[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 343-365]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             REPEALING THE JOB-KILLING HEALTH CARE LAW ACT

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 26, 
I call up the bill (H.R. 2) to repeal the job-killing health care law 
and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education 
Reconciliation Act of 2010, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 26, the 
amendment printed in part A of House Report 112-2 is adopted, and the 
bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                                 H.R. 2

       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 ``Repealing the Job-Killing 
     Health Care Law Act''.

     SEC. 2. REPEAL OF THE JOB-KILLING HEALTH CARE LAW AND HEALTH 
                   CARE-RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE HEALTH CARE AND 
                   EDUCATION RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2010.

       (a) Job-Killing Health Care Law.--Effective as of the 
     enactment of Public Law 111-148, such Act is repealed, and 
     the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are 
     restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.
       (b) Health Care-Related Provisions in the Health Care and 
     Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.--Effective as of the 
     enactment of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act 
     of 2010 (Public Law 111-152), title I and subtitle B of title 
     II of such Act are repealed, and the provisions of law 
     amended or repealed by such title or subtitle, respectively, 
     are restored or revived as if such title and subtitle had not 
     been enacted.

     SEC. 3. BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF THIS ACT.

       (a) The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 
     complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall 
     be determined by reference to the latest statement titled 
     ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act, 
     submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the 
     Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House of 
     Representatives, as long as such statement has been submitted 
     prior to the vote on passage of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution shall be debatable for 7 
hours, with 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the majority 
leader and minority leader or their designees, 90 minutes equally 
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce, 90 minutes equally divided 
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce, 90 minutes equally divided and

[[Page 344]]

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget, 40 minutes 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on the Judiciary, and 40 minutes equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Small Business.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) each will control 15 minutes. The gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), and 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) each will control 45 minutes. 
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Van Hollen), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves), 
and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) each will control 20 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).


                             General Leave

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to begin by saying why we're doing this, and 
I want to get into the accounting of all this at a later time in this 
debate. But let me just simply say why we are here.
  We are here because we heard the American people in the last 
election. We are here because we believe it's really important to do in 
office what you said you would do. We said we would have a straight up-
or-down vote to repeal this health care law, and that's precisely what 
we are doing here today.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, why do we believe this? Because this health care 
law, if left in place, will accelerate our country's path toward 
bankruptcy. This health care law, if left in place, will do as the 
President's own chief actuary says it will do: It will increase health 
care costs. We are already seeing premiums go up across the board. We 
are already hearing from thousands of employers across the country who 
are talking about dropping their employer-sponsored health insurance, 
and we are already hearing about the lack of choices that consumers 
will get as this new law is put into place. This new law is a fiscal 
house of cards, and it is a health care house of cards. It does not 
make our health care system better. I would argue it makes it weaker.
  There are two ways to attack this problem, and I want to say in the 
outset to my friends on the other side of the aisle we agree that 
health care needs fixing. We agree that there are so many serious, 
legitimate problems in the health care system that need fixing. 
Affordable insurance, the uninsured, people with high health care costs 
and high health care risks, those need to be addressed. But we can fix 
what's not working in health care without breaking what's working in 
health care.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I would simply say this: We believe we can 
get to the moment of having affordable health care for every American, 
regardless of preexisting conditions, without having the government 
take it over, without $1 trillion of a combination of Medicare benefit 
cuts and tax increases. We believe in this: Let's have health care 
reform put the patient in charge, not the government in charge.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself an additional 20 seconds to 
simply say we believe that health care ought to be individually based, 
and it ought to be patient centered.
  There are two ways to go: Put the government in charge and have the 
government put in place rationing mechanisms to tighten the screws and 
ration health care; or put the consumer in charge and have providers 
compete for our business as patients, hospitals, doctors, and insurers. 
That's the system we want.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope the tenor and substance of the debate we have in 
this House over the next few days will be worthy of the American people 
and reflect well on this Congress.
  Many of us believe we should focus our efforts here today on measures 
to help put people back to work, rather than on a bill that takes away 
important patient and consumer protections. And we don't think it makes 
a whole lot of sense to debate a bill that, thankfully, will go nowhere 
in the Senate and would certainly be vetoed by the President. However, 
the Republican majority is entitled to use its time here as it chooses. 
And while we believe we should be doing that focused on jobs, perhaps 
this debate will clear up many of the myths and misinformation about 
the health care law that was signed by President Obama.
  I'm interested to hear my colleagues say that they can identify with 
all the problems in the health care system. Between the year 2000 and 
year 2006, premiums in this country doubled, health insurance company 
profits quadrupled, and this Congress did nothing. Why not put your 
plan on the table first so everybody can see it before you begin taking 
away the important patient protections in this bill taking effect just 
since last March? And within that 9-month period, that law has made an 
important and positive difference to millions of Americans.
  In fact, we wish our Republican colleagues would take a few days, 
maybe even just a few hours, to have congressional hearings to listen 
to those individuals and families. The new Republican majority said it 
wanted to listen to the American people, but it has not invited a 
single American outside this Congress to a hearing to testify on the 
repeal bill we are debating today.
  As a result, we on the other side of the aisle have had to schedule 
an unofficial hearing. It's going on right now, not 100 yards from 
where we debate, in the Capitol Visitor Center. And I encourage all of 
you to drop by, because if you do, you're going to hear some stories. 
You're going to hear the stories from moms and dads of young people who 
will tell you how they are relieved that their sons and daughters are 
no longer kicked off their insurance policies when they turn age 22 or 
graduate from college and cannot now stay on their parents' insurance 
plan until the age of 26. As a result, if their 20-year-old child gets 
sick or hit by an automobile or another terrible accident, they can get 
care without the family going bankrupt.
  You will hear from moms and dads with kids who have cancer, asthma, 
diabetes or other preexisting conditions telling you they're relieved 
that finally insurance companies can't deny their children coverage 
because of preexisting conditions. And you will hear from senior 
citizens who are unable to pay for the huge prescription costs of their 
bills, and then as of January 1 of this year, they are getting a 50 
percent discount and they can afford to pay for the medicines their 
doctors say they need.
  You will hear from small businesses. The number of small businesses 
using the tax credit has exceeded everyone's expectation. You will hear 
from those small businesses saying they can now afford to purchase 
affordable coverage for their employees and, as a result, hire more 
people. You would hear all that and more.
  That is why it is such a mistake, it's an historic mistake, to take 
away these patient protections and throw these individuals back over to 
the whims and the many abuses of the insurance industry. There's no 
doubt that the insurance industry will be popping champagne bottles if 
the health care law was ever to be repealed. Let's put the interests of 
our

[[Page 345]]

constituents, patients and consumers first in this debate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  And let's make sure that as we do this, we tackle the deficit and the 
debt. I listened to my colleague talk about the debt, but we all know 
that the independent, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office in a 
letter to Speaker Boehner dated January 6, 2011, indicated that 
repealing this bill will increase the deficit by over $200 billion over 
the first 10 years and by another $1.2 trillion over the second 10 
years.

                              {time}  1510

  Our colleagues have criticized those findings, but they're the same 
people who they applauded when the numbers came back their way.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a new member 
of the committee but a senior Member of Congress, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2, a bill 
that would repeal the disastrous government takeover of health care.
  The more we learn about the new health care law, the more we 
understand how devastating it will be to our economy. Already employers 
across the country have suffered increases in their health premiums as 
a result of the health care law, yet we were told that the law would 
bend the health cost curve downward.
  We were told that the bill would reduce the deficit by $143 billion 
over 10 years. However, we now know that the figures given to the CBO 
did not accurately reflect the law's real costs. When you add back the 
$115 billion needed to implement the law and subtract the bill's 
double-counting of revenue and other budgetary gimmicks, the true cost 
is a staggering $700 billion over 10 years.
  We were told the bill would protect the uninsured; yet all it does is 
roll them onto Medicaid--a low-performing program that has resulted in 
more people turning to the ER for their medical needs.
  We were told this bill would help seniors; instead, it guts Medicare 
Advantage leaving 50 percent of beneficiaries on the verge of losing 
their current coverage. What happened to the promise that if you like 
your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan?
  In addition to all the false promises, the health care bill will 
impose $52 billion in new taxes on businesses. Our economy relies on 
the ability of businesses to grow, hire, invest and succeed. The new 
taxes will devastate our economy and turn the American Dream into a 
nightmare.
  The bottom line is that we cannot afford this new health care law, no 
matter how well intentioned. We must repeal ObamaCare and replace it 
with legislation that decreases health care costs, increases 
competition in the marketplace, maintains the sanctity of the doctor-
patient relationship and truly helps those without insurance.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 2.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady 
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. I rise to speak very forcefully, I hope, about the 
importance of proceeding with the health care bill, the health care law 
that we had in place and the critical protections that it is providing 
to literally millions of Americans in each and every one of our 
districts; and each of us, I think, have heard from them.
  The new health care law reduces the deficit. We're here talking 
about, from the Budget Committee, it is going to reduce the deficit 
while promoting more efficient and higher quality care. Reducing the 
deficit and slowing the growth of health care costs means real savings 
to American families, American businesses and to the Federal 
Government. And yet their first major act in the majority, 
congressional Republicans want to repeal this law.
  Repealing the protections for Americans with preexisting conditions. 
We just heard this morning the Washington Post reported on a study that 
says that one-half of all Americans under the age of 65 have a 
preexisting condition. So this isn't just about a few of us. Really 
it's about almost all of us. We all know someone and we may all love 
someone who has a preexisting condition. If Republicans got their way--
and they will probably in the House but fortunately not in the Senate--
they would repeal the protections for Americans with preexisting 
conditions, or for children who can now already be covered. They will 
repeal the new law that says annual limits for coverage if you have 
cancer will be repealed. They will repeal the prescription drug 
benefits for our seniors, and will repeal tax credits for small 
businesses. And in doing so, they will add to the cost for American 
taxpayers.
  Let's be clear on what this means. Repeal increases the deficit by 
$252 billion over 10 years and $1.4 trillion over 20 years. Repeal 
reverses progress in getting health care costs under control, causing 
families and businesses and, yes, the government--which really means 
the taxpayers--to face higher health care costs. It repeals benefits 
for millions of Americans, important consumer protections and insurance 
reform, such as making sure that the children with preexisting 
conditions have coverage.
  And the repeal means starting over. We're going to hear it over and 
over again, I think, over the next 7 hours. What starting over means is 
no consumer protections and months and maybe years of just talk, 
possibly no action, while the costs go up for American businesses, go 
up for our families and go up for our Nation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. Let's be clear that the new rules allow the Republicans 
to do this, but it's going to cost trillions of dollars to our budget 
and it's going to cause greater suffering for the American people. So 
it's a wrong course of action. Let's not repeal this bill. It will hurt 
Americans, it will hurt our economic competitiveness, and it will hurt 
the fiscal condition of this nation.
  I encourage a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes to 
address some of the charges we've heard.
  Number one, they're saying this is a jobs bill. Half a trillion 
dollars in tax increases creates jobs? That mandates the taxes, that 
creates jobs?
  Others have been saying, well, this isn't going to pass the Senate 
and the President's not going to sign it, so why bother doing that. If 
that's the logic we take on every bill we bring to the floor, then we 
ought to just go home. We think it's important to define ourselves with 
our actions, and that's why we're acting. We think this law should be 
totally repealed, and that's why we're doing this.
  Let me speak to the fiscal house of cards as represented by this law. 
The minority is saying, This reduces the deficit. Just look at the 
letter from CBO to Speaker Boehner. It reduces the deficit by $143 
billion over 8 years; $230 billion over 10 years.
  It does that if you manipulate the CBO. I've heard charges of Enron 
accounting. The only Enron accounting that's been employed here is the 
previous majority gave the CBO a bill full of smoke and mirrors and 
made them score that.
  Well, here's what the CBO says, if you take away the smoke and 
mirrors. If you take away the fact that there's $70 billion in CLASS 
Act premiums that are being double-counted; $53 billion in Social 
Security taxes that are being double-counted; $115 billion in new 
appropriations required to hire the bureaucracy that wasn't counted; 
$398 billion in Medicare cuts that are being double-counted; and oh, 
let's not forget the fact that we're going to do the doctor fix, $208 
billion, that we just discounted and ignored.
  When you take away the smoke and the mirrors, this thing has a $701 
billion deficit. If you don't believe me when I say it that way, how 
about this way: The CBO says this raises the debt.

[[Page 346]]

  Now, how is that different where they say on one hand the bill lowers 
the deficit but on the other hand it raises the debt? Because when the 
CBO looks at whether or not a measure raises the debt, they can look at 
everything. They look at the interplay of all fiscal policies to 
determine its effects on the debt. When they score a particular bill 
and its effects on the deficit, they look at what you put in front of 
them, all the smoke, all the mirrors, the double-counting, the 
noncounting, the discounting, and they give you that answer.
  So if this bill actually lowers the deficit, how on Earth can it then 
increase the debt? You know why? Because you have to play a phony trick 
with all this double-counting to do that. What does this bill 
ultimately do when you really look at it all? This bill blows a hole 
through the deficit. When you look at the first 10 years, this bill is 
a $1.4 trillion increase. That's because you have 10 years of tax 
increases and Medicare cuts to pay for 6 years of spending. But when 
you actually look at the full 10 years of implementation of this law, 
$2.6 trillion in spending. $2.6 trillion.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say this as far as jobs and the effects of 
this health care bill. I had a very alarming conversation with a very 
large employer in Wisconsin not too long ago, a privately held company 
with thousands of employees. She takes good care of her employees.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself an additional 20 seconds to say 
this.
  She said to me, I believe it's my obligation to offer health 
insurance to my employees, but my two competitors, my publicly traded 
competitors, have already said they're dumping their employees. Instead 
of paying $17,000 a year for employee health care, they're going to pay 
a $2,000 fine. That's a $15,000 difference that her competitor will 
have as a competitive advantage against you.
  So what did she say? ``I have no choice. I'm dumping my employees 
into this exchange.'' And thousands of employers are making the same 
decision. This should be repealed.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1520

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear this attack on the CBO numbers 
that came out when many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
just 9 months ago, when the CBO was reporting deficit numbers and the 
cost of the bill, were singing CBO's high praises. Now let's look at 
some of the items that were just mentioned. Let's look at the doctor 
fix payment. Let us look at the SGR. We know that has been an issue 
that has been with this House for years and years. It has nothing to do 
with the health insurance reform bill that was signed by the President. 
We are going to have to deal with that issue whether we had health 
insurance reform or didn't have health insurance reform. And, Mr. 
Speaker, they know that.
  We also heard that we front-loaded the revenue in this bill and 
disguised the out-year costs. If that were the case, how is it possible 
that CBO would say that it actually reduces the deficit by more in the 
second 10 years than in the first 10 years?
  The fact of the matter is this bill will increase Social Security 
revenue as employers provide more of their compensation in the form of 
wages that are subject to payroll taxes. Double counting is not the 
issue. The fact is it reduces the deficit, and CBO says that.
  Now, CBO is the independent referee that we use in this body. They 
are like the guy on the football field, the referee, who calls the 
plays, calls when there are penalties and no penalties. Sometimes we 
like the call and sometimes we don't. But it is an unprecedented step 
to say that we are going to totally ignore the decisions and judgment 
of the independent CBO and we are going to replace that with our 
judgment for the purposes of deficit reduction calculations in 
legislation that goes to reducing our debt. That is a recipe for budget 
anarchy. It is a recipe for fiscal chaos. We should not go down that 
road.
  The CBO has been very clear that the fiscally responsible thing to do 
is to move forward with the law in its place. We obviously can fix 
things as they come up that need to be addressed, specific items. But 
to repeal this wholesale will--the folks that we rely on as the 
independent, nonpartisan judges here say that repealing this bill as 
our colleagues are proposing to do will add $1.4 trillion to the 
deficit over 20 years.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 10 seconds simply to say that 
if the doc fix should be considered outside, then why did the Democrats 
have it in their bill in the beginning?
  Secondly, either we are financing this entitlement or raiding the 
Social Security and Medicare funds--you can't do both. If you are going 
to fund the entitlement with these revenues, then you are consigning to 
raid Social Security and Medicare.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Amash), a new 
member of the committee.
  Mr. AMASH. Mr. Speaker, the Founders were keenly aware of the threat 
a powerful and overbearing Federal Government poses to our liberty. 
With this concern in mind, they wrote a Constitution that created a 
Federal Government with limited powers. Later they proposed the 10th 
Amendment, which reserves to the States or the people powers not 
delegated to the Federal Government.
  The debate we are having today goes beyond health care, although 
there is no doubt health care coverage is an important and difficult 
issue. What we are discussing today goes to the core of our 
Constitution's design. It asks Members of Congress whether we take 
constitutional limits on our power seriously.
  We have all witnessed everyday Americans' renewed interest in the 
Constitution. As they have asked tough questions about the 
constitutionality of this law, the law's proponents have tried to dress 
up their answers in constitutional language.
  They say Congress's power to tax upholds this law. But when this law 
originally was being considered, those same proponents were the first 
to claim the bill included no new taxes. They try to find support in 
Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. If forcing Americans 
to start commerce is the same as regulating existing commerce, it would 
have been news to the Founders.
  Finally, grasping at clauses, they claim Congress can do anything 
that is in the general welfare of the country. If this law is 
constitutional, if Congress has such broad power, our limited Federal 
Government will become limitless, and all without changing our 
Constitution or the approval of the Americans whom it protects. It is 
not just for the courts; it is our duty as a Congress to pay attention 
to the Constitution and its limits on our power.
  I urge we repeal this unconstitutional law.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a member of the 
Budget Committee to oppose this deficit-busting repeal, and I want to 
speak today on behalf of Suzanne from Vienna, Virginia.
  Suzanne's daughter suffers from a debilitating neurological disease. 
Before health care reform, Suzanne and her husband could not get health 
insurance for their daughter because, through no fault of her own, she, 
like 129 million other Americans, had a preexisting condition.
  While many of those Americans wait to see if their insurance company 
will deny them, Suzanne, unfortunately, already knew. She was willing 
to pay for health insurance to protect her daughter; the insurance 
companies said no and wouldn't insure her daughter at any price. 
Suzanne had no option until we created high-risk insurance pools under 
health care reform. Suzanne's words to me after health insurance reform 
passed were, Now at least we have hope for the future.

