[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 119 (Wednesday, September 11, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H5486-H5491]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2775, NO SUBSIDIES WITHOUT
VERIFICATION ACT
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 339 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 339
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
2775) to condition the provision of premium and cost-sharing
subsidies under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act upon a certification that a program to verify household
income and other qualifications for such subsidies is
operational, and for other purposes. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as
amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,
as amended, and on any amendment thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate,
with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways
and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins of Georgia). The gentleman from
Texas is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 339 provides for the
consideration of H.R. 2775, the No Subsidies Without Verification Act
of 2013. This is a critical bill as the Obama administration begins to
implement and sign up people for the insurance exchanges in literally
less than 3 weeks' time.
I am a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Speaker. I
can tell you that the Secretary of Health and Human Services appears
ill prepared to verify that the people qualifying for the numerous
government handouts and subsidies included in the Affordable Care Act
actually meet the income requirements for those subsidies. Because
fraud and abuse have been rampant in just about every program that is
administered by the Department of Health and Human Services, including
Medicare and Medicaid, a certified verification system being in place
prior to the implementation of the Affordable Care Act is critical.
This bill addresses this extreme deficiency in the inappropriately
named Affordable Care Act.
The rule before us today provides for 1 hour of debate equally
divided between the majority and the minority. Further, the rule makes
a correction to the underlying bill, clarifying that the Inspector
General for Health and Human Services, rather than the Secretary, which
is a partisan position, is better equipped to oversee the verification
process for the eligibility of subsidies. Finally, the minority is
afforded the customary motion to recommit, allowing for yet another
opportunity to amend the legislation.
H.R. 2775, the No Subsidies Without Verification Act, introduced by
Mrs. Black from Tennessee, is an important piece of legislation to
protect taxpayer dollars from inappropriate expenditure. With less than
3 weeks until enrollment in the health insurance exchanges and they go
live, the Obama administration continues to tinker and twist the dials
on the Affordable Care Act, exposing the executive branch's lack of
readiness for such a massive and fundamental change of the way health
care is delivered and administered in this country. In an effort to
save their misguided health care takeover, the administration has
significantly scaled back the original scope of the Affordable Care
Act--cutting corners and delaying any piece of the legislation which
becomes inconvenient or, perhaps, embarrassing to the President.
The President has chosen to delay the employer mandate included in
the Affordable Care Act; yet has not given that same reprieve to
everyday Americans. Why? Why should that be? Because enforcing the
employer mandate was inconvenient. The President announced that he
could not implement the CLASS Act portion of the Affordable Care Act.
Why? Because it was inconvenient. Now the President simply will not
enforce the verification requirements to prevent the fraudulent
acceptance of subsidies. Why? Because, again, it is inconvenient.
Just 3 months before the exchanges are supposed to go live, on
January 1, Health and Human Services decided that on July 5 of this
year it would simply accept an applicant's attestation of household
income without any certifiable verification. The President's strategy
on the health care law is now ``trust; don't verify.''
The Secretary of Health and Human Services has made the opening of
the exchanges on October 1 her central priority. However, in facing
tight deadlines and daunting workloads, the administration has instead
drastically lowered their standards. It's clear from the final rule
issued late in the day on July 5, 2013, that the administration will
allow any type of flexibility necessary to ensure that their law
appears that it is being implemented as planned. Regardless of what you
may believe, the administration has been very clear.
The rule states explicitly:
The exchange may accept the attestation of projected annual
household income without further verification for the
purposes of the exchange's eligibility determination.
The administration is more than comfortable with letting
over $1 trillion go out the door without verifying that it's
going to the correct individuals.
They even state in the final rule:
[[Page H5487]]
It is an ideal approach to provide flexibility in the case
of many verifications.
Since it's apparently too much work to verify everyone's income, the
administration has determined that it is okay with spending over $1
trillion just based on what individuals think they may make in the next
year. Instead of admitting that they won't be ready on time, the
administration decided that it will just spend the money anyway.
