health care system.

                              {time}  1600

  We can all agree our current health care system is unsustainable. It 
is ripe for reform.
  Passing last year's 2,300-page monstrosity will raise health care 
costs by $311 billion over the next decade, according to the 
administration's own actuaries. It will raise health care costs for 
seniors and cut more than $500 billion for Medicare and Medicare 
Advantage, which are both very popular plans.
  It will cause employers to simply drop the insurance they offer 
employees because they have done the math and they understand that it's 
cheaper to just pay the penalty than pay for the insurance, leading to 
struggling Americans being kicked out of their current plan they have 
and they like.

[[Page H302]]

  That is not the reform Americans deserve. We need to include medical 
liability reform. The CBO has scored that at a $54 billion savings.
  Meaningful reform will allow western New Yorkers to start buying 
insurance across State lines to encourage competition. And meaningful 
reform will empower small businesses to group together to cut costs and 
provide coverage to their employees.
  Republicans are pursuing these commonsense reforms because we made a 
promise to the American people and because we believe health care 
reforms need to address both affordability and accessibility. It can be 
done, and we are committed to making it happen.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Maloney).
  (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Republican bill which would take health care away from millions of 
Americans, children, families, and individuals.
  I have heard my Republican colleagues mention cost throughout this 
day. Well, make no mistake, there would also be a cost in leaving tens 
of millions of Americans uninsured.
  According to a recent study published by the American Journal of 
Public Health, uninsured working age Americans have a 40 percent higher 
risk of death than their privately insured counterparts. The study 
estimates that lack of health insurance causes over 44,000 excess 
deaths annually. That works out to about one death every 12 minutes 
from lack of health insurance. My colleagues, let us not forget to 
count those lives as a very real and continuing cost: over 44,000 
deaths a year, one every 12 minutes.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic plan, lifesaving 
legislation, and vote against the Republican repeal of health care. It 
is wrong for America. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this harmful, ill-
conceived bill.
  When the Republican Majority said it was going to make the deficit 
their defining issue this Congress, most of us did not realize it was 
to make the deficit bigger. But according to the Congressional Budget 
Office, their first act to repeal health care would do just that--add 
$230 billion to the deficit while making Americans pay more for health 
care.
  Instead of focusing on job creation, Republicans are running up our 
deficit, jeopardizing the health of millions of Americans, and 
threatening the creation of new jobs.
  Under the Republican repeal effort:
  Insurance companies will once again be able to drop people when they 
get sick--exactly when coverage is needed most;
  Children with pre-existing conditions will be denied coverage, while 
insurance companies would again impose devastating annual and lifetime 
caps;
  Young people will not be able to stay on their parents' plans until 
age 26;
  Pregnant women and breast cancer survivors can be denied coverage;
  Seniors will face an increase in their prescription drug costs--
millions thrown back into the Medicare Part D Donut Hole. Repeal would 
deny seniors a 50 percent discount on prescription drugs, re-creating 
the devastating coverage gap.
  Each of these things will disappear if Republicans are able to repeal 
the historic health reform law.
  In my home state of New York, repealing the Affordable Care Act would 
be devastating. New York residents, providers, small businesses and 
other employers would be denied critical new benefits of the law, from 
protections against insurance industry abuses to new coverage options 
and millions of dollars in support so states like New York can deliver 
quality, affordable health care options to all of its residents.
  Without the Affordable Care Act, New York will suffer:
  77,800 young adults would lose their insurance coverage through their 
parents' health plans, sometimes just after they finish school and as 
they are looking for a job. Families across New York would lose the 
peace of mind the Affordable Care Act provides by making sure that 
young adults can stay on their parents plan to age 26 if they do not 
have coverage of their own.
  More than 10 million residents of New York with private insurance 
coverage would suddenly find themselves vulnerable again to having 
lifetime limits placed on how much insurance companies will spend on 
their health care.
  Insurance companies would once again be allowed to cut off someone's 
coverage unexpectedly when they are in an accident or become sick, 
because of a simple mistake on an application. This would leave 734,000 
people in New York at risk of losing their insurance at the moment they 
need it most, as one of the worst abuses of the insurance industry 
would become legal again.
  New insurance plans would no longer be required to cover recommended 
preventive services, like mammograms and flu shots, without cost 
sharing, nor would they have to guarantee enrollees the right to choose 
any available primary care provider in the network or see an OB-GYN 
without a referral.
  Nearly 2.9 million seniors in New York who have Medicare coverage 
would be forced to pay a co-pay to receive important preventive 
services, like mammograms and colonoscopies.
  Medicare would no longer pay for an annual check-up visit, so nearly 
2.9 million seniors in New York who have Medicare coverage would have 
to pay extra if they want to stay healthy by getting check-ups 
regularly.
  192,596 on Medicare would see significantly higher prescription drug 
costs: In New York, 192,596 Medicare beneficiaries received a one-time, 
tax-free $250 rebate to help pay for prescription drugs in the ``donut 
hole'' coverage gap in 2010. Medicare beneficiaries who fall into the 
``donut hole'' in 2011 will be eligible for 50 percent discounts on 
covered brand name prescription drugs. Without the law, the burden of 
high prescription drug costs would hurt millions of Medicare 
beneficiaries across the country.
  For the sake of argument, if we remove the moral obligation of 
providing health care to 32 million Americans who would lose coverage 
with this repeal, we are still left with a compelling fiscal reason for 
opposing the repeal of this law:
  Repeal adds $230 billion to the deficit over the first 10 years and 
more than $1.2 trillion in the second decade (around one-half percent 
of GDP).
  Americans purchasing health insurance on their own will see their 
costs rise.
  Americans will get fewer health benefits for their money.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill that will 
balloon the deficit, burden our children and grandchildren, halt the 
creation of jobs, and compromise the health of millions of Americans.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. 
Jenkins), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Last March I voted against ObamaCare. Rather than bringing down 
health care costs for all Americans, helping small businesses provide 
health care for their employees, and preserving Medicare for our 
Nation's seniors, this law will result in higher premiums for families, 
costly unfunded mandates, including an absurd 1099 requirement, 
additional job-killing taxes, and more than half a trillion dollars in 
cuts to Medicare.
  It was irresponsible to pass this massive job-killing plan by means 
of arm twisting and gimmicks, and it is even more irresponsible to 
allow implementation to begin given our national debt is over $14 
trillion, unemployment rates are still over 9 percent, and many States 
remain on the verge of bankruptcy.
  Not only is the bill unaffordable, but it is such an overreach of the 
Federal Government's power, a U.S. district judge has already deemed it 
unconstitutional.
  Americans want reforms to our health care system, but they have 
spoken clearly: This bill is not the change they wanted.
  I will be voting in support of H.R. 2, voting to repeal this 
government takeover of our health care system, just as I promised my 
constituents I would.
  Let's repeal this bill so we can go to work replacing it with reforms 
the American people want and support. I encourage all of my colleagues 
in the House to listen to their constituents and join me in voting 
``yes.''
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to Ms. Edwards from Maryland.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in strong opposition to 
Republican attempts to repeal and dismantle our health care law, the 
law that Congress has passed to give health care to the American 
people.
  Mr. Speaker, this repeal bill may fulfill an empty campaign promise, 
but it fails to put the key American objectives of creating jobs and 
reducing the deficit at the top of the agenda. In fact, the independent 
Congressional Budget Office estimates that this repeal will

[[Page H303]]

increase the deficit by $230 billion over the next 10 years. In 
Maryland, by contrast, we will save $800 million in 10 years with the 
new law.
  We have heard the debate, but now it is time to hear the stories of 
countless millions of Americans who have a chance at real health care. 
I know these stories because I hear them every day, Mr. Speaker, 
stories like Chuck, an engineer from Hyattsville, Maryland, who suffers 
from chronic thyroid condition and believes he will be denied health 
care coverage should health care reform be repealed; Nancy, a mother in 
Germantown, Maryland, who is grateful that the health care law has 
allowed her 20-something daughter currently in graduate school to stay 
on her mother's health insurance policy. I have even heard from 
constituents of some of our Republican colleagues, afraid about having 
to repay the money because they slipped into the doughnut hole. And I 
want to tell you about Annie, a friend of mine, 28 years old, diagnosed 
with leukemia, who would have reached lifetime caps because she and her 
parents are trying to save her life.
  Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate we are here today. Let's create jobs 
and stop this theater.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Paulsen), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this effort to repeal 
the job-destroying health care law that a majority of Americans oppose.
  Now, last year Congress put job creation on the back burner and 
instead pushed a very partisan, trillion-dollar overhaul of our health 
care system. Last year, at the Democrat leadership's request, Congress 
passed the bill to ``find out what is in it.'' Well, here is what we 
found: a laundry list of tax increases and job-crushing mandates that 
will make it harder for small businesses to make ends meet and further 
delay an economic recovery. This problem is so serious that the 
National Federation of Independent Business, an advocacy organization 
representing countless small businesses that drive the engine of our 
economy, found that the new employer mandate could cost 1.6 million 
jobs.
  In and around my district, hundreds of medical technology companies 
are now facing higher taxes to the tune of $20 billion. We are 
penalizing innovation when we should be encouraging it. We are 
preventing lifesaving technologies from coming to market when we should 
be promoting them. This is unacceptable.
  The American people deserve health care reform that doesn't break the 
bank. We need health care reform that lowers costs and doesn't increase 
premiums. We should repeal this law now and replace it with 
commonsense, patient-centered alternatives; otherwise, our economy will 
stagnate, our small businesses will not be able to expand, and the 
medical device industry in my district will continue to suffer.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Speier).
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  You know, the real question is who is supporting this repeal of 
health reform. Are the doctors of America supporting the repeal? No; 
the American Medical Association opposes it.
  Is AARP supporting a repeal? No; they are opposed to it.
  Are the hospitals supporting a repeal? No; they are opposed to it as 
well.
  Who supports a repeal of health care reform? The National Chamber of 
Commerce, period.
  So what do our constituents really want? They want the costs to be 
brought down. There is not one of us who hasn't heard a complaint from 
a constituent saying, I can't afford it anymore.
  Well, health care reform requires that 80 percent of the premium go 
to providing health care. It is starting to put a governor on the costs 
of health insurance.
  The second thing that people are concerned about is access for their 
kids and for themselves. Well, let's talk about these children.
  In my district there are 30,000 children with preexisting conditions, 
and I know you have gotten the same phone calls I have gotten; a parent 
calling, crying on the phone, talking about the leukemia their child 
has or the asthma their child has and their fear if their spouse loses 
their job they won't have health insurance and they will go to the 
individual market and there will be no health insurance.
  Let me tell you about Sophie O'Riley, who, at 5 years of age, had 
very serious asthma. Her parents went to every insurer in the 
individual market and could not get insurance. So what did they do? 
They went bare for a year in order to be able to access insurance.
  H.R. 2 is bad medicine. I urge a ``no'' vote.

                              {time}  1610

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of 
the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. 
Berg).
  Mr. BERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in firm support of repealing this 
job-killing health care law.
  This is a $500 billion tax that will hurt small businesses at a time 
when we need these job creators to help put our country back on track. 
America's small businesses cannot grow with the tax hikes and 
government mandates in this law. Medicare payroll taxes will increase. 
Costly penalties will be imposed on small businesses, and there will be 
increased health care costs.
  Repealing this law and removing these barriers will provide 
businesses with the certainty they need to help get America back on 
track.
  My wife is a family practice doctor, and when this law first passed, 
our first concern was this puts government between patients and their 
doctors. We need to repeal this law and put those health care decisions 
back between the patients directly and their doctors.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this bill lays bare what 
this new Republican majority is all about. They would repeal benefits 
and protections that have already dramatically improved health care for 
families and small businesses, with no credible assurance they would 
put anything in their place.
  A ``yes'' vote would take away tax credits available to up to 17,000 
small businesses in my district alone--credits that will let them offer 
their employees insurance coverage just like their larger competitors 
do.
  A ``yes'' vote on repeal would increase the average cost of 
prescription drugs for seniors in the ``doughnut hole'' coverage gap by 
more than $500 this year and more than $3,000 by 2020. What seniors on 
fixed incomes can afford this kind of price hike?
  A ``yes'' vote on repeal would say to parents, who now for the first 
time can get affordable coverage for their children with preexisting 
conditions: Once again, you can be denied coverage altogether.
  This legislation is flying under disgracefully false colors. Fiscally 
sound? The Congressional Budget Office says it will increase deficits 
by $230 billion over the next 10 years. Republicans like to call health 
insurance reform ``job killing.'' But their repeal bill would cost as 
many as 4 million jobs over the next decade.
  Our Republican colleagues have put their tea party base above 
everything else, including the health care needs of the American 
people. We must recognize their cynical political gesture for what it 
is. This House can and must do better.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Speaker of the House.
  Mr. BOEHNER. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  I am going to thank all the Members of this body for a spirited but 
respectful debate on what is a critical issue to the American people.
  Both sides of the aisle have very different viewpoints on what 
government's role in this health care issue should be, and if there is 
one thing that we do agree on, it is that this health care law needs 
improvement. The President said as much yesterday.
  Why does it need improvement? One only needs to look at the facts.
  Yesterday, 200 economists and experts put out a letter calling this 
health care bill ``a barrier to job

[[Page H304]]

growth.'' The letter talks about how employers are struggling to keep 
up with all the mandates and tax hikes in this law, flooding the job 
market with additional uncertainty.
  The one thing the American people wanted out of health care reform 
was lower costs, which the authors of this law promised; but according 
to these economists, this law will increase spending by nearly $1 
trillion--and that is a minimum number--and add nearly $1.5 trillion to 
the national debt.
  So, if we agree that this law needs improving, why would we keep it 
on the books? Why would we keep one hand tied behind our backs when we 
are dealing with 10 percent unemployment and a $14 trillion national 
debt?
  Now, let me be clear about what repealing this health care law means 
for families, small businesses, and taxpayers:
  Repeal means preventing more than $770 billion in tax hikes and 
eliminating all the mandates and penalties so that small businesses can 
grow and hire new workers.
  Repeal means reducing spending by $540 billion, another step in 
tackling the massive debt that faces our kids and grandkids.
  Repeal means protecting more than 7 million seniors from losing or 
being denied coverage under Medicare Advantage--a program they like.
  Repeal means paving the way for better solutions that will lower 
costs without destroying jobs or bankrupting our government.
  And repeal means keeping a promise. This is what we said we would do. 
We listened to the people. We made a commitment to them--a pledge to 
make their priorities our priorities. When you look at the facts and 
when you listen to the people, this is a promise worth keeping.
  Let's stop payment on this check before it can destroy more jobs and 
put us into a deeper hole. Then let's work together to put in place 
reforms that lower the costs without destroying jobs or bankrupting our 
government.
  Let's challenge ourselves to do better.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Reyes).
  Mr. REYES. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong opposition to H.R. 2, which 
seeks to dismantle the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
  Repealing this law would be detrimental to districts like the one I 
represent, which have unsustainably high rates of people without health 
insurance. Nationally, about one in five people is without health 
insurance. The problem in my district means one in three is without 
basic health coverage. That's 230,000 people in my district alone.
  When these individuals can't get preventative care and they get sick, 
they wind up in the emergency room, which is the most expensive kind of 
health care there is. According to the latest figures from our county 
hospital, more than $500 million of local property tax dollars have 
been used to cover the costs of those who could not pay for treatment 
and services--$500 million.
  We passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to help 
address this problem and provide affordable health care insurance to 
those who currently are uninsured.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 2.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).
  Mr. CRENSHAW. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for 
his great leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I plan to vote to repeal this health care law and 
replace it with some commonsense, workable solutions. Why? Because I've 
been listening to my constituents--listening to what they have to say, 
what they ask for.
  I can tell you they are not asking for a bill that weakens our 
economy and causes jobs to disappear. They are not asking for a brand 
new entitlement and then pretending only partly to pay for it. They are 
not asking for a bill that takes away the rights of seniors to have a 
choice in the Medicare program, and they are certainly not asking for 
new taxes--but that's what they're getting under this health care bill 
unless it's replaced.
  What they are asking for is the right to choose their own doctors and 
the right to get the treatment they need when they need it. That's what 
they're asking for. They're asking that we bring down the cost, to make 
some commonsense reforms, to make it more affordable, more accessible.
  That's what we should focus on.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to a former, very distinguished member of our committee, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
  Under no circumstances would I vote to repeal the most effective, 
most meaningful, most sensitive health legislation that has been passed 
in this country since the Medicare-Medicaid provisions of the 1960s. 
Under no circumstances would I vote to repeal legislation that would 
provide the 107,000 individuals in my congressional district who have 
preexisting conditions.