[[Page 347]]

  Voting for this repeal will take away that hope, throwing Suzanne's 
daughter off of insurance. I urge my colleagues to remember Suzanne's 
daughter and the other 129 million Americans like her and vote against 
this repeal. Do not take away their hope.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney), a new member of the Budget 
Committee.
  Mr. MULVANEY. I rise in favor of this bill.
  I can't tell you how excited I am to hear the language coming from 
the other side of the Chamber this evening. I am hearing discussions 
about the importance of cutting deficits and the importance of keeping 
spending in line. It makes me wonder, Mr. Speaker, what has been 
happening here for the last several years. At least when it comes to 
this side of the aisle, I think we have been consistent with that 
message over the course of this debate. I don't know where the other 
side was when we got the information that said this bill actually cost 
trillions of dollars. I don't know where this attitude about being 
fiscally responsible was when we got information from the chief actuary 
at Medicare and Medicaid who said this bill was unsustainable in its 
spending. I don't know where they were with this attitude when we heard 
from that same body that this bill actually raised the cost of health 
care versus not passing the bill.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I am extraordinarily excited to hear this level of 
discussion because, as a member of the Budget Committee, I look forward 
to this level of debate continuing beyond this bill, beyond the health 
care discussion and into the upcoming discussion on the budget because 
my guess is if we have this level of discussion on health care, then 
the budget will be an easy, easy debate this year, and we will be able 
to make dramatic inroads to cutting our spending.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Speaker, in the long rich history of Congress, when 
a prior Congress passes a piece of legislation, the prudent step is to 
look at that legislation and agree on making the changes on what 
doesn't work. I think to come today and just say to repeal and not have 
a health plan in place is not a prudent plan to take. We have to see 
what works and what doesn't work, and I think that would be the prudent 
step to take today.
  We have to focus on the deficit and focus on jobs. Deficit is 
important. I think we can come together and work in a bipartisan 
approach. Jobs, we certainly have to look at. But to just come in and 
say this is something that kills jobs is not the right step to take.
  If you look at, for example, the FNIB Research Foundation, when they 
looked at this piece of legislation, they said that a number of health 
care profession jobs would be created by this legislation. This is 
something that we need to look at. Again, the prudent step is to look 
at what works and what doesn't work. Mr. Speaker, that is what we need 
to look at.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 90 seconds to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a new member of the Budget 
Committee.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 2, the repeal of last 
year's so-called health bill. The American people, quite frankly, have 
never liked this bill, as they demonstrated last November. You can't 
find a poll where it cracked 50 percent in approval. And those wanting 
to repeal it have generally always been above that mark.
  The bill itself may be unconstitutional. Over 20 States are now 
challenging it in Federal court. It is certainly likely to be 
unworkable. The creation of dozens of boards, agencies, and commissions 
with rulemaking authority, the fact that hundreds of companies have 
already asked for waivers under the legislation, suggest it is going to 
be a bureaucratic nightmare.

                              {time}  1530

  Finally and most importantly, the bill itself is fiscally 
irresponsible and unsustainable. The idea that we would take hundreds 
of billions of dollars out of Medicaid and Social Security and Medicare 
at a time when the baby boomer generation is beginning to retire is 
simply irresponsible. I am all for saving money in Medicare, but when 
we do, those savings are going to be needed to sustain Medicare.
  So I urge this House to take the fiscally responsible course--repeal 
this bill and start over, and give the American people the health care 
bill they deserve and the health care bill they can afford.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the Republican 
majority's callous attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Reform 
has already made a dramatically positive difference for millions of our 
constituents and small businesses while tackling our ballooning 
national debt.
  We in Congress must continue doing all that we can to support 
American families and businesses as we emerge from this recession. 
Democrats have pledged to measure all legislation by a proposal's 
success at creating jobs, at strengthening the middle class, and at 
bringing down the deficit. Unfortunately, the Republican majority's 
attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act fails on all such counts.
  Repeal would hurt small businesses, canceling $40 billion worth of 
tax credits to help employees afford coverage. Repeal would stall 
middle class job growth, as one-third of small business owners told the 
small business majority they were more likely to hire new employees as 
a result of reform. And of course repeal would deepen our already 
exploding deficit, increasing it by $230 billion in the next 10 years 
and by more than $1 trillion in the following decade.
  Many of my colleagues across the aisle have rebuffed this analysis 
from Congress' own budgetary referee, the Congressional Budget Office, 
because it doesn't fit the Republican narrative or campaign promise to 
tackle the deficit. However, while they may be entitled to their own 
opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts.
  Health care repeal is the epitome of fiscal irresponsibility, and it 
counters our most basic American values: life, liberty, and the pursuit 
of happiness. We lose life when insurance companies can freely drop 
those who are sick from coverage. We lose liberty when our seniors have 
to choose between medications and groceries. And we lose the pursuit of 
happiness if we return to the days when only job security guaranteed 
health security.
  Our fiscal decisions, Mr. Speaker, must be a reflection not only of 
our economic future but of the statement of our most central national 
values. By ensuring that Americans have vital coverage rather than 
cruelly denying it to them, we can live up to the dreams of liberty and 
justice for all.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), a member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Speaker, as a result of this law, employers across 
America have discovered that onerous reporting requirements will force 
them to file 1099 forms for every vendor with which they do $600 worth 
of business. This past weekend, I visited with an accountant in my 
district who indicated he would have to expand his staff by 25 percent 
to accommodate all the extra redtape and paperwork.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not the type of job creation American 
envisioned.
  Additionally, businesses and labor unions alike have realized that 
ObamaCare is a bad deal, and at least 222 have sought waivers from 
having to comply with the law. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has 
approved special privilege exemptions for dozens of labor unions and 
the half a million union members they cover. Even more troubling is 
that Secretary Sebelius has been tardy in responding to a FOIA inquiry 
regarding the secretive details of these waiver requests.
  Fortunately, rather than selective waivers for the politically 
connected, we have a universal remedy--repeal the law.
  I urge my colleagues to heed the calls voters made last year during 
the debate and at the ballot box.

[[Page 348]]


  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman that this 
body voted on a majority basis to repeal the 1099 provision.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the choice here is whether to give more 
money to insurance monopolies or to leave just a little bit in the 
pockets of middle class Americans. But for House Republicans, always 
putting insurance companies first seems to be a preexisting condition.
  This bill isn't repeal and replace; it is repeal and forget--forget 
the health care needs of millions of Americans, forget the hundreds of 
billions of dollars that with this repeal they add to our Federal debt.
  Within a year, Allison, a 23-year-old from Bastrop, Texas, who is 
completing her college degree while caring for her mother as her mother 
faces another round of breast cancer, would lose her health insurance.
  Emily, from Wimberley, who is battling cancer herself, would now face 
lifetime limits on what doctor-recommended care her insurer will pay 
for. Of course, if her husband loses or changes his job, she won't have 
any insurance at all.
  Charlotte, an Austin senior, would have to pay more for prescriptions 
and preventative health care, while Republicans reduce the solvency of 
the Medicare Trust Fund by more than a decade.
  Family budgets would be crushed by this bill as health care costs 
remain the leading cause of credit card debt and bankruptcy. This same 
devastating Republican bill would also hike the Federal debt. That's 
why Republicans have rejected pay-as-you-go budgeting and instead will 
borrow from the Chinese to pay for this legislation.
  Yes, repeal is a priority for the insurance companies and their 
apologists, but neither our family budgets nor our Federal budget can 
afford it. I believe that every American is entitled to a family 
doctor, not to an appointment with a bankruptcy judge because of 
soaring health care costs.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 90 seconds to a member of 
the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2.
  A few months ago, I visited with a small business owner in Oklahoma 
who has five employees but whose health care costs for 2011 will go up 
by 50 percent. When he asked about that, the reason he was given was: 
the cost of implementing the new health care law. Another business 
owner told me he would not hire new employees until he could figure out 
what the cost of health care is going to be, so he will just stop 
hiring.
  While some in this Chamber talk about universal coverage and cost 
controls, many people in my district are frustrated with this so-called 
``solution.'' Every person should control his own health care option 
and opportunities. Every young student should have the motivation to go 
into medical research and the practice of medicine. As our population 
ages, every doctor should have greater incentives to take on Medicare 
patients.
  We need to deal with the root causes of health care costs and not 
just move the costs to the States and put in price controls on doctors 
and hospitals. Shared pain is not what America was looking for. America 
was looking for solutions. The new health care law will create long-
term budget issues in the days to come. From a budget perspective, you 
can cook the numbers all you want, but this bill will dramatically 
increase our Federal debt again.
  We need answers, not bigger problems. This is the United States of 
America. I believe we can do better than this. It is time to repeal 
this law and start the hard work of solving the cost issues of health 
care delivery.
  With that, sir, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, if I could inquire as to how much time 
remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin has 5\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will vote on H.R. 2, the 
Republican health care bill. This bill is another example of actions 
speaking louder than words.
  Now, many of my Republican colleagues have said they support certain 
health care reforms: a ban on preexisting condition discrimination, 
allowing young adults to stay on their parents' health policies until 
age 26, closing the prescription doughnut hole, and eliminating 
lifetime limits on coverage.
  They could have crafted this bill any way they wanted. They could 
have guaranteed any or all of just those important provisions--those 
protections--they claim to support, but they didn't. They could have 
ensured that, by 2016, annual health care premiums for the average 
American wouldn't be $24,000 and that, over the next decade, small 
businesses wouldn't lose more than $52 billion in profits.
  They could have crafted the bill that way, but they didn't. They can 
say whatever they want, but the truth is that the Republican plan is no 
care--no matter how desperate or how dire your diagnosis, no matter if 
the alternative saves money, saves jobs and saves lives.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of repealing this 
simply job-destroying health care bill.
  What we want to do is replace it with a piece of legislation that 
addresses three main tenets: one that will grow our economy, one that 
will bring down costs, and one that is basically constitutional.
  In the area of jobs, you know, I remember when Minority Leader 
Pelosi, then Speaker Pelosi at the time, said this bill would create 4 
million jobs and 400,000 of them immediately. All the same, the CBO was 
saying, ``It is likely to reduce employment.''

                              {time}  1540

  So instead of encouraging America's leading job creators, this 
takeover of health care hurts small businesses with more taxes, more 
mandates, and higher health care costs on those small businesses. We 
need to do this and work together in a bipartisan manner in a way that 
will help our small businesses.
  In the area of cost, additionally, this health care bill is deficient 
in that it fails to address bringing down costs. As companies have 
begun to digest this health care bill, costs have only risen. CBO has 
found that this law will actually increase health care premiums by as 
much as 10 to 13 percent.
  Now, one of the areas that I looked at--and I've heard from a lot of 
people in the medical community and I've asked them, What is one major 
thing you would have liked for us to put in this bill? And that is tort 
reform, but it's missing in this legislation. It is imperative that any 
serious reform of the health care system take a very hard look at the 
issue of medical liability reform. Unfortunately, this bill fails in 
that regard, too.
  Finally, in the area of constitutionality, while the Constitution 
grants Congress the authority to regulate commerce among the several 
States and the Supreme Court has long allowed Congress the ability to 
regulate and prohibit all sorts of economic activity, this bill goes 
even further because, for the first time in the history of the U.S. 
Government, we are regulating inactivity. For the first time, Congress 
has mandated that individuals purchase a private good approved by the 
government as the price of citizenship.
  On the first day of Congress, I introduced a bill, H.R. 21, the 
Reclaiming Individual Liberty Act, legislation which would take out 
that individual mandate, because, while I believe Congress has the 
ability to pass legislation which I believe is bad policy, I do believe 
it is wrong to pass unconstitutional legislation.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I notice the gentleman mentioned CBO. 
What CBO said in that regard was that, because of the exchanges, there 
would be some people who would not seek

[[Page 349]]

their health care through employment. They would be liberated to be 
able to get it through the exchange. I'm glad the gentleman confirmed 
the importance of CBO numbers.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I was going out to dinner the other 
night, and as I was walking in, one of the young folks who was working 
there walked up to me and said, Sir, can you tell the new leaders in 
Congress about my story?
  The story was that he is a 25-year-old kid who is working at a 
restaurant and has seizures and could not get any medication, could not 
get any health care coverage, but because of the law that was passed 
here last year, this young person now can get the medication, can stay 
on his parents' health care, and now is a productive member of society.
  I know my friends on the other side have said things like, well, this 
employer said their insurance was going up 50 percent. That's been 
going on for decades now, especially in the last decade. This is going 
to fix that. I know my namesake from Wisconsin also said there are some 
employers who are going to have to let their people go into the 
exchange because their competition is going to let people go into the 
exchange. The bottom line is people were dumping workers for a decade 
and there wasn't an exchange. Now there is an exchange that these 
people will have some remedy and ability to get health care.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the central promises of ObamaCare were that it would 
bend health costs down and wouldn't threaten existing plans. We now 
know that both of these claims were false.
  The CBO warns us that the law will increase average private premiums 
by $2,100 within the next 5 years above what they would have been 
without ObamaCare. The administration's own actuary admits that the law 
bends the cost curve up--not down--by $311 billion over the next 10 
years.
  We now know that many existing plans are, indeed, jeopardized and 
that scores of companies that have been offering their employees basic 
plans have either dropped them or are continuing them only with waivers 
left to the whims of administration officials. But the most dangerous 
provision of this law is the Federal Government's assertion that it now 
has the power to force every American to purchase products that the 
government believes they should purchase whether or not they want them, 
need them, or can afford them. If this President prevails, the Federal 
Government will have usurped authority over every aspect of individual 
choice in the care of our families and can logically extend that power 
to every other commodity in the market.
  The tragedy is that every day we continue down this road is a day we 
have lost to address the real problems in our health care system: the 
spiralling costs of malpractice litigation and defensive medicine, the 
loss of the freedom to shop across State lines, the loss of the freedom 
to tailor plans to the needs of individuals and families, and the 
absence of the tax advantages that families need to afford and choose 
their own health plans according to their own needs.
  Churchill said all men make mistakes but wise men learn from them. 
Mr. Speaker, the American people understand that ObamaCare was a huge 
mistake. Let us acknowledge that, learn from it, and move on to enact 
the reforms that will reduce health costs and increase health care 
choices for American families.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from 
California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. I thank my colleague from 
Maryland.
  Mr. Speaker, this past year, around June, I was speaking to a woman 
who is a single mother. She has two young children. She is a real 
estate agent, and it has been tough in California. But through all of 
that, she managed to pay her premium to have health care for herself 
and for her two children.
  In June, her daughter, for the first time, had an epileptic attack, 
and she didn't know what to do. She was scared to death. So she took 
her to the hospital and her daughter got better, but of course her 
daughter will have more of these. One month later, she found out that 
her daughter would not be covered any longer by that health care plan, 
and so she has been paying about $1,700 out of her pocket for her 
daughter and her medications and all.
  She came to me and I said, well, this is what the reform is about. 
This is what health care reform is about. It's about taking care of our 
children and our families. And I told her that her daughter would now 
be covered. If this was your daughter, you would not repeal this health 
care reform.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. May I inquire, Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 15 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, all the charts in the world can't wish 
away the CBO letter of January 6 of this year which says that the 
premiums will go down in the employer market, that people, on average, 
will pay less in the individual market, and that this legislation will 
reduce the deficit and the debt over the next 20 years. Again, that is 
the call from the nonpartisan experts we have. We shouldn't be 
substituting our judgment for theirs.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we have already fairly well established the fact 
that when you strip out all the budget gimmicks and all the double 
accounting, ObamaCare is a budget buster. But let's take a look at 
where we are as a country.
  We have a debt crisis coming in America, Mr. Speaker, and the primary 
reason why we have this mountain of debt is because of our already 
existing health care entitlements which have a massive unfunded 
liability. So what did the previous majority do? They just put two new 
unfunded, open-ended entitlements on top.
  Now, a lot of people on the other side of the aisle said health care 
is a right and we are giving it to the people. Well, if we declare such 
things as a right to be given to us by government, then it's 
government's right to ration these things; it's government's right to 
regulate these things; it's government's right to pick and choose 
winners and losers. Health care is too important for that. I want to be 
in control of my and my family's health care. I want individuals to be 
in control of their health care and their destiny.
  We have to ask ourselves when we create these new programs how much 
of our children's future and our grandchildren's future are we willing 
to sacrifice to give them this mountain of debt that is getting worse 
by the passage and creation of this law. This, of all reasons, is why 
we should vote to repeal.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.