While the constant delaying and changing of the law is worrisome,
what should concern all of us the most is what this new change in
regulation will do. By eliminating the verification requirement, the
only way the government will determine who gets Federal subsidies now
is by whoever claims that they, themselves, need the subsidies. Quite
frankly, with premiums rising at the rate they are across the country--
and they're set to rise even more for calendar year 2015--it seems like
everyone will be telling the Department of Health and Human Services
that they need subsidies because, quite frankly, no one will be able to
afford the President's health insurance. Maybe then it will be good
that no one in the administration is checking to see who might be lying
about their household income.
While the constant delaying and changing of the law is worrisome,
another concern is what this new change in regulation will do. By
eliminating the verification requirement, the only way the government
will determine who gets Federal subsidies now is by who says they need
them. This will open the exchanges to a staggering amount of potential
fraud. It's also blatantly political. By doing this, the Obama
administration has made it clear they want as many people to sign up
for the exchanges as possible no matter their eligibility status.
Taxpayers, unfortunately, will be charged with over $1 trillion over
the next decade to pay for the exchange subsidies. With over $1
trillion going out the door, shouldn't the American people have the
assurance that the government is sending the money to the people who
actually need it?
All of this is so the President can reap the public relations benefit
of talking about the popularity of exchanges, and so he can salvage his
failed signature policy initiative.
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on
the underlying bill. Stand up to this health insurance subsidy fraud.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30
minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying
bill. This bill is redundant, and it's a waste of time. The Department
of Health and Human Services already has a plan in place to review
individual information submitted to health care exchanges and to ensure
that no one is able to get health insurance tax credits that they
aren't eligible for. So, instead of considering these redundant bills,
let me talk about what we're not considering here today which would
actually solve a problem the American people are demanding that this
institution address.
The time to pass comprehensive immigration reform is now. We can do
it now. Instead of debating something that's redundant here today,
there is a bill that has received more than two-thirds support in the
United States Senate. If this body can act on it and can send it to
President Obama's desk, finally we will be able to do something to
create jobs and increase our competitiveness in the global economy,
lower our deficit, ensure our security, and reflect our values as
Americans and prevent the undermining of the rule of law that occurs
every day, for we have over 10 million people in this country who are
undocumented and lack documentation. They're violating our laws. This
institution can fix that now. The Senate has acted. Let the House act.
As economists across the political spectrum have found, the economic
benefits of immigration reform are tremendous. According to the
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on
Taxation, if we act now to pass the Senate comprehensive immigration
reform bill, we would reduce the deficit by over $135 billion and, in
the following decade, by over $600 billion. Why aren't we spending our
time discussing that and passing that here on the floor of the House
today? Further, the Senate bill is estimated to boost the output of the
U.S. economy by 3.3 percent. It is a 3.3 percent increase to GDP and a
reduction in the deficit. That's $700 billion in additional gross
domestic product by 2023.
As a June Wall Street Journal article citing Stephen Goss, Social
Security's chief actuary, pointed out:
The future fiscal immigration windfall is likely to exceed
$4 trillion.
We can shore up Social Security and protect our seniors, and we can
prevent any cuts to Social Security by passing immigration reform now.
That's what the country wants us to do. Why does it shore up Social
Security? Because immigration occurs at a young age. Immigration reform
ensures that there are people paying into Social Security--young,
healthy workers--particularly as baby boomers retire. As for
immigrants, we're talking about people who are already here. Let's make
sure they pay their taxes. By not taking this bill up, we are
preventing people from paying into Social Security like they should and
from paying their taxes like they should. They live in this country.
They should pay taxes. According to The Wall Street Journal,
immigration reform will result in an extra $600 billion into the Social
Security trust fund and will result in over $4 trillion over 75 years.
Another urgent reason that this body should be taking up immigration
reform instead of redundant measures around health care reform is our
national security. We currently have a porous border; and while
progress has been made--in fact, in 2011, the number of illegal border
crossings was the lowest since 1972--it was still 327,000. There were
327,000 people who illegally crossed our border. What does that say
about our security as a country and about our ability to enforce our
immigration laws when over 300,000 people have illegally crossed the
border?
There is a solution. It's ready to pass. Let's talk about it, not
about redundant bills that don't do anything and aren't going anywhere.
The Senate comprehensive immigration bill, while, of course, not
perfect, includes unprecedented border and interior enforcement
measures.