                              {time}  1620

  Would I vote to repeal health insurance for more than 32 million 
Americans who otherwise would have no coverage? No way.
  Vote this legislation down. Let's support the American people, keep 
them with health care.
  The Seventh Congressional District of Illinois includes some of the 
most medically underserved communities in America. Census data revealed 
that 24 percent of families and 44 percent of children under 18 live 
below the poverty line. As a result, many of these individuals are 
susceptible to an anomaly of diseases and poor health. In fact, some 
communities on Chicago's west side experience infant mortality rates 
comparable with third-world countries. By repealing Public Law 111-148, 
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will take away support 
for community health centers, which provide critical resources for 
millions of Americans in every state and territory. In my district, 
there are many Medicare and Medicaid recipients that have established 
community health centers as their medical homes. Medicaid beneficiaries 
that rely on health centers for usual care were 19 percent less likely 
to use the emergency room at a hospital than other providers for 
nonemergency and usual care services. Overall, health centers save the 
health care system between $9.9 billion and $17.6 billion annually.
  Community health centers provide high quality health care regardless 
of the ability to pay, and health centers in Illinois have a tremendous 
impact on our economy and employment. In 2008, 40 health centers 
operated over 350 sites, contributed almost one billion dollars to the 
Illinois economy, and directly employed almost 6,000 Illinoisans. 
Indeed, for every 10 people employed by an Illinois health center, an 
additional 4 jobs were created in their surrounding communities. 
Illinois health centers served over 1.1 million patients--nearly 80% of 
whom fell below the federal poverty level and 30% who had no health 
insurance, helping them cope with chronic health conditions and general 
health issues to be able to work and care for their families.
  Repeal of the health care law would eliminate $11 billion in support 
for community health centers over the next 5 years, funding that will 
nearly double the number of patients served today and greatly 
strengthen Illinois's economy. Repealing the health care law would 
dramatically harm the health of hundreds of thousands of citizens in 
Chicago and Illinois.
  Repeal of the health care law would greatly increase an already high 
level of health disparities among African-Americans and Hispanics. In a 
recent study, comparing health outcomes among African-Americans and 
Caucasians found that the gap in health disparities across the Nation 
was narrowing across ten (10) indicators; however, in Chicago, the 
reverse was occurring in health disparities among African-Americans and 
Caucasians are widening. Given all that has been stated above, the 
reversal of health care reform would have tremendous negative impact on 
Chicago when considering the unemployment rate, the crisis in the 
housing market and the abundance of the urban poor that exists within 
our communities. Most affected will be the working poor who are most 
commonly uninsured as their company provides little or no medical 
benefits. The middle aged childless individual who is not eligible for 
Illinois public aid and naturally men without children who are not 
veterans or eligible to be covered through Illinois public aid are 
affected as well. Lastly, we must consider the devastating impact the 
burden of the uninsured has placed on the healthcare delivery system, 
specifically hospitals who avoid caring for uninsured patients and 
resulting in the lack of access to primary and specialty care. The 
funding from the Affordable Care Act would assist community

[[Page H305]]

health centers to stay on track to add 20 million new patients (for a 
total of 40 million patients) over the next 5 years.

  Repeal of the health care law would eliminate health coverage for 
young people up to age 26 who would not be allowed to stay on their 
parents' plans. Repeal would force 2,600 young adults in my district to 
find other coverage or returned to the ranks of the uninsured.
  Repeal would deny tax credits to buy health insurance coverage for 
158,000 families in my district. Additionally, it would increased the 
numbered of uninsured residents to 48,000 in my district.
  There are 107,000 to 282,000 residents in my district with pre-
existing conditions like diabetes, heart disease, or cancer, including 
7,000 to 30,000 children that the repeal legislation if passed would 
encourage health insurance companies to discriminate based on pre-
existing conditions.
  Repeal would eliminate tax credits for health insurance up to 14,100 
small businesses in my district. These tax credits under the current 
law would provide small businesses up to 35% of the cost of providing 
health insurance.
  The health care law is critical to Chicago and Illinois. Community 
health centers are vital partners in the health and economic well-being 
of Chicago and Illinois. For this reason, I do not support H.R. 2, 
Repeal the Job-Killing Health Care Law and Health care related 
provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Brooks).
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, Americans enjoy the best health care in the 
world. Every year, profit motive and American ingenuity create new and 
better diagnostic tools and treatments. Yes, there are ways to improve 
America's health care, but President Obama's socialized medicine is not 
it. For example, we can cut health care costs by implementing tort 
reform, by forcing health care competition, and by removing illegal 
aliens from America who get free health care at our cost.
  Socialized medicine strangles creativity and obstructs life-saving 
medical advances. It is care rationed by bureaucrats with mind-numbing 
regulations. Simply stated, socialized medicine pulls all America down 
to health care mediocrity.
  Lives and freedom are at stake. We must repeal this job-killing 
government takeover of America's health care. Today, I will proudly 
vote to do exactly that.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is my privilege to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the 
Patients' Rights Repeal Bill, and I find it absolutely regrettable that 
my Republican colleagues have made this their first priority of the new 
Congress.
  Rhode Islanders sent me here with a clear purpose to create jobs, 
strengthen our economy, and reduce the Federal deficit. Those are the 
issues we need to address, and doing so should be our first order of 
business and our top priority. Instead, we are considering a bill that 
will increase already skyrocketing health care premiums for Rhode 
Island families and businesses, give insurers back the power to deny or 
drop coverage when people get sick, and raise the deficit by an 
additional $230 billion over the next 10 years and over $1 trillion the 
decade after that.
  Pressing the reset button on health reform will not only bring our 
progress toward affordable and accessible health care to a screeching 
halt, it will force us to repeal the rights of patients and rescind tax 
breaks to the very small businesses that fuel our economy.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and join me in getting to 
work on the people's priorities--job creation, economic innovation, and 
deficit reduction. We have come such a long way.
  We have already seen the benefits of health care reform in covering 
children with preexisting conditions, allowing adult children to stay 
on their parents' health care coverage, and eliminating the yearly and 
lifetime caps. These are major steps forward in health care reform. All 
that goes away if we repeal this health care law that we've seen put 
into effect. Please oppose this Republican bill that's before us today.
  Mr. Speaker, the Affordable Care Act is just beginning to ease costs 
and increase access to care for thousands of Rhode Islanders. Almost 
10,000 seniors have already received a $250 rebate check for their 
prescription drugs to cover the Medicare Part D ``donut hole.'' That's 
one small but important step toward making prescription drugs 
affordable. Over 3,500 young adults now have access to their parents' 
health plans, giving them peace of mind knowing that they can remain 
covered until age 26. Additionally, over 18,000 small businesses in 
Rhode Island have already received information from the IRS on the tax 
credit to help provide coverage to employees. These tax credits will 
help ease the burden of rising health care costs on private sector job 
growth.
  Health reform is about more than just statistics or economics; it is 
about helping real people who are just trying to make it day to day. It 
is about the grandmother in Cranston whose life will be saved because 
her breast cancer was detected earlier through a free preventive health 
screening; it is about the father in Coventry who works for a small 
business and will finally have health coverage to manage his diabetes; 
and it is about the mother in Warwick who won't face bankruptcy to 
treat her daughter's Multiple Sclerosis because of lifetime insurance 
caps.
  These are just some of the examples of how the Affordable Care Act is 
beginning to make a positive difference in people's lives. As I've said 
in the past, this law is not perfect, and I look forward to working 
with my colleagues to improve it where changes need to be made. 
However, pressing the reset button will not only bring our progress 
toward affordable and accessible health care to a screeching halt, it 
will literally force us to repeal the rights of patients and rescind 
tax breaks to the very small businesses that fuel our economy.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and join me in getting to 
work on our immediate challenges--job creation, economic innovation and 
deficit reduction.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo).
  Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support 
for the repeal of this health care monstrosity. It was a bill passed 
over the objections of most Mississippians, built on unconstitutional 
individual mandates and unprecedented burdens for State governments. In 
short, this government takeover is poised to destroy the greatest 
health care system in the world. Don't take my word for it, but look at 
how some of the most ardent backers have been quietly working to obtain 
special waivers so they will not be held to the same standards most 
small businesses face.
  Mr. Speaker, it's time we give all Americans the same relief the 
President's political friends have worked so hard to get--relief from 
this job-destroying legislation--by voting in favor of this repeal. I 
am proud that the first speech I have given in this Chamber and the 
first bill I have co-sponsored in this Congress is one to repeal this 
2,700-page monstrosity.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from 
Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to share the story of 
Patricia Maisch.
  Pat, as her friends call her, lives outside Tucson and has been 
fittingly hailed as one of the heroes during the tragic shooting of our 
colleague, Gabby Giffords. Pat actually knocked the second gun clip out 
of the shooter's hand as he was attempting to reload, very likely 
saving the lives of more innocent people.
  She was in line to talk to her Congresswoman to share that she 
thought that the title of the repeal bill was disingenuous, and because 
Pat and her husband own a small business north of Tucson. The spouse of 
one of their employees has a preexisting condition, and they have been 
unable to find affordable insurance to cover her. Pat wanted to tell 
Congresswoman Giffords that the health reform law will help them 
provide insurance for this employee. She wanted Gabby to stand up to 
attempts to repeal health care reform. Pat was unable to deliver her 
message to her representative but asked that I share it with you now.
  Heed the words of Pat Maisch. Heed the words of millions of Americans 
needing health care. Don't repeal health care reform.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).
  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Speaker, back in September of last year, one of the 
owners of a small Waco, Texas, software company showed me a notice he 
had just received from his health insurance provider. This notice 
showed that as a

[[Page H306]]

result of ObamaCare he was faced with a 30 percent increase in his 
health insurance premiums. Now he has to deal with the harsh reality of 
cutting the size of his workforce to deal with this increase, or worse, 
to cancel coverage altogether.
  What is even more disturbing is that this is just the beginning of 
what is to come under ObamaCare. All across our Nation this cost-
increasing, job-killing, tax-hiking bill is inflicting irreversible 
damage on American employers and families. Rather than learn from this 
in the outcome of the midterm elections, Democrats choose to oppose and 
dismiss Republican efforts to repeal ObamaCare and to replace it with 
something better. There are solutions and clear alternatives to 
improving our health care system, and the first step is to repeal 
ObamaCare.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield for the purpose of making an unanimous consent 
request to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).
  (Mr. ACKERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ACKERMAN. I rise in strong opposition to repealing the Patients' 
Bill of Rights.
  Today, the House will vote to take away new health-care freedoms from 
my constituents and give that power right back to the big health-
insurance companies. Repeal of the health-care law puts insurance 
companies right back into the driver's seat of rationing health-care 
decisions for the rest of us. Repeal means they get to decide who is 
denied health coverage because of a pre-existing condition in my 
district; which young adults in my district can and cannot remain on 
their parents' plans; and which constituents who are sick in my 
district would have their plans rescinded just because they got sick in 
the first place. And the list of lost health-care freedoms goes on and 
on and on.
  Mr. Speaker, what specifically does repealing the health-care law 
mean for the 5th congressional district of New York? Repeal would mean 
as many as 311,000 people could be denied health coverage, including up 
to 37,000 children, because of a pre-existing condition. Repeal would 
mean that 2,400 young adults up to age 26 in my district would no 
longer be able to choose to stay on their parents' plans until they get 
that first job with health insurance. And repeal would mean that 
335,000 constituents in my district would lose the most vital consumer 
freedoms, such as protection from unreasonable policy rescissions and 
the prohibition of annual and lifetime spending limits.
  Already, my constituents and millions of others across the country 
are benefiting from the new health care law. Seniors in the Medicare 
prescription-drug ``donut hole'' received a $250 payment last year and 
are scheduled to receive a 50 percent discount on their drugs this 
year; children are now no longer being denied health coverage because 
of pre-existing conditions, repeal and they will be denied again; and 
young adults have been able to keep coverage thorough their parents' 
plans. Turning back the clock, to repeal the new law, as if it never 
happened is not only harmful, but costly: according to the independent 
and non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, repeal would add $230 
billion to the deficit.
  Last year, on this very floor, upon passing the Affordable Care Act, 
I said that we were acknowledging the moral and economic costs we pay 
every day for our failure to make health coverage affordable and 
accessible to everyone; that we were recognizing that having more 
people with quality coverage saves both lives and costs; that we were 
unequivocally stating that people in this country shouldn't have to go 
bankrupt to pay their medical bills; and that no one, no one, should 
ever have to go to an emergency room just to receive routine medical 
care. Let us not undo the good we have done.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support access for all 
Americans to health care and to oppose this bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining on both sides for Ways and Means?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Levin) has 2 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Camp) has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2.
  A lot has been said during this debate about what the American people 
want. Some have said the American people want ObamaCare, many others 
have said that they want a repeal of it. Well, I was not in Washington 
over this past year, I was in Michigan hearing complaint after 
complaint from regular citizens and small business owners about the 
cost and unreasonable mandates that are in ObamaCare. I told them to 
stay tuned. Well, the American people have spoken. And over the past 
week, I've had an opportunity to engage my constituents even more, 
including hosting three telephone town hall meetings. We did a survey 
as part of those town halls, and over two-thirds of the more than 1,000 
people that took part in this survey agreed with my position of 
repealing ObamaCare. I understand the real concerns and health issues 
that people have, but we will address these issues in the replace 
portion that you will be seeing soon, so please stay tuned.
  I am also a small business owner, and I have been talking to other 
small business owners, and they, too, are frustrated. Provisions like 
the costly mandate requiring them to file additional 1099 forms have 
made them angry.
  We cannot continue to have legislation that forces small business--
job creators--and future generations to foot the bill. Our replacement 
plans bring hope, so stay tuned.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in voting to 
replace this bill.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. CAMP. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee).
  Mr. NUNNELEE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As a former Member of the Appropriations Committee in the Mississippi 
State Senate, I was responsible for balancing our State's budget. The 
Affordable Care Act will push added costs to already strapped States 
and will ultimately require tax increases at the State level.
  The overall cost to implement health reform in Mississippi is $1.7 
billion over 10 years. From fiscal years 2014 to 2020, this dramatic 
increase in enrollment will cost our taxpayers an extra $225 million to 
$250 million a year. Approximately 400,000 new individuals will be 
added to our Medicaid rolls because of the expansion, meaning one in 
three Mississippians will be on Medicaid.
  More money devoted to Medicaid means less funding for other necessary 
State services and added financial burdens on our taxpayers in 
Mississippi, as well as the rest of the taxpayers of this Nation that 
will further stifle job creation.
  So because of that, I will proudly vote to repeal this law.
  Mr. LEVIN. I regret this bill is being brought up today, but there 
are at least two silver linings.
  Number one, this bill will not become law. Health care reform remains 
the law of this land. And, secondly, and most importantly, it gives us 
Democrats a further chance to talk sense with the American people.
  We on this side are on the offensive on this issue. We are going 
everywhere. We are an American truth squad. There will be a vote today 
on this bill. It may well pass. It will not prevail.

More Than 200 Organizations Opposed to H.R. 2, Patients' Rights Repeal 
                                  Act

       AARP
       AFL-CIO
       AFSCME
       AIDS United
       Alliance For A Just Society
       Alliance for Children and Families
       Alliance for Retired Americans
       American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
       American Academy of Family Physicians
       American Art Therapy Association
       American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry
       American Association for Psychosocial Rehabilitation
       American Association of Pastoral Counselors
       American Association of University Women (AAUW)
       American Association on Health and Disability
       American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network
       American Counseling Association
       American Dance Therapy Association
       American Diabetes Association
       American Federation of Teachers
       American Foundation for Suicide Prevention/SPAN USA
       American Group Psychotherapy Association
       American Heart Association

[[Page H307]]

       American Lung Association
       American Mental Health Counselors Association
       American Muslim Health Professionals
       American Nurses Association
       American Psychiatric Association
       American Psychiatric Nurses Association
       American Psychological Association
       American Public Health Association
       American Small Business League
       Anxiety Disorders Association of America
       Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum
       Association for Ambulatory Behavioral Healthcare
       Association for Community Affiliated Plans
       Association for the Advancement of Psychology
       Association of University Centers on Disabilities
       Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal 
     Nurses (AWHONN)
       Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law
       Black Women's Health Imperative
       B'nai B'rith International
       California Primary Care Association
       California Rural Indian Health Board
       Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
       Campus Progress
       Catholic Health Association
       Catholics United
       Center for American Progress Action Fund
       Center for Clinical Social Work
       Center for Community Change
       Center for Integrated Behavioral Health Policy
       Center for Medicare Advocacy
       Center for Reproductive Rights
       Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
       Centers for Community Change
       CHADD (Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/
     Hyperactivity Disorder, Inc.)
       Child Welfare League of America
       Childbirth Connection
       Children's Defense Fund
       Children's Dental Health Project
       Children's Health Fund
       Clinical Social Work Association
       Clinical Social Work Guild 49, OPEIU
       Coalition on Human Needs
       CommonHealth ACTION
       Communication Workers of America
       Community Action Partnership
       Community Catalyst
       Community Organizations in Action
       Consumer Action
       Consumers Union
       Corporation for Supportive Housing
       Cystic Fibrosis Foundation
       Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance
       Direct Care Alliance
       Disability Rights Wisconsin
       Doctors for America
       Easter Seals
       Eating Disorders Coalition for Research, Policy & Action
       Every Child Matters Education Fund
       Faith in Public Life
       Faithful America
       Faithful Reform in Health Care
       Families USA
       Health Care for America Now
       Herndon Alliance
       HIV Health and Human Services Planning Council of New York 
     (Planning Council)
       Japanese American Citizens League
       Jewish Women International
       Labor Council for Latin American Advancement
       Leadership Council on Aging Organizations (65 
     organizations)
       Leadership Council on Civil and Human Rights
       League of Women Voters of the U.S.
       LiveStrong
       Main Street Alliance
       Maryland Women's Coalition for Health Care Reform
       Mautner Project: The National Lesbian Health Organization
       Medicare Rights Center
       Mental Health America
       MomsRising
       Montana Women Vote
       NAACP
       NAADAC, the Association for Addiction Professionals
       NARAL Pro-Choice America
       National Alliance on Mental Illness
       National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum
       National Association for Children's Behavioral Health
       National Association for Rural Mental Health
       National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated 
     Disorders--ANAD
       National Association of Area Agencies on Aging (n4a)
       National Association of Chronic Disease Directors
       National Association of Community Health Centers
       National Association of County Behavioral Health and 
     Developmental Disability Directors
       National Association of Mental Health Planning & Advisory 
     Councils
       National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners
       National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems
       National Association of Social Workers
       National Association of State Mental Health Program 
     Directors
       National Black Leadership Commission on AIDS
       National Coalition for LGBT Health
       National Coalition for Mental Health Recovery
       National Coalition on Health Care
       National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
       National Consumers League
       National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare
       National Council of API Physicians
       National Council of Asian Pacific Americans
       National Council of Jewish Women
       National Council of La Raza
       National Council of Urban Indian Health
       National Council on Aging
       National Council on Problem Gambling
       National Disability Rights Network
       National Education Association
       National Farmers Union
       National Federation of Families for Children's Mental 
     Health
       National Foundation for Mental Health
       National Gay & Lesbian Task Force Action Fund
       National Health Law Program
       National Hemophilia Foundation
       National Hispanic Medical Association
       National Indian Health Board
       National Institute for Reproductive Health
       National Latina Health Network
       National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health
       National Medical Association
       National Minority AIDS Council
       National Network of Public Health Institutes
       National Organization for Women
       National Partnership for Women and Families
       National Physicians Alliance
       National Puerto Rican Coalition
       National Research Center for Women & Families/Cancer 
     Prevention and Treatment Fund
       National Senior Citizens Law Center
       National Spinal Cord Injury Association
       National Viral Hepatitis Roundtable
       National WIC Association
       National Women's Health Network
       National Women's Law Center (and 37 other orgs)
       NETWORK
       Out of Many, One
       Paralyzed Veterans of America
       Partnership for Prevention
       PHI (Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute)
       Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health
       PICO
       Planned Parenthood Federation of America
       Prevention Institute
       Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association
       Progressive States Action
       Raising Women's Voices for the Health Care We Need
       Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
       Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
       Safe States Alliance
       Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law
       School Social Work Association of America
       SEIU
       Small Business Majority
       Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine
       Summit Health Institute for Research and Education, Inc.
       The AIDS Institute
       The Arc
       The Association for Community Affiliated Plans (ACAP)
       The Greenlining Institute
       The Ministry of Caring, Inc
       The National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care
       The Patients' Union
       Therapeutic Communities of America
       Third Way
       Treatment Access Expansion Project
       Trust for America's Health
       U.S. PIRG
       U.S. Positive Women's Network
       U.S. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Association
       Union for Reform Judaism
       United Autoworkers
       United Cerebral Palsy
       United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society
       United Neighborhood Centers of America
       United Spinal Association
       United Steel Workers
       Universal Health Care Action Network
       Universal Health Care Foundation of Connecticut
       Vermont Legal Aid--Office of Health Care Ombudsman
       Voices for America's Children
       Witness Justice
       WomenHeart: The National Coalition for Women with Heart 
     Disease
       Young Democrats of America
       Young Invincibles
       YWCA USA

