[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 37 (Wednesday, March 5, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H2168-H2177]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SUSPENDING THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE PENALTY LAW EQUALS FAIRNESS ACT
Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 497, I call up
the bill (H.R. 4118) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
delay the implementation of the penalty for failure to comply with the
individual health insurance mandate, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 497, the bill
is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 4118
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Suspending the Individual
Mandate Penalty Law Equals Fairness Act'' or as the ``SIMPLE
Fairness Act''.
SEC. 2. DELAY IN IMPLEMENTATION OF PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE
MANDATE.
(a) In General.--Section 5000A(c) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(5) Delay in implementation of penalty.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of this subsection, the monthly penalty
amount with respect to any taxpayer for any month beginning
before January 1, 2015, shall be zero.''.
(b) Delay of Certain Phase Ins and Indexing.--
(1) Phase in of percentage of income limitation.--Section
5000A(c)(2)(B) of such Code is amended--
(A) by striking ``2014'' in clause (i) and inserting
``2015'', and
(B) by striking ``2015'' in clauses (ii) and (iii) and
inserting ``2016''.
(2) Phase in of applicable dollar amount.--Section
5000A(c)(3)(B) of such Code is amended--
(A) by striking ``2014'' and inserting ``2015'', and
(B) by striking ``2015'' (before amendment by subparagraph
(A)) and inserting ``2016''.
(3) Indexing of applicable dollar amount.--Section
5000A(c)(3)(D) of such Code is amended--
(A) by striking ``2016'' in the matter preceding clause (i)
and inserting ``2017'', and
(B) by striking ``2015'' in clause (ii) and inserting
``2016''.
(4) Indexing of exemption based on household income.--
Section 5000A(e)(1)(D) of such Code is amended--
(A) by striking ``2014'' (before amendment by subparagraph
(B)) and inserting ``2015'', and
(B) by striking ``2013'' and inserting ``2014''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins)
and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Kansas.
General Leave
Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
to include extraneous materials on H.R. 4118.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Kansas?
There was no objection.
Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the illustrious chairman of the
House Ways and Means Committee.
{time} 1400
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Kansas for
yielding.
I rise today in support of H.R. 4118, the SIMPLE Fairness Act, which
would give Americans some much-needed relief from the added costs of
ObamaCare.
I don't need to remind the American people about the failed launch of
the health care law, but a failed Web site is the least of Americans'
health concerns.
Millions of Americans, including over 200,000 in my home State of
Michigan, went out to the mailbox and found that the health care plan
they had and liked was canceled.
Millions of Americans are having their hours and wages cut as
employers try to struggle with this complex law. Many find that they
can no longer access the care that they relied on from their local
doctor or hospital. Millions of Americans are left wondering what
happened to their promised $2,500 reduction in premiums. And next year,
millions more will see their premiums skyrocket again due to the
administration's failure to meet their own enrollment goals.
The American people have paid over and over for this health care law.
They have paid higher premiums, and they have paid by having their
hours cut back and their paychecks decreased. The last thing this law
should do is penalize Americans for being unable to purchase a plan on
healthcare.gov either because of multiple Web failures or that they
were unable to find an affordable plan.
The Obama administration unilaterally exempted businesses from the
employer mandate tax for 2014. SIMPLE Fairness demands that Congress
provide the same relief to hardworking Americans.
When Congress can act to provide some relief for hardworking
Americans, we should. Every Member here has heard from a frustrated
constituent. This shouldn't and need not be a partisan fight. Granting
relief to hardworking Americans is only fair. Voting ``yes'' on H.R.
4118 is the right thing to do for the people we represent.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I shall
consume.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Well, here they go again. But this time, it is the 50th
time that House Republicans have brought up legislation to repeal or to
undermine the Affordable Care Act. But this 50th time is no golden
anniversary. It is a House Republican goose egg for millions of
Americans. Just look at this--fifty votes, but zero votes to raise the
minimum wage, zero votes to renew unemployment insurance, zero votes to
guarantee paycheck fairness, and zero votes to pass immigration reform.
So let's spend a minute looking exactly at what would be the impact
of this if it became law. In 2014, we would see an additional 1 million
uninsured--1 million. In 2015, 2 million more people
[[Page H2169]]
would be uninsured than if the individual mandate stayed in effect, and
in 2016, another million people.
The irony of this, and I think my colleagues on the Democratic side
will speak to this, the irony is the individual mandate was a
Republican idea. It was born out of the conservative Heritage
Foundation in the eighties. And throughout the nineties, Republicans
argued its merits. It was one of the foundations of the Massachusetts
law. Its parent, at least in good measure, was Governor Mitt Romney.
I met an hour or so ago with representatives of a major insurance
carrier in Massachusetts, and one explained how it is working--97, 98
percent of the people are covered. That law has sparked an improvement
in the delivery of health care and in the restructuring of health care
delivery systems. So here we are, instead of constructive action,
essentially, we have a Republican demolition squad.
Can any law be made perfect? Yes, including this. But that isn't what
the Republicans are after today. They have never come up with their own
plan. Indeed, they are a wrecking crew. America deserves much better.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, the enforcement of the individual mandate penalty tax
is an important issue, an issue of basic fairness, and I look forward
to debating this legislation on the House floor.
On February 10 of this year, the Department of the Treasury announced
that it would delay enforcement of the employer mandate penalty tax for
businesses with 51 to 100 employees until 2016. This delay in the
President's health care law comes on the heels of a similar delay the
administration announced last July, which exempted all large businesses
from the employer mandate penalty until 2015.
Amidst all of these delays, it is easy to forget that the employer
mandate, like the individual mandate, was required by the Affordable
Care Act to be in effect right now. The President has now acted
unilaterally on two separate occasions to give Big Business relief from
this tax burden. However, he has not leveled the playing field for the
millions of individuals and families who are forced to comply with the
individual mandate tax.
Aside from the fact that it is fundamentally unfair to give
businesses special treatment that is not extended to these individuals,
American families have also been forced to deal with a botched rollout
of healthcare.gov and a series of confusing administration delays of
the law issued via blog post. This has led to confusion, frustration,
and, ultimately, difficulty complying with the law.