The bill includes increasing the number of full-time Border Patrol
agents from 21,000 to 38,405; mandating an electronic exit system at
all ports where Customs and Border Protection agents are deployed;
constructing at least 350 additional miles of fencing, bringing the
miles of high-tech border fencing to 700; constructing additional
Border Control stations and operating bases; mandating 24-hour
surveillance of the border region; using mobile, video, portable
systems as well as unmanned aircraft; and deploying 1,000 distress
beacon stations in areas where migrant deaths occur.
{time} 1245
Look, it takes getting serious to secure the border, and this costs
money. We can do it in the context of reducing the deficit by over $100
billion, such as the windfall from immigration reform that we
effectively get to secure our southern border for free and reduce the
deficit by $100 billion and improve the Social Security trust fund to
the tune of $4 trillion, giving American seniors the security that they
need in their retirement. That's what we can do by bringing the Senate
immigration reform bill to the floor of the House right now.
The Senate immigration reform bill also increases American
competitiveness. Immigration is the economic engine that's grown our
economy for generations. Unfortunately, under our current immigration
system, it's not designed to foster job creation. All too often, it
undermines American workers, takes jobs away from American workers,
leads companies to offshore jobs, to outsource jobs overseas.
I represent a district that has two excellent universities: Colorado
State University and the University of Colorado at Boulder. They have
great graduate programs in math, engineering, and the sciences. We
graduate students with advanced degrees from countries all over the
world such as India, Mexico, and China that have the skills that we
need to keep America competitive and create jobs. Yet, the day after
they
[[Page H5488]]
graduate, without any access to a green card, many of these talented
young Ph.D.s and master's degree students have to return to their home
country. Guess what? The jobs follow them back home in the information
economy. The employers don't care whether they're here or there, as
long as they contribute to bits and bytes. We want those jobs here in
America. We want that income here in America. The bipartisan Senate
bill addresses that, as well.
Another component that we have for job creation in America is a
start-up visa. This is a way that entrepreneurs with ideas can come to
America to start their companies here and employ Americans. For
goodness' sake, do we want the great companies of tomorrow employing
tens of thousands of people to be overseas just because we don't let
the founders come here to start their companies? That's common sense.
It creates jobs for Americans. Let's do it.
We also have improvements to the EB-5 program to facilitate in
foreign investment and raising capital for American companies to grow
jobs here in America.
This body should take up the comprehensive immigration reform bill
now--not tomorrow and not in 5 minutes. Now. Let's do it so that we can
finally move forward on creating jobs, improving border security,
reducing our deficit, and shoring up Social Security.
Another reason that we urgently need to bring up immigration reform
now is because the current system is simply out of sync with our values
as Americans, our faith values as Jews, Christians, Muslims, every
other faith in our country, as well as our American values, the values
of our Founding Fathers.
Faith leaders from across the spectrum have been among the most vocal
supporters of the Senate comprehensive immigration bill. Over the
August recess, the Evangelical Immigration Table, a coalition of faith
groups, continued the drumbeat for a vote on the Senate bill and called
for an end to the ``cruelty'' perpetuated by the current immigration
deportation system. It's completely arbitrary.
Young American children--American citizens, kids, 8, 10, 12 years old
in my State and across the country--to our great shame, come home from
school to find that their parents are in detention, their parents are
not there, their parents are facing deportation proceedings. Why?
Perhaps a taillight was out on their car. This is all at a cost to
taxpayers of tens of thousands of dollars. They now wait in line for a
costly deportation while their American child returns to a home with no
parent. How does that reflect our values? As Americans, what is the
solution? Pass the Senate comprehensive immigration reform bill now.
The Senate comprehensive immigration reform bill will halt more than
400,000 costly deportations, each one costing taxpayers tens of
thousands of dollars, tearing families apart. The bill removes the
limitations to the number of visas that legal permanent residents can
request for their minor children, for their spouses, ensuring that
families aren't separated for years, for generations, while awaiting
legal status. It creates a process to clear the estimated 4.4 million
person backlog in the family- and employment-based visa system within a
decade. It replaces our broken immigration system with one that works,
one that reflects our values, and one that respects the rule of law in
this country.