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, today we're debating the repeal of economically damaging 
legislation that punishes job creators and does nothing to control 
rising health care costs. We can't afford the $1.2 trillion price tag 
on the government takeover of health care while our national debt 
stands at $14 trillion.

[[Page H308]]

  Today, we can right a serious wrong and still achieve the goals we 
share, like ensuring access to quality, affordable health care for all 
Americans; real health care reforms that control costs; and ensuring 
that Americans with preexisting conditions get the care they need at a 
price they can afford.
  In my district in eastern and southeastern Ohio, more than 26,000 
senior citizens currently enrolled in Medicare Advantage are at risk of 
losing this program because of the $200 billion in cuts to Medicare 
required by this job-destroying health care law.
  Later today we will vote to repeal the government takeover giving us 
the opportunity to start over and enact real patient-focused health 
care reforms.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Buerkle).
  Ms. BUERKLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2 because I 
believe that the American people deserve health care reform that will 
actually reduce costs and improve access without damaging the quality 
of our health care. Last year's enacted health care reform was a 
victory for Big Government and an affront to our Constitution. This law 
is so fundamentally flawed, it must be repealed.
  When our Founders envisioned this legislative process, it was meant 
to be a deliberative one--thoughtful and respectful of the American 
citizens' freedom. Last year, that vision faltered; and Congress failed 
in its duties to the American people when they enacted this Affordable 
Care Act.
  As a registered nurse and an attorney who represented a major 
teaching hospital, I am aware of the problems of our current system, in 
particular, the problems arising from government restrictions on the 
purchase of health insurance, government regulations on hospitals and 
businesses, and tort liability issues.
  Unfortunately, this Affordable Care Act does not alleviate these 
problems and will further damage an overburdened system. According to 
the Health Care Association of New York State, my home State, we will 
face a $15 billion reduction in Medicare and Medicaid--affecting our 
hospitals, our skilled nursing facilities, our home health agencies and 
hospices over the next 10 years.
  We need to implement true health care reform in a manner that 
preserves patient choice, protects access to health care, and controls 
costs without hurting job growth.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1966 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., whose life and 
legacy we just finished celebrating, expressed his concerns about 
health care. He stated, ``Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in 
health care is the most shocking and inhumane.''
  Those words were brought home to me last year when a constituent from 
Florence, South Carolina, told me that she had just been informed by 
her insurance carrier that because of her 8-year-old daughter's cancer 
treatments, her family had reached their lifetime benefits limit.
  What could be more inhumane than repealing this law's patients' 
rights and telling that mother that the lifesaving treatments for her 
daughter must end?
  What could be more shocking than the injustice suffered by the 
middle-aged woman who called into a radio program to complain that 
although she had paid her premiums her entire adult life, she was 
dropped by her insurer when she contracted breast cancer. How can we 
repeal the remedy for this injustice?
  Dr. King also taught us that the time is always ripe to do right. 
After nearly a century of debate, last March the time was ripe. And 
getting rid of these discriminatory practices was the right thing to 
do. And that is the reason I called the bill the Civil Rights Act of 
the 21st Century.
  Interestingly, today we are hearing some of the same rhetoric about 
repeal of patients' rights that we heard regarding voting rights.
  Do I feel that changes should not be made? Absolutely not.
  When the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, it did not cover public 
employees.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CLYBURN. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  When the 1965 Voting Rights Act became law, it did not cover 
congressional and legislative redistricting.
  The Fair Housing Law wasn't perfect when it was passed.
  Bipartisan changes were made to improve all of these measures. I 
sincerely hope that we can develop some bipartisan modifications that 
increase efficiency and effectiveness and decrease costs and 
duplication--none of which will be achieved through repeal.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1640

  Mr. CANTOR. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Minnesota 
(Mrs. Bachmann).
  Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding.
  ObamaCare, as we know, is the crown jewel of socialism. It is 
socialized medicine. The American people spoke soundly and clearly at 
the ballot box in November. And they said to us, Mr. Speaker, in no 
uncertain terms, repeal this bill. And so today this body will cast a 
vote to repeal ObamaCare.
  And to those across the United States who think this may be a 
symbolic act, we have a message for them: this is not symbolic. This is 
why we were sent here, and we will not stop until we repeal a President 
and put a President in the position of the White House who will repeal 
this bill, until we repeal the current Senate, put in a Senate that 
will listen to the American people and repeal this bill.
  Because what has been the result, Mr. Speaker? It's been this: it's 
been job loss, it's been increases on costs to the American people. I 
have seen everything from 26 percent increases on health insurance to 
45 percent increases on health insurance. This will break the bank, and 
we won't let that happen to our country.
  So make no mistake, Mr. Speaker. We are here to stay and our resolve 
is firm. We will continue this fight until ObamaCare is no longer the 
law of the land and until we can actually pass reform that will cut the 
costs of health care.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chair of the 
Democratic Caucus, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Equal protection under the law is the cornerstone of our 
Constitution. That is why we as Nation strive to form a more perfect 
Union in a commonsense way of looking out for one another. No one can 
prepare for a birth defect, catastrophe, or accident of life that may 
await any one of us. This Congress cannot disenfranchise the 129 
million Americans with preexisting conditions impacted by this repeal 
proposal. The proposal that is before us is not worthy of the party of 
Lincoln or the tea party. Repeal, repeal, repeal is not a plan. It is 
an empty political refrain.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are honorable people. I 
cannot accept that they are indifferent to the 129 million Americans 
with preexisting conditions who would continue to be denied coverage 
and forced to pay higher rates with repeal. I cannot accept that they 
are indifferent to millions of children who would once again face 
denial of health care coverage. I don't believe they are indifferent to 
the millions of seniors who would be facing higher prescription drug 
costs because of repeal. I cannot accept that they are indifferent to 
the families that face cancer diagnosis and would once again be subject 
to lifetime limits on coverage and possible bankruptcy because of 
repeal. Addressing these fundamental issues of fairness was what the 
health care legislation and law is all about.
  In this Chamber, and clearly down the hall, we understand the charade 
of this repeal legislation. But it is not lost on the 129 million 
Americans with preexisting conditions that are counting on us.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady 
from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).
  Mrs. NOEM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the first time on the floor of the 
United States House of Representatives to make a case for a very 
important piece of legislation, namely H.R. 2, the health care repeal 
bill.

[[Page H309]]

  Mr. Speaker, there are a multitude of reasons why this law should be 
repealed, but the most important is because it is a major impediment to 
job creation for small businesses and job creators in South Dakota and 
across this country. According to one study, an employer mandate alone 
could lead to the elimination of 1.6 million jobs between 2009 and 
2014, with 66 percent of those coming from small businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the most important jobs and job-creation measures 
that we can do this year is to repeal this bill and to replace it with 
commonsense policies that actually lower costs for families and for 
small businesses, expand access for affordable care, and protect 
American jobs. What I heard time and time again on the campaign trail 
last year from South Dakota's small business owners is that they are 
simply waiting. They are waiting to hire another worker or to invest in 
new technology because of the looming threat of this health care law.
  Whether it's a foundry owner in northeastern South Dakota or a 
motorcycle parts manufacturer in central South Dakota, the refrain is 
the same: get the government off our backs, and we'll be the small 
business job-creation engine that this country so desperately needs 
right now.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to listen to the citizens of this 
great country on this important issue.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the chair of our policy 
committee.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Yesterday, men and women from all across America came 
here to tell us what the repeal of health care would mean for them. 
Stacie Ritter of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, told us how her 11-year-old 
twin daughters were both diagnosed with leukemia at age 4. She 
explained how the Affordable Care Act finally ensured her daughters 
could get coverage and the care that they need.
  Claudette Therriault of Sabbattus, Maine, told us how health care 
reform had given her access to critical preventive care, the type of 
care that saves money and saves lives. Ed Burke of Palm Harbor, 
Florida, told us how the prohibition on lifetime caps had brought 
security and peace of mind after years of living with hemophilia.
  We hear stories like this every day in my district and all across 
America. Yesterday, a report found that up to 129 million Americans 
under age 65 have preexisting conditions and could lose their coverage 
if reform is repealed. I understand their fears. I too have a 
preexisting condition. I am an ovarian cancer survivor.
  The Center for American Progress reports that repeal would add almost 
$2,000 a year to family insurance premiums, destroy up to 400,000 jobs 
a year over the next decade. And the Congressional Budget Office says 
repeal would add $230 billion to the deficit. Repeal will take away 
valuable benefits, destroy jobs, cause premiums to rise, and add 
billions to the deficit.
  If my colleagues across the aisle will not listen to the facts and 
the numbers, then listen to the poignant stories of their and our 
constituents. What will happen to Stacie's twins, Claudette, Ed, and 
millions of other Americans if health care reform is repealed? What 
will happen to children with preexisting conditions, to seniors in the 
doughnut hole, to small businesses trying to help their employees find 
quality health insurance? Repeal is a mistake. We should work to 
further strengthen our health care system; and we should do that, not 
roll back hard-won progress. Health care should not be a political 
game.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the secretary of 
the Republican Conference, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to find that the President 
has finally found common ground with the conservatives. The President 
wrote in The Wall Street Journal yesterday that he issued an executive 
order calling for all agencies to identify job-killing and costly red 
tape that could be eliminated. We should help him resolve this by 
eliminating thousands of new regulations that will be dumped on 
individuals and businesses over the next 4 years by this bad health 
care law. The Federal Register contains 6,123 pages of requirements for 
the new health care rules created by this law.

                              {time}  1650

  The Center for Health Transformation lists 159 new Federal agencies 
created by this law.
  We can replace this bad bill with bipartisan reforms that can let the 
people both keep their job and their health insurance.
  Mr. Speaker, let's support the President's initiative and reduce bad 
regulations by repealing this bad law.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how many more speakers 
there are on the other side?
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, we have five remaining speakers.
  Mr. CLYBURN. I have two speakers remaining.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the 
Republican Conference, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, let me offer 1.6 million reasons why we 
should repeal ObamaCare. That's the number of jobs that will be lost 
from just one provision, the employer mandate, according to the NFIB, 
the largest small business organization in America. The half a trillion 
dollars in new taxes, the 1099 form, the minimum benefit standard, all 
job-crushing regulations. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to ObamaCare, you 
cannot help the job seeker by punishing the job creator.
  Let me offer 2.6 trillion more reasons that we must repeal ObamaCare. 
That is the true cost of this legislation; $700 billion more added to 
the deficit.
  Now, I know my friends on the other side of the aisle will contend 
something else, but somehow in their accounting they left out the $115 
billion it costs to implement. They double-counted almost half a 
trillion dollars in taxes, Social Security, cutting Medicare by half a 
billion, the sleight of hand of 10 years of taxes, 6 years of spending. 
Mr. Speaker, you cannot improve the health care of a nation by 
impoverishing its children.
  Here is one more reason, Mr. Speaker. The American people don't want 
it. It's personal.
  Here is my story. Two days ago I was in San Antonio, Texas. My mother 
had a large tumor removed from her head. They wheeled her away at 7:20 
in the morning. By noon, I was talking to her, along with the rest of 
our family. It proved benign. Thanks to a lot of prayers and good 
doctors at the Methodist Hospital in San Antonio, my mother is fine. I 
am not sure that would be the outcome in Canada, the UK, anywhere in 
Europe.
  No disrespect to the President, but when it comes to the health of my 
mother, I don't want this President, or any President, or his 
bureaucrats or commissions making decisions for my loved ones. Let's 
repeal it today, replace it tomorrow.
  Mr. CLYBURN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to 
the majority whip, the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy).
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. Let me thank the gentleman for yielding.
  First of all, let me say I respect my friends on the other side of 
the aisle. I do believe you all, like us, want to improve America's 
health care system. Congressional Republicans and Democrats don't 
differ on that goal.
  Where we differ, and differ quite drastically, is on how to 
accomplish this goal. And the American people's opinion on health care 
reform radically differs from that, Mr. Speaker, of President Obama and 
the congressional Democrats.
  Americans understand that our health care system, warts and all, is 
still the very best in the world. We have the best doctors, nurses, 
hospitals, and health innovators in the world.
  We should be working together to improve the system rather than 
turning it over to thousands of health care bureaucrats who believe 
they can make better choices than patients and doctors.
  The debate today is a little different than the debate that I 
remember when this bill was passed, Mr. Speaker. Members are not held 
over for a weekend vote. There are not protesters outside rallying, 
wanting, Mr. Speaker, to have their voices be heard. Today is an open, 
cordial discussion.
  That's what the American people asked for, a health care system that

[[Page H310]]

works, that doesn't deter, a health care system devised by the patient 
and doctor.
  Mr. Speaker, our families deserve better, our small businesses 
deserve better, and to all my colleagues, America deserves better.
  Let's repeal this health care bill, start to replace it with an open 
and an honest debate, where the American people are involved, patients 
are involved, doctors are involved, and the American public can have a 
health care bill that lowers the cost without destroying jobs and a 
health care system that keeps the innovation we know so well.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the vice chair of the 
Democratic Caucus, the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Listening to this debate, I can understand why Americans might be 
confused about the direction of health care in this Nation. But let me 
thank my Republican colleagues for producing at least one important 
result by debating this misguided Republican plan to repeal patients' 
health care rights.
  Millions of Americans are now beginning to understand the valuable 
rights and freedoms they secured when the Affordable Health Care Act 
became law last year. Last year, when Eric, a self-employed architect 
in my district, wrote to me that he and his wife were in a terrible 
bind, he explained something. They had insurance, but they could only 
secure the most costly of insurance with the highest deductibles. But 
the real bind wasn't that. The real bind was that their insurance 
company refused to include, within their health insurance policy, their 
8-year-old son because their 8-year-old son had suffered from a stroke.
  Now, for Eric and his wife and his son, health care reform was real. 
Today, Eric and his family can get insurance for their son because 
today Eric and his wife have a right to be insured and to have their 
son insured because no insurance company today can discriminate against 
any child for a preexisting condition.
  That's what health care reform was all about. It was also about 
making sure that today America's businesses could afford to offer 
health insurance to their employees.
  Health insurance reform was about reducing the cost of health care, 
and that's why the impartial referee that we use here in Congress, the 
Congressional Budget Office, has said that this health reform that was 
passed last year will save us money, despite all the rhetoric that you 
hear.
  My Republican friends say repeal these health care rights and 
protections that were extended last year. Do that today, and in the 
future we will restore those rights and make them prettier as well.
  Well, we have a bird in the hand. We don't want to go after two in 
the bush. For 12 years, they had control of the Congress. For 6 years, 
they had a Republican President to work with. They never once did it.
  Let's keep that bird in the hand and move forward for the rest of 
America.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this health care bill is a 
job-destroying bill.
  Shifting who pays simply does not reduce the cost of health 
insurance. As a matter of fact, when you look at it, the CMS says over 
the next 10 years we will see an increase of $311 billion in the cost 
of health care. This is $2.3 trillion of new taxes on Americans.
  The deficit: Over the first decade, over $500 billion of new deficit 
spending; $1.5 trillion in the second decade.
  Massive bureaucracy: 68 new programs, 47 new bureaucratic entities, 
and 29 pilot programs as a part of this bill.
  It destroys the relationship, the intimate relationship between a 
patient and a physician.
  The NFIB, the National Federation of Independent Business, says that 
over the next 10 years we will lose 1.6 million jobs in America because 
of this bill. By destroying the bill that destroys jobs, we've made 
progress.

