[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.

                          ____________________