                              {time}  1550

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation that repeals the Democrats' 
job-stifling, cost-increasing, freedom-limiting health care law.
  This bill would repeal a requirement that every individual buy a 
certain kind of health insurance. The Congressional Research Service 
confirms that the Federal Government has never forced all Americans to 
buy any good or service--until now.
  This mandate violates Congress' powers under the commerce clause if 
our Constitution of limited Federal powers means anything. It's a major 
reason to repeal the health care bill.
  One particularly costly part of our health care system is the 
practice of

[[Page 350]]

so-called defensive medicine, which occurs when doctors must conduct 
tests and prescribe drugs that are not medically required because of 
the threat of lawsuits. Taxpayers pay for this wasteful defensive 
medicine, which adds to health care costs.
  The Democrats' health care law goes exactly the wrong direction. 
Incredibly, it contains a provision that prohibits any new limits on 
litigation from being enforced because it allows lawyers to opt out of 
any system that limits their ability to sue. This is contrary to the 
best interests of all Americans--except trial lawyers. The health care 
bill can only be read as an invitation to trial lawyers to sue medical 
personnel. That's another reason to repeal this health care bill.
  The Democrats' health care law will produce more litigation and more 
costly health care. Those are two good reasons we should repeal it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I am very pleased to defend what 
has been not intended as a compliment, but to defend the so-called 
ObamaCare bill. President Obama is going to go down in history for 
having taken 54 million people, according to the CBO, off the rolls of 
the uninsured and given them insurance.
  I've been looking over my congressional district over the King 
holiday and talking to a lot of people about health care. I haven't 
found one parent in the 14th Congressional District that didn't like 
the idea of having their children remain on their health care policy 
until age 26. Have you found anybody that would like not to have their 
children extended until 26? Please see me after this debate, because 
we've got so much to be proud of.
  And what are we talking about? Preexisting illnesses not being a 
basis for being denied insurance or a reason to kick one out of a 
health insurance policy. These are good things.
  I am amazed by the fact that people say this bill is going to cost 
jobs. Well, the CBO says it's going to cost us $230 billion to repeal 
the bill. Please, could we be a little more fiscally conservative in 
this body as we rush to repeal this bill?
  The question of constitutionality is a very interesting one for the 
Judiciary Committee, a matter we are going to go into further. But 
we've found a very good set of arguments about the ability of this bill 
to be totally within the framework of our Constitution. Come on. We 
already have Medicare. Who do you think runs that? We already have 
Medicaid. What about Social Security?
  Mr. Speaker, the issues here are simple.
  The health care bill that Republicans attack today ensures that 
millions of Americans have access to essential medical care.
  It enables businesses to provide health care to their employees--
which protects and creates the jobs we so desperately need.
  It protects Americans from notorious insurance company practices like 
denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions and children 
with birth defects.
  It stops insurance companies from dropping your coverage when you get 
sick.
  And it takes critical first steps towards getting health care costs 
under control, cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from the 
deficit. Everyone in America who gets health insurance through their 
work has seen premiums and co-pays skyrocket year after year. Those 
increases afflict our entire health care economy. Before we passed the 
Affordable Care Act, they threatened to engulf the entire federal 
budget. Those who would repeal this law are simply not serious about 
our debt.


                            Costs of Repeal

  Repealing this bill would undo all these profound public policy 
achievements. And towards what end?
  Repeal would add 54 million people to the rolls of the uninsured. Is 
that what the new majority wants as their first legislative act?
  Repeal would permit health insurers to resume discriminating against 
those with pre-existing conditions. Does the new majority want to tell 
women who have survived breast cancer or children with birth defects 
that they are not allowed to buy health care?
  Repeal would lead to millions of young people being dropped from 
their parents' insurance coverage. In this economy, with work and the 
health insurance that comes with it so hard to find, does the new 
majority really want to kick these children off the insurance rolls?
  And finally, repeal would add more than $230 billion to the near term 
federal deficit. Is that what the new majority has in store for the 
American taxpayer?
  The majority apparently feels that all these costs are acceptable, 
because they will ``replace'' the health care bill with something else. 
But that is simply not credible.
  After all we went through to pass this bill, it obviously would be no 
simple thing to draft a replacement. So if the majority is serious 
about wanting to improve our health care system, at the least they 
should hold off on repealing the current law until their replacement 
actually exists. Voting now suggests the true motive here is the 
politics of health care, not the policy.
  During the health care debate last year, we saw the Republican 
approach--and it simply does not improve our health care system. 
Indeed, in November of 2009, the Republicans put forward their own plan 
which the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office found would cover 
only 3 million people. That meant that for the 54 million people left 
without the ability to afford insurance, the Republicans' ``No Care'' 
plan provided exactly that--no care; no hope; no security.


                               Conclusion

  There may be no issue that comes before the Congress that more 
clearly demonstrates the different priorities of the parties.
  Based on today's proceedings, it is clear that the new Republican 
majority stands for protecting insurance companies, exploding the 
national debt, and playing to the extremes of their base.
  The Democratic minority, on the other hand, stands for affordable 
health care for all, holding insurance companies accountable, and 
responsibly addressing our long term financial challenges.
  I urge all Members to vote against repeal of the landmark health care 
reform law.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who is the chairman of the Crime 
Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee and also a former chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee itself.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. Speaker, as each of us have traveled back to our districts over 
the past several months, we've heard from our constituents--from 
seniors to families to small businesses--speaking out convincingly. 
They demanded that this new Congress focus on legislation that 
encourages job growth, cuts spending, and shrinks the size of 
government. What better way to start than by repealing the President's 
trillion-dollar health care law, a massive new government intrusion 
into Americans' health care which promises to skyrocket costs even 
further. Our immediate action today demonstrates that we are listening.
  This is not to say that reforms aren't necessary. We must improve our 
health care system. We must enact sensible reforms that address the 
core problem--the rising cost of health care--without increasing the 
size of government. We must enact real medical liability reform, allow 
Americans to purchase health coverage across State lines, empower small 
businesses with greater purchasing power, ensure access for those with 
preexisting conditions, and create new incentives to save for the 
future health needs. Republicans want health care reform; however, we 
must reform it the right way.
  Today, we take a much-needed first step. America deserves legislation 
that addresses our health care problems and helps our economy prosper. 
This bill is the first step to do that, and I urge my colleagues to 
vote in favor of it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a 
senior member of the Judiciary Committee, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee of 
Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. There is nothing that one can do when 
you're debating this bill than to be civil and to respect the American 
people, who, many of them, are in the jaws of terrible disease, 
rehabilitation, or maybe some have already lost their lives. And the 
repeal of this health bill, just a couple of pages, would sentence 
people possibly to dying. H.R. 2 talks about jobs when we're talking 
about lives.
  So I think it is important that we follow what the repeal of this 
patient protection and health care bill does--end consumer protection, 
patient protection. And I think it is important for

[[Page 351]]

us to be able to hold this Constitution and prove that the Affordable 
Care Act is constitutional.
  Well, I could say that there are 1.1 million jobs already created, 
that the deficit will blow up $143 billion, a trillion over 20 years. 
But I really want to refer to the 14th Amendment that allows and 
guarantees you equal protection under the law.
  If this bill is repealed, Ed Burke, a hemophiliac, will probably have 
serious health issues because he would have lifetime caps. Or Mr. Land, 
who was on my health care teleconference--where 18,000 people in Harris 
County were contacted--maybe he, who is from a family of schizophrenics 
and people who have children that have schizophrenia, maybe he would 
not be guaranteed the equal protection under the law.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentlewoman 15 seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Thank you so very much.
  Maybe they would not be able to withstand this onslaught on their 
rights because the Constitution guarantees them equal protection. And 
some who have insurance and some who do not would not be treated 
equally.
  And finally, let me say that in Texas, the Department of Insurance 
has said that this bill helps Texans.
  I hope my colleague from Texas will vote not to repeal this bill. I 
will vote ``no'' on the repeal.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all Members to not 
traffic the well when another is under recognition.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. King), who is a senior member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, the 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
  It is a pleasure to serve on this committee and come here and speak 
in support of the repeal of ObamaCare. It's something that I have 
worked on every day since it passed last March. It's legislation that I 
introduced, actually asked for the draft the same day that it passed. 
People thought that we couldn't get to this point. We are.
  But this is Judiciary Committee subject matter. And the bill didn't 
go through the Judiciary Committee. We didn't address the tort reform 
that's so essential if we're going to do something to put health care 
back on track here in this country. And when I look at this, and 
serving on the committee, I believe it was in 2005 we passed 
legislation in the House that addressed the lawsuit abuse that drives 
up the costs of our health care. It didn't get taken up in the Senate. 
And here we are with a huge ObamaCare bill, ready to vote to repeal it, 
and part of the discussion needs to be why didn't it have tort reform 
in it. We are prepared to take a look at this as we go forward.
  When I look at the numbers that are produced in part by the health 
insurance underwriters, they and others will tell me that somewhere 
between 3.5 and 8.5 percent of the overall cost of our health care goes 
because of lawsuit abuse and the defensive medicine that's associated 
with it.
  I have a friend who is an orthopedic surgeon who tells me that 95 
percent of the MRIs that he orders, he knows exactly what he is going 
to see when he gets inside to do the surgery, but he has to order them 
anyway to protect himself from that 5 percent that might end up being 
in litigation. And he said that in his little practice that's an 
additional million dollars a year in unnecessary tests. That's just one 
small piece of the lawsuit abuse that drives up the costs of health 
care that we must address if we're going to have managed costs.
  And then the other component that is a Judiciary Committee component 
of this ObamaCare legislation that is about to have a vote on repeal 
here that we are debating is the components that are unconstitutional. 
The individual mandate is the most egregious component of ObamaCare 
that compels Americans to buy a policy produced or approved by the 
Federal Government.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a 
former subcommittee chairman of Judiciary, the gentleman from Georgia, 
Hank Johnson, to defend the ObamaCare legislation.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.
  I rise in opposition to the repeal of health reform. Repeal of health 
care reform would strip 32 million Americans of health insurance, 
including 139,000 residents of my district. Repeal will allow insurers 
to discriminate against people with preexisting conditions and reopen 
the doughnut hole, which would devastate Joseph Williams, a former 
corrections officer in my district who relies on Medicare for his 
prescription drugs. I will be voting against repeal, and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), who is also the chairman of the 
Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. Speaker, when we debated health care reform during the 111th 
Congress, I made the statement that we need to fine-tune the engine, 
not overhaul it. I reiterate that theory today.
  President Obama, in my opinion, elevated health care to the number 
one issue facing America, mistakenly so, in my opinion. I think the 
number one issue facing America then and now involves jobs, or more 
precisely lack of jobs, and reckless spending. There is agreement from 
both sides of the aisle that we need to improve our health care system. 
I believe these improvements must enhance the quality and accessibility 
of care in a fiscally responsible manner. The law implemented last year 
failed to meet these criteria, particularly in the onerous 1099 tax 
increase on small businesses. That is just one glaring example.
  By repealing ObamaCare, we will have the opportunity to take the more 
prudent approach of fine-tuning our health care law to ensure that it 
encompasses sound principles.
  Mr. Speaker, this will likely be an obvious partisan vote, but it 
also serves a purpose. It sends a message to the American people that 
we are serious about fixing our broken health care system. Physicians 
do this daily. They make a diagnosis and fix the problem. I support the 
passage of H.R. 2 because Congress should take the same approach: fix 
the problem. Much energy and attention was directed to this matter, 
when it probably should have been directed to jobs and reckless 
spending. Too late for that now. But we need to address it. And I look 
forward to the vote that I guess will be tomorrow.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to Dr. Judy Chu of 
California, a very valuable member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Ms. CHU. The health care repeal act will hurt many people, but 
especially seniors. It raises cost for prescriptions and preventive 
care. It weakens Medicare. And it takes away your freedom to make your 
own decisions, returning your health back to the hands of insurance 
companies. At the start of this year, seniors began receiving free 
preventive services such as mammograms and an annual exam, while, if 
repeal succeeds, good-bye free check-ups and free life-saving tests.
  Today, seniors in the Medicare doughnut hole are getting half off 
many brand-name drugs; but if repeal passes, your prescription drugs 
are going to double. And those who get a $250 check to help cover high 
drug costs might even have to pay it back. The original health reform 
bill extended Medicare's life until 2029; but if we repeal it, the 
Medicare Trust Fund becomes insolvent in 6 short years. The Patients 
Rights Repeal Act hurts seniors. It's dangerous for America's health.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Poe), who is actually a member of three subcommittees 
of the Judiciary Committee.

[[Page 352]]


  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, never before in the history of our 
great country has a tax been levied on individual Americans by the 
Federal Government with the purpose of forcing citizens to do something 
the government wants them to do. And never before has the government 
self-righteously ordered Americans to buy a product or pay a punitive 
fine.
  In my opinion, the Constitution does not give the Federal Government, 
even well-intentioned government, the authority to make citizens buy 
any product, whether it's a car, whether it's health insurance, or even 
whether it's a box of chocolates.
  The individual mandate provision of the health care bill is 
unconstitutional. The author of the Constitution, James Madison, said: 
``The powers delegated by the Constitution to the Federal Government 
are few and defined. Those that remain to State governments are 
numerous and indefinite.'' The health care bill is a theft of the 
individual freedom to control one's health to have it now controlled by 
omnipotent government.
  Big government doesn't mean better solutions. In fact, as someone has 
said, ``If you think the problems government creates are bad, just wait 
until you see government solutions.'' Government is partially to blame 
for the health care crisis, and the nationalized health care bill's 
government solution is unworkable and unconstitutional.
  And if you like the efficiency of the post office, the competence of 
FEMA, and the compassion of the IRS, we will love the nationalized 
health care bill. Certainly, what we do here in Congress should be 
constitutional. And we should repeal the health care bill and come up 
with constitutional solutions for health problems.
  And that's just the way it is.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to 
congratulate Lamar Smith on becoming the chairman of the House 
Judiciary Committee during the 112th session of Congress.
  I turn now to the former chairman of the Constitutional Subcommittee, 
Jerry Nadler of New York, and I yield him 2 minutes.