                              {time}  1700

  Finally, we already have a $76 trillion hole in unfunded 
entitlements. By increasing the number of entitlements, we've simply 
increased the hole, another $2.7 trillion expansion in entitlement 
spending. The 10 years' revenue simply does not pay for the 6 years of 
benefits.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chair of the 
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Mr. Steve Israel of New 
York.
  Mr. ISRAEL. I thank my friend.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this bill. This vote establishes who 
you are for. Are you for insurance company profits, or are you for the 
middle class? I'm for Hannah Watson of Bay Shore, Long Island. Hannah 
was born with spina bifida. She had multiple surgeries and a kidney 
transplant before the age of 12. At 12 years old, 3 months after her 
last surgery, her insurance company told her that she had reached her 
annual cap and they would not pay for additional treatment. Thanks to 
the Affordable Care Act, Hannah was able to finally get on her parents' 
insurance at an affordable rate with no lifetime caps.
  This health care act was for Hannah Watson. Well, I hear people 
saying, do you know what? I don't have spina bifida. Why should I care? 
Well, Hannah did not choose to have spina bifida. Nobody makes that 
choice. The health care act helped Hannah. It helped her neighbors. It 
helped others. Why would you want to look at Hannah and say, We are 
repealing those protections, Hannah?
  I'm for Catherine Marquardt of North Babylon. Catherine had breast 
cancer; and as she was recovering from breast cancer, her insurance 
company told her that it was a preexisting condition and they would no 
longer pay for her treatment. Now, I hear people say, well, why should 
I care? I'm not Catherine Marquardt. I don't have breast cancer. One 
out of every nine women in America has breast cancer. You know somebody 
who has breast cancer. Why would you want to say to them, That is 
repealed, that consumer protection is repealed, you are on your own?
  And finally, Mr. Speaker, I understand the notion that this is not a 
perfect bill, and there are things that we can improve. My friends on 
the Republican side are in the majority; and if they can think of ways 
to improve it, I believe we should work with them. But this is not 
improving it. This is repealing it. This is repealing every word of it. 
This is repealing every vowel of it. This is repealing every consumer 
protection of it. This is repealing it for every one of us, for Hannah 
and Catherine, for one out of every nine women who has breast cancer 
and for all Americans with preexisting conditions. And it ought not be 
repealed.
  I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  Mr. SESSIONS. I want to thank the majority leader, the gentleman, Mr. 
Cantor.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Democrats' health care law will do 
for health care what the stimulus did for jobs. My colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle promised the American people greater access to 
quality affordable health care. Well, the only problem is that the law 
does not increase quality and does not save Americans one dime on their 
health care cost. In fact, what is known as ObamaCare will end up 
costing every single American more in health care premiums and in taxes 
to pay for the $1.2 trillion gross expansion of the Federal Government.
  Mr. Speaker, the Democrats' health care law is about taxes, it's 
about mandates, it's cuts to Medicare, job losses, deficit spending, 
and new Federal bureaucracies. The reality is that we cannot pay for 
the health care entitlements we have, much less a new government 
takeover of health care that adds trillions of dollars to our existing 
liabilities, driving up costs even further and puts the Federal 
Government in charge of health care decision-making.
  The path to greater choice for patients and lower costs all must be a 
part of an answer that is about repealing this costly health care bill. 
I support the repeal today and will vote tomorrow for the resolution to 
replace it with the promise of real solutions.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina has 4\1/2\

[[Page H311]]

minutes remaining. The majority leader has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in opposition 
to this bill to repeal.
  Last year, we acted to reform health care in America to make it 
easier for small businesses to cover their employees, to take important 
steps to bring down costs, and to stop insurance company abuses that 
bankrupt sick Americans and deny them coverage. We acted in the face of 
a crisis, a cost crisis, which saw premiums more than double over the 
last decade; a coverage crisis, which saw more than 40 million 
Americans without health care insurance; and a fiscal crisis, which saw 
the cost of health care driving our country deeper and deeper into the 
red.
  A constituent of mine from southern Maryland recently wrote to thank 
us for health reform that now lets her carry her 21-year-old daughter 
on her insurance, but she wrote that something else also inspired her 
to support this piece of legislation, seeing ``a lot of other people 
who are hardworking, honest people who were going bankrupt because of 
unexpected medical expenses.'' Those were the stories we had in mind 
last year when we passed the health reform law--and today, as we fight 
to protect it.
  Nonpartisan observers tell us it will reduce the rise in premiums for 
millions, cover 95 percent of Americans, and contribute to reducing our 
deficit. The opponents of health care reform have spent more than a 
year painting it in apocalyptic terms, but they can't erase the history 
that proves that bringing affordable care to all Americans has long 
been the goal of both parties.
  Just yesterday, former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a 
Republican, said that the Affordable Care Act ``is the law of the land, 
the fundamental platform upon which all future efforts to make that 
system better will be based.'' That was Senator Republican leader of 
the Senate, Bill Frist from Tennessee, one of the great medical 
practitioners in this country, a doctor. In 2008, Senator John McCain 
said this: ``We should have available and affordable health care to 
every American citizen.''
  There has been no alternative offered to accomplish that objective. 
And in 2006, when signing a State bill remarkably similar to the 
Affordable Care Act, Governor Mitt Romney, Republican, a leading 
candidate for President of the United States in the Republican Party, 
said this of that bill, almost exactly like this one: ``An achievement 
like this comes around once in a generation.''
  While our Republican colleagues in Congress failed to take action on 
health care during a decade of doubling premiums and mounting debt, 
Congress acted last year.
  Now my Republican friends have come to the floor with a plan to put 
insurance companies back in charge of American health care and to strip 
Americans of their hard-won freedom to make health choices for 
themselves.
  Once again, families would face insurance companies' unfair caps on 
their coverage--or find their coverage canceled altogether. Once again, 
insurance companies could discriminate against children with 
disabilities and pregnant women. Once again, prescription drug costs 
for our seniors will go up. And once again, small businesses will be 
without any help to cover their employees in a world of skyrocketing 
premiums.
  There's no arguing with the facts: repeal would cost our economy as 
many as 400,000 jobs per year, notwithstanding the rhetoric on the 
other side. They would be lost under the burden of crushing health care 
costs, and repeal would pile up over $1.2 trillion of additional debt 
on our children over the next two decades.
  I urge my colleagues, preserve Americans' freedoms to control their 
own care. Join together to protect a system that meets the objectives 
set by generations of American Presidents: Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, 
Nixon, Ford, Carter, George H.W. Bush, Clinton and George W. Bush, as 
well as President Obama.
  Oppose this repeal bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time of the gentleman from South 
Carolina has expired.
  Mr. CANTOR. I yield myself the remaining time.
  Mr. Speaker, America did not become great by accident. We are a great 
country because we continue to strive toward the protection and 
expansion of individual liberties in a way that people cannot find 
anywhere else in the world. Our system of free enterprise inspires 
people to pursue opportunity, to take responsibility for their lives, 
and to achieve success. Yet for the past 2 years, Congress and the 
administration have pushed an agenda that moves America in the opposite 
direction by eroding individual freedoms.

                              {time}  1710

  It is part of a philosophy premised upon government siphoning more 
money, control, and power out of the private sector. And the health 
care bill we seek to repeal today is the tip of the spear.
  Mr. Speaker, let's make something clear: Both parties care deeply 
about health care. Likewise, Republicans have rejected the status quo. 
We simply disagree with our counterparts on the other side of the aisle 
that excessive government regulation and sweeping mandates on 
individuals and businesses are the right way to go about effecting the 
reforms that Americans want.
  The construct of this bill is fundamentally unworkable. Instead of 
preserving the doctor-patient relationship, this legislation we seek to 
repeal is rooted in having Federal bureaucrats come between patients 
and their doctors, limiting choices.
  If you go back to the health care debate last Congress, the 
President, then-Speaker Pelosi, and then-Leader Reid often spoke of two 
goals: one, we should strive to lower costs; and, two, if Americans 
liked the health insurance coverage they had, they should be able to 
keep it.
  Mr. Speaker, we believe in the aftermath of this bill's passage these 
goals have not and cannot be met. Therefore, doesn't it stand to reason 
that we must repeal this bill and begin an honest debate about a better 
way forward? Of all the most disingenuous myths in this town, perhaps 
the biggest is the notion that repealing the health care bill will 
increase the deficit. Let's remember here, we are adding an open-ended 
entitlement. The new law is riddled with budget gimmicks that double-
count savings, offset 6 years of benefits with 10 years of tax 
increases, and rely on cuts to Medicare and tax increases to fund a new 
entitlement.
  The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office works hard to provide 
accurate accounting; but it is only able to score the legislation put 
in front of them, even if it includes budget gimmicks and fiscal shell 
games designed to hide its true cost. The reality is this trillion-
dollar new government entitlement will lead to a one-size-fits-all cure 
and put our country and our States on a path to bankruptcy. At a time 
when we need to do everything in our power to encourage job creation, 
the health care bill hangs around the necks of businesses and serves as 
a barrier to job creation.
  Mr. Speaker, if we want to deliver real results, the right way to go 
about health care reform is to lower costs and improve access. That is 
why, after the House passes this repeal of ObamaCare, we will begin a 
two-step process of: first, conducting oversight of the law and the 
impact it has had on our economy and our health care system; and, two, 
beginning work on a new vision to improve health care without 
bankrupting our country and taking away the health care that most 
Americans want and like.
  This majority is dedicated to achieving results for the American 
people. As we have said before, Mr. Speaker, we are a cut-and-grow 
Congress. We will cut spending and job-destroying regulation and grow 
private-sector jobs and the economy. Repealing last year's health care 
law is a critical step. Mr. Speaker, we can do better, we will do 
better, and I urge my colleagues to support repeal.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask that my 
colleagues listen to the American people and vote for H.R. 2, 
legislation to repeal Obamacare and, in essence, open the door to the 
passage of replacement legislation that offers needed, meaningful and 
bipartisan health care reform.
  Considered in its entirety, Obamacare is a crippling blow to both 
health care in America

[[Page H312]]

and our economy. Not only will Obamacare over time erode and undermine 
the quality of health care in America, it will to a progressively 
greater extent increase the deficit, drag down the economy, hurt 
businesses, and destroy jobs.
  The near total lack of transparency and misuse of power last year by 
the then-majority in forcing through Obamacare's passage, makes it the 
quintessential example of how a bad bill can become law. The American 
people are rightfully angry, and we in Congress had better listen to 
them.
  Obamacare, which would create nearly 160 boards, commissions and 
programs and would vest sweeping powers on bureaucrats to determine 
what benefits are covered and not and at what cost, is so fundamentally 
flawed that it needs to be repealed and replaced.
  The American people want and I support meaningful and sensible health 
care reform, but it shouldn't be paid for by giving the government 
control of our health care system, with new unconstitutional mandates, 
massive tax hikes, and $2.6 trillion in new government spending.
  Rest assured that if Obamacare were sound and prudent policy--
fiscally and morally--and an efficacious way of facilitating quality 
health care coverage, the American people, as well as Members of 
Congress from both sides of the aisle and across the ideological 
spectrum, would be strongly supporting it. If it were a good law, 
honest explanations, not subterfuge and granting of special favors and 
treatments, would convince a large majority of the American public to 
embrace it.
  Government should not be about strong arming through a policy or law 
and then using every trick, gimmick, and unholy alliance to defend that 
law or policy at any cost. What were missing in passing and promoting 
Obamacare and are the foremost conditions that must be employed moving 
forward are honesty and transparency.
  The selling of Obamacare has been replete with misleading figures on 
costs and savings. While claims are made that the health care law will 
cost $940 billion over ten years and reduce the deficit $143 billion 
over the same period, those figures can be readily demonstrated to be 
unrealistic. In actuality, best estimates are that the new law will 
cost taxpayers $2.6 trillion over ten years when fully implemented and 
will add $701 billion to the deficit in its first ten years.
  Why the gross discrepencies? For one, the drafters of the law took 
full advantage of the fact that the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, 
evaluates legislation over a ten year window. Significant benefits of 
the law don't take effect for four years, meaning that the law requires 
ten years of tax increases and ten years of Medicare cuts to pay for 
six years of spending. When all provisions of the law are fully 
implemented, the ten year cost rises to $2.6 trillion.
  Additionally, a $143 billion savings turns into a $701 billion 
deficit when adjustments are made for budget gimmicks: $53 billion in 
claimed savings by increasing social security payroll taxes are already 
spoken for by social security beneficiaries; $70 billion in claimed 
savings from the new Community Assistance Services and Support (CLASS) 
program are the result of benefits not being paid out for five years--
while eventually benefits will exceed premiums collected--even 
Democratic Senator Kent Conrad called the CLASS program a ponzi scheme 
of the first order; $398 billion in claimed savings from the Medicare 
Hospital Insurance Trust Fund are double-counted to pay Medicare 
benefits and to be used for other programs; $115 billion in new 
government spending needed to implement the law were not counted in 
initial estimates; and $208 billion for the fix to avoid pending 
Medicare payments reductions to physicians were not counted.
  CBO warns that the current trajectory of federal borrowing is 
unsustainable and could lead to slower economic growth in the long run 
as debt rises as a percentage of GDP. The federal debt is currently 
over $14 trillion. The total federal deficit rose from $455 billion in 
FY2008 to $1,413 billion in FY2009, and is estimated to be $1,342 
billion for FY2010. A realistic assessment is that Obamacare will 
exacerbate our nation's debt.
  At a time when unemployment is at record highs (currently 9.4 percent 
nationally and 9.2 percent in New Jersey), Obamacare will cause 
significant job losses for the U.S. economy. The National Federation of 
Independent Businesses (NFIB) found that the mandate for employers to 
provide health insurance could lead to the elimination of 1.6 million 
jobs through 2014, with 66 percent of those jobs coming from small 
businesses. Two-thirds of new U.S. jobs are created by small businesses 
and even President Obama has called small businesses the ``backbone of 
our Nation's economy.'' However, Obamacare hurts small businesses with 
mandates, new taxes, onerous paperwork burdens, and higher health care 
costs.
  Rather than reducing the costs of health care, Obamacare will 
increase total health care spending by $311 billion over the next ten 
years over what it would have been absent Obamacare, according to 
Medicare's chief actuary.
  Obamacare requires employers with 50 or more employees to provide 
government-approved health care, and to pay a $2000 penalty per 
employee (after the first 30 employees) if they do not provide 
coverage. Perversely, the small business tax credit in the law, with 
the purpose of aiding small businesses, actually will act as a 
disincentive to small business owners who otherwise might increase 
wages and hire additional workers. The small business tax credit is 
only temporary, and, additionally, it starts to phase out for companies 
that pay their employees more than $25,000 or employ more than 25 
workers. Many business owners, particularly in high cost states, would 
get no benefit. CBO estimated that only 12 percent of small business 
workers would benefit.
  The law also has an onerous requirement for businesses to file a 
report with the IRS for every vendor with which it has more than $600 
in transactions in a year. This will be an enormous paperwork burden on 
all businesses, but may be particularly troublesome for small 
businesses to comply.
  Mr. Speaker, for the first time ever, Obamacare forces Americans to 
acquire an approved health plan or pay a stiff penalty--like they 
committed a crime. The penalty is significant--the greater of $750 per 
person per year (up to $2,250 per family) or 2 percent of household 
income. No person in America should be coerced into buying medical 
insurance. Just this week, a motion was filed to add six additional 
states to the lawsuit, which is challenging the healthcare reform law 
as unconstitutional because of the law's individual mandate requiring 
the purchase of health insurance. Twenty-six states are now part of 
that lawsuit. Virginia had filed a separate lawsuit on similar grounds, 
and last month received a favorable ruling.
  Under Obamacare, premiums for non-group family insurance will 
increase by as much as $2,100 per year. The CBO estimated that by 2016, 
premiums will increase by 10-13 percent over what would happen under 
current law.
  Obamacare, which directs reductions of more than one-half trillion 
from Medicare, will take away certain benefits from senior citizens and 
disabled persons. Medicare Advantage is used by over 11 million people 
nationwide including 15,983 people in my Congressional district alone. 
Obamacare's $206 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage plans will 
result in millions either losing that coverage or being denied the 
opportunity to enroll in a Medicare Advantage plan. Further limiting 
patient choice, actuaries at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
Services warned that Medicare cuts in the law are so drastic that 
providers might end their participation in the program. So much for the 
President's promise that if you like your health plan, you can keep it; 
no you can't! And so much for his promise that if you like your doctor, 
you keep seeing your doctor; you might not be able to.
  Obamacare also will add more than 16 million people to the Medicaid 
program, which--in addition to threatening the participation of 
physicians in the program that reimburses doctors only 56 percent of 
the market rate for medical procedures--also further endangers already 
strained state budgets.
  On January 7, 2011, 33 Governors and Governors-elect wrote to the 
President, HHS Secretary Sebelius, and leadership in Congress regarding 
the excessive constraints placed on the states by healthcare-related 
federal mandates. The Governors note that the federal requirements will 
force states to cut other programs, such as education, in order to fund 
a ``one-size-fits-all'' approach to Medicaid.
  Additionally, Obamacare fails to institute real medical liability 
reforms to end junk lawsuits and curb the costs of defensive medicine--
these have long been identified as significant forces in driving up 
health costs.
  Finally, it is a tragic flaw that, even though President Obama told a 
joint session of Congress that ``no Federal dollars will be used to 
fund abortions, and Federal conscience laws will remain in place,'' his 
legislation constitutes the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. 
Wade itself, and makes a mockery of that pledge.
  Repeal of Obamacare will pave the way for implementation of better 
health care solutions that will lower costs, increase access, and 
improve quality without destroying jobs or bankrupting our government.
  Goals of responsible health care reform should be to provide credible 
health insurance coverage and access for everyone, strengthen the 
health care safety net so that no one is left out, and incentivize 
quality and innovation, as well as healthy behaviors and prevention. 
Indisputably, the private health insurance market has to be reformed to 
put patients first, and eliminate denials of pre-existing conditions 
and