The Senate-passed bill would help people like Gabriela, a 20-year-old
woman in Colorado, undocumented, recently graduated from high school.
Gabriela and her younger sister were brought to the U.S. as young
children by their mother. They didn't have a say in the matter. They
were brought here. Their mother was deported several years ago, leaving
her two children behind. Gabriela is now homeless but has,
nevertheless, taken on the responsibility for caring for her younger
sister. The Senate bipartisan bill would ensure that families like
Gabriela's won't be torn apart. That's not American. That doesn't
reflect our values as a country, as a people.
The Senate bill would also assist the young, courageous DREAMers,
individuals who were brought to this country as children, completed
high school, some college, even military service, grew up in this
country, know no other country, and have no pathway to legal status,
young people like Javier in my district that I represent who graduated
from high school in Summit County. He was the president of the student
body. Javier grew up in this country, was brought here when he was
young, doesn't have documentation. Javier is an Eagle Scout. Javier is
the first in his family to get into a good college, a 4-year
university, but his lack of status has made it difficult not only to
pursue his dreams of a higher education, but to figure out how he can
live his life in a way that contributes to his country, the United
States of America. If only we allow him to fully contribute, he will.
Young DREAMers across this country will contribute great things to our
Nation and make us proud if only we let them.
It's time to stop talking about these redundant, senseless bills and
bring up comprehensive immigration reform now. It's a big part of the
solution to our fiscal problems: reducing the deficit, shoring up
Social Security, and finally getting serious about enforcing our border
and enforcing employment verification to prevent companies from hiring
people illegally. It improves American competitiveness, creates jobs,
and ensures that the great companies of tomorrow will be here in this
country instead of overseas; that the people we need to make our
economy grow, create jobs for Americans, are here and doing it legally;
and to respect the rule of law in this country, rather than undermine
the rule of law every day as our current travesty and broken
immigration system does.
Finally, we know, Mr. Speaker, that as a people we are better than
this. We need an immigration system that reflects our values, our faith
values, our American values, our founding principles as a Nation of
immigrants and a Nation of laws.
Mr. Speaker, today's debate is really not about the Affordable Care
Act or even health care in general. It's politics. It's redundant. I
would ask my friends on the other side of the aisle: Why are we not
focused on fixing our broken immigration system when we have a
bipartisan bill that two-thirds of the Senate has supported, that 75
percent of the American people support, that the President has
expressed a willingness to sign? Let's bring that bill up, debate that
bill, pass that bill, and solve a problem that the American people are
crying out for a solution.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The Senate-passed bill, in my understanding from recent discussion
with the House Parliamentarian, has not arrived in the House. The
reason it has not arrived in the House is because it has an origination
problem. The Senate, in its haste to rush a bill through, didn't get it
right. As a consequence, that bill cannot come in the House.
We're here today to debate the rule for H.R. 2775. One of the things
that I do feel obligated to point out--whether it's comprehensive
immigration reform, whether it's any of the other things that people
talk about--if you have an executive branch that only selectively
enforces parts of laws that it wants to, why wouldn't the American
people fear what might come out of the selective enforcement of a
comprehensive immigration law?
Let me quote to you from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act signed into law by President Obama on March 21, 2010. This is
section 1513, section (d). This is a section that deals with the
employer mandate. Section (d):
Effective date--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.
That doesn't sound ambiguous. That doesn't sound difficult to
comprehend, yet we are told that selectively the President has decided
he doesn't want to enforce this, that it is inconvenient for him to
enforce this, it runs counter to what some of his friends in some of
the largest corporations in this country are telling him that they
want--not what the American people want, but what they want--and the
President simply suspends this part of the law in a blog post on July 2
of this year.
This is a fear that people have in my district: How do we trust that
this President is going to enforce the laws that, under the
Constitution, he is told that he must enforce? How do we trust
[[Page H5489]]
the Attorney General, who has sort of selectively decided what laws
suit his purpose and what laws don't and selectively enforces those
laws?
Why we are here today is because of the administration's selective
enforcement of their law. I wasn't in favor of the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act. I voted against it. I voted against it in
committee. I voted against it in the House version. I voted against it
after it came back from the Senate. I'll vote against it every chance I
get.