                              {time}  1610

  Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Republican effort to deny 32 
million Americans health care, to deny millions of middle class 
Americans the ability to get health care insurance if they have 
preexisting conditions and to drive up our national debt by an 
additional $1.4 trillion over the next 20 years.
  The Affordable Care Act will stave off the 55 percent of personal 
bankruptcies caused by health care emergencies. By banning rescissions, 
banning the preexisting conditions insurance bar, banning annual and 
lifetime coverage caps and capping annual out-of-pocket expenses, this 
law ensures that nobody will go broke because they get sick.
  The bill will save the lives of the approximately 45,000 Americans 
who now die every year because they lack health insurance. For 
America's seniors, the Affordable Care Act strengthens the Medicare 
program. Seniors will no longer pay out of pocket for preventive 
services; and the cruel doughnut hole, which forces seniors to choose 
between taking their drugs or going without, will be closed.
  And owners of small businesses will get billions of dollars in tax 
credits to help them provide health coverage to their employees--
unless, of course, the Republicans are successful in enacting a tax 
increase on small businesses by repealing the law.
  We did all this and more while reducing the deficit by what CBO now 
estimates will be $230 billion in the first 10 years and $1.2 trillion 
in the next 10 years.
  The Republicans say the bill is an unprecedented or unconstitutional 
expansion of constitutional power. They are wrong. There is nothing 
radical, dangerous, or unconstitutional about the act. We have the 
power to enact this comprehensive plan, including its minimum coverage 
requirement under the commerce, necessary and proper, and general 
welfare clauses of article 1, section 8 of the Constitution. Similar 
attacks were levied against the Social Security Act of 1935, saying it 
was unconstitutional for the same reasons. Those arguments were unsound 
and rejected then and will fare no better today.
  Indeed, leading Republican lawmakers championed individual mandates 
as part of their Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993 
introduced by Senator Dole and Senator Chafee. The requirement of 
individual participation was valid then, and it is valid now.
  For all of these reasons, I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on this misguided repeal bill.
  Mr. Speaker, following is my statement in its entirety:
  I rise in opposition to the Republican effort to deny 32 million 
Americans health care, to deny millions of middle-class Americans the 
ability to get health care insurance if they have pre-existing 
conditions, and to drive up our national debt by an additional $1.4 
trillion over the next 20 years.
  Last March, I had the distinct pleasure and honor of voting for the 
Affordable Care Act, which achieves many of the goals I have been 
fighting for my entire adult life.
  The Affordable Care Act will stave off the 55 percent of personal 
bankruptcies caused by health care emergencies. By banning rescissions, 
banning the ``pre-existing conditions'' insurance bar, banning annual 
and lifetime coverage caps, and capping annual out-of-pocket expenses, 
this law ensures that nobody will go broke because they get sick.
  When fully implemented more than 32 million additional Americans will 
have access to health care coverage. This translates into saving the 
lives of the 45,000 Americans, who now die every year because they lack 
health insurance.
  In addition, the Affordable Care Act extends greater rights and 
benefits to women. No longer can insurance companies discriminate 
against women by charging women higher rates than men for the same 
coverage. No longer will women be denied coverage because insurance 
companies consider pregnancy, C-sections, and being the victim of 
domestic violence to be pre-existing conditions. No longer will women 
go without critical maternity care coverage, access to mammograms, and 
other key preventive care services--services that will be available 
without co-pays and deductibles. Ending these routine, disgraceful, and 
patently unfair practices are a tremendous victory for women and 
children.
  For America's seniors, the Affordable Care Act strengthens the 
Medicare program. Seniors will no longer pay out of pocket for 
preventive services, and the cruel donut hole, which forces seniors to 
choose between taking their drugs or going without, will be closed. And 
by cracking down on fraud and waste, the Act ensures that those who 
seek to take advantage of our seniors and steal from the Medicare 
program will no longer have a free ride.
  The Affordable Care Act also benefits America's young people. Often 
without the option of employer-based health insurance, young people now 
can stay on their parents' health plans until their 26th birthday.
  And owners of small businesses will get billions of dollars in tax 
credits to help them provide health coverage to their employees--
unless, of course, the Republicans are successful in enacting a massive 
tax increase on small businesses by repealing this law.
  We did all this and more while reducing the deficit by what CBO now 
estimates will be $230 billion in the first ten years, and $1.2 
trillion in the next ten years.
  Mr. Speaker, when our predecessors passed similarly historic laws 
such as Social Security in 1935 and Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, they 
knew the measures would require further consideration. In the years 
since those crucially important programs were signed into law, Congress 
has made, and will continue to make, improvements to those programs. 
And that is the key--to make improvements to the law. Instead of 
spending our time looking for ways to build on and perfect the health 
care reform law, Republicans want to take a sledgehammer to it, to 
throw out everything, without any consideration at all. No matter that 
our economy still needs our attention. No matter that millions of 
Americans remain out of work.
  The Republicans say the bill is an unprecedented or unconstitutional 
expansion of Congressional power. They are wrong. There is nothing 
radical, dangerous, or unconstitutional about the Act, through which 
Congress is regulating the vast interstate health and insurance markets 
in a number of ways that protect the

[[Page 353]]

American people. We have the power to enact this comprehensive plan, 
including its minimum coverage requirement, under the Commerce, 
Necessary and Proper, and General Welfare clauses of Article I, Section 
8 of the Constitution. Similar attacks were levied against the Social 
Security Act of 1935. They were unsound and rejected then and will fare 
no better today.
  We require citizens to participate in programs--like Medicare and 
Social Security--when necessary to accomplish an objective wholly 
within Congressional powers, and there simply is nothing so surprising 
or severe in requiring similar participation--by requiring that those 
who can obtain insurance do so or pay a tax penalty--in our 
comprehensive framework for health care reform. Indeed, leading 
Republican lawmakers championed individual mandates as part of their 
Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993. The requirement of 
individual participation was valid then, and it is valid now.
  For all of these reasons, I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote 
NO on this misguided repeal bill, and instead, to say ``yes'' to 
guaranteeing health care for 32 million more Americans. To say yes to 
enabling millions of Americans with pre-existing conditions to obtain 
health insurance. To say yes to ending gender rating and rescissions. 
To say yes to allowing parents to cover their adult children on their 
health care plans. To say yes to strengthening Medicare for our 
seniors. To say yes to growing our economy by supporting small 
businesses. To say yes to reducing our deficit.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of 
the House Administration Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Daniel E. Lungren).
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, in the scope of the 
American constitutional system of governance, the Congress is the body 
whose power is defined within the context of enumerated powers, and 
this is more than a matter of structural mechanics because it goes to 
the heart of the issue of governmental power, or if one prefers the 
flip side of the coin, personal freedom and responsibility.
  If government has the power to require that you buy item A, it means 
that you are less able to buy item B, C, D or anything else.
  Now, economists would call this the opportunity cost of foregone 
goods or services, but the fundamental question is the question of 
freedom to choose how we as individuals will spend the fruits of our 
labor.
  Certainly the commerce clause lacks the elasticity that would 
accommodate a requirement that every American buy health insurance 
which conforms to the dictates of the Federal Government, as the 
Federal Government would change it on a yearly basis. Such an 
interpretation would render the notion articulated by James Madison and 
Federalist 45, that is, one of limited government, a nullity.
  Now, I know we have smart people here. I know we have those in the 
administration who believe that this is totally constitutional; but, 
frankly, Mr. Speaker, my bet goes with James Madison.
  He did say that the powers delegated by the proposed Constitution of 
the Federal Government are few and defined. He did say that the Federal 
Government will be exercising their responsibilities principally on 
external objects as war, peace, negotiations, and foreign commerce and 
the States would do much else.
  Then, of course, we have the 10th Amendment, later adopted, which 
said, again, that this is a government of limited enumerated powers. 
Now, either the 10th Amendment means something, or it means nothing; 
and either James Madison knew what he was talking about, or he does 
not.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute, and I 
congratulate the ranking member of Government Reform, to the gentleman 
from Maryland, Elijah Cummings.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise before you in fervent opposition to 
the bill we are considering today. I have heard from many of my 
constituents and small business owners who are grateful for the 
benefits of this law.
  Children with preexisting conditions are no longer being denied 
access to private health insurance. Maryland small businesses offering 
health insurance to their employees are eligible for a 35 percent tax 
credit.
  Further, as ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform, I note that repealing this law would also eliminate 
the new private health plan currently providing coverage for many 
uninsured Americans with preexisting conditions.
  I find it repugnant that Republicans want to strip Americans of this 
law's protections that will save the lives of our fellow citizens.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, lest we forget, this is the disaster that 
we are told would be repugnant to repeal.
  It started out as an act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
to modify first-time homebuyers' credit in the case of members of the 
Armed Forces. We took a bill that was designed to help veterans and the 
Senate stripped it all out and stuck in this disaster of a health care 
bill.
  Just as we heard in the late 1990s that you can't pass welfare 
reform, you will leave women without anything, you heartless, mean 
people, it was because people here had hearts and wanted to see single 
women with children doing better that welfare reform had to be done. It 
was sent to the President; he wouldn't sign it. It was re-sent to the 
President; he wouldn't sign it. He finally signed it, and for the first 
time since the Great Society legislation came about, after 30 years of 
flat line, when adjusted for inflation single women with children, 
after welfare reform, began to have increases in income.
  We heard all the naysayers then; we are hearing them now. It's 
because we want people to have the best health care. It's because we 
don't want what the President said when he told the Democratic Caucus, 
before it passed. Gee, you go to the doctor now and have five tests, 
after this bill you will go and get one test. My mother had to have six 
days of tests to find her tumor.
  I don't want rationed care. I want health care to be legislated the 
way the President promised it would be. And once we get this disaster 
out of the way, no matter how many times we have to send it, it will be 
time to pass a bill that gets real health care reform.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Birmingham, Alabama, Terri Sewell.
  Ms. SEWELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill that 
seeks to repeal the Affordable Care Act, legislation that has helped so 
many constituents of mine and Americans all across this Nation.
  Nearly 2 weeks ago, I was honored by being sworn in as a 
Representative for the Seventh Congressional District of Alabama. On 
day one I received numerous calls from my constituents urging me to 
oppose this repeal, and this weekend I heard from countless voices that 
the health care bill that's currently enacted has begun to help them.
  Let me tell the story about Mr. and Mrs. Cheatem in Greene County 
from my district. Both are on Medicare. Mr. Cheatem suffered several 
heart attacks, and Mrs. Cheatem has a chronic back condition. 
Prescription medication alleviates her pain and keeps him alive.
  Several provisions in the Affordable Care Act have helped Mr. and 
Mrs. Cheatem to get their prescriptions. Now they don't have to choose 
between putting food on the table, gas in their cars, or paying for 
their medication.
  The Affordable Care Act is a first step towards strengthening our 
health care system and is already helping to save the lives of many in 
my district.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who is also chairman of the Intellectual 
Property, Competition, and Internet Subcommittee of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation, which 
repeals the sweeping health care reform law

[[Page 354]]

rammed through Congress last year. This new law amounts to a Big 
Government takeover of our health care system, one that will lead to 
fewer choices, higher prices, and rationed care.

                              {time}  1620

  It creates more than 150 new government agencies and programs at a 
cost of well over $1.2 trillion. It includes over $560 billion in 
devastating new tax increases and cuts Medicare by over $500 billion.
  Americans are frustrated by rising health care costs. We must repeal 
the new health care law that kills jobs, raises taxes, threatens 
seniors' access to care, will cause millions of people to lose the 
coverage they have and like, and increases the cost of health care 
coverage. Then we must replace it with commonsense reforms that lower 
health care costs and empower patients.
  For those who argue that somehow this is going to save the taxpayers 
money, think of the mandates that are not covered by the Federal 
Government. Think of the fact that it is not credible that at a time 
when senior citizens, baby boomers, are going to retire in 
unprecedented numbers to take over $500 billion out of a Medicare 
program. And think of the jobs that are already being lost because the 
taxes on this are already being put into place, yet the benefits don't 
occur for 4 years. That legislation was smoke and mirrors. This 
legislation repeals it. We should support it and then start anew on 
commonsense reforms.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Braley).
  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I want to show the face of the repeal of health care. 
This is Tucker Wright from Malcom, Iowa. He is 4 years old. And 2 years 
ago, before the Affordable Care Act was passed, Tucker was diagnosed 
with liver cancer and had two-thirds of his liver removed. He faces a 
long and uncertain medical future. But on January 2 of this year, 
because we passed the Affordable Care Act, Tucker's father, Brett, was 
able to change jobs because he no longer had to worry about the stigma 
of preexisting conditions.
  Now, when you talk about repealing this bill, I'll tell you why it is 
not a good deal for Tucker Wright. Because even though our friends talk 
about wanting to fix some of the problems that they now think are 
important, the first thing that's going to happen to Tucker Wright and 
his family as soon as this bill is repealed is his family will get a 
rescision letter from their insurance company because they will no 
longer be required to provide insurance for this young boy because he 
has preexisting conditions. That's why this bill is a bad idea, and 
that's why I urge you to vote ``no'' and think about Tucker Wright.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time remains on 
each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Capito). The gentleman from Texas has 
5\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan has 8\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Walz).
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to state my strong opposition to the 
repealing of the Affordable Care Act. Repealing this law will eliminate 
consumer protections, raise taxes on small business, explode the 
deficit, and put insurance company CEOs directly between Americans and 
their doctor.
  I'm very proud to represent the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. 
They're a symbol of what we can achieve when we deliver the world's 
highest quality care at the most efficient and effective costs. When we 
passed this law last year, they said it was a good first step. And I 
agree.
  Now is not the time to step backwards. Folks in my district are 
already seeing the benefits of this new law. Seniors have received help 
paying for their expensive prescription drugs and have better access to 
preventative care saving money. And just a few weeks ago, I received a 
letter from a dad in my district named Paul. Paul's son Joe is 21, 
works part-time and has diabetes. Joe couldn't get the insurance he 
needed to pay for the expensive equipment and treatment he needs to 
stay healthy and alive. Paul wrote to say thank you for passing the 
Affordable Care Act. Because of the new law, Joe got back on his 
parents' insurance, and a new insurance card came in the mail on 
January 3. A vote to repeal this legislation pulls that card away.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Reed), former mayor of Corning and a new member of 
the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. REED. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the repeal of the 
job-killing ObamaCare legislation.
  This bill is a whopping 2,500 pages, a monstrosity of new spending 
and government bureaucracy, rushed to approval after only 48 hours of 
arm-twisting and deal-making. Unfortunately, just as Republicans 
predicted, this legislation did absolutely nothing to address the real 
problem of health care--its cost.
  Republicans have long advocated for tort reform to be included in any 
legislation to lower the costs of health care. For just as long, those 
who have written this legislation have continually ignored the need for 
tort reform. As even as the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office 
estimates, tort reform initiatives could save approximately $54 
billion. I will say that the other side attempted to address tort 
reform by providing $50 million to States to consider the concept of 
tort reform. Here we go again. Another example of what's wrong with 
Washington, spending $50 million to figure out how to save money. The 
American people recognize Republicans have a better plan, one which 
reduces health care costs.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. REED. The American people recognize Republicans have a better 
plan, one which reduces health care costs and gets lawyers and 
bureaucrats out of our doctors' and nurses' offices.
  Let's repeal this bill, focus on bipartisan initiatives we all agree 
on like fixing the doughnut hole, and pass tort reform legislation once 
and for all without spending an additional $50 million. Until we do so, 
jobs will continue to be lost.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri, Russ 
Carnahan.
  Mr. CARNAHAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill 
that would hurt small businesses in Missouri who are finally gaining 
access to affordable coverage for their employees. Since 2010, the 
health care coverage among small firms has increased by more than 12 
percent. If this bill passes, those small business owners will lose the 
tax credits that are providing up to 50 percent of their health care 
costs. Many of them will have to drop the very health insurance they 
have just now been able to provide their employees and their families.
  These are real people, people like Michelle Barron, who owns an 
independent book store in Rock Hill, Missouri. She used to be able to 
afford coverage for her employees, but over the years couldn't keep up. 
She had to drop her employees and finally drop her own coverage because 
of preexisting conditions. Last year when the health care bill was 
signed into law, new options opened up for Michelle and countless small 
business owners like her.
  But if we repeal health care, it will turn back the clock for small 
business owners like Michelle. Insurers would be able to go back to 
denying coverage for preexisting medical conditions, and small business 
owners would lose the tax credits that are helping make health care 
coverage affordable. We cannot go back to the bad old days of insurance 
company control. This is not the time to step backwards.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman

[[Page 355]]

from Arizona (Mr. Quayle), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. QUAYLE. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2.
  Last year, behind closed doors and against the will of the American 
people, the Democratic majority of the 111th Congress passed a bill 
that fundamentally changes the doctor-patient relationship. They passed 
a bill that will increase the cost of health care and explode our 
national debt. They passed a bill that expands the scope of government 
well beyond the parameters set forth in the Constitution.
  The genius of our Constitution is that this document didn't set forth 
what the government must do for us, but rather what the government 
can't do to us. Requiring every individual to enter into a commercial 
contract certainly falls within the realm of what the government can't 
do to us.
  The people in my district understand this, just as they understand 
that our health care system needs sensible, patient-centered reforms 
that will reduce costs and increase access. Unfortunately, the health 
care bill that was passed will increase costs and increase our national 
debt. Yes, those who drafted the bill tried to conceal the true costs 
from the American people. But if you look beyond the accounting 
gimmicks, that bill increases our debt by $701 billion over the next 10 
years.
  It is time to get our country back on the right track, and H.R. 2 is 
a necessary step to fulfilling that mission.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Florida, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I think it is important to 
address the notion of job killing versus job creating. We've heard a 
lot of talk about the title of this bill and the jobs that it 
supposedly kills. But let's look at the facts here though. Of the 1.1 
million private-sector jobs--documented--that were created last year, 
fully 200,000 of those were in the health care sector, or one-fifth. 
We've actually had an average of 20,000 jobs per month created in the 
health care sector alone over the course of the last 2 years.