Nowhere is this more evident than the fact that only 4 million
Americans have enrolled in health coverage on the healthcare.gov Web
site. This means that with less than a month to go in this initial open
enrollment period, we are still 3 million enrollees short of the
original CBO projection of 7 million enrollees--one that even the
administration once touted as its goal. Enrollment is still 2 million
enrollees short of CBO's new projection of 6 million enrollees.
These millions can be added to the tens of millions of other American
individuals and families who will now likely be forced to pay the
individual mandate penalty. In my State, Kansas, the latest census
information estimates that 356,000 folks are uninsured. At the last
count, only 22,000 of those individuals have enrolled on
healthcare.gov.
Unlike businesses, the President has offered no relief for these
individuals who do not or are unable to comply with the law's mandates.
I believe that this is simply not fair and that the House must act to
provide parity for these folks. That is why I have introduced this bill
under consideration today.
H.R. 4118 would eliminate implementation of the individual mandate
penalty by 1 year. This means that the individual mandate penalty would
be zeroed out this year. It would rise to $95 or 1 percent of income in
2015, to $325 or 2 percent of income in 2016, and $695 or 2\1/2\
percent of income in 2017 and thereafter. I believe this is a simple
concept, and considering the circumstances, I applaud this committee
for taking up this legislation to provide fairness to all Americans
under the President's health care law.
In closing, I would ask this: If the President can delay the employer
mandate, where is the relief for everyone else? It is time to give
relief to hardworking individuals and families and work toward a
legislative solution to eliminate these tax penalties for everyone.
Congress must pass this bill today and create simple fairness for all.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, it is now my special pleasure to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) with whom those
of us on Ways and Means have worked all of these years on health care
reform. He is one of the authors of this bill and the ranking member of
Energy and Commerce.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
The truth of the matter is no matter how many votes the Republicans
cast to repeal the Affordable Care Act and no matter how many
distortions they spread about the law, there are some facts they cannot
change.
They cannot change the fact that, because of the Affordable Care Act,
nobody in America can ever again be denied health insurance because
they have a preexisting condition. They cannot change the fact that a
woman can never be charged more than a man for the same coverage. They
cannot change the fact that a family will never again be left without
coverage just because their child's hospital bills got too high.
These facts are stubborn and they are inconvenient for my Republican
colleagues, so they ignore them and they deny them. Republicans have
voted--or will today--50 times to try to take away the basic security
and freedom guaranteed by the Affordable Care Act. They offer
absolutely no solutions for the tens of millions of Americans who need
health care coverage that is secure and affordable. They have voted to
repeal the law, but they have never once voted for a replacement.
Madam Speaker, if the Republicans have a solution that will expand
coverage, that will end discrimination by insurance companies, and that
will reduce the deficit, they need to bring it up for a vote. But they
do not have solutions. What they want to do is deny health insurance
coverage to millions of Americans. That is a shame, and I think we are
wasting our time today voting again to turn our backs on a bill that
will offer so much to the American people.
Don't we have anything else to do? All we seem to do is deny science,
which is the bill that will be coming up next, when the Republicans
want to stop EPA from dealing with the climate change issue or denying
the rights of people to get health insurance, which the Republicans
have voted over and over again to do.
I urge that we vote ``no'' on this bill.
Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas, Chairman Kevin Brady, our chair of the Ways and Means Health
Subcommittee.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the
SIMPLE Fairness Act and thank the leadership of the gentlelady from
Kansas in this area.
Back home, my people are frightened about the Affordable Care Act.
They don't think it is a waste of time to be trying to fix and repeal
and stop this. They are paying a very steep price for it.
President Obama made them some big promises when he sold them this
health care plan. He promised Americans could keep the plan they like.
He promised lower health care costs. He promised a functioning Web site
that he said would work as well as Amazon. The White House hasn't
delivered on any of these promises.
Where I am from, if you make a mistake, if you don't keep your
promise, you step up and fix it. You don't blame those you have hurt.
No American should have to pay a penalty because ObamaCare fell short
of its promises. No American should have to pay a penalty because the
Web site couldn't even accept their application or deliver the correct
information. No American should be penalized for trying days on end to
purchase a plan only to decide it wasn't worth the effort because it
was
[[Page H2170]]
too expensive. No American should be penalized because they are
concerned about the security of their private information on this
government Web site, and no American should be penalized by the IRS
because of sticker shock or deciding not to purchase a plan that is so
much more expensive than what was promised.
President Obama gave Big Business a break; he deserves to give
average Americans the same type of break, as well. SIMPLE Fairness
requires that we do the same for the American people. That is all this
is about. It is all we are doing today, treating average Americans who
are hurt by the Affordable Care Act the way the White House helped Big
Business with the same exact problems. The American people deserve the
same relief. We ought to give it to them. That is why this bill is
called the SIMPLE Fairness Act, and it deserves our support.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Rangel).
I also ask unanimous consent that the balance of my time be managed
by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), the ranking member on
the Health Subcommittee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Foxx). Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
{time} 1415
Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, my colleagues, there is a cancer growing
in the Republican Party in the House of Representatives, and as much of
a Democrat as I am, I hate to see this happen because our government is
based on a two-party system. Now this cancer, this small group of
people in the Republican Party in the House, have already torn down the
credibility of the entire House of Representatives because they are
doing the same insane thing 50 times without getting any results, and
they are not doing anything else. It is bad enough that all of us have
to go down in political favoritism, or our reputations go down, but
this small group of people have gone far enough now that the national
Republican Party has no credibility.
I will not embarrass anybody by asking them just who do you think
nationally should serve our country from, pardon the expression, the
Republican Party. You have none. Somewhere along the line, this
insanity has to stop because you are not beating up on Democrats, you
are beating up on people who have no health insurance.
If you don't like the President, if you don't like this bill, let's
talk about the millions of people who have no health insurance instead
of just for the 50th time saying you don't like the bill. It is the
law. The House and the Senate have signed it. The Supreme Court has
verified it. The President can veto anything you do if something did
happen.
Why don't we talk about immigration reform? Rebuild the integrity of
your great party from past years. Why don't we talk about the minimum
wage, where all candidates will say if you work hard in America and do
the right thing, then you can achieve anything you want. If you are
middle class, you can achieve poverty. If you are in poverty, you can't
even get a decent wage for working. There are so many things we can do.