The fact of the matter is the President signed it into law and then
decided it's inconvenient. So when the effective date reads, ``The
amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after
December 31, 2013,'' the President decides that's inconvenient and he
doesn't want to do that anymore. He just suspends it, even though the
law is the law. We never took a vote on that. We never said, Mr.
President, we're with you or against you on this. He simply decided.
That's not the way this country is to run. That's not our
constitutional Republic that our Founders envisioned for us. This is
unilateral government by a ruler, which, by definition, is not allowed
under our Constitution.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule, and I urge my
colleagues to vote in favor of the underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Are we serious about border security? Is the border going to secure
itself? There were 300,000 illegal crossings last year. That's almost
1,000 a day. That's 1,000 tomorrow. While Congress is sitting around
discussing this stuff, that's 1,000 the next day. It's 1,000 the next
day. Every day there will be 1,000 people illegally entering this
country. Who knows who they are. Who knows if they represent a security
risk.
There's a solution. Let's get serious. Let's increase the number of
Border Patrol agents. Let's implement high-tech measures at the border.
It's not rocket science.
Guess what? Our friends in the Senate have figured it out. They
passed an immigration reform bill that includes provisions that get
serious about enforcing our southern border that will substantially
reduce--not eliminate--illegal crossings. It won't happen by itself. We
have to pass it. We have to bring up that bill and pass it, rather than
redundant measures that don't do anything.
Mr. Speaker, the Coalition of Evangelicals have put together an
excellent statement of principles on immigration reform. The
evangelical Christian leaders have called for a bipartisan solution
that respects the God-given dignity of every person, protects the unity
of the immediate family, and respects the rule of law.
Mr. Speaker, I submit this policy statement to the Record.
Evangelical Statement of Principles for Immigration Reform
Our national immigration laws have created a moral,
economic and political crisis in America. Initiatives to
remedy this crisis have led to polarization and name calling
in which opponents have misrepresented each other's positions
as open borders and amnesty versus deportations of millions.
This false choice has led to an unacceptable political
stalemate at the federal level at a tragic human cost.
As evangelical Christian leaders, we call for a bipartisan
solution on immigration that:
Respects the God-given dignity of every person
Protects the unity of the immediate family
Respects the rule of law
Guarantees secure national borders
Ensures fairness to taxpayers
Establishes a path toward legal status and/or citizenship
for those who qualify and who wish to become permanent
residents
We urge our nation's leaders to work together with the
American people to pass immigration reform that embodies
these key principles and that will make our nation proud.
For signatories, go to evangelicalimmigrationtable.com.
It's not only people of faith. It's every American who, as we stare
in the mirror at night, a vast majority of whom know that our
grandparents, our great-grandparents, perhaps great-great-great-
grandparents from the Mayflower, somewhere along the line, Mr. Speaker,
our predecessors, our parents and our grandparents, came to these
shores seeking opportunity, hope, and freedom, just as so many
immigrants do today.
{time} 1300
We can create a pathway to citizenship for people who are already
here and who already contribute to our country to ensure that they do
so legally instead of extralegally. Of course, getting behind those who
are already in line in our current legal system. There is no
citizenship that becomes anybody's right through this Senate
immigration reform bill. It simply creates a line, a line behind those
who are already in line, but a light at the end of the tunnel to show
that some day those who aspire to give back to this country, to make
this country wealthier and more prosperous, those who aspire to pay
taxes, those who aspire to contribute to Social Security, those who
aspire to live within the rule of law, are able to do so someday.
That families are reunited now, not in 10 years, not in 20 years, and
we don't have to ever again tell a young girl coming home from school,
sorry, your parents have been removed over a taillight or because they
were in the wrong place at the wrong time or because their workplace
was raided because of an unscrupulous employer.
We can and we must do better. The urgency is now. Not only are
families torn apart every day, not only are there close to a thousand
people a day crossing that border illegally, which will continue until
we act, but we're costing Americans jobs and opportunities every day as
well. Entrepreneurs and founders and folks that are looking at where to
start their great next company that will employ thousands or tens of
thousands of people are turning away from our shores. We're turning
them away from our shores.