                              {time}  1630

  There have been no job losses in the health care sector. None. And I 
challenge our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, on the 
Republican side of the aisle, who are vociferously advocating the 
repeal of health care reform on the premise that it is a job killer to 
name one area of health care, one, where there have been job losses. I 
would suspect that we would hear crickets chirping, because there are 
none. There isn't a single area of health care that there have been job 
losses; not before health care reform passed and not since.
  Also, I think it is important to address the comments from my 
colleague the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) who stated that 
President Obama told the Democratic Caucus that health care reform 
would supposedly allow us to shrink five tests performed on a patient 
to one. That is simply not true. That never happened. He never said 
that. And at the end of the day we need to make sure that we are 
entitled to our opinions but not to our own facts.
  I suspect that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
making up their own facts because their arguments don't stand on the 
strength of their ideas and aren't strong enough to stand on their own. 
I thought it was important to clear that up, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin), who is a member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I thank the gentleman from Texas for his 
leadership on this issue and for yielding me this time.
  Madam Speaker, I believe we need health care reform badly, but the 
law we got isn't what we need. That is why I rise today in support of 
H.R. 2 to repeal the current health care law. The health care law 
provides for an increased government role and will ultimately lead to 
decisions made by the government instead of doctors and patients.
  It ignores the issue of cost. It was loaded with gimmicks to make it 
seem deficit neutral. But once those are accounted for, we find that it 
adds over $700 billion to the deficit in the next 10 years.
  The health care law, and especially the unconstitutional mandate, 
handicaps our ability to grow jobs. Small businesses will be hit 
hardest because they operate on the tightest margins and will have the 
toughest time complying with the onerous regulations, many of which are 
still not written, creating uncertainty for employers.
  We must repeal the law and replace it with one that lowers costs, 
preserves the doctor-patient relationship, lets Americans keep the 
coverage they have, allows the private sector to create jobs and 
follows the Constitution.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey, Mr. Rob Andrews.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, as we meet this afternoon, there are 15 
million unemployed Americans. And no matter where you go in this 
country, you hear that the number one concern of our constituents is 
creating an environment where businesses and entrepreneurs can put 
people back to work.
  So what is the House doing this week? Re-litigating, regurgitating, 
rearguing a political debate about health care again. I believe the 
people of this country want us to work together to get jobs back in the 
American economy.
  The Republicans offer us a slogan, a job killing health care bill. 
What kills jobs is paralysis in Congress. What kills jobs is ignoring 
the economic problems of this country. ``No'' is not simply the right 
vote on the merits, it's the right vote because this is the wrong bill 
at the wrong time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I only have one more speaker on 
this side and I am prepared to close.
  Mr. CONYERS. How much time have we remaining, Madam Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Texas has 1\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Because this is the Judiciary Committee and so little has been said 
about the constitutionality, I am pleased to quote from the dean of the 
law school of the University of California, Erwin Chemerinsky, who said 
that opposing health care reform and relying on an argument that it is 
unconstitutional is an inadequate way to proceed.
  Somebody here must remember that there is Medicare, Medicaid, Social 
Security. Please, this is not new that the government would be 
intervening in this way. Maybe we need to revise and revisit the 
questions of constitutionality.

                     [From POLITICO, Oct. 23, 2009]

                  Health Care Reform Is Constitutional

                         (By Erwin Chemerinsky)

       Those opposing health care reform are increasingly relying 
     on an argument that has no legal merit: that the health care 
     reform legislation would be unconstitutional. There is, of 
     course, much to debate about how to best reform America's 
     health care system. But there is no doubt that bills passed 
     by House and Senate committees are constitutional.
       Some who object to the health care proposals claim that 
     they are beyond the scope of congressional powers. 
     Specifically, they argue that Congress lacks the authority to 
     compel people to purchase health insurance or pay a tax or a 
     fine.
       Congress clearly could do this under its power pursuant to 
     Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to regulate commerce 
     among the states. The Supreme Court has held that this 
     includes authority to regulate activities that have a 
     substantial effect on interstate commerce. In the area of 
     economic activities, ``substantial effect'' can be found 
     based on the cumulative impact of the activity across the 
     country. For example, a few years ago, the Supreme Court held 
     that Congress could use its commerce clause authority to 
     prohibit individuals from cultivating and possessing small 
     amounts of marijuana for personal medicinal use because 
     marijuana is bought and sold in interstate commerce.
       The relationship between health care coverage and the 
     national economy is even stronger and more readily apparent. 
     In 2007, health care expenditures amounted to $2.2

[[Page 356]]

     trillion, or $7,421 per person, and accounted for 16.2 
     percent of the gross domestic product.
       Ken Klukowski, writing in POLITICO, argued that ``people 
     who declined to purchase government-mandated insurance would 
     not be engaging in commercial activity, so there's no 
     interstate commerce.'' Klukowski's argument is flawed because 
     the Supreme Court never has said that the commerce power is 
     limited to regulating those who are engaged in commercial 
     activity.
       Quite the contrary: The court has said that Congress can 
     use its commerce power to forbid hotels and restaurants from 
     discriminating based on race, even though their conduct was 
     refusing to engage in commercial activity. Likewise, the 
     court has said that Congress can regulate the growing of 
     marijuana for personal medicinal use, even if the person 
     being punished never engaged in any commercial activity.
       Under an unbroken line of precedents stretching back 70 
     years, Congress has the power to regulate activities that, 
     taken cumulatively, have a substantial effect on interstate 
     commerce. People not purchasing health insurance 
     unquestionably has this effect.
       There is a substantial likelihood that everyone will need 
     medical care at some point. A person with a communicable 
     disease will be treated whether or not he or she is insured. 
     A person in an automobile accident will be rushed to the 
     hospital for treatment, whether or not he or she is insured. 
     Congress would simply be requiring everyone to be insured to 
     cover their potential costs to the system.
       Congress also could justify this as an exercise of its 
     taxing and spending power. Congress can require the purchase 
     of health insurance and then tax those who do not do so in 
     order to pay their costs to the system. This is similar to 
     Social Security taxes, which everyone pays to cover the costs 
     of the Social Security system. Since the 1930s, the Supreme 
     Court has accorded Congress broad powers to tax and spend for 
     the general welfare and has left it to Congress to determine 
     this.
       Nor is there any basis for arguing that an insurance 
     requirement violates individual liberties. No 
     constitutionally protected freedom is infringed. There is no 
     right to not have insurance. Most states now require 
     automobile insurance as a condition for driving.
       Since the 19th century, the Supreme Court has consistently 
     held that a tax cannot be challenged as an impermissible take 
     of private property for public use without just compensation. 
     All taxes are a taking of private property for public use, 
     but no tax has ever been invalidated on that basis.
       Since the late 1930s, the Supreme Court has ruled that 
     government economic regulations, including taxes, are to be 
     upheld as long as they are reasonable. Virtually all economic 
     regulations and taxes have been found to meet this standard 
     for more than 70 years. There is thus no realistic chance 
     that the mandate for health insurance would be invalidated 
     for denying due process or equal protection.
       Those who object to the health care proposals on 
     constitutional grounds are making an argument that has no 
     basis in the law. They are invoking the rhetorical power of 
     the Constitution to support their opposition to health care 
     reform, but the law is clear that Congress constitutionally 
     has the power to do so. There is much to argue about in the 
     debate over health care reform, but constitutionality is not 
     among the hard questions to consider.

  I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. 
Sheila Jackson Lee, a senior member of the committee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 
2\1/2\ minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, you are absolutely right. 
This is a constitutional question that has been raised, and as I came 
to the floor earlier, I mentioned my predecessor, Congresswoman Jordan, 
who believed in this Constitution without question. I mentioned the 
14th Amendment. I now mention the Fifth Amendment.
  First of all the commerce clause covers this bill, but the Fifth 
Amendment speaks specifically to denying someone their life and liberty 
without due process. That is what H.R. 2 does, and I rise in opposition 
to it. And I rise in opposition because it is important that we 
preserve lives and we recognize that 40 million plus are uninsured.
  In my own county, Harris County, this bill will allow some 800,000 
uninsured members of Harris County, citizens of Harris County, to be 
insured in Texas. In addition, the Texas Department of Insurance, as 
many other States, have already begun implementing this bill, the 
patient protection bill, gladly so, and saying it will help save lives 
and provide for the families of their States.
  Can you tell me what is more unconstitutional than taking away from 
the people of America their Fifth Amendment rights, their 14th 
Amendment rights, and the right to equal protection under the law? I 
know that Mr. Land, who suffers from schizophrenia with his family; Ms. 
Betty, who had to go to the ER room in Texas because of no insurance; 
Mrs. Smith who was on dialysis; or Mrs. Fields whose mother couldn't 
get dental care, I know they would question why we're taking away their 
rights.
  Today we stand before this body, we beg of them to ask themselves 
whether this is all about politics or about the American people. I am 
prepared to extend a hand of friendship, standing on the Constitution, 
to enable us to provide for all of the citizens of this country.
  This bill has been vetted, this bill is constitutional, and it 
protects the constitutional rights of those who ask the question: Must 
I die, must my child die because I am now disallowed from getting 
insurance? To our seniors, there are no death panels. This is about 
your primary care doctor. This is about closing the doughnut hole that 
will allow you to be able to get discounts on your prescription drugs 
that some of you have avoided because you have to pay your rent and you 
have to buy your food.
  Texas, a big State, has already said through a governmental agency, 
we need this bill. And we hope that those who come from our State and 
many other States will not vote against the protection of patients. 
Vote against H.R. 2 and provide yourself with the protection of the 
Constitution.
  Madam Speaker, I stand in strong opposition to the Patient's Rights 
Repeal Act. As a Member of Congress I take seriously my responsibility 
and sworn oath to serve my constituents and improve the lives of all 
citizens of this country for the better.
  The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that, ``No 
State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges 
or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State 
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process 
of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal 
protection of the laws.''
  The last portion of this amendment, commonly called the Equal 
Protection Clause, is one of the most important portions of the 
Constitution, which was added after the Civil War and was the basis for 
most of the civil rights decisions that transformed this country. 
Furthermore, many of the legal arguments for demanding medical 
treatment have also rested on this clause, which the U.S. Supreme Court 
relied on in its Roe v. Wade decision. Repealing the healthcare reform 
we enacted last year would be a violation of the Equal Protection 
Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution since it would be 
abridging the fundamental right of U.S. citizens to have health care 
and would be denying them the equal protection under the law guaranteed 
to them by the 14th Amendment.
  Furthermore, even the Founding Fathers more than two centuries ago 
emphasized the fundamental importance of good health. Thomas Jefferson 
stated that, ``Without health there is no happiness. And attention to 
health, then, should take the place of every other object . . . The 
most uninformed mind, with a healthy body, is happier than the wisest 
valetudinarian.''
  I urge President Obama that should any repeal of any beneficial 
portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act come to his 
desk, he should utilize his presidential prerogative to veto this 
legislation which would harm the fundamental rights of Americans.
  As health care reform takes a particularly partisan tone, this 
Nation, as of January 2011, still has more than 20 million Americans 
according to the U.S. Census Bureau who live without health insurance.
  To my colleagues across the aisle, have you truly considered what 
this repeal would mean and who this would affect? Sadly to say, in my 
district, the 18th Congressional District of Houston, Texas, the repeal 
would be devastating. To highlight a few major effects of the repeal 
for my district, please listen as I explain several devastating changes 
to health care coverage that a number of populations throughout the 
18th Congressional District of Houston, Texas, will face.
  The repeal would increase drug costs for seniors. There are 5,300 
Medicare beneficiaries in my district who are expected to

[[Page 357]]

benefit from these provisions. Repeal would increase the average cost 
of prescription drugs for these Medicare beneficiaries by over $500 in 
2011 and by over $3,000 in 2020.
  The repeal would deny seniors new preventive and wellness care 
improving primary and coordinated care, and enhancing nursing home 
care.
  The repeal would eliminate these benefits for 70,000 Medicare 
beneficiaries in the district and cause the Medicare trust fund to 
become insolvent in just six years.
  The repeal would eliminate tax credits for small businesses. The 
health reform law provides tax credits to small businesses worth up to 
35 percent of the cost of providing health insurance. There are up to 
14,600 small businesses in my district, small businesses that are 
eligible for this tax credit. This repeal would force these small 
businesses to drop coverage or bear the full costs of coverage 
themselves.
  The repeal would increase retiree health care costs for employers. 
The health reform law provides funding to encourage employers to 
continue to provide health insurance for their retirees. As many as 
5,500 district residents who have retired but are not yet eligible for 
Medicare could ultimately benefit from this early retiree assistance.
  The repeal would increase costs for employers and jeopardize the 
coverage their retirees are receiving. The repeal would increase the 
cost of uncompensated care born by hospitals. The Health Reform Law 
benefits hospitals by covering more Americans and thereby reducing the 
cost of providing care to the uninsured.
  The repeal would undo this benefit, increasing the cost of 
uncompensated care by $27 million annually for hospitals in my 
district.
  As evidenced in the recent elections, the public has indicated they 
want less spending and a balanced budget. The Congressional Budget 
Office estimates the budget will be negatively impacted to the tune of 
$230 billion dollars over a 10 year period if healthcare reform is 
repealed. Additionally, more than four million small businesses would 
lose health insurance tax credits as a result of repeal, and the cost 
of offering employer-based health insurance could increase by more than 
$3,000 annually, according to the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.
  As a Congress we have continued to debate this issue for decades 
without resolve. The uninsured, the underserved, vulnerable and 
minority communities are particularly at risk. Lest we forget--in 1999 
we asked the Institute of Medicine--the independent organization whose 
reports are considered the gold standard for health care policymakers--
to investigate disparities in health and health care among racial and 
ethnic minorities. The results were damning: the ensuing study, Unequal 
Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care, 
found that minorities had poorer health and were consistently receiving 
lower-quality health care even when factors such as insurance status 
and income weren't involved.
  As stated by Newsweek, minorities and the underserved were less 
likely to get lifesaving heart medications, bypass surgery, dialysis, 
or kidney transplants. They were more likely to get their feet and legs 
amputated as a treatment for late-stage diabetes.--Mary Carmichael, The 
Great Divide, Newsweek, February 15, 2010.
  In our current system, most people do not choose to be uninsured but 
are priced out of insurance. These people cannot, as free market 
proponents often argue, ``pull themselves up by their bootstraps.'' 
Instead, they and their families are too often cyclically and 
systemically trapped in their economic situation. As a result, minority 
communities suffer grave health disparities that would otherwise be 
limited but for lack of access to affordable and quality care. What is 
the price for improving the life expectancy of millions of Americans of 
all ages?
  In 2007, only 49 percent of African-Americans in comparison to 66 
percent of non-Hispanic whites used employer-sponsored health 
insurance, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. 
During the same year, 19.5 percent of African-Americans in comparison 
to 10.4 percent of non-Hispanic whites were uninsured.
  Hispanics have the highest uninsured rates of any racial or ethnic 
group within the United States. In 2004, the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention reported that private insurance coverage among 
Hispanic subgroups varied as follows: 39.1 percent of Mexicans, 47.3 
percent of Puerto Ricans, 57.9 percent of Cubans, and 45.1 percent of 
other Hispanic and Latino groups.
  Health care reform also is critical to ensure that women have access 
to affordable health care coverage. An estimated 64 million women do 
not have adequate health insurance coverage. About 1.7 million women 
have lost their health insurance coverage since the beginning of the 
economic downturn. Nearly two-thirds lost coverage because of their 
spouse's job loss. And nearly 39 percent of all low-income women lack 
health insurance coverage. Women also are more likely to deplete their 
savings accounts paying medical bills than men because they are more 
likely to be poor. This bill gives women access to the health care that 
they need and deserve.
  Health care reform is a critical step in helping to reduce such 
health disparities. Are we now telling the American public we will not?
  Lower costs for minority families and all Americans should forget 
about preventive care for better health.
  Racial and ethnic minorities are often less likely to receive 
preventive care. Vietnamese women, for example, are half as likely to 
receive a pap smear, and twice as likely to die from cervical cancer as 
are whites. Obesity rates are also high among certain minority groups. 
By ensuring all Americans have access to preventive care and by 
investing in public health, health insurance reform will work to create 
a system that prevents illness and disease instead of just treating it 
when it's too late and costs more. Are we telling the citizens of this 
country that we will not?
  Make health care accessible to everyone.
  African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans are roughly twice 
as likely to be uninsured as the rest of the population. By providing 
health insurance choices to all Americans and providing premium 
assistance to make it affordable, health insurance reform significantly 
reduces disparities in accessing the best quality for health. We will 
you tell your constituents that you will not:
  Control chronic disease and promote primary care.
  Nearly half of African Americans suffer from a chronic disease, 
compared with 40 percent of the general population. Chronic illness is 
growing in other minority communities as well. Health insurance reform 
is slated to include a number of programs to prevent and control 
chronic disease, including incentives to provide medical homes and 
chronic disease management pilots in Medicare. By investing in the 
primary care workforce (including scholarships and grants to increase 
diversity in health professions), health reform will make sure that all 
Americans have access to a primary care doctor and strengthen the 
system of safety-net hospitals and community health centers to ensure 
accessible care.
  The people of my home State of Texas, in particular, with 6 million 
uninsured persons, and 26 percent uninsured in my district, have been 
hit especially hard when it comes to lack of access to quality, 
affordable care. Many Americans continue to be forced from their health 
care plans due to decisions by insurance companies that consider profit 
over people.
  So how do the million plus Houston residents without an insurance 
company get health care--the emergency room, ER! Emergency rooms have 
become the health care providers of last resort for well over 100 
million Americans annually.
  Will we allow this trend to continue? Over a 10 year period from 1994 
to 2004, ER visits on a national level saw an 18 percent jump, 
according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Emergency 
rooms in Houston hospitals are routinely overcrowded as overused as 
throngs flock seeking care for ailments that may range from a heart 
attack or gunshot wound to an ear infection or toothache. ER 
overcrowding is so bad in the Houston area, that patients have called 
911 from one ER to get to another, according to one report. When the 
President signed the health care bill into law, he ensured that 
Americans who have been flocking to emergency rooms for primary care 
will have another option--affordable and accessible health care.
  Repealing the health act is not in the best interest of Americans. 
Health is not partisan and we should not treat it as such. Will we tell 
the citizens of this great Nation, we will not?
  Bar insurance companies from discriminating based on pre-existing 
conditions, health status, and gender; create health insurance 
exchanges--competitive marketplaces where individuals and small 
business can buy affordable health care coverage in a manner similar to 
that of big businesses today; offer premium tax credits and cost-
sharing assistance to low and middle income Americans, providing 
families and small businesses with the largest tax cut for health care 
in history; insure access to immediate relief for uninsured Americans 
with pre-existing conditions on the brink of medical bankruptcy; invest 
substantially in community health centers to expand access to health 
care in communities where it is needed most; empower the Department of 
Health and Human Services and State insurance commissioners to conduct 
annual reviews of new