[[Page H313]]

lifetime caps and promote portability between jobs and geographic 
areas, including across state lines. Reform should also include 
revision of the tax code to promote affordability and individual 
control. Medicare reforms are necessary to make it more efficient and 
responsive, with sustainable payment rates.
  Of course, responsible health care reform will respect basic 
principles of justice: it will put patients and their doctors in charge 
of medical decisions, not insurance companies or government 
bureaucrats. It will also ensure that the lives and health of all 
persons are respected regardless of stage of development, age or 
disability.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives is 
debating whether to take a giant step backward by repealing the 
Affordable Care Act. If we are not going to debate how to improve the 
health care bill, we should be working to strengthen our economy.
  A good place to help Americans out of a bad economy is to look at the 
number one cause of bankruptcies in the U.S.: medical bills. 
Specifically, over 62 percent of all bankruptcies are from medical 
bills. It is tempting to conclude from that statistic that most of 
those bills are due to the uninsured not being able to pay their bills. 
That would be wrong. In 78 percent of those medical bankruptcy cases, 
the victims had health insurance. That means that about half of all 
bankruptcies in the U.S. happen to people who have health insurance.
  This is what happens when insurance companies make money by not 
providing care. Their job is to make someone other than them pay the 
bills--even if it is you or me, and even if we already have insurance. 
They make us pay the bills by selling cheaper insurance policies that 
do not actually cover us when we get sick.
  We must eliminate the predatory for-profit health insurance industry 
by enacting H.R. 676, Medicare for All. No copayments, no deductibles, 
no premiums. For the same costs or less than we are paying now.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, many of us believe we should focus our 
efforts and energy on measures to help put people back to work rather 
than on a bill that takes away important patient and consumer 
protections. And we don't think it makes much sense to debate a bill 
that thankfully will go nowhere in the Senate and would certainly be 
vetoed by the President. However, the new Republican majority is 
certainly entitled to use its time here as it chooses. And while many 
of us believe our time would be better spent focusing on jobs, I do 
believe that this debate may help clear up many of the myths and 
misinformation about the health care law signed by President Obama.
  The issue of health care is personal to every American individual and 
family. That is why this debate can become so emotional and heated. Let 
us have a vigorous, spirited debate. But let us work to ensure the 
debate generates more light than heat, and illuminates rather than 
obscures the key issues.
  The insurance reforms that have taken effect since last March are 
already making a huge and positive difference in the lives of millions 
of American families. We wish our Republican colleagues would have 
taken a least a few days, a few hours to have Congressional hearings to 
listen to those individuals and families. The new Republican majority 
said it wanted to listen, but you have not invited a single American 
outside of this Congress to a hearing to testify on the repeal bill we 
are debating here today. As a result, those of us who oppose the 
efforts to strip away important patient protections had to organize an 
unofficial hearing to listen to testimony from our fellow Americans. We 
heard stories from across America about why it is such a bad idea to 
repeal, to take away the many protections patients and consumers 
finally have to fight the abusive practices of some insurance 
companies.
  We heard the moms and dads of young people tell you how relieved they 
are that their sons and daughters are no longer kicked off their health 
insurance policies at age 19 or when they graduate from college, but 
can now stay on their parents' plan until age 26. As a result, if their 
22-year-old gets very sick or gets into a terrible accident, that 22-
year-old can get care they need without the family going bankrupt.
  We heard from moms and dads with kids who have cancer, asthma, or 
diabetes or other pre-existing conditions tell how relieved they are 
that insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to those kids.
  We heard senior citizens who were unable to pay huge bills for 
essential prescription drugs tell you how relieved they are that--as of 
January 1st--they are now paying less and can afford the medicines 
their doctors say they need.
  We heard from small businesses that are already using the tax credits 
to be able to purchase affordable health care coverage for their 
employees. And as a result of being able to purchase more affordable 
health care, small businesses have been able to hire more employees.
  Now the new Republican majority has used a lot of supercharged and 
inaccurate rhetoric to support their claims. They even named their bill 
the ``Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act''--as if putting 
those words in the title and saying them over and over somehow makes it 
true. It doesn't and they aren't.
  Let me be clear--there is only one job that will no longer be 
available as a result of the health reform bill, and that is the job of 
the guy at the insurance company who was told to examine the fine print 
in your insurance policy--the kind you can only read with a magnifying 
glass--and come up with reasons why the insurance company will not pay 
for the care you need when you need it, even though you had been 
dutifully paying your premiums all along. The reform bill signed by the 
president banned those abuses. With that solitary exception, the health 
insurance reform law will create jobs. More people will be providing 
more cost effective health care services to ensure that more Americans 
are healthy and productive at work. And the health reform bill--when it 
fully kicks-in in 2014--will finally give Americans the freedom to move 
from job to job without fear of losing their coverage. That means more 
Americans will be able to pursue their entrepreneurial dreams and start 
their own businesses without fear of losing their health insurance.
  Now, we all recognize that ever rising health insurance premiums are 
making insurance less affordable for millions of Americans. Indeed, 
between the years 2000 and 2006, health insurance premiums doubled--
went up 100 percent--and the profits of the major health insurance 
companies quadrupled. The insurance industry loved that pattern. What 
did the Congress do during those years to stop those skyrocketing 
premiums? Nothing. By contrast, the health reform bill signed by 
President Obama finally provides the chance to stop those skyrocketing 
premiums. That's why it was so bitterly fought by the insurance 
industry and why they would like to see it repealed.
  Now some critics claim that the continued rise in health insurance 
premiums this year is proof that the health care bill is not working. 
But that claim exploits widespread confusion about how the bill works. 
Anyone who has read the bill--and I do encourage all Members to read 
the bill--knows that the key insurance market reforms in the bill don't 
even take effect until the year 2014. That is because the market 
reforms cannot be implemented overnight without disruption to the 
system. But when those reforms are fully implemented in 2014, premiums 
will no longer accelerate at warp speed.
  Those reforms will change the very inefficient system that 
contributes to rising premiums. As of today, all of us who have health 
insurance coverage--we pick up the tab for those who don't. We pay 
higher premiums because of those who pay none, but get their primary 
care in the emergency room. That broken system results in less 
preventive care and higher premiums. Those premiums will come down in 
2014 once everyone takes personal responsibility for purchasing their 
own coverage and the risks are pooled throughout the population.
  Now, when market reforms kick-in fully in 2014, the non-partisan, 
independent CBO has indicated that individuals and families will be 
able to pay less for their health coverage. In their letter to Speaker 
Boehner, CBO projects that premiums for employer based coverage will 
rise if you repeal the bill. And CBO indicates that the majority of 
people in the individual market will get fewer benefits and pay more 
for coverage if you repeal the bill--because you eliminate the tax 
credits.

  The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office--the CBO--has also said 
something else about the health care bill signed by President Obama. 
They have calculated that it will reduce our national deficit by over 
$1.4 trillion over the next twenty years. Now many people ask how that 
can be possible. How can a health reform bill that provides more 
affordable access to health care for millions of Americans reduce the 
deficit? The answer is simple: those expansions were more than paid for 
by eliminating huge taxpayer subsidies that were flowing to certain 
health insurance companies, by incentivizing more efficient care, and 
by having the top 2% income earners contribute more in payroll taxes.
  That is the budget math of the health care reform bill. This means 
that by repealing the bill signed by President Obama, Republicans would 
add over $1.4 trillion to the deficit, adding to our debt to China and 
others.
  Now, because they don't like the CBO deficit numbers they have tried 
to discredit them. But these criticisms are coming from the same people 
who praised many of the CBO's earlier estimates during the debate on 
the health care bill. In other words, when they like what the CBO has 
to say, they endorse their numbers, but when the CBO presents an 
inconvenient budget truth, they trash the numbers.
  CBO is the independent budget referee for the Congress. Just as in 
football, sometimes

[[Page H314]]

you agree with the referee; sometimes you don't. But you don't get to 
kick the referee off the field and substitute your own call. Yet that 
is exactly what our Republican colleagues seek to do. Only this is not 
a sports game; they are playing these games with the federal budget. It 
is unprecedented and fiscally reckless. It is Enron-style accounting 
that will lead to budget anarchy and fiscal chaos.
  So much for fiscal accountability.
  Mr. Speaker, those of us who support the health care reform law know 
that it is not perfect and certain adjustments should be made as we 
implement the reforms. In fact, last year this House tried to remove 
the burdensome 1099 provisions, and the Senate was unable to pass 
similar legislation.
  But making necessary adjustments is one thing. Completely eliminating 
important patient and consumer protections that are currently 
benefiting millions of American families would be a historic mistake. 
The insurance industry would celebrate at the expense of the American 
people. Let's put health care providers in charge of health care 
decisions, not the insurance industry.
  We have seen this narrative play out at other times in our history. 
After the historic passage of Social Security in 1935, its Republican 
opponents called it ``a cruel hoax'' and ``a fraud on the working 
man.'' After the historic passage of Medicare in 1965, we heard the 
same distortions.
  Mr. Speaker, let us not make the mistake of repealing health care 
reform. I urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided and mislabeled 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this House is a place to have great debates where we can 
openly air differences of opinion. But we should try in the process to 
separate differences of opinion from the facts of the case.
  Earlier this month, with the passage of the Rules package, there was 
an effort to provide a whole new approach to accounting when it comes 
to the budget deficit. In essence, what the rules say is that we are 
going to exempt the budgetary effects of certain measures, including 
repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The majority 
has written into the governing rules of the House a mechanism to 
disguise the true budget deficit impact of repealing this legislation. 
And as a result, today the Chairman of the House Budget Committee 
inserted a statement into the Congressional Record which asserts that 
H.R. 2, the bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act, will have no 
budgetary effect at all. In fact, CBO' s preliminary estimate of the 
bill is that it would increase the deficit by $230 billion over ten 
years. What the majority is doing is rank budget gimmickry of the worst 
kind.
  It is the job of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to 
inform us of the deficit impact of legislation we pass in this House. 
Sometimes we agree with their estimates, sometimes we disagree. But the 
whole budget process will collapse in chaos if we decide to write the 
political budget estimates of individual Members of Congress into these 
bills and ignore the estimates of the professionals. It is like being 
at a football game and when the referee makes a call, and you don't 
like the call, you throw the referee off of the field and think that 
your team gets to make the call instead.
  We should all recognize, as Republicans and Democrats, that we will 
have budget anarchy if we think that we can have Members of Congress in 
a politically charged environment substitute their own judgment for 
that of CBO. With this action, the majority is committing budget 
malpractice. It is a sure-fire way to run up the red ink in this 
country over a period of time.
                                         House of Representatives,


                                      Committee on the Budget,

                                 Washington, DC, January 19, 2011.
     Budgetary Effects of Legislation

       Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Public Law 111-139, I hereby 
     submit prior to the vote on passage, the attached estimate of 
     the budgetary effects of H.R. 2, ``Repealing the Job-Killing 
     Health Care Law Act,'' for printing in the Congressional 
     Record.
                                                   Rep. Paul Ryan,
                                                         Chairman.

  ESTIMATE OF THE STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR H.R. 2--REPEALING
   THE JOB-KILLING HEALTH CARE LAW ACT--(AS INTRODUCED IN THE HOUSE ON
                            JANUARY 5, 2011)
                  [Billions of dollars, by fiscal year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Statutory
                                                             Pay-As-You-
                                                              Go-Impact
                                                            ------------
                                                              2012-2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Increase or Decrease (-) in the On-Budget Deficit a....         +230
Less:
    Adjustments Pursuant to Sec. 4 (d)(6) of P.L. 111-139 b          N/A
     (Community Living Assistance Services and Supports
     Act)..................................................
    Adjustments Pursuant to H. Res. 5, 112th Congress c....         -230
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Impact.............................           0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: House Budget Committee Estimates.
Memorandum:
a As of January 18, 2011 the Congressional Budget Office could not
  produce a detailed year-by-year estimate of the statutory paygo
  effects of enacting H.R. 2--Repealing the Job-Killing Healthcare Law
  Act. The estimate above was provided in a CBO letter dated January 6,
  2011 to Speaker of the House, John Boehner.
b P.L 111-139 (the Statutory Pay-as-you-go Act of 2010) requires that
  the budgetary effects of enactment of the Community Living Assistance
  Services and Supports Act (CLASS) not be counted on OMB's statutory
  paygo scorecard. CBO initially estimated the CLASS Act would reduce
  the deficit by $70 billion; therefore, repeal of the CLASS Act, which
  would become effective upon enactment of H.R. 2, would not be counted
  as increasing the deficit under statutory paygo. CBO was unable to
  produce an updated estimate of the deficit impact of repealing the
  CLASS Act as of January 18, 2011.
c Sec. 3 (h)(1)(C) of H. Res. 5 provides authority for the Chairman of
  the Committee on the Budget to exempt the budgetary effects of any
  measure that repeals the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act and
  subtitle B of title II of the Health Care and Education Affordability
  Reconciliation Act of 2010.

  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the progress 
we've made towards meaningful health care reform, and I stand in strong 
opposition to the Majority's efforts to retract much needed provisions 
that have since gone into effect for millions of Americans.
  Our economy's slow recovery from what's been the deepest recession in 
modern history has highlighted the wide and growing gaps in our health 
care system. We've seen too many families who've lost their insurance 
coverage when a provider in the household becomes unemployed, leaving 
the whole family unprotected and at risk to fall through those widening 
cracks--unable to afford COBRA, ineligible for public coverage, and 
precluded by high and growing premiums or pre-existing conditions from 
obtaining private insurance.
  In California, we've been aggressive in moving forward with 
implementation, and will continue to lead the way in improving our 
ability to provide access to quality, affordable care, instead of 
retreating into the broken status quo of the past. We recognize what a 
vote for repealing the Affordable Care Act means to the uninsured and 
underinsured: increasing health care costs for millions of Americans, 
causing many families to lose coverage, and increasing the national 
debt by over $1 trillion.
  This is a repeal vote that has real implications, and will mean a 
great deal in the day-to-day lives of the people I have the privilege 
of representing. If you're a senior who fell into the ``donut hole'' of 
prescription drug coverage and needed help covering that cost, this is 
a vote to take that assistance away. If you're a young adult who can 
benefit from staying on your parents' insurance until age 26, this is a 
vote to take you off that coverage. If you've ever worried about your 
insurer dropping your coverage unexpectedly if you or someone on your 
policy gets sick, this is a vote to bring back those worries. If you're 
a small-business owner trying to compete with large employers while 
doing right by providing insurance to your employees, this is a vote to 
make that nearly impossible for you. And, if you're a taxpayer worried 
about the national deficit, this is a vote telling you that your 
Representatives are not serious about our nation's budget woes.
  A report released just this week brought to light the pressing need 
for the kind of protections the Affordable Care Act brings about. 
According to the report, an analysis by HHS, 50 to 129 million 
Americans under the age of 65 have some type of pre-existing health 
condition. And one in five of those--25 million individuals--is 
uninsured. As the number of uninsured who are denied coverage has grown 
considerably over the last few years, thanks to the ACA, starting in 
2014, these Americans cannot be denied coverage, be charged 
significantly higher premiums, be subjected to an extended waiting 
period, or have their benefits curtailed by insurance companies.
  At a time when this country is looking for those willing to make the 
tough decisions that lead us into a more prosperous, future, a vote for 
repeal is a vote to take a step, not forward, but backward. I urge my 
colleagues to vote no on this bill.
  Mr. POSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for the bill 
before us, H.R. 2, which would repeal the health care reform law that 
was enacted last year. While we need to address shortcomings in our 
Nation's health care system, this law is the wrong prescription and 
that is why I am a cosponsor of H.R. 2.
  Prior to the passage of this new law, the American people were told 
that if they liked their current health care plan, they could keep it. 
However, shortly after its passage, the Administration issued 
regulations finding that nearly half of all workers would lose their 
current health care plan and be required to sign up for one of the new 
plans authorized by the government.
  It's a system that mandates that every American buy government 
approved health insurance or pay a fine, which a Virginia Court ruled 
recently as unconstitutional. The approach outlined by the new health 
care law limits choices and phases-out other options to health coverage 
such as health savings accounts, which are enjoyed by some 8 million 
Americans.
  The American people were told that passage of this legislation would 
lower health insurance premiums by $2,500 for the average family. 
However, health insurance premiums have continued to rise, and studies 
indicate that the new health care law is contributing to these 
increases. This bill also fails to guarantee that Federal tax dollars 
will not be used to pay for elective abortions.
  The American people were told this new health care law would 
stimulate job growth. But this 2,000-page bill has created more 
uncertainty and raised the cost of doing business