Don't you remember the days before the Affordable Care Act when you
had constituents coming in saying: I can't get insurance? How about the
days when people would say: My husband was in the hospital and they cut
off insurance. Or even worse: I tried to get insurance and they told me
I was so sick, so I can't get any more insurance. Or the guy who is
working and he is on his parents' insurance, and he is 26 years old.
Don't you have any of these people in your congressional districts? Are
all of your people well and can do without health insurance?
How do you go home and explain that we do have a bill and instead of
perfecting it, supporting it, educating your people how they can get
health insurance, that you have tried not once, you have tried 10
times, 20 times, 30 times, 40 times, now 50 times to derail and destroy
it.
I don't know how you get away with it. I don't know what you put in
the water that you feed your constituents, but it certainly doesn't
make sense that you can try to destroy and at the same time not to
substitute.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fortenberry). Members are reminded to
address their remarks to the Chair.
Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Renacci), our colleague and friend on the House Ways and
Means Committee.
Mr. RENACCI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
4118, the SIMPLE Fairness Act.
According to a recent Gallup poll, 51 percent of Americans disapprove
of the President's health care law, and for good reason.
The rollout of the failed, misguided law was nothing short of
disastrous. Its plagued Web site prevented many Americans from
purchasing health insurance on the Federal and State exchanges. Though
the President promised lower costs, many are facing the reality of
higher premiums and a steep penalty if they cannot afford the plans
that are offered.
Recently, the administration delayed the employer mandate for a
second time, leaving intact the mandate that requires individuals to
purchase health insurance or pay a fine.
The bill before us today would ensure that no American will be forced
to pay the individual mandate penalty tax in 2014. It is evident to
this Chamber and Americans across the country that the President's
health care law is too complex, too costly, and completely unworkable.
Ultimately, this law should be fully repealed, but I am here today
because I believe that all hardworking Americans deserve relief from
the President's health care law.
Congress should afford individuals the same advantage the
administration is giving to businesses and delay the individual
mandate. It is simply common sense. I ask my colleagues to come
together and pass this important bill and send it to the President to
be signed into law.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, today is a little like ``Groundhog Day.'' The
Republican leadership has come out here and tried to decide what the
weather is going to be, and they are going to get the same answer that
they have gotten 49 times before. They can pass it from here, but it is
not going to change anything. We have seen this poorly designed, sadly
staged GOP political theater before--50 times. This is the 50th vote of
this Tea Party, Koch brothers-led Congress to crash the Affordable Care
Act.
It is a waste of time and resources, and ignores the facts. Americans
want affordable health care, and ACA delivers it to them. ACA has saved
lives and brought down our spending. New fraud measures, including new
authorities imposing payment suspensions and more rigorous-provider
enrollment procedures put into law by ACA, helped the Federal
Government recover $4.3 billion in taxpayer money from individuals and
companies that tried to defraud the health care programs. The ACA is
delivering historic results for the American people, and yet the
Republican leadership is hell-bent on a 50th stroke.
Regardless of the fact that our economic system remains stuck in
neutral, nothing has been done about jobs, unemployment insurance,
raising the minimum wage, and so forth.
If that was all that was going on here, this would still be insulting
and absurd. The bill under consideration today, H.R. 4118, is virtually
identical to H.R. 2668, a bill passed on the 17th of July, 2013. The
Republicans have already passed this bill to delay the individual
mandate, something the CBO knows will result in higher insurance
premiums. So beyond wasting time and engaging in stunts designed to
make the producers of FOX News happy, Republicans want to return
Americans to the days before ACA, when a cancer victim couldn't get
covered and seniors couldn't get their prescriptions; to the day when
wage workers who had paid hundreds of dollars out of pocket went
without; to the days of ever-changing lists of preexisting conditions
when companies tried to drop coverage.
The real business of the Congress should be to stand up for those
Americans and millions more like them. That is what the American people
want. That is what the American people deserve. That is why they want
us to vote ``no.''
Jim McCrery, in March, 2000, said in an article in Atlantic Monthly
that an
[[Page H2171]]
employer mandate and an individual mandate was essential.
I can't understand the Republicans saying we don't want everybody to
play. We don't want everybody according to their ability to be in. Why
are you so eager to let people out the door because they are going to
wind up in the emergency room? Have no doubt, they will be getting
health care, but they won't be paying for it. You are saying: That's
okay with us, we like people who are free riders. That is not America.
We are all supposed to do our part, and that is why everyone here
should vote ``no.''
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Young), our friend and colleague on the Ways and Means
Committee.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Madam Speaker, as we approach the deadline for
enrolling in ObamaCare-sanctioned insurance, it has become clear the
system is not working as its supporters intended. For months, we have
been learning about Web site problems, spiking premiums, and lost
coverage. For months, we have seen an underwhelming number of signups,
not even close to matching the stated enrollment goals of this
administration. For months, we have heard heart-wrenching stories from
our districts about the negative impact this botched rollout has had on
hardworking American families.
Unfortunately for those families, the White House and those who
helped bring us this law have consistently turned a deaf ear to
Americans' concerns. Meanwhile, at the urging of the business
community, we had the White House delay the employer mandate tax--
twice. What must the constituents in our districts do to be heard by
ObamaCare supporters? Should they form trade organizations and hire a
lobbyist so maybe President Obama and champions of this law will
listen?
Well, guess what? My constituents did hire someone to lobby on their
behalf when they elected me to Congress. It is simply not fair when
businesses get a break but the people who work at those businesses do
not. I am all for delaying the employer mandate tax because it is
confusing and it is cumbersome for our businesses. I also feel very
strongly that the individual mandate tax is just as cumbersome for
individuals and families as the employer mandate tax is for our
businesses. I believe that individuals and families deserve the same
sort of delay. So on behalf of my constituents in Indiana's Ninth
District, and on behalf of all of yours, I encourage all of my
colleagues to support this bill and to support simple fairness.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis).
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong
opposition to H.R. 4118, the 50th vote to repeal the Affordable Care
Act, which, if passed and implemented, would increase premiums,
decrease coverage, and increase the number of people who are not
insured by as much as 11 million people in this country. It is
unbelievable that we would be on the floor voting for the 50th time to
try and turn back the clock on millions of Americans who have been
denied health insurance coverage because of a preexisting condition,
didn't have enough money, or did not have accessibility to facilities.