[[Page 358]]

plans demanding unjustified, egregious premium increases; expand 
eligibility for Medicaid to include all non-elderly Americans with 
income below 133 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL); replace 
the so-called ``cornhusker'' deal with fair assistance for all States 
to help cover the costs of these new Medicaid populations; maintain 
current funding levels for the Children's Health Insurance Program 
(CHIP) for an additional two years, through fiscal year 2015; and 
increase payments to primary care doctors in Medicaid.
  Increased costs for families and business in the current economy 
cannot be best for the Nation. Before we rush headlong toward repeal, 
we must consider the consequences and look for solutions that hold down 
costs, not increase them. In opposition to H.R. 2, I offered several 
amendments to protect the millions of Americans who are at risk of the 
legislation that is before the body of Congress today. Specifically, my 
amendments would amend the legislation to make no further reduction in 
Medicare and Medicaid fraud and would prevent the abuse of activities 
below the level that would be provided under Title VI and Subtitle F of 
Title X of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and Sections 
1106 and Subtitle D of Title I of the Health Care and Education 
Reconciliation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-152.
  My amendment stated that this repeal shall not take effect unless and 
until the Director of Office of Management and Budget in collaboration 
with the Director of the Congressional Budget Office certifies to 
Congress that this repeal will not result in any decrease in Medicare 
and Medicaid fraud and abuse prevention activities below the level 
provided in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
  Health care fraud and abuse has been a national problem, prevalent in 
Federal, State and private insurance programs, costing this Nation 
billions of dollars each year. Fraud can result in improper payments, 
but it is not the only cause of wasteful spending in Federal health 
care programs. Payments for unnecessary medical services, for claims 
with insufficient documentation, for ineligible patients and to 
ineligible providers, are examples of improper expenditures that waste 
taxpayer dollars and drive up health care costs. Fraud and abuse 
account for one-fifth, an estimated $125 to $175 billion of that waste. 
This is staggering.
  Continuing to uncover fraud and abuse will assist in covering the 
costs of health reform, allowing us to keep the services so many 
Americans rely upon, while reducing the deficit. The Congressional 
Budget Office estimates that every $1 invested to fight fraud yields 
approximately $1.75 in savings. Through FY 2009, the Department of 
Justice's civil division and U.S. Attorneys' Offices have recovered 
nearly $16 billion in matters alleging fraud against government health 
care programs.
  As we look to make non-partisan decisions that will benefit the 
American people and guarantee fair and equitable health care coverage, 
the Obama administration has taken steps to significantly improve 
oversight of the Medicare Part C and Part D programs. These steps have 
sought to tailor interventions towards the areas where fraud and abuse 
are the greatest. Efforts have been implemented to invest in critical 
data infrastructure, enhanced field operations at Centers for Medicaid 
and Medicare Services, the Office of Inspector General, and Department 
of Justice, and initiated new efforts to reduce improper payments.
  On July 2010, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen 
Sebelius and U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder launched a series of 
regional health care fraud prevention summits. These summits brought 
together a range of Federal, State and local partners, beneficiaries, 
providers, and other interested parties to discuss innovative ways to 
eliminate fraud within our U.S. health care system. Tools contained in 
the Affordable Care Act serve to safeguard taxpayer dollars and ensure 
health care coverage for seniors, families and children are secure.
  The Nation's health care system has been victimized by health care 
fraud perpetrators whose objective is to line their pockets at the 
expense of the American taxpayer, patients, and private insurers. This 
not only drives up costs for everyone in the health care system, it 
cripples the long term solvency of Medicare and Medicaid, two programs 
upon which millions of Americans depend.
  This particular amendment was essential to hold State and local 
partners, beneficiaries, providers, and others accountable to their 
patients and communities and ensure these new policies are used in an 
effective manner to yield the best possible outcome.
  Regarding community health centers, I offered an amendment that would 
prevent Section 2 of House Bill H.R. 2 from taking effect unless and 
until the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in 
consultation with the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, 
certifies to Congress that the repeal of the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) will not result in an 
elimination of any increased funding to community health centers 
provided under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or the 
Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 and will not 
result in any decrease in the number of community health centers, and 
will not otherwise disallow further expansions of community healthcare 
centers.
  It is important to protect the historic healthcare legislation which 
we fought so hard to enact in order to provide the accessible, 
affordable and quality healthcare that all Americans deserve and so 
many Americans receive through community healthcare centers.
  Community health centers are poised to play a vital role in the 
implementation of the Affordable Care Act and emphasize coordinated 
primary and preventive services. These centers also provide preventive 
services. Routine health care that includes screenings, check-ups, and 
patient counseling to prevent illnesses, disease, or other health 
problems.
  Offer a medical home to the most vulnerable and medically 
underserved--low-income individuals, racial and ethnic minorities, 
rural communities and other underserved populations to address and 
reduce health disparities.
  Community health centers continue to show their ability to manage 
patients with multiple health care needs, and implement key quality 
improvement practices, including health information technology.
  For more than forty years, health centers have delivered quality, 
comprehensive preventive and primary care to patients regardless of 
their ability to pay. With a proven track record of success, and the 
advent of 350 new community health care centers being established in 
fiscal year 2011, a repeal of the Affordable Care Act will threaten the 
very fabric of this Nation's health care system. Currently, more than 
1,100 community health centers operate 7,900 service delivery sites and 
provide care to nearly 19 million patients in every state, the District 
of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Pacific 
Basin.
  The Affordable Healthcare Act included enhanced funding for 
operations and start-ups of federally qualified health centers in the 
Harris County Hospital district, which is in the 18th Congressional 
District of Texas, my home district, thereby increasing the 
availability of primary health care and preventive health care 
services. The Affordable Healthcare Act also provided funding for and 
policy direction to increase the number of primary care providers in 
the Harris County Hospital district and the state of Texas, inclusive 
of physicians and physician extenders (advanced nurse practitioners).
  The Affordable Healthcare Act also directed states to increase 
provider payment rates to physicians in the Medicaid program. This is 
significant in that rates are so low in Texas many physicians are 
unwilling to take Medicaid patients.
  According to the Texas Health and Human Services Commission Study, 
there are currently 1.1 million uninsured in Harris County, Texas. Full 
implementation of health care reform would reduce that number to a 
little over 390,000. That represents a 65 percent reduction in the 
number of uninsured residents. Diminished access to primary and 
preventive health care services that in turn will lead to a moreover 
use of acute care hospital inpatient services and emergency center 
encounters at much higher costs to county taxpayers and higher Medicaid 
per capita expenditures for the state and Federal government. Without 
reform, cuts to the Medicare and Medicaid program will put a greater 
strain on existing safety net providers and local tax payers. Without 
expanded care and insurance reforms, people will not have access to 
affordable, lower cost health care services.
  Specifically, in my Congressional district, the South Central Houston 
Community Health Center has been serving the Houston community since 
1994 and has locations in the Sunnyside and Third Wards areas of 
Houston. By being the oldest, Federally qualified health center in the 
city of Houston, the community health center has grown to receive over 
1.2 million in annual Federal funds, which is instrumental in providing 
quality health care to the medically underserved, uninsured, and 
underinsured people of the greater Houston area. The South Central 
Houston Community Health Center has made tremendous progress towards 
eliminating healthcare disparities and increasing access to healthcare 
services to the Houston community.
  The Legacy Community Health Center in my Congressional district has 
also benefitted greatly from the Affordable Healthcare Act. The Legacy 
Community Health Center is a

[[Page 359]]

full-service, community health center that provides comprehensive, 
primary healthcare services to all Houstonians in a culturally 
sensitive, judgment-free and confidential environment. Legacy has 
specialized in HIV/AIDS testing, education, treatment and social 
services since the early 1980's. They also provide care for other 
chronic health conditions like diabetes and high blood pressure 
disparately impacting minorities. Generous financial support from 
individuals, businesses and charitable foundations allows Legacy to 
provide no-cost or low-cost healthcare services to over 30,000 men, 
women and children each year.
  The Good Neighbor Healthcare Center also in my Congressional district 
offers a wide array of services to families living in the greater 
Houston area. Services include primary health care, dental care, 
optometry, and behavioral health services. Good Neighbor Healthcare 
Center has a special mission to the community that goes right to the 
heart of providing quality, accessible primary health care and dental 
care to those in need. Good Neighbor Healthcare Center serves patients 
from virtually every zip code in Harris County, and the diverse staff 
is ready to assist patients with all of their health care needs. Good 
Neighbor Healthcare Center assists patients in Spanish or English as 
needed as well.
  Community health centers are an integral part of our communities 
providing a source of local employment and economic growth in many 
underserved and low-income communities. In 2009, community health 
centers across the Nation provided more than $11 billion in operating 
expenditures directly into their local economies. Community health 
centers employ more than 9,100 physicians and more than 5,700 nurse 
practitioners, physician assistants, and certified nurse midwives to 
treat patients through culturally competent, quality and integrated 
care.
  And lastly, I offered an amendment that would be essential to an 
unprecedented opportunity to serve more patients, retain existing and 
support new jobs, meet the significant increase in demand for primary 
health care services among the nation's uninsured and underserved 
populations and address essential construction, renovation, and 
equipment and health information technology systems needs in community 
health centers. I cannot turn my back and shut the door on the 
constituents I represent in securing accessible, affordable and quality 
healthcare services in my Congressional district.
  If the Healthcare Repeal Bill were to pass, this amendment would 
ensure that insurance rates do not increase from those rates that would 
have applied if the law is left intact.
  Health care reform is something that people have fought for fervently 
for years, and it would be a great disservice to the American people if 
the health care law were repealed as a result of politics. The Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act insure access to quality, affordable 
healthcare for all Americans. It also makes necessary changes that will 
make our system of health care more efficient. Children are allowed to 
stay on their parents' health insurance until the age of twenty-six. 
Patients cannot be refused health insurance coverage because of pre-
existing conditions. Insurance premiums were lowered and mechanisms are 
in place to avoid them getting any higher. Repealing health care reform 
would reverse all of this good that has been done.
  However, if the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is 
repealed, it is important that certain provisions of the law remain 
intact. For aforementioned reasons, I urge my colleagues to reason with 
the American people and provide an opportunity for every American in 
every state to receive affordable and quality healthcare. If the 
Healthcare Law is repealed without the inclusion of my amendment, that 
would ensure that insurance rates do not increase from those rates that 
would have applied if the law is left intact, we are left great 
potential for health insurance rates to rise, much like they did in the 
past, to levels which make coverage inaccessible and unaffordable for 
many Americans.
  Before the Healthcare Reform Bill was signed into law, increasing 
healthcare costs were crushing the budgets of families and American 
businesses, making us less competitive in the ever growing global 
market, placing Medicare and Medicaid in serious danger, damaging our 
long-term fiscal stability, and worse of all, causing Americans to 
continue to go without basic health care coverage. This broken health 
care system was driving up health care costs and weakening our economy. 
Minorities in general were more in danger of being uninsured and 
falling victim to frequent emergency visits, increasing debt that leads 
to bankruptcy, and premature death.
  Without healthcare reform, a devastating number of citizens would 
have had to continue to live without healthcare. No American citizen 
should have to face a decision of whether to buy food or pay healthcare 
premiums. Putting a face to healthcare is recognizing Iris Williams 
from Houston, Texas.
  For many mothers, finding a good doctor for their children can be 
quite difficult, especially if they don't have health insurance. When 
the child has fears of going to the doctor, the difficulty only 
worsens.
  Iris Williams first brought her son, Simon, to Legacy Community 
Health Services in 2007. As a resident in the surrounding area, Iris 
liked the convenience of Legacy's Community Health Center on Lyons 
Avenue in the heart of her neighborhood. When she found out Legacy 
offered school physicals, even to those without health insurance, she 
was thrilled.
  ``My son had a bad experience with a doctor when he was younger and 
did not like going to the doctor,'' Iris sighed. ``But Legacy was able 
to schedule a physical for Simon within the week, and I was told it 
would only cost $45.''
  Now that Iris had an appointment for her son at an affordable cost, 
she only had to worry about whether Simon would like the doctor.
  ``I just love Dr. Levine, he is so kind and wonderful,'' Iris 
continued, ``he not only made my son feel at ease but he also treated 
him like a young man. That made us both feel really good.''
  This past summer Simon hurt his finger at a summer program. Iris had 
to take him to the emergency room to get his fingernail removed. For 
his follow-up care Iris sought out Legacy to clean the wound and make 
sure it was healing properly.
  ``Again the staff at Legacy was great and the finger is healing 
nicely,'' Iris glowed. ``I am so glad Legacy had a doctor to care for 
him after the visit to the ER.''
  When people in Iris's neighborhood ask her where to go for quality 
and affordable healthcare, Iris doesn't hesitate to refer them to 
Legacy. She knows they will get great care. Iris stated, ``it gives me 
great satisfaction knowing that Legacy is here for all of us and will 
take care of our health care needs.'' Madam Speaker, what do you expect 
I say to constituents similar to Iris Williams?
  Madam Speaker, before the Healthcare Reform Bill passed, the need for 
more efficient healthcare was dire, especially within my home State of 
Texas. One in four Texans, about 5.7 million people, or 24.5 percent of 
the State's population, had no health insurance coverage. An estimated 
1,339,550 Texas children--20.2 percent of Texas children--were 
uninsured. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Texas had the Nation's 
highest percentage of uninsured residents. This posed consequences for 
every person, business, and local government in the State who were 
forced to bear extra costs to pay for uncompensated care. If the 
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is repealed, Texas, like 
many other States, runs the risk of a reoccurrence of statistics such 
as these.
  Over the years, I have had the opportunity to meet with health care 
providers who have been on the front lines of health care debates from 
day one. It is no surprise that they enthusiastically endorsed 
healthcare reform, and many are still holding out hope for progressive 
changes to the current healthcare laws as we move forward in this new 
Congress. These health professionals have seen the pain and frustration 
of hardworking Americans who faced financial collapse, physical 
suffering, and sometimes the loss of their life simply because they did 
not have decent health care coverage. The repeal of healthcare reform 
could lead our Nation back down a similar path, and I am confident that 
no health care professionals, nor I, or any of my colleagues would want 
to see situations like that reoccur.
  The late Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, who once held the seat that I 
so proudly and humbly hold today said, ``What the people want is very 
simple. They want an America as good as its promise.'' These words 
resonate in our time and the American people only ask for simple 
things. Therefore, I and my fellow colleagues are striving to maintain 
something we fought for tirelessly for years and were finally able to 
secure in the last Congress--the ability to provide all Americans with 
affordable and accessible healthcare.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to allow their conscious to 
recognize the greater need to work across the aisles with one another 
and strengthen our healthcare system to one day provide universal 
healthcare for all Americans. Again, I am in opposition of H.R. 2.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, the Democrats' health care bill squanders health care 
resources and taxpayer money by encouraging wasteful defensive 
medicine. It explicitly prevents States from making any effective legal 
reforms under

[[Page 360]]

its provisions, and expands opportunities for lawyers to sue doctors 
who did absolutely nothing wrong. And it limits the supply of doctors 
when patients need them most.
  In fact, one particularly costly part of our health care system is 
the practice of so-called ``defensive medicine,'' which occurs when 
doctors are forced by the threat of lawsuits to conduct tests and 
prescribe drugs that are not medically required. A survey released last 
year found defensive medicine is practiced by virtually all physicians.
  Lawsuit abuse does more than make medical care much more expensive. 
It drives doctors out of business. Doctors who specialize in inherently 
high-risk fields are leaving their practices and hospitals are shutting 
down because their high exposure to liability makes lawsuit insurance 
unaffordable.