[[Page H315]]

in America. Imposing new mandates and higher taxes on small businesses 
continues to hamper our economic recovery and slows job-creation. 
Repealing this law will provide greater certainty.
  Finally, in my view this bill is fiscally irresponsible. The cost of 
this law continues to climb. During the House floor debate on this bill 
last year I stated that the overall costs of the legislation were being 
underestimated by more than $500 billion. That is proving to be the 
case as the hidden costs of the bill continue to be uncovered.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a national debt of $14 trillion and rising. Our 
Federal budget situation is fiscally unsustainable, and if we don't 
make tough choices now, we will saddle future generations with a 
mountain of debt that can never be repaid. It is time to face the 
reality of our budget situation and that includes recognizing that the 
real cost of this health care law will far exceed our ability to pay 
for it.
  While everyone can point to various aspects of the new law that they 
support--including me--I believe that the best way to move forward is 
to start anew and replace the current law with one that preserves 
individual choice and economic freedom, directly tackles increasing 
costs and allows Americans to keep their current health care plan if 
they like it. And let's do so in a fiscally responsible manner.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in fervent opposition to this 
reckless effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act and put insurance 
companies back in charge of our healthcare system, rather than patients 
and their doctors. The Affordable Care Act, landmark healthcare reform 
legislation enacted just last year, makes health care more affordable 
by immediately providing small businesses with a tax credit to provide 
insurance coverage, and in 2014, by providing tax credits to those who 
need help buying insurance--representing the largest middle class tax 
cut for health care in history. Once the Affordable Care Act is fully 
implemented, Americans will have access to affordable health coverage 
in a new competitive private health insurance market through state 
exchanges.
  Many critical benefits have already gone into effect, including bans 
on the worst insurance company abuses and coverage options for many 
Americans who have previously been locked out of the insurance market 
because of a preexisting condition. Indeed, millions of American 
families and businesses are already feeling the positive effects of the 
Affordable Care Act, and many more will benefit as the final provisions 
are phased in over the next few years.
  The bill under consideration today, the Patients' Rights Repeal Act 
(H.R. 2), would completely eliminate the Affordable Care Act with no 
consideration for the wellbeing of the millions of Americans for whom 
it will improve healthcare. H.R. 2 was expedited for a vote without 
taking the testimony from a single witness or holding a single hearing 
on the issue, and there was no committee consideration of the bill, in 
direct contrast to the campaign rhetoric espoused by the new Republican 
majority.
  Opponents of the Affordable Care Act have used questionable arguments 
to validate their repeal efforts, including claims that it would 
inflate the national debt. In truth, the Affordable Care Act helps to 
reduce the national debt by minimizing waste, fraud, and abuse in the 
health care system and preventing the rampant growth of health care 
costs. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, 
repealing the law would increase the deficit by $230 billion over the 
next decade and over $1 trillion in the following decade. Now, that is 
a difficult pill to swallow, with long-lasting effects on our nation's 
fiscal health.
  Repeal of the Affordable Care Act has direct consequences to the 
diverse congressional district that I am proud to represent, 
California's 15th district. The Patients' Rights Repeal Act would:
  Increase the number of my constituents without health insurance by 
17,000 individuals;
  Allow insurance companies to deny coverage to as many as 307,000 
individuals, including up to 40,000 children, with pre-existing 
conditions;
  Rescind consumer protections for 484,000 individuals who have health 
insurance through their employer or the market for private insurance;
  Eliminate health care tax credits for up to 14,900 small businesses 
and 86,000 families;
  Increase prescription drug costs for 8,000 seniors who hit the Part D 
drug ``donut hole'' and deny new preventive care benefits to 76,000 
seniors;
  Increase the costs of early retiree coverage for up to 7,600 early 
retirees;
  Eliminate new health care coverage options for 2,900 uninsured young 
adults; and Increase the costs to hospitals of providing uncompensated 
care by $113 million annually.
  Furthermore, as Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American 
Caucus (CAPAC), I am proud of CAPAC's partnership efforts through the 
Tri-Caucus and with community advocacy groups to ensure that the 
Affordable Care Act benefits all of our communities, including the 
Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) community--roughly one in 
five of whom are uninsured. For instance, the Affordable Care Act helps 
to address traditional AAPI health disparities in vaccinations, cancer 
screenings, and infant mortality rates through increased access to 
preventative care services. Further, new federal regulations on data 
collection, disaggregation, and oversampling on certain minority 
populations will help to identify and ensure comprehensive coverage of 
all AAPI health disparities. These hard-fought benefits for our 
communities would be completely eliminated if Republicans were to 
succeed in enacting H.R. 2.
  Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I continue to support the Affordable 
Care Act, as it is vital to the wellbeing of every community in our 
nation. I urge my colleagues to stand against this reckless repeal of 
critical healthcare reform and vote against the Patients' Rights Repeal 
Act.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2, 
the Patient's Rights Repeal Act. In the 112th Congress, the American 
people were promised a focus on our economy. Today however, rather than 
discussing legislation that would strengthen our economy, legislation 
that would create jobs, or even legislation that would reduce our 
nation's deficit, we are discussing the repeal of legislation that 
protects more than 500 families in my district from bankruptcy due to 
the costs of healthcare. We are discussing the repeal of legislation 
that would give tax credits to 117,000 families in my district and a 
35% tax credit to the 11,400 small businesses in my district who choose 
to offer coverage. If our intent here is truly to create jobs, why 
would we repeal legislation that since its enactment, has contributed 
to the creation of more than one million private sector jobs, including 
more than 200,000 jobs in the healthcare industry?
  Mr. Speaker, I am not here to represent the insurance industry or the 
pharmaceutical industry. I am here to represent the interests of the 
ordinary Americans that reform will protect. Repealing the Affordable 
Care Act would be in direct opposition to those interests by increasing 
our national deficit by one trillion dollars over the next two decades 
and preventing tens of millions of uninsured Americans from gaining 
coverage. In my district alone, 37,500 people will receive coverage 
under this law, and 75,000 seniors on Medicare will receive improved 
care, giving them full access to our healthcare system, which is the 
``best in the world.''
  Mr. Speaker, I ask you, what is the point in having the ``best 
healthcare system in the world'' if more than thirty million Americans, 
including the 37,500 in my district, do not have full access to its 
benefits? What is the point of having the ``best healthcare system in 
the world'' if insurance companies are allowed to deny people coverage 
when they need it the most, based on ``pre-existing conditions.'' It is 
wrong. You know it's wrong. This law has corrected it and we should not 
mess with it.
  There may be weaknesses in the health reform law, but based on an 
average of 117,000 private sector jobs created per month since its 
passage, I strongly believe that it is a good starting point for 
efforts to make our nation stronger. The Affordable Care Act is good 
for not only our seniors and the uninsured, but all Americans who not 
only deserve, but need access to quality, affordable healthcare. In the 
name of the hundreds of thousands of constituents in my district, in 
the name of the Bedford Stuyvesant Family Health Center and 30 other 
community health centers that will receive increased funding to provide 
my district with better care, and in the name of the tens of millions 
of Americans that we fought so hard for in passing reform, I will vote 
no on this bill, and any other efforts to undermine the legislation 
passed last year. Instead I hope we can begin a meaningful conversation 
about moving forward, using this established framework to continue to 
strengthen our nation.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the budget 
busting legislation that fails to create one new job and returns our 
health decisions to insurance companies rather than doctors.
  Repealing health reform would be a mistake. Instead of focusing on 
job creation or retirement security or tax relief, we are debating 
repealing a law that protects Americans from insurance company abuses 
and provides fairer and more accessible health care for children, 
veterans, seniors, employees, and employers.
  On Monday, we celebrated Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s life of 
service. Dr. King fought for an America where everyone, regardless of 
their racial, ethnic, or class background, would have access to 
opportunity. Access to health care was important to Dr. King who said, 
``Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most 
shocking and inhumane''.
  Today, the new majority is trying to repeal the health reform 
legislation that we enacted just one year ago. That historic law 
provides secure health insurance coverage to almost all

[[Page H316]]

Americans and lowers the deficit by $143 billion in the first ten 
years. Today, the majority is trying to repeal these patient 
protections and return them to insurance company bean counters.
  A new analysis by the Department of Health and Human Services that 
was released this week reported that as many as 129 million non-elderly 
Americans have some type of pre-existing health conditions. In my 
district alone, there are as many as 310,000 individuals with a pre-
existing condition, including 39,000 children. Due to health reform, 
those children can no longer be denied coverage and starting in 2014, 
adults with pre-existing conditions will no longer be denied health 
coverage. If health reform is repealed, these individuals will again be 
denied insurance and lose health coverage, which will lead to higher 
health costs for all Americans.
  To understand how important health reform is, here is a picture of 
what my district would look like if health reform was repealed. Over 
2,000 young adults would become uninsured after losing coverage through 
their parents' insurance; over 17,000 small businesses would lose tax 
credits that help provide health insurance to their employees; over 
9,000 early retirees might lose benefits through the early retiree 
reinsurance program; over 100,000 seniors would have to pay for 
wellness visits and preventive services, like mammograms and 
colonoscopies; and over 8,000 seniors in the Medicare donut hole would 
see significantly higher prescription drugs.
  Just saying that health reform ``kills jobs'' does not make it so. In 
fact, health reform not only provides benefits to Americans, it creates 
jobs. Since health reform was passed, an additional 207,000 jobs have 
been created in the health care sector. Over the next 10 years, health 
reform will create up to 4 million jobs by investing in the health care 
workforce and lowering costs for businesses.
  Further, Americans do not support repealing health reform. In fact, 
according to the latest AP poll, only 26 percent of Americans think 
health reform should be repealed. Instead, 43 percent of Americans want 
more reforms to health care.
  Passing health reform last year began the process of ending the 
injustice in health care access that Dr. King thought was shocking and 
inhumane. We owe all Americans access to affordable, comprehensive 
health coverage. We cannot let them down. As the late, great Senator 
Ted Kennedy often said, ``decent, quality health care is a fundamental 
right and not a privilege.'' I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no 
on repealing health reform.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to 
speak in support of the repeal of the job-killing health care law.
  Today's vote is part of what will be an ongoing effort by House 
Republicans to repeal President Obama's health care law and replace it 
with solutions that protect jobs and preserve health care choices--
without driving our nation deeper into debt.
  Today we put the focus back where it belongs--jobs, affordable health 
care, and smaller government.
  Mr. Speaker, last year, the Democrat controlled Congress pushed 
through a government takeover of health care using a closed approach 
that blocked any input from our side of the aisle. Almost as soon as 
the bill was signed into law, the extensive reach of the strong arm of 
government was felt by the American people.
  Many were forced out of their existing health plans--even if they 
liked it--including many of our nation's seniors who will be pushed out 
of their current Medicare Advantage plans.
  Our nation's businesses were hit with a costly job-killing paperwork 
requirement--and they still face other new mandates, fines and taxes.
  All Americans have been hit by a mandate requiring individuals, 
regardless of their personal circumstances, to purchase government-
approved insurance or pay a penalty. The constitutionality of this 
mandate is currently being challenged by a number of states including 
my home state of Washington.
  And, hospitals like the Wenatchee Valley Medical Center in a rural, 
medically underserved part of my district face new restrictions simply 
because they are owned by doctors.
  The American people spoke in volumes in November and it is time to 
respond to their message.
  The time has come to fulfill our promise to the American people and 
take steps to repeal this law that is bad for families, seniors and 
employers. I look forward to getting down to work on real solutions 
that will preserve the patient-doctor relationship, increase choices 
and reduce health costs.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2, the ``Patient Rights Repeal 
Act of 2011.'' This bill is a giant step backwards for our country. By 
repealing the landmark achievement of the Affordable Care Act we would 
be taking away affordable coverage and financial security from 
thousands of my constituents and millions more across the country.
  A vote in support of this bill is a vote for insurance companies over 
everyday Americans; it is a vote to return us to the days when fine 
print was used to cancel coverage for hard-working people; and it is a 
vote to take away parents' peace of mind, who will no longer know if 
their children will be able see a doctor when they get sick.
  Mr. Speaker, at a time when Americans will soon finally be free from 
the fear that affordable coverage will not be available to them and 
their families when they need it the most, repealing the Affordable 
Care Act would be devastating. Without the Affordable Care Act:
  196,000 young adults would lose their insurance coverage through 
their parents' health plans;
  Insurance companies would once again be allowed to cut off someone's 
coverage unexpectedly when they are in an accident or become sick 
because of a simple mistake on an application;
  New insurance plans would no longer be required to cover recommended 
preventive services, like mammograms and flu shots, without cost 
sharing; and
  269,623 on Medicare would see significantly higher prescription drug 
costs
  Mr. Speaker, every time that I go home to my district, I meet with 
constituents who thank me for voting for the Affordable Care Act. They 
explain to me the peace of mind that they feel knowing that they will 
be able to afford the prescription drugs that they need; that their 
children can see a doctor when they get sick or break a bone; that 
their breast cancer treatment will be covered on their policy, rather 
than being written off as a preexisting condition. Health care reform 
provided the following benefits for the residents of my district:
  Gave tax credits and other assistance to up to 146,000 families 
15,100 small businesses have seen 50% tax credits to provide health 
care for employees.
  Over 16,000 additional small businesses have been made eligible for 
health care exchanges that make insurance more affordable.
  Help for small businesses are help for working families. Small 
businesses are the engine of the economy of my district and of our 
nation.
  Improved Medicare for 63,000 beneficiaries, including closing the 
donut hole
  Extended coverage to 88,000 uninsured residents
  Guaranteed that 17,500 residents with pre-existing conditions can 
obtain coverage
  Protected 1,100 families from bankruptcy due to unaffordable health 
care costs
  I refuse to vote for a piece of legislation that will reverse these 
benefits and harm so many of the people that I represent. Health care 
reform is a moral obligation to the American people and a critical part 
of our long-term economic recovery. It represents the largest middle-
class tax cut in history and is projected to cut the deficit by $138 
trillion over 20 years.
  Mr. Speaker, anyone who is serious about deficit reduction cannot in 
good conscience vote for this legislation. In addition to being the 
wrong thing to do to hard-working families, single-mothers, and senior 
citizens across the country, it is fiscally irresponsible. In fact, I 
would call this bill fiscally irrational--H.R. 2 would cost $1.3 
trillion to repeal a piece of legislation that promises to cut the 
budget deficit by $138 trillion in the long-term. This does not make 
any fiscal sense; it is the exact opposite of what we should be doing 
and it is an unfair burden to place on future generations.
  I oppose this bill because it threatens the peace of mind, financial 
security, and physical wellbeing of seniors, parents, and children 
across the country. I oppose this bill because I would rather side with 
everyday Americans than insurance company executives. I stand with the 
single moms, who no longer have to stay up all night worrying about how 
to pay the premiums to cover their child's illness. I stand with the 
senior citizens who built our roads and bridges and fought our wars and 
now can finally afford the prescriptions drugs that they need.
  For all of these hard-working, middle class people, I strongly urge 
my colleagues to join me in opposing the rule providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 2.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition of the 
Republican Health Reform Repeal Bill.
  The reason is simple.
  The bill before us is not about creating jobs.
  It's not about strengthening our middle class.
  And it's not about reducing our national deficit.
  It is however, about denying coverage for up to 284,000 individuals 
with pre-existing conditions in my district.
  It is about increasing prescription drug costs for 6,400 seniors on 
California's Central Coast.
  And it is about increasing the number of uninsured individuals by 
80,000 and increasing

[[Page H317]]