In Illinois, over 256,000 individuals benefit from the Affordable
Care Act. Nationally, more than 4 million Americans have enrolled in
private plans, with 82 percent receiving premium tax credits to make
health insurance more affordable. More than 3.1 million young adults
have access to health insurance by remaining on their parents' plans
until age 26. Millions more Americans have secured new coverage through
Medicaid expansion.
Rather than decreasing or taking away, the Republican leadership and
all of us ought to be increasing and providing. We ought to be
affording individuals the opportunity to get insurance because they are
unemployed--to get a check. So it is amazing that rather than giving,
we would be talking about taking, taking away, when the law says and
all of us know that everybody ought to have access to quality health
care.
I oppose this legislation.
Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Roe), my friend and colleague.
{time} 1430
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for
yielding to me.
I rise in support of the SIMPLE Fairness Act and a level playing
field for all Americans.
In the span of about 7 months, the Obama administration has taken
action twice to provide big businesses with relief from the President's
disastrous health care law. Working families, however, are still being
forced to comply with the individual mandate.
Over the last year, President Obama's broken promises on health care
become almost too numerous to count. Americans were told that if they
liked their health care plan, they could keep it. Tell that to the
82,000 Tennesseans who were forced out of their coverage by ObamaCare.
Americans were told that ObamaCare would lower the cost of insurance.
Explain that to the 11 million people that CMS has determined will have
their premiums increase.
We were told by the Democratic leader that ObamaCare would create
jobs. I invite her to have a conversation with the workers at Mountain
States Health Alliance in my district who lost their jobs. Even the CBO
agrees that this law is discouraging work.
Throughout the implementation of ObamaCare, the one thing the
President has held firm on is that working families must buy
insurance--or else. He has promised a veto on this commonsense
legislation simply because it delays individual mandate penalties for 1
year.
Here in the people's House, we should stand for their interests and
treat people the same as big businesses. It is only fair.
Madam Speaker, I would argue that if this bill is doing so well, why
would only 34 percent of the people in this country approve of it?
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to follow my
good friend, Dr. Phil Roe, on the floor because we spent last weekend--
speaking of health care--along with Mr. McDermott--in Houston, Texas,
at a fabulous conference by the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund to be
able to deal meaningfully with health care problems and bring people
together on a bipartisan basis to discuss them.
I know some things we have to do and have got to come to the floor to
repeal this 50 times, but I would hope that, sooner rather than later,
we reach a point where we can focus on things that bring Americans
together, not divide them, something that will improve the quality of
health care and actually has nothing to do with spending money, new
mandates, or ObamaCare.
I am referring to the legislation that I am pleased to have
cosponsored with my good friend, Dr. Roe, H.R. 1173, the Personalize
Your Care bill. It has over 50 bipartisan cosponsors. It would enable,
for the first time, to provide voluntary consultation on advanced care
planning for Medicare and Medicaid.
Every 5 years or when somebody becomes first eligible, it would
provide grants to establish and expand programs for physician-ordered
life sustaining treatment. It would require that certified electronic
health records could display current advanced directives and physician
orders for sustaining treatment.
Bear in mind, right now, every day, there are people who are getting
health care at their most critical vulnerable moments, at the end of
life, that is not necessarily what they want.
The majority of Americans would rather spend their last hours or days
surrounded by their families at home, but very few Americans actually
are able to do that. They end up in an ICU, not necessarily because
that is their choice, but because their choices haven't been recorded
and haven't been respected.
It is fascinating to me that Dr. Billy Graham, in his recent book,
talks about the Christian responsibility to spare one's family from
impossible decisions like that, that it is a Christian
[[Page H2172]]
responsibility to have that conversation in advance, execute the
appropriate papers, and make sure nobody has to guess about whether a
loved one wants to be in an ICU or at home.
Dr. Bill Frist, a fellow Tennessean of my friend Dr. Roe, had an op-
ed in Politico a few months ago talking about his experience. Dr. Frist
was a former Republican majority leader in the Senate, but he is also a
respected physician.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fortenberry). The time of the gentleman
has expired.
Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. He is also a respected heart surgeon who has faced
families in this circumstance, and he knows that they need information,
that they need help, and that their wishes need to be respected.
Now, maybe instead of repealing ObamaCare the 51st or the 58th or the
100th time--legislation is not going to go any place--maybe we could
take a little bit of a time out and consider the legislation that Dr.
Roe and I have worked on that is not partisan, that doesn't have
anything to do with ObamaCare, that would enable families in their time
of need to know what their choices are and to make sure that their
choices, whatever they might be, are respected, they are respected in
their city, they are respected across State lines, that they protect
their family, and that they get the care they want and they need as
they approach end of life.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will find time this year from passing
post office renaming and whatnot, this is a piece of legislation that
could come to the floor on the suspension calendar and would make a
difference for families all across America.
Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia, Eric Cantor, our current Republican House majority leader.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady and
congratulate her on her leadership for this bill and making sure that
we reinsert a notion of fairness back into the law for the people of
this country.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the SIMPLE Fairness Act.
For the past few months, the President's health care law has been
wreaking havoc on the American people. After the administration's
disastrous launch of the exchanges, ObamaCare has been anything but
what the President had promised it would be. It has become very clear
that this law is doing more harm than good.
We now know that ObamaCare has pushed up to 5 million people off the
health care plan they liked, and many are now being denied the care
they had. To make matters worse, many of these new plans will force
Americans to pay higher premiums and higher deductibles. This leaves
them with a limited number of options for health care coverage.
Many folks are also finding out that they cannot keep the doctor or
the pediatrician that they want to go to and trusted. To put it simply,
this is not how America should work. The American people deserve
better.
Yet, time and again, the Obama administration has shown its true
colors by putting politics first and unilaterally delaying parts of the
law to avoid political repercussions. This has become most evident by
the administration's delay in the employee mandate for big businesses
and its refusal to delay the individual mandate for working Americans.
Just yesterday, it was reported the administration will announce
another major unilateral delay on their minimum coverage requirements
to--and I quote the publication The Hill--``ease election pressure on
Democrats.''
Doesn't it say something that the authors of this legislation are
worried that it is being implemented before they face voters again?
And I ask: Will future Presidents, perhaps of our party, be able to
simply delay or cancel all or part of ObamaCare? Will my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle withhold complaint then?
There is no greater indictment of this law or proof of its failure
than the fear that full implementation invokes in its authors.