Mr. Speaker, I call upon my colleagues to take up comprehensive
immigration reform and pass the Senate bill now.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, let me just remind my colleagues here on
the floor of the House that we are considering House Resolution 339
that provides for consideration of H.R. 2775, the No Subsidies Without
Verification Act of 2013. And despite all of the tactics to distract
from that debate, that is what the debate centers on today.
I would like to point out to my colleagues an opinion piece in The
Wall Street Journal from today called ``Stopping ObamaCare Fraud.'' I'm
going to read a little bit of the opinion piece:
Every politician claims to hate fraud in government, and
the House of Representatives will have a chance to prove it
Wednesday when it votes to close a gigantic hole for
potential abuse in the Affordable Care Act. The Health and
Human Services Department announced in July that it won't
verify individual eligibility for the tens of billion in
insurance subsidies that the law will dole out. Americans are
supposed to receive those subsidies based on income and only
if their employer doesn't provide federally approved health
benefits. But until 2015 the rule will be: come on in, the
subsidy is fine.
Health and Human Services will let applicants ``self
attest'' that they are legally eligible. No further questions
asked. The new ObamaCare exchanges will also be taking the
applicant's word on their projected household income. It
seems that what it calls ``operational barriers'' continue to
prevent Health and Human Services from checking applications
against Internal Revenue Service income data.
The administration argues that the fear of later HHS audits
will keep applicants honest, though the threat of such checks
has hardly prevented other fraud. The Treasury Inspector
General estimates that 21 to 25 percent of earned income tax
credits go to people who aren't eligible. An equivalent rate
of fraud in the Affordable Care Act could mean $250 billion
in bad payments in a decade. And does Health and Human
Services really plan to claw back overpayments from
individual exchange participants?
House Republicans by contrast will offer a vote that
matters on Tennessee Representative Diane Black's bill to
require the administration to have a verification system in
place before it hands out subsidies. Democrats have been
unusually quiet in their opposition, perhaps because it is
hard to justify voting in effect to give Americans subsidies
to which they have no legal entitlement. Savings for
taxpayers aside, the political merit of the House bill is
that it puts a spotlight on a major ObamaCare failure and
makes Democrats vote either to fix it or to simply go along
with the failure. It also highlights another case in which
with the Obama administration is refusing to enforce black-
letter law. Republicans are asking that a vast new
entitlement be held to the most basic due diligence, or be
prudently delayed until it can. If Democrats can't support
that vote, voters should know.
[[Page H5490]]
Again, that was from today's Wall Street Journal Review & Outlook.
Mr. Speaker, it's pretty apparent that the administration is only
enforcing those parts of the law that it finds in its own best
interest, and if something is inconvenient or embarrassing, it suspends
the enforcement.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, my colleague says we are discussing some bill
related to the Affordable Care Act or health care. It's simply not true
that this House is working on health care. The Affordable Care Act is
being implemented. It wasn't repealed. I know there was a candidate
that ran for President against Mr. Obama that wanted to repeal it. Had
he been elected, it still would have had to pass these Chambers. It
didn't happen. Elections happened. The health care reforms are being
implemented. I just met with some of the folks in the exchanges from my
State of Colorado in my office earlier this morning. I realize the
House of Representatives has voted 40 times--41 times--to repeal
ObamaCare. It's just talk.
The shopping period in the exchanges begins on October 1. Coloradans,
like many across the country, are rolling up their sleeves, going to
work and figuring out what the Affordable Care Act means. We even had
bipartisan support in my State for our law that created the exchange as
well. When Connect for Colorado goes online next month, more than
817,000 Coloradans will have access to choosing a health care insurance
product through the exchange, more than 80,000 people in my district.
Again, these things are just happening. I mean, this is information
that I'm sharing here with the public. This has nothing to do with
these bills that we're talking about, 40 repeals of ObamaCare, this
redundant bill here today, where they like or don't like what the
President is doing, they want to do it themselves they like what
President Obama is doing so much.