the costs to our local hospitals for providing uncompensated care.
  Open your eyes, and welcome to reality.
  American families are struggling to make ends meet.
  They are struggling to stay in their homes.
  They are living without proper health care.
  And are they going broke paying for medical bills.
  So why is this chamber spending their time debating health care 
reform that has extended coverage and increased protections to millions 
of Americans, and created 207,000 jobs in the Health Care Industry.
  Truth of the matter is--while we run circles around this issue, 
millions of Americans walk out their front door every morning to look 
for work, only to return with less hope and more worries.
  Everyday Americans across the country are worried sick about losing 
their homes.
  About not being able to adequately provide for their families.
  And now Republicans want them to worry about losing their health care 
coverage.
  Please open your eyes, and take a deep look at Americans' dire 
reality.
  I urge all Members to oppose the Patients' Rights Repeal Act.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to 
speak in strong opposition to H.R. 2, the ``Patient's Rights Repeal 
Act''.
  Repealing the law would take us back to the days when big insurance 
companies had the power to decide what patients can receive--allowing 
them to once again deny coverage to children with pre-existing 
conditions, cancel coverage when people get sick, place limits on the 
amount of care people can get, or overcharge for insurance just to 
boost their profits.
  The Texas Department of Insurance issued a recent report that noted 
nearly 26.1 percent of Texans are without health coverage--compared to 
the national average of 16.7 percent, who are uninsured.
  Without the Affordable Care Act, Texans stand to lose:
  Critical Consumer Protections that ban health insurance plans from 
denying coverage based on an individual's health status would be lost;
  Young adults under the age of 26 would lose their coverage through 
their parents' health plans;
  Patients with private insurance coverage would suddenly find 
themselves vulnerable to annual and lifetime limits;
  New insurance plans would no longer be required to cover recommended 
preventive services, like flu shots;
  Seniors who have Medicare coverage would be forced to pay a co-
payment to receive important preventive services, like mammograms and 
colonoscopies; and
  Small businesses would lose tax credit assistance to help families 
purchase affordable health insurance.
  Early retirees between the ages of 55 and 64 would lose health 
coverage through their employers for them and their families.
  I am confident that if we repeal Affordable Care Act, we present a 
grave, unhealthy danger to the lives of all Americans by playing 
politics.
  I urge my Republican colleagues to revisit the thought of repealing 
the Affordable Care Act by working with eager Democrats to continue 
building a bridge to a healthier America.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I, along with so many of my colleagues, 
support H.R. 2, the repeal of President Obama's healthcare law. This 
legislation will further harm our economy at a time when we desperately 
need a robust recovery.
  The healthcare law is a prime example of how the tax hikes, spending 
sprees, and government mandates are hurting our economy and making it 
harder for small businesses to create jobs. That's one reason why we 
must repeal and replace the law with a common-sense, responsible 
solution that tries to address the cost of healthcare and provide more 
coverage to Americans without killing jobs. Removing these barriers 
will provide the businesses that create new jobs with the certainty 
they need to hire new employees and get our economy back on track.
  Instead of encouraging America's leading job creators, last year's 
Democrat government takeover of healthcare has and will continue to 
hurt small businesses with more mandates, new taxes and administrative 
burdens, as well as higher healthcare costs. For example, the 
healthcare law requires businesses with more than 50 employees to 
provide government-approved health care. Businesses that fail to do so 
will be forced to pay a $2,000 penalty per employee (after the first 30 
employees). For a small business employing 50 workers without providing 
government-approved health insurance, adding one additional worker to 
the payroll will result in $42,000 in new government penalties.
  Over the last 15 years roughly 65 percent of new private-sector jobs 
have been created by small businesses. A study by the nation's largest 
small business association, NFIB, estimates that the employer mandate 
in the healthcare law will destroy 1.6 million jobs. This healthcare 
law is not the way to help our small business job creators.
  In addition, rather than adopting commonsense policies to lower the 
cost of healthcare, last year's law, will increase costs. The chief 
actuary for Medicare estimates total healthcare spending will increase 
by $311 billion over the next decade, more than it would have been 
without the healthcare law.
  With federal spending at the highest level in American history, the 
economy in a severe recession, and unemployment remaining stubbornly 
high--another massive government program with more spending, more 
borrowing and higher taxes will only hurt already struggling American 
families--not help them. The American people deserve a better plan.
  Also, this law doesn't protect the unborn because it doesn't include 
clear and direct provisions that would prohibit federal funding of 
abortions. We need statutory language in the law, not an easily changed 
Executive Order, to prevent abortions. We have already learned that the 
law will allow $11 billion in taxpayer funds to be used for abortions 
at Community Health Centers. We must repeal and replace this law so we 
can end government-funded elective abortion coverage under this massive 
new government funding stream.
  Congress should start over and consider the common-sense bipartisan 
solutions that Republicans have to offer. It's time to repeal the 
health care law and it's time for a patient-focused health bill that 
will help the economy and get us back to smaller government.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I cannot in good conscience 
support today's misguided efforts to repeal the new health reform law. 
It would be a significant step backwards both for the citizens of 
Southwest Georgia whom I represent as well as the entire nation.
  Repealing the law will mean that insurance companies will continue to 
place lifetime limits on the coverage they provide, drop people from 
coverage when they get sick, and refuse children affordable health care 
because of a pre-existing condition.
  Repealing the law also will increase prescription drug costs for 
seniors. It will deny Medicare enrollees free preventive services like 
colorectal cancer screenings, mammograms, and an annual wellness visit 
without copayments, co-insurance, or deductibles.
  In addition, repealing the law will mean that children under age 26 
will no longer be covered under their parents' plan; new small business 
tax credits that make it easier for businesses to provide coverage to 
their workers and make premiums more affordable will disappear; and 
there will be no further expansion of community health centers which 
are vital to the health care needs of rural Southwest Georgia.
  A recent report by the Center for American Progress also found that 
repealing the law would add up to $2,000 annually to family premiums 
and prevent 250,000 to 400,000 jobs from being created annually over 
the next decade. Furthermore, according to the non-partisan 
Congressional Budget Office, a repeal of the law will add $230 billion 
to the federal debt by 2021.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot let this happen. We cannot and we must not 
turn back the clock.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
Act passed in 2010 is the law of the land. It extends historic 
protections to millions of Americans, ensuring access to quality health 
care. I voted for this law and I am grateful for the support I received 
from my constituents in Minnesota's Fourth District for my work on 
reforming our nation's broken health care system.
  Access to quality health care is essential for all Americans. I 
firmly believe health care should be a right for our citizens, not a 
privilege or a luxury only for the most fortunate who can afford it. I 
am committed to working to ensure all Americans have the health 
protections they need and access to the quality health care they 
deserve. The health reform law we have in place does this.
  Today the U.S. House is debating the repeal of the Affordable Care 
Act. The Republican-Tea Party majority officially titled the bill 
before us, H.R. 2, the ``Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law 
Act.'' They use the word ``killing'' five times in a bill that isn't 
even two pages long. Not only is the bill's title offensive and 
disrespectful, it is untrue. The fact is the health reform law does not 
kill jobs, its patient protections saves lives and creates jobs. More 
than 200,000 health care related jobs have been created since the law 
passed in March of last year.
  This Tea Party Republican bill strips away patient protections for 
children, seniors, and adults with pre-existing medical conditions. It 
replaces tough legal protections for patients with a uniquely 
Republican solution--nothing. Republicans strip away protections for 
millions of Americans, add $230 billion to the federal budget deficit 
according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, and restore 
a

[[Page H318]]

broken health care system that empowers insurance companies to make 
heath care decisions, not patients.
  I want Minnesotans to know exactly what repealing the existing health 
reform law would do. If this Republican bill were to become law it 
would mean:
  Stripping 32 millions of Americans of health insurance and new 
consumer protections;
  Allowing insurers to deny coverage to children with pre-existing 
conditions, apply restrictive lifetime coverage limits, impose cost 
sharing on preventative care, and retroactively cancel policies when an 
individual gets sick;
  Eliminating tax credits for as many as 99,000 Minnesota small 
businesses providing their employees health insurance;
  Refusing 11,400 young adults in Minnesota the option to remain on 
their parents' health insurance until they turn 26;
  Maintaining a perverse payment system that rewards providers for the 
volume of services delivered, rather than the quality of those 
services;
  Jeopardizing the early retiree health coverage provided by 210 
Minnesota employers and unions currently receiving financial assistance 
through the `The Early Retiree Reinsurance Program'; and
  Risking the Medicare benefits and prescription drug coverage seniors 
and people with disabilities depend on to meet their health needs.
  H.R. 2 is more than political posturing. It is legislation that sends 
a clear message to the American people--Republicans care more about 
protecting insurance company profits than protecting the rights of 
patients. I will oppose this bill and I will oppose and battle against 
every effort made in the 112th Congress to defund, sidetrack, or stall 
the full implementation of the Affordable Care Act.
  I am not alone is opposing H.R. 2. Hundreds of national organizations 
and dozens of Minnesota groups oppose this blatantly partisan effort to 
repeal health reform. Here are a few excerpts from a letter I received 
over the past few days.
  The Minnesota Medical Association: ``the MMA opposes efforts to 
repeal the ACA (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) and urges 
you to vote against it.''
  Catholic Hospital Association of Minnesota: ``I strongly urge you to 
maintain support for efforts to improve and strengthen our nation's 
health care system by opposing the legislation before the House to 
repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA).''
  Epilepsy Foundation of Minnesota: ``We strongly encourage you to vote 
against repeal of the ACA (Affordable Care Act) and work toward 
ensuring that implementation includes the needs of people with epilepsy 
and other chronic health conditions.''
  Minnesota Hospital Association: ``On behalf of the 148 hospital and 
17 health system members of the Minnesota Hospital Association, I am 
writing to express our opposition to legislation that would repeal the 
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).''
  Today, as the debate on this ill conceived and mean-spirited bill is 
taking place, I received the following message from a consortium of 
small business leaders from across the country:
  ``The House of Representative's introduction of a bill to repeal the 
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is an affront to our 
nation's small business community.
  ``The country's 28 million small businesses stand to benefit greatly 
from many provisions of the new healthcare law, particularly the tax 
credits and health insurance exchanges. These two provisions will help 
drive down costs and offer small business owners more choices when 
purchasing insurance. These critical provisions and many others would 
be abolished if the Affordable Care Act is repealed.
  ``This would be a huge setback to entrepreneurs who need solutions to 
the broken healthcare system, not a continuation of it. America's 22 
million self-employed would also suffer, as a repeal of the ACA would 
deny them the opportunity to pool together and purchase insurance at an 
affordable price through state exchanges.''
  It is important to remember that the Republican's dangerous and 
destructive health repeal agenda can only work if Americans are silent 
and passive, allowing live-saving rights and protections to be stripped 
away. Repeal will not happen today, even if this bill is passed, but 
over the course of the next two years Republicans and their corporate 
benefactors will use every legal and political channel available to 
deny citizens their health care rights. They will not stop.
  But I will not stop either. I will not stop fighting for the health 
care rights for all Americans.
  I urge all Minnesotans and all Americans to stand up and join me in 
the fight to protect the historic patient rights all citizens have 
gained through the Affordable Care Act and that starts with a vote 
against H.R. 2.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following:

                  [From The Baytown Sun, Jan. 4, 2011]

                    Prepare To Die for Lack of Money

            (By Gene Lyons of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette)

       As polemics on the Obama administration's health care 
     reforms re-emerge, I often ruminate about a horse.
       Lucky was an American Standard Bred gelding I owned. 
     Compared to his quarter horse stable-mate, Lucky was 
     unathletic and halfway clumsy. But he was also a sweetheart. 
     As long as he could follow his buddy, anybody could ride him. 
     Regardless of age or experience, Lucky would carry them 
     carefully and bring them home safe. It's hard not to love 
     such an animal.
       By the time I found him colicked in the barn, it was 
     probably already too late. He'd been down for some time. I 
     gave him an injection for the pain and walked him, but 
     nothing worked. After a while, he lay down and refused to 
     move. By the time the vet arrived, I'd been sitting wedged 
     against his back for hours to prevent him from rolling and 
     twisting his gut.
       After Lucky proved unresponsive to treatment, the vet asked 
     me a hard question: ``Is this a $6,000 horse?''
       He explained that there was an equine hospital over in 
     Oklahoma that could perform potentially life-saving surgery. 
     It cost $6,000 cash, up front. He warned that survival was 
     chancy, and might leave my horse an invalid.
       I'd paid $1,000 dollars for Lucky; he was 25 years old, 
     almost elderly. After a long night of IV fluids and pain 
     meds, there was no avoiding the inevitable. Because there are 
     some things a man must do for himself, I administered a 
     lethal injection and ended up having to put a bullet into his 
     brain.
       We buried him in his pasture.
       It was a hard, hard thing to do. This was two years ago, 
     and it's a rare day I don't think about Lucky and his stable 
     mate Rusty, who also died that year. I pray that I never 
     outlive another horse.
       Long introduction, brief polemical point: Observing 
     Republicans gear up to try to undo ``Obamacare,'' I suspect 
     the only thing that will satisfy some is to make medical care 
     in the United States work like veterinary care. You get what 
     you can pay for. Otherwise, tough luck.
       Who would have thought that after Sarah Palin's imaginary 
     ``death panels''--chosen by Politifacts.com, the fact-
     checking website, as its 2009 ``Lie of the Year''--Arizona 
     Republicans would be denying heart, lung and liver 
     transplants to Medicaid patients because Gov. Jan Brewer says 
     the State can't afford them?
       To save a lousy $1.4 million (out of a $9 billion budget), 
     Arizona's Health Care Cost Containment System has decreed an 
     end to organ transplants. Maybe the bitterest irony is that 
     the inhumane policy won't actually save any money. One of the 
     roughly 100 citizens affected explained to Arizona Republic 
     columnist E.J. Montini:
       ``I can't work anymore, and we ran out of (insurance) 
     coverage a while back,'' he said. ``It's terrible needing 
     help. It's not what I wanted. But when you run out of money, 
     what can you do? If I don't get a transplant, I guess the 
     state won't have to pay for me or worry about me until I walk 
     into an emergency room close to dying. They can't turn me 
     away then.''
       No, they can't. Human hospitals can't refuse patients for 
     lack of cash. Meanwhile, not a peep of protest from Palin, 
     Rep. John Boehner or any of the Republicans who waxed 
     hysterical over the absurd allegation that ``Obamacare'' 
     would lead to government-sponsored euthanasia.
       But if people die for lack of money, that's the GOP way.
       Too bitter? Maybe so. Nevertheless, avoiding medical and 
     economic reality has been the party's response ever since 
     Obama adopted much of the conservative Heritage Foundation's 
     health care proposals as his own. It's all to do with 
     partisanship, nothing else. Consider the legalistic, angels-
     on-the-head-of-a-pin arguments GOP savants have made against 
     the bill's unpopular health insurance mandate.
       Precisely because hospitals can't turn patients away, it's 
     impossible to make private insurance companies cover pre-
     existing conditions (i.e. sick people) without encouraging 
     deadbeats to game the system by not buying insurance until 
     they need it. This defeats the whole purpose of a risk pool.
       Somebody's got to pay, and absent an insurance mandate, 
     that somebody's you--one reason the United States has long 
     had the most expensive, least efficient health care system in 
     the world.
       Ah, but in GOP Dreamworld, everybody's Huck Finn, an 
     independent actor in a 19th- century free-enterprise 
     paradise. They claim the Constitution forbids government from 
     making citizens buy something they don't want.
       Alas, in the real world, people can't not participate in 
     the health care system.

  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the Republican House Majority's 
effort to repeal the historic health care reform law that Democrats 
passed last year is merely a charade. And thanks to Democratic control 
of the Senate, the Republican bill will never cross the President's 
desk. Indeed, a vote for repeal will only scare those who have come to 
rely on the law's benefits.
  I was first elected to Congress in 1992, and in all my years of 
service, I have worked to make affordable, quality health care 
available

[[Page H319]]

for all Americans. Indeed, for nearly a century, leaders from all over 
the political spectrum, beginning with President Franklin Delano 
Roosevelt, have fought for health care and health insurance reform. In 
the words of the great former President Roosevelt, `the health of the 
people is a public concern; ill health is a major cause of suffering, 
economic loss, and dependency; good health is essential to the security 
and progress of the Nation.' In 1935, President Roosevelt signed the 
Social Security Act into law, which made him the first President ever 
to advocate on behalf of federal assistance for the elderly.
  Yet it wasn't until 75 years later that our nation finally came 
together and passed the ``Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,'' 
which provides health care access for all Americans. Prior to this, 
nearly one in five citizens in the wealthiest country in the world were 
uninsured. I applaud President Obama for his persistent, hard work on 
this issue, and I was a proud cosponsor of the original Health Care 
legislation when it was first introduced in the House of 
Representatives. And although there is no such thing as a perfect bill, 
this law is a great start, and it needs to be left up to the medical 
specialists to make slight changes to make it better, not politicians 
in the Republican Party who want to repeal the law entirely. Yet today, 
even though it would be nearly impossible to accomplish, the Republican 
Party wants to take our country in the opposite direction and 
eviscerate this law. If this were ever accomplished, it would have 
drastic effects on the constituents in Florida's third congressional 
district, as well as for Americans across the country. In fact, the 
Republican bill would take our Nation back to a system in which:
  Children with pre-existing conditions, including 8,000-40,000 in my 
congressional district, were denied coverage;
  Young people age 26 cannot stay on their parents' plans (for district 
3 in Florida, their plan would eliminate health care coverage for 
nearly 4,000 young adults);
  A system where Seniors pay more for prescription drugs, including 
6,600 senior citizens who hit the Part D drug ``donut hole'' in my 
district, and would be forced to pay out of pocket costs, as well as 
93,000 more Florida district 3 seniors who would be denied new 
preventive care benefits;
  It also would force small businesses to pay higher taxes;
  And increase the deficit by $230 billion, according to the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
  The cost of returning to the prior system is too great. For too long, 
health care has been a privilege, not a right in America. To return to 
a system in which nearly 20 percent of Americans do not have access to 
the greatest health care available in the world would not only be a 
tremendous step backwards, but outright insensitive to the needs of 
millions of Americans.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker now is the time to protect 
American families--uphold the Affordable Care Act and oppose H.R. 2, 
the Republican repeal of health care. A vote to repeal the Affordable 
Care Act will leave millions of Americans at risk of losing their 
health coverage; children will face discrimination because of pre-
existing conditions and seniors will be left scrambling to pay full 
price for prescription drugs.
  In fact, there is a deep concern about the practicality of repealing 
the Affordable Care Act and the detrimental impact repeal will have on 
women, children and older Americans. When Republicans wrote a Medicare 
prescription plan that created a ``gap'' in their coverage, seniors 
across the country were forced to pay full price for their prescription 
drugs. The Affordable Care Act eliminated the ``donut hole'', allowing 
millions of seniors to buy life saving medications.
  Prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act, many Americans 
families were uninsured and underinsured. Families were forced to 
choose between paying for coverage for children with pre-existing 
conditions or feeding them. Passage of the Affordable Care Act gave 
them back their dignity. Today, those children are guaranteed coverage 
regardless of pre-existing conditions and are allowed to remain covered 
under their parent's insurance plans until the age of 26.
  All 23 counties in the 2nd District are medically underserved and 
many of my constituents are unable to afford health coverage. Under the 
Affordable Care Act, 315,000, resident's health insurance coverage will 
improve; 95,000 uninsured residents in my district will be extended 
coverage; and 16,500 residents with pre-existing conditions can obtain 
coverage. We cannot and should not be considering repeal of a sound 
policy that millions of Americans are currently benefiting from and 
countless more stand to benefit when fully implemented.
  A vote in favor of this appeal would strip American families of their 
dignity and force them to go back to choosing between paying for health 
coverage or putting food on their tables. We must continue to build on 
our efforts to expand accessible and affordable health coverage for all 
Americans. Today, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2, a 
bill to repeal patients' rights and empower health insurance companies 
at the expense of consumers.
  I am proud to have voted for the Patient Protection and Affordable 
Care Act, landmark legislation to reform our country's health insurance 
system and expand opportunities for quality, affordable health care to 
millions of people who otherwise go without.
  In my district, in the heart of California's San Fernando Valley, 
rolling back reforms would have devastating consequences for my 
constituents. This repeal would leave an additional 116,000 of my 
constituents without health insurance. It would increase prescription 
drug costs for 5,600 seniors in the Medicare D ``doughnut hole'' and 
deny new preventive care benefits to 64,000 seniors. It would expose 
over 100,000 of my constituents--and perhaps as many as 290,000 people 
in my district--to the possibility of being denied coverage because 
they have pre-existing conditions.
  I have heard from thousands of my constituents who support the 
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, many of whom feel strongly 
enough to share their stories with me. Some are thankful that their 
child's pre-existing condition is no longer a barrier to getting 
coverage. Others are relieved that treatment of their chronic illness 
is no longer subject to a lifetime spending cap. But some are simply 
the parents of uninsured young adults who live with the day-to-day 
worry that their kids are one accident away from financial ruin or that 
they won't be able to access the care they need. I'd like to share one 
of these stories with you.
  Diane, a constituent in Valley Village, wrote me last October to tell 
me about her daughter's experience with the health insurance reform 
bill. Her daughter graduated from a prestigious university in 2008 and 
got a job but still couldn't afford health insurance. She left her job 
after two years. Two weeks later, she was in a serious car accident. 
Her car was totaled but she, luckily, was not hurt. At age 24, this 
young woman found herself unemployed and without health insurance, 
having narrowly escaped every parent's nightmare. Diane writes, ``And 
then, two weeks ago . . . she was able to be covered under the plan of 
her father and stepmother. I wanted to share this story because we want 
you [to know] that this change has already had a huge impact on our 
lives. As a mother, I now have one less major issue to worry about.''
  On behalf of Diane and her family, and on behalf of children, young 
adults, parents, seniors, small business owners, small business 
employees, people with pre-existing conditions, hospitals that provide 
uncompensated care, and everyone else who benefits from the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act, I stand strongly against H.R. 2 and 
urge my colleagues to join me in voting against repeal.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2, the 
Patients Rights Repeal Act of 2011.
  Less than one year ago, the 111th Congress achieved a major milestone 
in the decades-long effort to ensure access to quality health care for 
all Americans by passing the Affordable Care Act and reforming our 
broken health care system. Since the Affordable Care Act was signed 
into law, I have seen its benefits first hand in the district I am 
privileged to represent. Over 9,800 seniors in Southwestern and 
Southern Illinois will see a 50 percent discount on their medications 
when they enter the Medicare Part D coverage gap, saving them $5.1 
million. An additional 112,000 seniors will receive free preventive 
care, including cancer and diabetes screenings. As of September 2010, 
up to 37,000 children in my district with pre-existing conditions are 
no longer denied coverage by insurance companies and in 2014 up to 
238,000 adults will have the same protection. In the St. Louis Metro 
area, 13,600 young adults will remain on their parents' health 
insurance plans up to age 26 and maintain their access to affordable 
care, and the 2.4 million individuals with private health insurance are 
protected from predatory practices of insurance companies and arbitrary 
premium rate increases.
  Despite this significant progress, today we are considering the 
Patients' Rights Repeal Act, which will strip my constituents of these 
new benefits and return us to the broken, expensive health care system 
that left 47 million Americans uninsured.
  Just as our constituents cannot afford to lose these benefits, we 
cannot afford the Patients' Rights Repeal Act. According to the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, CBO, passing this legislation 
will increase the deficit by $230 billion over 10 years and by more 
than $1.2 trillion over 20 years. The CBO also estimates that this bill 
will increase premiums and out-of-pocket expenses for everyone enrolled 
in private insurance plans.