It is not fair to pick and choose which parts of an unpopular law
should be enforced at the expense of working individuals for political
expediency, and it is just not fair that businesses and insurance
companies get delays and exemptions and not hardworking Americans. It
is not fair.
Millions of Americans all over the country are already living
paycheck to paycheck. The last thing they need is another brazen attack
on their pocketbooks from a health care law they don't want, they
didn't ask for, and that doesn't work for them.
Through this administration's ad hoc implementation of ObamaCare,
some people won't have to pay the penalty, but others will. Here is who
I am concerned about and who the bill before us today protects, the
single mom, who for whatever reason ended up without insurance for
several months.
She doesn't need a new tax bill from Uncle Sam for hundreds of
dollars because she can't access the coverage that Washington says she
must. She could use that money to pay the heating bill or to buy
groceries for her children.
All Americans--not just some--but all Americans deserve a delay from
the punishing financial penalties of the President's health care law.
This is our chance to make it happen. With the legislation before us
today, no one in this country would be forced to pay the individual
mandate tax in 2014.
This is an opportunity to stop the political games and put working
Americans first. Let's stand together and support the SIMPLE Fairness
Act in bipartisan fashion and give our constituents some relief from
the financial burdens of ObamaCare.
I would like to thank Chairman Dave Camp and Representative Lynn
Jenkins for their hard work on this issue and on behalf of working
Americans.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 12 minutes
remaining. The gentlewoman from Kansas has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana, Steve Scalise, the chairman of the Republican Study
Committee.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Kansas for
yielding and for her leadership on this bill that I am proud to
cosponsor.
The SIMPLE Fairness Act is about just that, providing fairness for
hardworking taxpayers. If you look at how the President's health care
law is being implemented, Mr. Speaker, you have got the President
literally saying he is going to give exemption after exemption after
exemption to the political class, to the select few who have special
interest protections here in Washington.
The President, by the way, has said: Big businesses can get
exemptions from ObamaCare. The President has said: Insurance companies
can get exemptions from ObamaCare.
But then, when it comes to hardworking taxpayers, families out there
who are struggling under the weight of this law, the President says no,
you can't have that same exemption that he has given to everybody else.
So what we are saying here, Mr. Speaker, is if these exemptions are
good enough for big businesses and if these exemptions are good enough
for insurance companies, shouldn't they also be good enough for
hardworking taxpayers who are struggling in this bad economy that the
President has given us and under the weight of this unworkable law,
that the President himself is acknowledging is unworkable, by giving
all these exemptions away to everybody else?
Now, if you look at the law, Mr. Speaker, the President doesn't have
the legal authority to just waive a law--to literally take out a pen
and change the law.
What the President does have is the ability to work with us in
Congress in a bipartisan way, which when you look at the vote on this
bill, it will be bipartisan in support of giving these hardworking
taxpayers that same exemption.
But this law, ObamaCare, is built on a foundation of broken promises.
If you like what you have, you can keep it, of course, is probably the
most broken promise in political history; but there is more. The
President said insurance
[[Page H2173]]
costs will be lower. Insurance costs are higher for families.
The President even said he will meet with anybody who has a better
idea. Well, we do have a better idea, Mr. Speaker. Over 120 Members of
Congress, including medical doctors, have cosponsored the American
Health Care Reform Act.
We took the President up on his promise, now almost 3 months ago, and
the President has refused to fulfill that promise of meeting with
anybody who has a better idea. He won't even sit down and talk with us
about a better idea to put patients back in charge of health care.
There is a better way. We ought to treat people fairly. This bill
does it. I urge adoption.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Is the gentlelady from Kansas ready to close?
Ms. JENKINS. I see no other speakers, so I am prepared to close.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I have one Member who is in transit, but
let me say a few things until he gets here.
{time} 1445
I have been in Congress for 25 years, and I have listened to the
Republicans talk about what we ought to do about health care. They have
never brought a bill to the committee--a chairman's mark--for us to
mark up and bring out on the floor.
Now, if you have a solution for the fact that health care costs are
the biggest costs driving bankruptcy in this country, where is it since
you don't like what we have here?
When I was younger, I lived through the implementation of Medicare.
The American Medical Association--everybody--was just up and down, and
it was the worst thing. If we put in Medicare, it was going to be the
end of the world, and we would never have health care again in this
country. We went on and on and on like that. They so poisoned the well
that, when people went out to actually recruit people to get into the
Medicare program, people said: I am not going to have any of that
socialistic medicine in my house.
That is what it was called. That is what people were doing in 1964
and 1965. This is a rerun of that very same movie. The Republicans want
to kill the idea and leave the American people out there on their own.
It is probably the single best example of the difference between the
Republicans and the Democrats.
The Democrats have put something out here, and we are trying to help
all Americans. Is it perfect? There isn't anybody on my side who would
say it is. If we had had some hearings in the Ways and Means Committee,
the subcommittee could have done a whole bunch of things--there are all
kinds of problems out there--but there haven't been any hearings on
this bill, on how to fix it.
I talked to Bill Frist some months ago. He said: Jim, there is no
reason to repeal it. You ought to fix it. Make it work. Make it work
for the American people.
One of the interesting things that I hear over and over again--and it
must be confusing to folks at home--is that the President said: If you
like your health care, you can keep it. Now, implicit in that is that
it will still exist. The President didn't say: I am going to tell the
insurance companies you have got to keep those plans out there.
That wouldn't be the free enterprise system, what you have. You don't
like the free enterprise system.
As soon as the President passed this bill, immediately, we had people
in the insurance industry pulling down plans all over the country,
sending out mailings, saying: You have lost your health care coverage.
I sometimes wonder if global warming--or climate change--is really
not because of Obama's health care. I hear that it is the cause of
every evil--of people losing jobs. I don't know. Whatever is going on
in the country, it is because of ObamaCare. That is foolishness. When
you are trying to change a program for 20 or 30 million people, you are
bound to have some problems. We are having them, and we are working
them out. It was awful at the beginning, and it is better now. It is
better today than it was 3 months ago, and it will be. It will continue
to improve because the American people need it. They absolutely need it
even with the foolishness coming out of here, of trying again to
convince the American people to get rid of this.