                              {time}  1640

  It can have deadly consequences. Hundreds and even thousands of 
patients may die annually for lack of doctors.
  Madam Speaker, the Democrats' health care law will produce more 
litigation and less effective health care. That is why it should be 
repealed.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves) and 
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) each will control 20 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 2, legislation to repeal the job-
destroying health care law that was rushed through Congress last year. 
The American people have repeatedly voiced their frustration over the 
way the health care law put the government between patients and their 
doctors. They have protested this law's outrageous Federal mandates and 
high taxes. They have demanded that reform of our Nation's health care 
system focus not on bigger government, not on more bureaucrats, but on 
targeted, commonsense changes that encourage competition and better 
choices.
  But instead of listening to the people, Washington gave them a law 
that piles more than $500 billion in tax increases on families and 
small businesses. This law will force as much as 80 percent of all 
small businesses to give up their current coverage and could cost our 
economy 1.6 million jobs, 1 million of which could come from small 
businesses.
  All of these new regulations and restrictions included in the law 
will make it more difficult for small businesses to hire new workers, 
expand their operations, and offer competitive wages. With unemployment 
still hovering above 9 percent, families and businesses simply cannot 
afford more regulations and red tape from Washington. It is going to 
make jobs more scarce and further slow our economic recovery.
  My Republican colleagues and I repeatedly tried to reach across the 
aisle to craft a better bill when this was pushed through. I was 
disappointed that rather than listen to their counterparts, the 
American people, those in charge when this was pushed through chose to 
put a completely partisan, widely unpopular bill through the people's 
House.
  We now have an opportunity to give the people what they want by 
repealing this law and replacing it with meaningful reforms that will 
cut costs and increase access without creating big problems for 
businesses or piling more unsustainable debt on future generations.
  I urge my friends and Members to vote in favor of repeal of this 
legislation, and join me in implementing better solutions for improving 
our Nation's health care system.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill before us today.
  As we begin the 112th Congress, it is unfortunate that one of the 
first bills before this body is more about politics than policy. This 
bill will not help a single small business secure a loan, open a new 
market for its products, or invest back in its operations. By their own 
admission, the other side acknowledges this legislation is going 
nowhere.
  It is ironic this grandstanding occurs when health insurance 
continues to be a top challenge facing small businesses. Over the last 
decade, small employers have seen their premiums rise by over 114 
percent with no sign of relief. It is hard to imagine how repeal will 
help small businesses. In fact, it could do significant harm. The bill 
before us today imposes a $40 billion tax increase by eliminating 
critical small business tax credits. These have already helped reduce 
costs and increased coverage rates by nearly 12 percent in the past 
year.
  Repeal would also eliminate choices for entrepreneurs. Currently, in 
the majority of States, the two largest insurers had a combined market 
share of 70 percent or more. By doing away with reforms that establish 
new health insurance markets, it will limit small businesses' ability 
to secure coverage.
  Small businesses already pay 20 percent more than their corporate 
counterparts, and the loss of new safeguards will compound this 
problem. Because of health reform, insurers are no longer able to raise 
rates arbitrarily without explaining why. They cannot deny coverage 
based on a preexisting condition or because an employee gets sick. 
Passage of this bill would also strip new protections that provide 
small businesses bargaining power.
  We have heard how important reforms were excluded from the original 
legislation. They say that for this reason, the House will start from 
scratch and enact a new health care law. However, when Republicans were 
in control of both Chambers and held the Oval Office, they talked about 
these solutions for nearly a decade, and yet nothing happened. In the 
meantime, small businesses saw their employees' premiums rise by an 
average of $700 every single year. These small businesses now pay 
nearly $14,000 for a policy that cost $6,500 in 2000. Why should small 
businesses believe they can deliver on a promise this time?
  While our economy has added nearly 400,000 jobs over the past 3 
months, more must be done. We must continue to confront the problem of 
health coverage for small businesses, but voting for today's bill will 
not do that.
  I urge Members to oppose the bill, and I urge the new leadership to 
focus on meaningful ways to address this Nation's economic challenges.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).
  Mr. MULVANEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in favor of H.R. 2.
  It is hard to know where to begin when you are talking about how bad 
the current health care legislation is for small businesses. The 
current health care bill that this Congress passed last year has an 
incentive for businesses to go from 50 employees to 49. It has an 
incentive for businesses to go from 25 employees down to fewer, and it 
has a disincentive then for small businesses to grow. There is a 
financial incentive to pay your employees less because the tax credit 
that we talked so much about last year goes away as you pay your folks 
more.
  In fact, it is almost as if the folks who wrote this piece of 
legislation last year either have no idea how small business works or 
they don't care how small business works. Either way, the current 
health care legislation is a complete disaster for small business, and 
the number one priority for small business this year should be 
repealing of the existing health care and passing of H.R. 2.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Speaker, in the State of South Carolina as a 
result of this repeal legislation, small businesses in the State of 
South Carolina will see a tax increase of $540 million.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2.

[[Page 361]]

  We know that if we repeal this law, we know the following things will 
happen: Children with preexisting conditions will be denied coverage; 
adult children under the age of 26 will be denied coverage under their 
parents' policy; seniors will pay more for their prescription drugs; 
and small businesses will once again go back to paying nearly 20 
percent more than their corporate counterparts for providing the same 
health care coverage; small businesses would lose the incentive for 
providing coverage to their employees and an up to 50 percent tax 
credit which has already increased coverage at small firms by more than 
10 percent. They would lose the ability to grow their businesses and 
create jobs by using that tax credit to hire additional employees.
  This law establishes consumer protections, incentivizes wellness 
programs, and establishes cost controls and cost-cutting exchanges. For 
small businesses, that means driving down the cost of providing health 
insurance and providing assistance for small businesses that are 
struggling with skyrocketing premiums.
  Currently, small businesses pay, on average, 18 percent more than 
large businesses for the same coverage, and health insurance premiums 
have gone up three times faster than wages in the past 10 years.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

                              {time}  1650

  Mr. CICILLINE. Small business tax credits are critical to providing 
small businesses the opportunity to provide insurance to their 
employees. We made a promise to those small businesses to do everything 
we can to make it easier for them to thrive in this economy, and this 
is a good first step.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this repeal.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann).
  Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Madam Speaker, tonight I rise in support of the 
repeal of ObamaCare.
  This is my first speech on the floor as a Member of Congress, and I 
thought it only appropriate that it be on this topic--a topic I 
campaigned hard on and a topic I believe strongly in.
  We must repeal this health care legislation. As a small business 
owner for the past 24 years, I know firsthand the kind of damage this 
legislation would do to American small business if it is allowed to be 
put in place.
  The National Federation of Independent Research Foundation conducted 
a study that showed the employer mandate found in ObamaCare could lead 
to a loss of 1.6 million jobs throughout the country, and 66 percent of 
those lost jobs would come from the small business workforce. That same 
study showed ``small businesses would lose, roughly, $113 billion in 
real output and account for 56 percent of all real output lost.''
  As a member of the Small Business Committee, I promise to use my 
personal experience to fight every day for small business owners 
everywhere. Starting tonight, we must repeal ObamaCare.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak 
against this bill.
  Even before the recession, my State of North Carolina was losing one 
wave of jobs after another in our traditional industries, and we have 
needed the energy and the job creation that comes from small business--
from people leaving jobs, whether they jump or are pushed, and starting 
their own businesses. Half the American economy, our gross domestic 
product, is generated by small business. Even more importantly, small 
businesses create 75 percent of new jobs.
  By providing access to State high-risk pools and an insurance market 
for individuals, the health care reform bill passed last year will make 
it possible for American workers to start their own businesses without 
worrying they are going to lose health care for themselves or for their 
families.
  I do know firsthand what it is like as a small business owner to buy 
health insurance for employees. It is one of the greatest 
frustrations--trying to find something affordable and trying to figure 
out what you really bought, and you're not going to know until one of 
your employees gets sick or gets hurt.
  This bill, the bill passed last year--this legislation--will make it 
affordable. It will provide tax credits of 35 percent for small 
businesses to provide health insurance, and that is going to go up to 
50 percent. That will increase health care coverage by more than 12 
percent amongst small business owners. Even more importantly, they're 
going to know what they've got. It is going to be insurance that really 
covers what it ought to cover. It is not going to be filled with small-
print exceptions of one kind of care after another, one condition after 
another. Employees are going to get the care they need.
  Reform has freed people who want to start a business to do it without 
worrying about what kind of shape it's going to leave them in and their 
family members in.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill, which will put those 
small businesses back into uncertain land.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute 
to another member of the Small Business Committee, the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler).
  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, 
and I hope this is only a first step in the pursuit of making quality, 
affordable health care available to all Americans.
  This year we have the chance to correct mistakes made by both 
parties. The ObamaCare bill passed by the other party last year was the 
wrong approach. It increases the debt and the deficit for future 
generations while doing nothing to decrease the inflationary curve of 
health care. It was the wrong approach.
  No party is perfect. The last time our party had the majority, while 
there were many on our side of the aisle who worked diligently to 
reform health care, the job was left undone. Getting this right is one 
of the reasons the people of southwest Washington sent me to Congress. 
Now, the good news is that solutions exist that can fix our health care 
system and bring costs down for middle-income families. Today, we hit 
``reset'' on health care reform.
  I invite my Democratic colleagues to join me in advancing solutions 
that help small businesses and middle-income families--solutions like 
small business health plans, ending junk lawsuits that drive up the 
cost of everyone's care, the expanded use of health savings accounts, 
and the ability to purchase health care across State lines.
  These are patient-centered solutions that won't grow government, but 
are solutions that will make health care more affordable and more 
accessible to all Americans. I sincerely hope we vote today to seize 
this chance.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how much 
time remains on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York has 12\1/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Missouri has 15 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
  Mr. TIPTON. Madam Speaker, the question before us is: Will we accept 
what is, or are we willing to commit to build what could be?
  America has always been a land of self-determination. Our 
constitutionally guaranteed rights as individuals, as a people, as a 
Nation have made us flourish. Innovation, creativity, and freedom are 
American hallmarks.
  I rise in support of H.R. 2. It does not indite intent, but it does 
address outcome. In fact, the deeper we dig into the health care act, 
the more we discover that it is stopping job creation,

[[Page 362]]

building more government, and placing tax burdens on American families 
who are already struggling. We can and must do better.
  Let us commit ourselves to addressing the basic concerns we hold in 
common concerning health care--affordability and accessibility. Let us 
strive to empower our people to make their own choices about the care 
they receive, empower private sector solutions that will lower costs 
and increase the quality of care, and eliminate governmental stumbling 
blocks and not build bigger government.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Speaker, today, millions of Americans have 
more freedom to choose and control their health care as a result of the 
Affordable Care Act.
  In my congressional district, nearly 40 percent of my constituents 
were uninsured. Thousands more were underinsured and living on the 
brink of financial disaster when facing a serious illness or accident. 
With health care reform, positive change is taking place for them and 
for individuals, families, and small businesses throughout the country.
  Young adults are grateful they can remain on their parents' insurance 
until age 26; seniors living in fear of not being able to afford their 
medications are thankful for discounts on brand-name drugs when 
reaching the doughnut hole; families with preexisting conditions are 
comforted by the new high-risk insurance pool; and those facing serious 
illness are relieved their insurers can no longer drop them when they 
need coverage the most.
  Small businesses, which abound in my district and which are a 
mainstay in our Latino and minority communities, can take advantage of 
tax credits to offer health insurance to their employees.
  A 2009 study by MIT economist Jonathan Gruber found that, without 
reform, over the next decade employers will pay trillions of dollars in 
employee health costs; will potentially cut 170,000 small business 
jobs; and will lose $51.2 billion in profits. That is why John 
Arensmeyer, founder and CEO of the Small Business Majority, supports 
health care reform.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 2 will hurt small business. It will repeal the 
freedoms and protections Americans now have, and it will return control 
of their health care to the insurance companies.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).
  Mr. LANDRY. Madam Speaker, it is with great enthusiasm that I rise to 
encourage my colleagues to stand with the American people--the 
hardworking families and the small business owners across our country--
and vote for repealing the job-killing health care law.
  In March, Members of Congress passed a massive government-run health 
care law that will kill jobs, raise taxes, and increase the size of our 
Federal Government.

                              {time}  1700

  The bill called for tax increases on American families, wasteful 
spending of taxpayer dollars, and new mandates on small businesses. 
This is wrong. Voters made it clear in November that ``business as 
usual'' must end.
  I submitted the necessary paperwork to decline the health care plan 
offered to Members of Congress. I rejected this benefit because 
Washington must work just like the American people must work. We are 
not above them. I hope my actions will energize the efforts to repeal 
the government-run health care law.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill and to promote 
commonsense solutions of purchasing health insurance across State lines 
and pooling small businesses together to leverage purchasing power.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Walsh).
  Mr. WALSH of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 
2, Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Act.
  I commend the Republican leadership for simplifying this process by 
drafting a two-page, stand-alone bill for repeal. It will be very 
clear, Madam Speaker, to the American people where we stand on repeal.
  During this past campaign, I, like a lot of candidates, spoke to 
small businesses every single day. There is a reason why 90 percent of 
small business men and women in this country support repeal. From the 
billions in taxes, to the needless paperwork, to the burdensome 
regulations, to the 1.6 million estimated job loss, small business men 
and women are adamant that we need to repeal.
  Finally, Madam Speaker, our opposition last year said that if you 
like your plan, you can keep it. To date, there are 222 organizations, 
including some of ObamaCare's biggest union supporters, who have 
received waivers. Why? Why, Madam Speaker, if the law was so worthy, 
would there be a need for waivers?
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Speaker, as a result of this repeal legislation, 
small businesses in the State of Illinois will see a tax increase of 
$1.7 billion.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, when I testified against 
this repeal before the Rules Committee, I told a story about a family 
in my district. The husband lost his job and, therefore, his insurance 
because of a debilitating injury. This family faced a choice: They 
either had to dip into their savings account, their high school son's 
college fund, or they had to sell their house. They chose to first 
spend down the college account so that they could keep a roof over 
their head.
  When I told that story, one Republican on the committee basically 
said, Wait, I don't get it. They had money, they had a house, why 
should somebody else pay for their health care if they had assets?
  Well, that Member was right about one thing: She didn't get it. And 
Republicans don't get it. Because in a nation as compassionate as this, 
no family should be forced out on the street just because one of their 
family members gets sick. There is a moral imperative behind making 
sure that we live up to our duty to be our brother's keeper.
  But it's more than that. There is a fiscal imperative here. What she 
also didn't get was that once that family's savings is gone, once 
they're out on the street, we all pick up the cost. Small businesses 
pick up the cost. That's why small businesses are paying 18 percent 
more than big businesses. That's why about $1,100 of every single 
premium for a small business employee goes to cover the uninsured.
  There are thousands of small businesses in Connecticut organized 
under the auspices of a group called Small Businesses for Health Care 
Reform that are crying out for this repeal to be defeated because they 
see the $260 billion price tag attached to this bill that is going to 
land on their head, as well as the continuation of discriminatory 
practices that ask small businesses to pay for the uninsured like that 
family that I talked about.
  This bill isn't anything more than a political statement, but 
families in my district, small businesses in my district need more than 
politics. They need answers.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the chairman for yielding time.
  I listened to this delivery ahead of me. I spent 28\1/2\ years in 
business. I met payroll for over 1,400 consecutive weeks. I never saw a 
regulation that made my job easier or allowed me to make more money. 
This is 2,400 pages of legislation. It's thousands more pages of 
regulation. It's oppressive to small business. It should be called the 
``Entrepreneurial Extinction Act,'' not this health care plan.
  This is ObamaCare. It must be pulled out completely by the roots. The 
American people know this. That's why there are 87 freshmen Republicans 
on this side and nine freshmen Democrats