[[Page H320]]

  Further, despite the claims of my Republican colleagues, there is no 
evidence that repealing health care reform will create new jobs or spur 
economic growth. Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, we have 
added 1.1 million new private sector jobs to the economy. Further, a 
study by the Kaiser Family Foundation indicates the Affordable Care Act 
will create 4 million additional new jobs in the next 10 years by 
lowering costs and investing in the health care workforce. These new, 
good-paying jobs will disappear with the passage of repeal.
  The Affordable Care Act is not a perfect bill. Provisions, including 
the unworkable 1099 reporting requirements for small businesses, will 
be adjusted or replaced as we move forward to implement the bill. Just 
as we have changed Medicare and Social Security over the last several 
decades to ensure those programs achieve their goals, we will work 
together to adapt the Affordable Care Act and keep health care 
affordable and accessible for millions of Americans. I will work with 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisles to adopt strong alternatives.
  However, just as we have never repealed Medicare or Social Security, 
I will not vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act and return to a 
health care system that is unsustainable, inefficient, and massively 
expensive. We must continue to move forward and ensure that our health 
care system works for all Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, passing the Patients'' Rights Repeal Act will 
dramatically expand the deficit, slow job creation, increase the cost 
of health care, and deny millions of Americans access to health 
coverage. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Patients' Rights Repeal 
Act.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2, a bill 
to repeal the Affordable Care Act. In March of last year I was honored 
to cast a vote in favor of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
Act. This law ensures that my constituents, and all Americans, have 
access to the medical care they need. The measure we consider on this 
House floor today is not an effort to improve upon that law. It is not 
an alternative strategy to protect patients' access to care. It is 
simply an effort to undo the admirable work undertaken over many years 
and months by the Members and staff of this body, committed patient 
advocates, uninsured Americans and hard-working medical professionals. 
I find it unfortunate that, as our Nation faces many deep and 
intransigent challenges, the House is debating a proposal which is 
premised on misinformation and disingenuous posturing. I am hopeful 
that we will now return to the real work of the people.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of rhetoric from my 
colleagues across the aisle opposing this legislation because of a 
select number of insurance market provisions included in the massive, 
overreaching health care law. As a two-time cancer survivor and the 
father of a daughter living with cystic fibrosis, what is rhetorical 
for many of my colleagues is a reality for my family. There is no doubt 
that reforms are needed to ensure that individuals with pre-existing 
conditions have access to affordable insurance. In fact, we can 
probably all agree that there are many aspects of the health care 
system that were and are in desperate need of reform.
   However, the law enacted nearly a year ago is the wrong solution to 
our health care system's numerous problems. The law will raise taxes by 
over $500 billion. It includes an unconstitutional individual mandate 
on all Americans requiring the purchase of health insurance coverage. 
The law will cost millions of American jobs and hits small businesses 
with more paperwork, more bureaucratic red tape, and less opportunity 
for growth. Finally, the law cuts Medicare by about half a trillion 
dollars which, even the President's own actuaries have said, could 
jeopardize access for seniors.
   America has sent a clear message to Washington, and today we will 
show that we have heard that message. We must repeal the detrimental 
health care law and focus on the real problem facing our nation's 
health care system, the issue of cost. We can reduce health care costs 
by enacting meaningful medical liability reform, allowing people to 
purchase insurance across state lines, and giving individuals the same 
tax relief as corporations for the purchase of health insurance. Once 
the health care law is repealed, I look forward to moving forward with 
alternative health care reform legislation that will achieve these 
goals. If we focus our efforts on reforms, such as these, that lower 
costs, we will expand access to affordable care without jeopardizing 
the system which has allowed our nation to have the best health care in 
the entire world. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2 and H. Res. 9 
and begin the process of enacting true health care reform.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
the H.R. 2 legislation that will repeal health care for nearly 32 
million Americans. I have listened to my colleagues from the other side 
of the aisle in press conferences and throughout this debate state that 
the Affordable Care Act is ``job destroying'' and ``budget busting.'' 
We know from numerous reports that these statements are blatantly 
untrue.
  Since President Obama signed this legislation into law in March, the 
Department of Labor reports nearly 1 million new jobs were created in 
the private sector, including over 200,000 in health care related 
fields. Furthermore the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, CBO, 
said that the Affordable Care Act will reduce the deficit over the next 
10 years. In fact, on January 6 the CBO stated that the repeal would 
increase the deficit by $230 billion over the next 10 years.
  As we prepare to vote on this legislation, I'd like to inform my 
constituents as I did for them at countless town hall presentations I 
hosted on the Affordable Care Act, what repeal means for the people of 
Illinois' Second District.
  Health Care Repeal will rescind the vital Patient's Bill of Rights 
consumer protections provided under the Affordable Care Act for the 
336,000 individuals in the Second Congressional District who have 
health insurance through their employer or the market for private 
insurance. Passage of repeal will lift the limitations placed on 
insurance companies for rate increases and out of pocket expenses. 
Repealing health care reform would eliminate the requirement that 
insurance companies limit administrative costs by spending a minimum of 
80 percent of the premiums they collect on actual healthcare. Repealing 
the Affordable Care Act will allow insurance companies to drop or 
rescind coverage when people get sick, place annual and lifetime limits 
on coverage and charge you for cost-saving preventative services and 
screenings.
  According to a report released by the Department of Health and Human 
Services, up to 129 million Americans under the age of 65 have some 
type of pre-existing condition and could be excluded from insurance 
plans if this health care repeal were signed into law. This would 
affect 263,000 individuals, including up to 40,000 children in the 
Second Congressional District who have a pre-existing condition.
  Repeal would eliminate the requirement that health insurance plans 
allow young adults to remain on their parents' insurance policies up to 
the age of 26, cutting coverage to the estimated 2,000 young adults 
that are expected to take advantage of this benefit in the Second 
District.
  Through the Affordable Care Act, middle class families with incomes 
up to $88,000 for a family of four and small businesses would be 
eligible for affordability tax credits. Repeal would cut access for 
157,000 families and 14,200 small businesses in my district.
  For Second District seniors, repeal will increase drug costs for the 
6,700 seniors who fall into the Part D prescription drug ``donut hole'' 
this year and will deny access to free preventive services and health 
screenings to the 93,000 seniors on Medicare in the Second District.
  Finally, under the Affordable Care Act, an estimated 94 percent of 
Americans would be provided access to health care through their 
employer, the Health Care Exchange or through Medicaid. With repeal, 
61,000 of my constituents would lose this new coverage. Hospitals in my 
district spend nearly $40 million each year providing coverage to the 
uninsured which gets passed on to the consumer, and the average 
American family pays an additional $1,100 per year for covering the 
cost of uncompensated care for the unemployed.
  Before the Affordable Care Act, skyrocketing health care costs were 
hurting families, forcing businesses to cut or drop health benefits, 
and straining state budgets. The people of Illinois' Second District 
and all Americans need and deserve better.
  While some of my colleagues may be willing to pass legislation that 
(1) rescinds important consumer health care protections, (2) cuts tax 
credits for middle class families and small businesses, (3) forces our 
nation's seniors to pay more for prescription drugs and cost-saving 
preventative care and (4) passes the problem of steadily rising health 
care costs onto the next generation--I plan to vote for making health 
care affordable and accessible for up to 94 percent of Americans, not 
against it.
  That's why I will vote no on Repeal.
  Mr. GRIMM. Mr. Speaker, healthcare reform is a real issue facing many 
Americans. In spite of protests heard around the country, last spring 
the Democrats pushed through a 2,000 page bill full of mandates, and 
taxes that do not address the growing expense of health care, and 
continues a reckless spending habit that has resulted in a $14 trillion 
deficit.
  The 2010 Midterm elections has allowed the 112th Congress to fulfill 
a promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and replace it with common 
sense solutions that address the rising cost, and the importance of 
providing affordable, accessible, quality care. In light of repealing 
this massive government takeover of the healthcare industry, it is our 
responsibility

[[Page H321]]

to replace it with thoughtful reforms that help insure the uninsured, 
protect those with pre-existing conditions, lower the growing cost of 
health coverage, and preserve the doctor-patient relationship.
  Instead of encouraging America's small business to grow and create 
jobs, the current healthcare plan will hurt small business by imposing 
burdensome regulations that will lead to lower wages, fewer workers, or 
both.
  The Affordable Care Act is projected to add $701 billion to the 
deficit over the next ten years, and is likely to pass on a $2.6 
trillion price tag to our children and grandchildren. While forcing 
young Americans into a government run health care exchange, we are 
requiring them to pay for minimal services for an unlimited amount of 
time, with no promise of a sustainable program that will be available 
to them as they age. The bottom line is the American people deserve 
better than this budget-busting, job killing legislation, and most 
importantly they deserve open and honest legislation not the gimmicks 
used to cover up the cost and damage of ``Obamacare.''
  Mr. CANTOR. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 26, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. ANDREWS. I am.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Andrews moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2 to the 
     Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and 
     Education and the Workforce with instructions to report the 
     same to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
       Add at the end the following new section:

     SEC. 3. HEALTH CARE REPEAL SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNLESS A 
                   MAJORITY OF MEMBERS OF U.S. HOUSE OF 
                   REPRESENTATIVES AND A MAJORITY OF U.S. SENATORS 
                   WAIVE FEHBP BENEFITS.

       Section 2 (including the repeal of the Patient Protection 
     and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148)) shall not take 
     effect unless and until the Director of the Office of 
     Personnel Management certifies to the Congress that a 
     majority of the Members of the House of Representatives and a 
     majority of Members of the Senate have, as of the date that 
     is 30 days after the date of initial passage of this Act in 
     the respective House, voluntarily and permanently withdrawn 
     from any participation, and waived all rights to participate, 
     as such a Member in the federally funded Federal employees 
     health benefits program (FEHBP) under chapter 89 of title 5, 
     United States Code, effective with the first month after the 
     date of execution of such a withdrawal and waiver.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey for 5 minutes in 
support of his motion.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I think we should begin by thanking Speaker 
Boehner and Leader Pelosi for leading us through such a civil debate at 
such an important hour of our country's history; a moment of 
consequence. Unfortunately, one of the consequences of this debate is 
that we did not debate the issue that is most on the minds of the 
American people, which is unemployment and 15 million of our neighbors 
being unemployed.
  Having said that, there are lots of consequences to this repeal bill, 
and Members should be aware of each one of them.
  If a woman with breast cancer or a man with diabetes loses his or her 
job and tries to get another job, under the law that is in effect, the 
insurance company can't deny them coverage or charge them more for it 
because of their preexisting condition. This bill repeals that 
protection. It makes it legal for the insurance company to say, We're 
sorry, we are not going to sell you health insurance because you have 
breast cancer. We're sorry, we are going to raise your premiums 
fivefold because you have diabetes. These are serious, unwelcomed 
consequences.
  Another consequence of serving in this institution is that we are the 
people's House. We are the elected people who are closest to the 
people; and, therefore, we are expected to most understand the shoes in 
which they walk every day. Many of us say these things at our town 
meetings. I have heard this from Republicans, from Democrats, from tea 
party members, from Independents: Congress should live by the same 
rules it imposes on everyone else. I don't think you can go to a 
district in this country that people wouldn't embrace that idea. 
Indeed, on the Web site of our Speaker from the last term in the 
Congress, in his biography you can read the following. It refers to the 
Congressional Accountability Act which requires Congress to ``live 
under the same rules and regulations as the rest of the Nation.'' It 
bears the unmistakable imprint of Speaker Boehner's drive to reform the 
House: live under the same rules and regulations as the rest of the 
Nation.
  So this motion to recommit says the following: In the spirit of that 
principle, Members who support the repeal should live with its 
consequences. This repeal will become effective when a majority of this 
House and a majority of the other body are dismissed from membership in 
the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program that the taxpayers fund 
for the Members of the House.
  There are serious consequences of this bill. We believe that 
repealing it is unfair and wrong, just plain wrong. But it would be 
even more plain wrong for those who support repeal to live by a 
different standard.

                              {time}  1720

  So I would say to the Members the next time you are in a town 
meeting, the next time you encounter your constituents in your district 
and they say, ``Don't you agree that if you agree to impose a certain 
set of rules on me that those same set of rules should apply to you?,'' 
this will be the answer to their question:
  If you vote ``no,'' you are saying that the repeal that denies 
coverage for preexisting conditions to others doesn't apply to you.
  If you vote ``no,'' you are saying that the repeal that lets 
insurance companies impose lifetime caps on your constituents' benefits 
imposes no caps on your benefits.
  If you believe that the consequences of our actions should be visited 
upon those we represent equally and on ourselves as well, then your 
vote should be ``yes.''
  In the spirit of the people's House, in the spirit of walking in the 
shoes of those we are here to represent, the right vote on this motion 
to recommit is ``yes.''
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation, and I rise in 
opposition to the motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CANTOR. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in beginning to respond to the minority's motion to 
recommit, all I can say is this is an attempt to derail the repeal of 
the ObamaCare bill--without question.
  The positing of this motion to recommit and the substance of that 
recommit is also inexplicable if one could be deemed to be offering a 
legitimate policy proposal. The notion that somehow the repeal position 
that the majority has taken and that, frankly, the majority of the 
American people desire is somehow connected with denying a better way 
forward, again, is inexplicable. I think, again, Mr. Speaker, I would 
say it is not a serious attempt to add towards how we get to a better 
way in health care.
  Now, the question before this body is simple: Do you support the new 
health care law? Yes or no.
  The motion to recommit is simply an effort to protect ObamaCare from 
being repealed, period.
  If you think the new health care law will improve how health care is 
delivered in the U.S., then support the motion to recommit.
  But if you believe, as most Americans do, that the new health care 
law will put America on the wrong path--that the open-ended entitlement 
design of the new law will contribute to putting us on a path to 
bankruptcy, that the policies in the law will deny patients access to 
the care that they want and need, if you believe that the new law will 
increase health care costs, not lower them, and that the new law is 
generating great uncertainty for our businesses, is hurting our economy 
and

[[Page H322]]

that the new law is unconstitutional--then vote against the motion to 
recommit.
  Voting against the motion to recommit is a vote to repeal the health 
care law, and I urge its defeat.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 185, 
nays 245, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 13]

                               YEAS--185

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--245

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Garrett
     Giffords
     Hirono
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1746

  Messrs. NEUGEBAUER and SHULER changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. WELCH, Ms. CLARKE of New York, Ms. SPEIER, and Mr. AL GREEN of 
Texas changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 13, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 13, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 245, 
noes 189, not voting 1, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 14]

                               AYES--245

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul

[[Page H323]]


     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--189

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Giffords
       

                              {time}  1753

  Ms. WATERS and Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________