I had a woman in my district who was an opera singer. She went to
Germany, and she got into the German health care system. Instantly,
boom, you are in. Anybody who goes to Germany is in. Her daughter got
leukemia. Her daughter was treated for leukemia, and she went into
remission. The mother finished her contract and came home to the United
States. She could not find an insurance company anyplace in this
country that would give her insurance for her daughter--none.
Now, that is what you want to go back to. You want to go back to the
time when a parent can't find an insurance company that will take care
of his kid, and that is the kind of thing that we have been watching
for as long as I have been in Congress and before that, and this bill
has begun to stop that.
We had lifetime limits. Some cancers eat up a lot of money real
quickly. Bone marrow transplants are $125,000 or more, and people wind
up being unable to purchase the medication. All of that is covered by
this bill, and you are saying to people: No, we want to go back to
1930. We like the Dust Bowl. We like the hard times of the thirties. We
don't want any of this stuff.
In my view, this is a perfect place for Democrats to vote ``no,'' and
Republicans, of course, will vote ``yes,'' and the American people will
make a judgment in the next election.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, in closing, this bill is about fairness and
about providing relief to all hardworking Americans just as the
administration keeps giving to businesses. It is about leveling the
playing field for the millions of individuals and middle class families
who are forced to comply with this health care law.
Just last week, a stunning poll found that only 6 percent of
Americans claim ObamaCare is working and want it kept intact.
Opposition to this law is at an all-time high, and even the President
admitted that the launch of this law was fumbled. Add that to the
millions of Americans who are losing their health insurance that they
like, are losing access to the doctors they have always seen, are
submitting their personal data to an unsecured system, are paying
higher premiums they can't afford, and clearly, we have a law that is
not working and is not fair to the American people.
The court of public opinion is a powerful thing. The House will
listen, and it will continue to listen, and it will continue to provide
relief and fairness to middle class families. I hope the Senate and the
President will also do the right thing for the American people.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I have always said that Congress would need
to pass fixes to improve the Affordable Care Act. The original version
of the bill that passed the House in 2009, and included my provision to
repeal the anti-trust exemption enjoyed by the insurance industry, was
much better than the Senate version that ultimately became law.
Unfortunately the House Leadership has not allowed us the opportunity
to vote on real fixes to the ACA. Instead the Republican leadership
continues to engage in an ideological exercise of repeatedly bringing
up bills that will never move beyond the House. H.R. 4118 is no
different. It won't be taken up by the Senate. The President has
threatened to veto it. It is not a real fix.
Instead of bringing up bills that will never become law, Congress
should be working on fixes to the Affordable Care Act that will
actually help our constituents. Oregonians who want to buy insurance
continue to face a state exchange website that does not function.
Because of this problem I fought hard to let Oregonians to keep their
current insurance plan if they wanted to. Small businesses in Oregon
can't use tax credits to help them provide insurance to their employees
on the SHOP small business exchange because there still is no SHOP
exchange in Oregon, so I am asking for small business tax credits to be
available outside of the SHOP exchange.
Americans who want to take personal responsibility for all of their
healthcare costs would benefit from an alternative to the individual
mandate that I have proposed. My proposal would allow people to opt out
of buying insurance without facing a tax penalty as long as they commit
to taking full responsibility for any healthcare costs they incur.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition once again to an
attempt by the majority to defeat the Affordable Care Act.
[[Page H2174]]
This begins the third year that the majority has attempted to put an
end to affordable, available and accessible health care for all
Americans.
They have ignored the law, a Supreme Court decision and a national
presidential election that affirmed the establishment, legality, and
popularity of the Affordable Care Act.
I oppose this bill for three reasons: there are much more pressing
issues facing our nation, this bill is wrong on the facts, and the
Affordable Care Act is working.
There are much more pressing issues facing our nation: unemployment,
food security, housing security and access to job training that leads
to employment.
We should be debating a bill to restore emergency supplemental
unemployment benefits.
We should be restoring cuts the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program that was cut by nearly $20 billion dollars over several years.
We should be voting to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour over
several years and link future increases of the minimum wage to
inflation.
We should be taking up the budget process with eagerness to avoid
another government shutdown.
In 2013, we had a Federal government shutdown because we lost
precious legislative time voting to repeal or seriously diminish the
ability of the Affordable Care Act to do what it is currently doing--
providing health insurance to millions of Americans.
Every wasted vote--moves this Congress another step closer to another
Federal government shutdown.
The budget process takes months of work by over a dozen committees to
complete.
Each vote that stops our legislative work and bring us to the floor
for a debate on legislation that will not go anywhere--is time taken
away from our work to avoid another government shutdown.
The American people were unaware of the cost of over 40 votes to end
Obamacare until millions of citizens were put out of work when the
government shutdown last year.
They are watching what is happening in Congress very closely and the
consequences will fall heaviest on those who were hurt by the last
government shutdown.
The 113th Congress has 70 legislative working days left on the
calendar before September 30, 2014--the end of the fiscal year for 2014
and the beginning of the fiscal year for 2015.
I call on my colleagues to bring to the floor bills like H.R. 3773,
the Unemployment Jobhunters Protection and Assistance Act, a bill I
introduced that would extend emergency unemployment compensation (EUC)
payments for eligible individuals to weeks of employment ending on or
before January 1, 2015.
This Congress would find a better use of its time if it would take up
consideration of H.R. 3888, New Chance for a New Start in Life Act of
2014, that would authorize the Secretary of Labor to make grants to
States, units of local government, and Indian tribes to carry out
employment training programs to assist long-term unemployed job hunters
to obtain the skills and training they need to reenter the workforce
and fill jobs in high-growth sectors of the economy.
These are just two bills that would improve the lives of people who
we all serve, but there are dozens of others introduced by members who
came to the Congress to serve the will of the people and not their own
will.
I oppose this bill because it is wrong on the facts.
Republicans are claiming that this bill is simply logical because the
Administration has already delayed the employer responsibility
provision for one year.
This claim is inaccurate and disingenuous.
Nonpartisan experts agree that there is no comparison between the
impacts of a delay in the employer responsibility and individual
responsibility provisions.
For example, in a report in July, the nonpartisan Urban Institute
concluded, ``Delaying or eliminating the individual mandate would
significantly decrease insurance coverage relative to the full
Affordable Care Act's implementation, whereas delaying or eliminating
the employer mandate will have essentially no effect on coverage.''