I mean, these things are nothing. These things aren't going to the
Senate. These things aren't being signed. They are absolutely symbolic
and a complete waste of time, while this body hasn't spent 1 minute on
the floor in consideration of an immigration reform bill; not 1 minute,
which is why I'm taking this time, instead of talking about nothing--
nothing, nothing, nothing--41 repeals of Affordable Care Act when it
ain't going to happen because elections matter and have consequences--
nothing--not 1 minute on something, something big: securing our border,
restoring the rule of law, reducing our deficit, shoring up Social
Security, improving our national security, making sure that our system
is aligned with our values.
These are big deals. Not 1 minute. Not 1 minute. A lot of time on
nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing. That's what we're doing today; it's
what we did yesterday. I sure hope it's not what we're doing tomorrow,
but, sadly, I'm not optimistic.
We need to act, Mr. Speaker, on so many pressing national issues.
Surely we can spare 1 minute or 10 minutes or 15 minutes to discuss and
pass the Senate immigration reform bill instead of this nothing. This
nothing going nowhere, just like yesterday, just like tomorrow.
We can do better, Mr. Speaker. This Nation deserves an institution in
the House of Representatives that serves the people of this country,
serves the people in addressing real issues that they face; people that
are tired of the undermining of our law by people working illegally,
people that are tired of families being torn apart, and people that are
tired of a thousand people a day illegally crossing our southern border
today, and yes, tomorrow because of the refusal of this body to allow
even 1 minute to discuss or debate a bill on immigration reform.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I would remind everyone in the House
Chamber that seven times the House has voted to restrict, delay, defund
a portion of the Affordable Care Act; seven times those have passed
into law and been signed by the President.
This is an important effort. This was a massive overtaking of the
country's health care system that was passed in not a bipartisan
fashion but a single-party vote in March of 2010. The President has
decided now even with his own law, he got everything he wanted in the
law, he's going to selectively enforce. If we're going to talk about
the rule of law, let's talk about the rule of law.
The bill rule before us today is a good rule. It ensures that those
taxpayer subsidies are going to individuals who are deserving of those
subsidies. And for crying out loud, let's stop the crooks.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I would inquire if the gentleman has any remaining
speakers?
Mr. BURGESS. The gentleman from Texas has unlimited speakers in
himself; but beyond me, no.
Mr. POLIS. Okay. The hordes of people coming to speak on this bill
were not apparent to me here, but I'm prepared to close, Mr. Speaker,
seeing no speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, despite spending hours and days of debate here on the
Affordable Care Act, repealing it, defunding it, it's being
implemented. That's happening. Elections have consequences. As the
Speaker of this esteemed body himself has said, to paraphrase, it is
unlikely we'll repeal ObamaCare with a fellow named Obama in the White
House. That's simply a truism. Yet here we are today discussing
something that will go nowhere and does nothing, instead of something
that goes somewhere and does something.
This bill before us fails to replace our broken immigration system
with one that works. If this bill before us today passes, I guarantee
you that a thousand people will continue to cross illegally into the
country tomorrow, the next day, and the next day. This bill does not
secure our border at all. This bill does not reduce our deficit by over
$100 billion. This bill does not reflect our values in our immigration
system. This bill does not allow us to look in the mirror at night
knowing that we are a Nation of immigrants and a Nation of laws, and we
must reconcile those two.
The Senate passed a bipartisan comprehensive immigration bill last
June, a bill that holds true to these principles, these principles of
fiscal responsibility, reducing our deficit, shoring up Social
Security, the principle of national security, of finally getting
serious about securing our southern border, implementing mandatory
workplace authentication to ensure that employers are following the
law, the principle of job creation and competitiveness, ensuring that
the great companies of tomorrow are based here and that we have access
to the talent we need to be great and grow our economy as a country.
The Senate comprehensive immigration reform bill would grow our GDP by
over 3.3 percent. This bill will not. This bill will not.
And finally, this bill does nothing to address the concerns that have
been raised by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, by the
Evangelical Immigration Table, by faith-based groups in a broad
coalition across this country, and by those who value our traditions
and our values as Americans.
This bill does nothing to reconcile our immigration system with our
values; and the Senate immigration bill does. We can take it up now. We
can pass it now. The President has expressed a willingness to sign it
now. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous
question, to vote ``no'' on this restrictive rule and unnecessary bill
so that finally we can bring forward the Senate immigration reform
bill, pass it, and send it to the President of the United States to get
serious about addressing problems the American people by an
overwhelming majority actually want us to solve.