[[Page 363]]

on this side. The American people have spoken resoundingly. It is our 
obligation to go down this path. It's not symbolic. It's very 
important. Because without this vote on this floor, we can't move 
forward with the rest of the scenario to eliminate ObamaCare.
  The language in the bill is pretty simple, and it concludes with this 
language, ``act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or 
repealed by such act are restored or revived as if such act had never 
been enacted.''
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Lujan).
  Mr. LUJAN. Madam Speaker, during these difficult economic times that 
we're facing, it's critical that we make job creation a top priority. 
That is why I'm concerned about the impact H.R. 2 will have on small 
businesses.
  The Republican plan will repeal a 35 percent tax credit for small 
businesses that offer health insurance to their employees. It would 
allow insurers to deny a business coverage if their employees had 
preexisting conditions.
  As a result of health insurance reform, New Mexicans no longer face 
this discrimination. If this protection is repealed, having cancer or 
diabetes or even being a victim of domestic violence could lead to a 
denial of insurance. Discrimination for preexisting conditions will be 
alive and well. All of that would be dangerous for New Mexicans.
  People like Yvonne from Santa Fe would once again have to worry about 
losing their health care. Yvonne lost her job when the company she 
worked for was shipped overseas. Yvonne was diabetic, and because of 
the high cost of COBRA, she was forced to ration her medicine. As a 
result, she became gravely ill and had to visit the emergency room. 
There, doctors noticed another problem that required further 
examination. Yet because Yvonne could not afford COBRA and because 
private insurance companies would not insure her because she had 
diabetes, the hospital released her. The only option Yvonne had left 
was to wait 2 months to be seen at the University of New Mexico 
Hospital. After that visit, she was diagnosed with a form of lung 
cancer that would have been caught earlier if she had not been kicked 
out. Yvonne passed away from complications resulting from the cancer, 
having resulted through a system that discriminated against her.
  We simply cannot return to the days when people like Yvonne are 
forced to suffer because of insurance companies' bad practices. Please, 
let's not turn a blind eye on people like Yvonne.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlelady from North Carolina, a nurse and the new chairwoman of the 
Subcommittee on Health Care and Technology, Mrs. Ellmers.
  Mrs. ELLMERS. Madam Speaker, when I ran for Congress, I vowed to 
repeal ObamaCare, and with one of my first votes in the 112th Congress, 
I will do so.
  As a nurse for 20 years, co-owner of a wound care clinic, and in 
practice with my husband in his general surgery practice, we know the 
problems that exist for Americans in health care. Instead of being a 
remedy to these problems, ObamaCare has already done more harm than 
good to both the quality of health care in our country as well as our 
economy. As a nurse, I look for pathways to solutions; this is a 
problematic pathway undoubtably.
  In the face of rising unemployment, unsustainable Federal deficits, 
and overwhelming public opposition, it took more than a year to cobble 
together an unpopular government takeover of health care so riddled 
with provisions that violate right-to-life principles and support 
government rationing of care that it cannot simply be patched.
  ObamaCare is bad for workers. It's bad for employers and bad for 
America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlelady 30 
additional seconds.
  Mrs. ELLMERS. Repealing it allows us to start with a clean slate and 
look at market-based reforms that will actually lower health care 
costs, increase accessibility, let Americans keep the plans they have 
and like, and forestall impending drastic changes that have created 
uncertainty in the lives of so many Americans and businesses.
  To this Congress, I will work with my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to repeal and replace the law's job-killing regulations and 
State-bankrupting mandates. The bill to repeal the so-called 
``Affordable Care Act'' is very simple, and my vote will be to overturn 
this job-killing law.

                              {time}  1710

  To this Congress, I will work with my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to repeal and replace the law's job-killing regulations and State 
bankrupt mandates.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlelady from New York (Ms. Hayworth).
  Ms. HAYWORTH. I rise today in strong support of this legislation to 
repeal the Affordable Care Act.
  As a physician with 16 years of practice experience, I can assure you 
that the Affordable Care Act will, paradoxically, deprive Americans of 
care. It enshrines a third-party payment system that adds to costs; 
then, in the name of controlling costs, transfers power from consumers 
to the government to make crucial decisions that belong in the hands of 
patients and their doctors. It neglects to deal effectively with 
reforms in medical liability that are desperately needed to reduce the 
unconscionable cost of defensive medicine.
  Our vote to repeal is not merely symbolic. It represents the true 
will of the American public, and it will pave the way to reform our 
health care in a way that will allow our citizens to have the good, 
cost-effective health care and affordable, portable health insurance 
they need, while maintaining the quality, choice, and innovation that 
represents the best of American medicine.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Speaker, America is hurting, but the health care law 
passed last year did not fix any problems. It will only make things 
worse. Small businesses can barely make ends meet. And now the Federal 
Government is imposing more mandates, more taxes, and more red tape? 
Enough is enough.
  As a health care provider, a small business owner, and a father, I 
know that the way to provide health care to more individuals and create 
more jobs is not through government bureaucracies, deficit spending, 
and higher taxes. Rather, we need to empower businesses--big and 
small--to band together to purchase health insurance. We need to open 
markets with free competition. We also need to implement real health 
care reform that will lower the cost of care and open up access.
  Tort reform, red tape reform, preexisting conditions reform: these 
are reforms that will work--reforms the current law fails to adequately 
address or ignores altogether.
  If we are serious about putting our Nation back to work, then we can 
start by repealing this onerous health care law and work hand-in-hand 
with the American people to implement true health care reform.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).
  Mr. FITZPATRICK. I rise today in support of the repeal and 
replacement of the so-called Affordable Care Act of 2010 because the 
Affordable Care Act is in fact unaffordable for small businesses and 
individuals who purchase their health insurance.
  Since the implementation of the act, businesses and individuals 
across my home county of Bucks County have seen double-digit premium 
increases. The act is unaffordable for States, already billions in the 
red, that will be

[[Page 364]]

required to shoulder untold millions more in Medicaid costs. The act is 
unaffordable for America's seniors who will see a half-trillion-dollar 
reduction in Medicare spending over the next 10 years. And, finally, 
the act is unaffordable for the American taxpayer who will see a $700 
billion increase in the Federal deficit.
  We must enact real health care reform, tort reform for doctors to 
stop the wasteful practice of defensive medicine, permitting 
individuals real competition of purchase across State lines, and 
enacting and enhancing health saving accounts.
  These are the cornerstones of real health care reform and 
affordability and will make health care affordable and accessible for 
patients, for seniors, States, and for generations of taxpayers to 
come.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how much 
time each side has remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York has 6 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Missouri has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from 
California (Ms. Richardson).
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to 
H.R. 2, the Patient Rights to Appeal of 2010, and I would urge my 
colleagues, let's keep true to the tone of civility. This isn't 
ObamaCare; it's actually called the Affordable Care Act.
  So, Madam Speaker, at a time when Americans finally have a chance to 
see a regular doctor, to prevent sitting in hospital rooms in emergency 
waiting for desperate care, we finally have a chance.
  What does this mean to small businesses? In California and in my own 
hometown, 15,100 small businesses have seen a 50 percent tax credit to 
provide health care for the first time for their employees. Over 16,000 
additional small businesses will now be eligible for health care 
exchanges that will make insurance affordable. In my district, these 
are real people, like Betty Claire in my district.
  Now you're talking about considering something that would prevent 
Medicare for 63,000 beneficiaries, extending coverage to 88,000 
residents in my district. That's what we're talking about, and also 
when you look at guaranteeing 17,000 residents who previously had 
preexisting conditions.
  My colleagues, I will vote ``no'' on H.R. 2. And I also urge my 
colleagues to consider not reversing. It's not time to go back. It's 
time to step forward.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers).
  Mr. STIVERS. I would like to thank the gentleman from Missouri for 
yielding time.
  I rise in support of the health care repeal bill because doing 
otherwise would be supporting the job-killing status quo, and that's 
unacceptable. Whether we start over or we work to fix the current law, 
we must act.
  Moving forward, I'm committed to working with my colleagues in a 
bipartisan manner to support reforms that we agree on, such as helping 
people with preexisting conditions get access and allowing young adults 
to stay on their parents' plan.
  But I'm equally committed to eliminating the job-killing portions of 
the current law, such as the burdensome mandate and the 1099 
requirement in the legislation.
  A small business owner from my district, Cathy, called us the other 
day and wanted to talk to me about the burdens of the 1099 provision. 
She called it a nightmare. It will increase her burden by 12 times.
  The bottom line is we need to work to lower health care costs for 
families and allow a more patient-centered approach while not placing 
unnecessary burdens on the backs of small business and job creators.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack).
  Mr. WOMACK. I thank the gentleman from Missouri for the time.
  Throughout this debate there's been a lot of talk about jobs. And 
there should be. There is little doubt that this law impacts American 
workers. Take, for example, Baldor Electric in Fort Smith, Arkansas. 
Madam Speaker, this is a company that has 6,000 employees across 
America, and the impact of the health care law in the first year alone 
is $2.9 million. How does a company like Baldor absorb that cost? By 
further automating its processes and through attrition, allowing 50 
jobs to disappear.
  Eliminating 50 jobs in the first year of this law for a company like 
Baldor--not to mention thousands of companies across America similarly 
situated--is not my idea of restoring economic prosperity for America.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2 and begin the process of 
crafting a meaningful, affordable, and workable solution. That's the 
way forward.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Weiner).
  Mr. WEINER. I'm curious. Any of the Members who have spoken about the 
impact on small business, are any of them in favor of the tax incentive 
that is provided on small businesses to provide health care? Of course 
they are.
  Now, they might not know it's in the bill because to listen to the 
rhetoric--and a lot of them can be forgiven; they just came off the 
campaign trail. They were used to saying glib things like ``government 
takeover,'' ``job killing.'' But I would urge you to read the bill. 
Small businesses get a 30 to 50 percent tax incentive to provide health 
care for their workers. Small businesses do.

                              {time}  1720

  And do you know what requirements they have to go along with that? 
None. No gaudy regulation, no government takeover. And just a word on 
this whole government takeover thing. I mean I love you guys, and I 
know you are caught up in the rhetoric of the campaign, this is tax 
breaks that are going to go to citizens to buy, wait for it, private 
insurance policies. Where is the government takeover in that?
  Now, some of us believe that Medicare, which of course you refer to 
as a government takeover of health care, and I am sure you are opposed 
to that as well, some of us believe that, frankly, the insurance 
companies aren't providing a lot of value-added here. But they are the 
beneficiaries of this plan.
  Small businesses today, if the Republicans are successful, will lose 
that tax incentive. Think that will create a lot of jobs, guys? It's 
not going to. And you think small businesses benefit when they don't 
provide health insurance and then people go to hospital emergency rooms 
to get their care? Who do you think pays that bill? The bill fairy? 
Your taxpayers. Your taxpayers in your States.
  Now, what's your solution? Well, they don't have a solution. We know 
what they are against. They are against health reform. We don't know 
what they are for. Welcome to the Republican majority.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gibson).
  Mr. GIBSON. I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding.
  I rise today to express the sentiments of my district in upstate New 
York. With health care costs continuing to rise at several times the 
rate of inflation year after year, clearly we need reform. Health care 
costs were 4.7 percent of the GDP in 1960. They are over 17 percent 
today. We must drive down costs. But the bill passed last year is not 
the answer. We're going to end up with higher costs, higher premiums, 
higher taxes, and more burdensome regulation, and more big government 
at a time we should be consolidating.
  We need to start over again and arrive at a patient-centered bill, 
not the government-centered plan we got last year. I believe we can 
find solutions that drive down costs and expand access without hurting 
small businesses and without stepping on our freedoms.
  This bill passed last year dramatically expands the government's 
involvement in the delivery of health care, which is already 
significantly increasing premiums in my district and

[[Page 365]]

 stifling job creation. I believe that both sides of the aisle believe 
that we should be focusing on job creation. This is not the way 
forward. Indeed, the new taxes and regulations will hurt our small 
businesses, including the medical device industry, a sector of the 
economy where our region leads the Nation.
  Ultimately, the new law, if not repealed, will hurt families across 
my district and across America. Moreover, the changes to the Medicaid 
program will put additional burdens on States already facing very 
difficult challenges.
  I plan to vote for repeal. And then later this week, I plan to vote 
for House Resolution 9, so that we can instruct committees to report a 
replacement bill that includes insurance reform for wider access to 
options and choices, and medical liability reform to rein in defensive 
medicine practices. I think we should engage in a civil, bipartisan 
discussion with our colleagues across the aisle. Our replacement bill 
should include coverage for preexisting conditions and ensure that 
coverage can't be dropped when you are sick.
  Ultimately, I believe the fate of this repeal effort will hinge on 
the content and quality of the replacement bill. If we bring forward in 
this House a new plan that drives down costs, increases access, while 
protecting choices and the patient-doctor relationship, I believe the 
American people, evaluating the two respective plans side by side, will 
pressure the Senate and the President to repeal and replace, because we 
need reform, but the bill last year is not the answer. It's time to 
start over.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York has 3 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Missouri has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I would like to inquire through the Chair how many 
speakers the gentleman has remaining.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. I don't have any more speakers, and I am 
prepared to close.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Speaker, this is the most remarkable of all 
Chambers where discussions take place, because in this Chamber if you 
say something that is not true, often enough somebody will believe that 
it's actually true. What I have heard today on the floor I am just 
going, well, that's a marvelous thing, when in fact our colleagues on 
the Republican side want to enact reforms that are already in place. 
Already in place is the Patients' Bill of Rights. No rescisions. No 
preexisting conditions. Children being able to stay, or young adults 
being able to stay on their parents' policies until the age of 26. They 
say they want it--it's already the law of America. Wow. What are we 
going to repeal? You are going to repeal that?
  You want small businesses to be well taken care of? Well, so do we. 
That's why, if you employ less than 50 people as a small business you 
don't have any requirements at all. But if you want to provide health 
insurance to your employees, wow, the government's going to give you a 
subsidy, 35 percent now, building to 50 percent in the years ahead. 
What's wrong with that? Where's the harm to small business? What in the 
world are our colleagues talking about here? I don't get it. It's in 
the law already.
  Everything I have heard here in the last half hour is the law of 
America. So why are you repealing it? So you can have the insurance 
companies get another shot at taking over the care of patients, which 
is exactly what they do, and exactly what I know because I was the 
insurance commissioner for 8 years in California, and I know what the 
insurance companies do. They are the ones that make the decisions. We 
don't want that to happen. That's why the Patients' Bill of Rights is 
the law in America today. The Patients' Bill of Rights would be 
repealed by this H.R. 2. Not good for Americans. Not good. Some 30 
million people would lose their opportunity for insurance.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Speaker, what will small businesses lose if 
health care reform is repealed? The small business tax credit of up to 
50 percent will be lost. Insurers will be able to continue price 
gouging. Insurers will be able to deny small businesses coverage 
without any justification. New health insurance options for small 
businesses will be eliminated. Small businesses will be unable to pool 
resources to purchase coverage. Insurers will be able to delay small 
businesses' access to health insurance. New health options for the 
self-employed will be abolished.
  I urge a ``no'' vote. And I hope that we spend the remainder of this 
Congress on measures that truly get small businesses hiring and 
creating jobs. What we need is to get this economy back on track. By 
repealing health care reform, we will not achieve that.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Madam Speaker, some of my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle continue to claim that the health care law is 
actually going to benefit small businesses despite the mountain of 
facts that are out there. Specifically, and what was argued earlier, is 
that the health care tax credit's going to make it easier for employers 
to offset the costs that are being required to provide health 
insurance. Unfortunately, this is far from the truth. Any potential 
assistance from this tax credit is far outweighed by the tax increases 
and paperwork burdens that this law is going to pile on small 
businesses.
  Madam Speaker, the American people spoke loudly in November. And we 
need to make sure that we move away from the health care law that 
penalizes our Nation's entrepreneurs and place a renewed focus on 
enacting targeted, commonsense reforms that increase access and lowers 
costs.
  Madam Speaker, with that I would urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 
2, and let's get back on track.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I'm proud to join my Democratic colleagues 
on the floor this afternoon to state our unequivocal stance against 
health care reform repeal.
  The landmark health reform law takes a stand against the health care 
disparities that exist for low-income Americans, people of color, and 
people with pre-existing conditions.
  Twenty percent of African-Americans were uninsured in the United 
States, and 32 percent of the Hispanic population was uninsured.
  Though African-American women are 10 percent less likely to get 
breast cancer than white women, we are 34 percent more likely to die 
from it. And Hispanic women are twice as likely to die from cervical 
cancer as White women.
  Both African-American and Mexican-American men are 30 percent more 
likely to die from heart disease than White Americans.
  Hispanic men were one-and-a-half times as likely to die from diabetes 
as White Americans, and African-Americans were 2.2 times as likely to 
die from diabetes as compared to White Americans.
  Finally, though they comprise 15 percent of the U.S. population, 
Hispanics make up 17 percent of new HIV infections. And more 
shockingly, though we make up only 12 percent of the U.S. population, 
African Americans are 45 percent of new HIV infections.
  Many Americans are suffering from a lack of access to health care 
because health insurance is simply unaffordable. This problem has 
existed for far too long in the most prosperous nation in the world. 
Meaningful health care must be available for all Americans regardless 
of race, level of income, gender, or the existence of a pre-existing 
condition. That's why the health care reform law specifically addresses 
these disparities and other pre-existing conditions and makes it 
illegal to be denied health care insurance because of them.
  So I implore my Republican colleagues to work with us to strengthen 
the law, make it better, and provide health care and jobs to millions 
of Americans.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 
consideration of this bill is postponed.

                          ____________________