The Affordable Care Act is good for the American People
The Obamacare is popular and growing in greater popularity everyday
as consumers get past the rhetoric and experience the reality of the
peace of mind that health insurance for their families and themselves
brings.
Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, in Texas:
5,198,000 individuals on private insurance have gained coverage for
at least one free preventive health care service such as a mammogram,
birth control, or an immunization in 2011 and 2012. In the first eleven
months of 2013 alone, an additional 1,683,800 people with Medicare have
received at least one preventive service at no out of pocket cost.
The up to 10,695,000 individuals with pre-existing conditions such as
asthma, cancer, or diabetes--including up to 1,632,000 children--will
no longer have to worry about being denied coverage or charged higher
prices because of their health status or history.
Approximately 5,189,000 Texans have gained expanded mental health and
substance use disorder benefits and/or federal parity protections.
4,889,000 uninsured Texans will have new health insurance options
through Medicaid or private health plans in the Marketplace.
As a result of new policies that make sure premium dollars work for
the consumer, not just the insurer, in the past year insurance
companies have sent rebates averaging $95 per family to approximately
726,200 consumers.
In the first ten months of 2013, 233,100 seniors and people with
disabilities have saved on average $866 on prescription medications as
the health care law closes Medicare's so called ``donut hole.''
357,000 young adults have gained health insurance because they can
now stay on their parents' health plans until age 26.
Individuals no longer have to worry about having their health
benefits cut off after they reach a lifetime limit on benefits, and
starting in January, 7,536,000 Texans will no longer have to worry
about annual limits, either.
Health centers have received $293,038,000 to provide primary care,
establish new sites, and renovate existing centers to expand access to
quality health care. Texas has approximately 400 health center sites,
which served about 1,079,000 individuals in 2012.
Every day more uninsured Americans are signing up for plans as the
website gets faster and more people with insurance are benefiting from
the law.
I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to not spend any
more precious legislative work on efforts to end the Affordable Care
Act or ignoring the number of people continuing to vote in favor of the
new law with their insurance enrollment dollars.
Mr. Speakers, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this
bill.
Mr. POSEY. Mr. Speaker, when the health care law was passed on a
party line vote people were assured they could keep their current
doctors and insurance plans, it would cost them less, it was not a tax,
and there would be no rationing of medical care. Those are not my
words. They are the words from the supporters of the bill in the
Congress and the Obama Administration.
The stark reality is very different for many of my constituents and
hundreds of them have shared with me how this health care law has
adversely impacted them. I'd like to share just a few of these comments
with you. They are from real people, hardworking Americans who I have
the privilege of representing and they are begging for relief:
``My group rate insurance increased 100% and my deductible went from
$2,500 to $7,500'' wrote Preston in Brevard, and Margaret says her
``insurances costs jumped 300%.''
Paul in Brevard writes, ``It has created a situation where I can't
retire safely.''
Norma in Indian River County says her ``premiums increased $600 per
year. That's a lot for someone on a fixed income.''
Tom in south Brevard wrote that the law ``increased premiums and
inserted unneeded benefits into our policy.''
Rob in Melbourne fears for his kids, writing: ``My kids cannot find a
job and the cost of healthcare is three times more for them than it was
previously.'' And another constituent wrote: ``My grandchildren lost
their insurance due to the exorbitant increase in monthly premiums by
their employer.''
A friend wrote: ``My best friend's hours got cut so the company would
not have to provide healthcare for him and his family.'' And, Ed in
Titusville wrote of the impact on his daughters: ``Both of my daughters
have had their work hours cut [so their employers could avoid providing
health insurance].''
Christine in Vero shared: ``With no change in my health, my premiums
went up 21% with a $2500 deductible.''
Rob in Melbourne says his insurance costs ``doubled''.
Ralph in Brevard says ``I lost my doctor and am paying for things I
don't need.''
Chris in Palm Bay says he ``lost his job and was forced to move and
pay higher insurance costs.''
Paul in Palm Bay says: ``The policy increased from $50 a month to
$350 a month.''
Terri shares that her doctors won't take her private insurance.
Dave in central Brevard shared that: ``It has DOUBLED my premiums!! I
am very upset about Obamacare! FIX IT!''
John says he lost his plan, and Norma writes: ``I have to die,
because my medical bills will not be covered.''
I could go on.
This bill simply delays the individual mandate tax penalty for a year
so that Americans can pick a plan that they want and that they
[[Page H2175]]
can afford, rather than one that the government in Washington tells
them they must sign up for.
The President has already given large multinational corporations and
labor unions the same waiver. We are simply extending this same
flexibility to average Americans who want nothing more than to be
treated equally.
Ultimately, when you have to pass a bill to find out what's in it,
there's a good chance that you're not going to like what it says. The
only way to fix this situation is to repeal this law and replace it
with a plan that restores individual freedom and makes health insurance
more affordable.
Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
support the Simple Fairness Act and eliminate the individual mandate
tax penalty under the Affordable Care Act for a year.
Many of my constituents in the 24th District of Texas have lost their
health insurance and access to doctors they liked due to the
President's healthcare law. The law is hurting millions of Americans.
The President has recognized as much, as he recently issued another
delay that protects businesses from his employer mandate tax. In fact,
the President has delayed provisions in his own healthcare law over 20
times in the past year.
It is simply not fair for the President to give businesses a one-year
delay on the tax penalty, but not give hardworking individuals and
families the same relief.
My constituents, and all Americans, deserve the same thing: fairness.
I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the Simple
Fairness Act.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the
50th time this House of Representatives has tried to repeal, defund or
dismantle the Affordable Care Act.
What a sad Golden Anniversary moment for the GOP.
The Affordable Care Act, which has already helped millions of
Americans, is the law of the land. Instead of playing politics, let's
instead work together to address concerns over its implementation while
upholding its mission: to provide quality, affordable healthcare access
for all Americans.
With Americans facing so many real, pressing issues every day, I urge
this Congress to focus on achieving results and serving our
constituents.
Two million Americans, including about 110 thousand Floridians have
lost their unemployment insurance. Our immigration system is in dire
need of common sense and comprehensive reforms. Women still make less
than men while working equal jobs.