{time} 1315
The Senate bipartisan bill would bring people like Javier out of the
shadows, reunite Gabriella and her sister with her parents, and provide
them with an accelerated 5-year path to earn permanent residence so
that they can contribute to making our country even greater.
Mr. Speaker, today's debate isn't really about the Affordable Care
Act, or even health care in general. What's happening is happening.
Some people like it; some people don't. It's happening.
This debate is purely politics. I ask my friends on the other side of
the aisle, Why are we not focused on replacing our broken immigration
system with one that works?
[[Page H5491]]
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, join me in voting
``no,'' defeating this rule, and defeating the previous question.
Perhaps we can finally get to work on the people's business here in the
House of Representatives and finally fix our broken immigration system
and replace it with one that works for our prosperity, our security,
and for job creation for Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again, let me remind you why we are here today. We are here today
because the President, who signed the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act into law in March of 2010, on July 2 of this year decided he
was not going to enforce a portion of the law. Unilaterally, the
President made the decision, didn't consult with Congress, put it out
in a blog post on one of their White House Web sites on July 2.
Then 3 days later, on the Friday before the Fourth of July weekend,
they came out with a raft of regulations; and buried within that raft
of regulations was the fact that, oh, by the way, we're not checking
anybody who comes in. We'll rely on self-attestation.
They were required to do that because, by not enforcing the employer
mandate that was in their law that they signed, by not enforcing the
employer mandate, the data would not be collected and, in fact, there
was no way to enforce that data.
So we simply don't need the data. We'll trust; people are going to be
honest. If they come in and say they need a subsidy, of course they
need a subsidy. We'll give it to them. And, yeah, at some point, it
might even be checked against their IRS records.
How are you going to call that back from someone who doesn't have the
money anymore because, after all, the dollars and the subsidy don't go
to the individual; they go to the insurance company. It's not like that
individual went and deposited that in a bank account. It went to their
insurance company to buy their health insurance.
The money's been spent, the policy has been utilized or not, but that
water is under the bridge.
I didn't ask for this debate. I didn't ask for the President to sign
the health care bill into law, but he did. But then I sure didn't ask
him to just delay parts of it.
If anything is inconvenient to you, Mr. President, just kind of put
it away, put it to the side.
All kinds of things have fallen off the Affordable Care Act as it's
bucked and burped down the road towards implementation. You may
remember the debate about preexisting conditions. What about the
Federal preexisting condition program?
Anyone who showed up after February 1 of this year to be covered
under the Federal preexisting condition program was told, sorry, the
window is closed; we're not signing up any more individuals because
we're out of money. So they had to wait 11 months until the Elysian
Fields of the Affordable Care Act spread out before them.
But what are they to do for that 11 months if they've got a diagnosis
which is incompatible with life unless they get treatment?
But the administration didn't care about that. They simply suspended
enrollment to the preexisting condition program.
Well, what about the caps on out-of-pocket expenses that an
individual could incur during a year?
Under the Affordable Care Act there were caps signed in law by the
President. Well, the caps were excluded because it's kind of
inconvenient, and we don't want to do that anymore.
The small business health exchanges are delayed for a year. What else
is going to fall off this thing as it lurches towards implementation on
January 1?
I don't know. But I do know this: we have an opportunity today to
vote on a rule that allows the bill to come to the floor that will
require that the Department of Health and Human Services, the Inspector
General, ensure that those individuals who come and say, hey, I'm
eligible for a subsidy, to ensure that they are, in fact, eligible for
that subsidy.
We fight all the time in committee with money going out the door at
the Department of Health and Human Services, the pay-and-chase model.
It clearly doesn't work.
Medicare and Medicaid, inappropriate payments, inefficient
expenditures happen all the time. Let's not make that worse. Let's stop
paying the crooks. We have an opportunity today to stop paying the
crooks.
Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of a
critical bill to protect taxpayer dollars from the rampant fraud
inevitable in an undertaking as massive as the health insurance
overhaul that is known as ObamaCare.
I congratulate my colleague from Tennessee (Mrs. Black) for her
thoughtful piece of legislation. And for that reason, I encourage my
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________