The list goes on. We have work to do. We have a duty and
responsibility to serve the interests of the American people. These
pointless partisan attacks on the Affordable Care Act must stop.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 497, the previous question is ordered on
the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. HORSFORD. I am in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Horsford moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4118 to the
Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Add at the end the following new section:
SEC. 3 PROTECTING CONSUMERS FROM PREMIUM INCREASES AND
DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF PREEXISTING
CONDITIONS.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to alter, impact,
delay, or weaken--
(1) section 1402 of the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act that reduces out-of-pocket costs and cost-sharing
for individuals and families,
(2) sections 1001 and 1401 of such Act that provide tax
credits and rebates for health insurance, or
(3) section 1201 of such Act that prohibits discrimination
on the basis of pre-existing conditions and gender.
Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Nevada is recognized for 5
minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill,
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted,
the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.
This Republican bill represents the 50th attempt to undermine and
repeal the Affordable Care Act. The Democratic motion to recommit
lowers out-of-pocket costs, secures tax credits and rebates, and
ensures no discrimination against those with preexisting conditions.
The bill would delay the individual responsibility provision of the
Affordable Care Act to purchase health care by 1 year, which would
directly impact the out-of-pocket costs of consumers and threaten the
ability of millions of Americans with preexisting conditions to have
health coverage.
The nonpartisan CBO estimates that the enactment of the Republican
H.R. 4118 would increase the number of uninsured by 1 million in 2014,
by 2 million in 2015, and by 1 million in 2016. That is 4 million
Americans who would not have access to health insurance otherwise.
The White House pointed out this morning that the individual shared
responsibility provision is essential to ensuring that 129 million
Americans with preexisting conditions can get coverage without being
charged more or losing coverage when they get sick.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is just another example of House Republicans
playing political games rather than working together to get things done
for the American people. This is no longer about helping people. It
never really was for the Republicans. These repeal votes are about
ideological purity. They are about politics for the sake of politics.
That is why people across America are frustrated and disappointed by
this Congress--because this Chamber has become a bubble, and
Republicans have stopped listening and have stopped working on anything
productive.
It is not just on health care. It is on giving Americans a raise by
increasing the Federal minimum wage. It is the refusal to bring up
comprehensive immigration reform even though there are votes in the
House to pass it. It is on unemployment insurance and on the failure of
this Congress to extend benefits to now more than 2 million Americans
who have lost coverage. It is about creating jobs and helping to
improve and grow our infrastructure.
Now, this vote may seem routine. It may seem like this is just
Congress' continuing Groundhog Day, but this is the 50th time that we
have done this. We are wasting time, and we have a full docket of
things that we need to be doing. This vote is a symptom of something
very wrong in Washington, and it is time to wake up and to do something
more than play Tea Party politics in this House. The bill offered by my
colleagues on the other side would increase out-of-pocket costs to
American consumers. It would increase health premiums and the number of
uninsured Americans, and it hurts those with preexisting conditions.
Last year, I underwent a six-way bypass. Open heart surgery--no
question--was terrifying, and when you are on an operating table in an
emergency room, the last thing you should be focusing on is becoming
medically bankrupt. You should be focusing on taking care of yourself
and your family and on getting them the best care that you can. Whether
it is heart disease, cancer, diabetes, or any other preexisting
condition, people shouldn't go bankrupt because of an illness or a
disease in this country.
Thankfully, my surgery went well. I was able to afford it. My heart
condition is now a preexisting condition. There are thousands of my
constituents who are in the same or worse boat but who are not
financially well off. If we repeal or delay the Affordable Care Act,
what are they supposed to do? There is no solution being offered by the
House Republicans. It is not repeal and replace. It is repeal and
return to a broken health care system. That is it. That is the
Republicans' plan.
Last year, they passed H.R. 2668, a virtually identical bill to the
one we are considering today. They have run out of ways to repeal this
law, so now we are stuck on repeat. We should, instead, be focusing on
renewing unemployment insurance benefits for 2 million struggling
Americans, on passing comprehensive immigration reform so that we can
fix the system that has got families torn apart, and on giving 30
million Americans a raise.
[[Page H2176]]
My motion to recommit would protect three of the most important
provisions of the Affordable Care Act that are overwhelmingly supported
by the American people: lower out-of-pocket costs for consumers, tax
credits and rebates to purchase health care, and ensuring that no one
in America can be denied coverage due to a preexisting condition in
America.
It is time for this Congress to wake up and to do the right thing--to
protect Americans and their health care.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1500
Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order and seek time
in opposition to the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is withdrawn.
The gentlewoman from Kansas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, once again, the Democrats are simply
missing the point. The President is the one who has delayed the
employer mandate, the President has said this law is not ready, and the
President has declined to extend the same flexibility to individuals.
This is about basic fairness. It is only fair that hardworking
taxpayers are given the same treatment as businesses.
Like so many other provisions of the law that have been delayed,
repealed, or declared unworkable, this is just another example that,
despite the administration's promises, ObamaCare is not working for the
American people.
I reject this motion.
Please support H.R. 4118, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by
5-minute votes on passage of H.R. 4118, if ordered, and the motion to
suspend the rules with regard to H.R. 2126.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 185,
nays 227, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 96]
YEAS--185
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--227
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--18
Chaffetz
Courtney
Crawford
DeLauro
Duffy
Esty
Frankel (FL)
Gosar
Green, Gene
Himes
Hinojosa
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Larson (CT)
McCarthy (NY)
Negrete McLeod
Pastor (AZ)
Schneider
{time} 1529
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Messrs. FARENTHOLD, FRANKS of
Arizona, REICHERT, PEARCE, and TERRY changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Messrs. BRADY of Pennsylvania, GRIJALVA, and
SWALWELL of California changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote on the Motion
to Recommit with Instructions, rollcall vote 96, I would have voted
``aye.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 250,
nays 160, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 97]
YEAS--250
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
[[Page H2177]]
Cotton
Cramer
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duckworth
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Enyart
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Maffei
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nolan
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shea-Porter
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NAYS--160
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Fudge
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--20
Aderholt
Chaffetz
Courtney
Crawford
DeLauro
Duffy
Esty
Frankel (FL)
Gosar
Green, Gene
Himes
Hinojosa
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Larson (CT)
McCarthy (NY)
Negrete McLeod
Pastor (AZ)
Ruppersberger
Schneider
{time} 1538
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 97, H.R. 4118 would
increase the number of uninsured. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``no.''
Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote On Passage of
H.R. 4118, rollcall vote 97, I would have voted ``no.''
____________________