[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11611-11628]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   FAIRNESS FOR AMERICAN FAMILIES ACT

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 300, 
I call up the bill (H.R. 2668) to delay the application of the 
individual health insurance mandate, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 300, the bill 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 2668

       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 ``Fairness for American 
     Families Act''.

     SEC. 2. DELAY IN APPLICATION OF INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE 
                   MANDATE.

       (a) In General.--Section 5000A(a) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``2013'' and inserting 
     ``2014''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 5000A(c)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended--
       (A) by striking ``2014'' in clause (i) and inserting 
     ``2015'', and
       (B) by striking ``2015'' in clauses (ii) and (iii) and 
     inserting ``2016''.
       (2) Section 5000A(c)(3)(B) of such Code is amended--
       (A) by striking ``2014'' and inserting ``2015'', and
       (B) by striking ``2015'' (prior to amendment by 
     subparagraph (A)) and inserting ``2016''.
       (3) Section 5000A(c)(3)(D) of such Code is amended--
       (A) by striking ``2016'' and inserting ``2017'', and
       (B) by striking ``2015'' and inserting ``2016''.
       (4) Section 5000A(e)(1)(D) of such Code is amended--
       (A) by striking ``2014'' and inserting ``2015'', and
       (B) by striking ``2013'' and inserting ``2014''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in section 1501 of the 
     Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) and 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.


                             General Leave

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2668.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 2668, the 
Fairness for American Families Act. The administration says that they 
invited business to come in and explain how the cost and the complexity 
of ObamaCare was hurting business and hurting the economy, and they 
granted business relief appropriately.
  Mr. Speaker, why hasn't the administration invited the American 
people into the halls of government?
  Why hasn't the White House listened to the concerns of the American 
people about the cost and the complexity of ObamaCare for American 
families?
  Have American families seen a $2,500 premium decrease as promised by 
the President?
  No. In fact, premiums have gone up.
  The American people don't understand this law any better than the 
employers, employers who can hire lawyers and consultants and health 
benefits experts. In fact, individuals who have no help understand this 
law even less than business; yet the administration granted relief only 
to business.
  Mr. Speaker, it's clear: the President has now admitted it. His law, 
ObamaCare, is not ready. Deadlines have been missed. System testing is 
not complete. Income verification systems are not in place.
  In the words of Senator Baucus, the train wreck is happening.

[[Page 11612]]

  The law should be repealed, Mr. Speaker. President Obama disagrees 
with that, and that's unfortunate. But we all should be able to come 
together on the simple principle of fairness. If business gets a 1-year 
delay, the American people ought to get a 1-year delay. It's a simple 
principle.
  If ObamaCare is behind schedule, the American people should not have 
to bear the burdens alone. They should get the same delay as business.
  I urge my colleagues to come together today and to advance this very 
simple principle that this government will treat its citizens fairly 
and equally.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, now we get to the real bill. If the Republicans can't 
repeal the Affordable Care Act, they're going to try and rot it from 
the inside.
  For the last few days, my Republican colleagues have been spinning 
this vote as a great populist effort to help the middle class. They 
explain that, even with these repeals, we can keep all the things we 
like, covering our kids till age 26, prescription drug help, banning 
the denial of coverage for those with preexisting conditions.
  And legally, they aren't wrong. They're not lying. They're just 
confusing the people. These laws will still be in place; but 
realistically, in the real world in which we live, it will be hard to 
cover your kids and subsidize drugs if the insurance industry no longer 
exists in this country.
  Without the healthy consumers the mandate guarantees, only the 
sickest and the costliest will be left, and prices will skyrocket.
  We have a letter from the Congressional Budget Office that says that 
if we delay this, you can expect that the prices of insurance will go 
up and fewer people will be covered.
  The reason you don't see any fur flying is because the insurance 
industry knows this isn't going anywhere. This is just a lot of 
political theater.
  In Washington, we tried this. In 1993, the Democrats put in universal 
coverage and guaranteed issue. Everybody had a mandate, and you were 
going to get it. The insurance companies couldn't do otherwise. Two 
years later, the Republicans repealed the guaranteed mandate, leaving 
the insurance industry covering the sickest in the State of Washington. 
Within 3 years, there were no individual policies sold in the State of 
Washington.
  We have run this game once in Washington State, and you are coming 
out here today and running it again. It's been tried in other States. 
You cannot have universal coverage without a mandate. You cannot have 
insurance reform that guarantees everybody insurance.
  Now, this isn't prophecy on my part. This has happened. A lot of what 
you hear about around here is that people are talking, well, gee, we 
got these terrible insurance rates going up.
  They're not going up in Washington in our exchange. They're not going 
up in Oregon in the exchange. They're not going up in California in the 
exchange. Today, New York reports they're not going up in New York.
  Anybody who stands out here and says insurance rates are out of sight 
simply is misleading the people.
  We ought to vote ``no'' on this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                    Washington, DC, July 16, 2013.
     Hon. Dave Camp,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee 
     on Taxation (JCT) have begun a review of H.R. 2668, the 
     Fairness for American Families Act, but we have not yet 
     completed a cost estimate for the bill. On a preliminary 
     basis, however, we expect that enacting H.R. 2668 would have 
     the effect of reducing the deficit in 2014 and over the 2014-
     2023 period. That initial conclusion is based on our prior 
     work on proposals to repeal the individual mandate 
     established in the Affordable Care Act.
       The legislation would delay for one year the requirement 
     that nearly every resident of the United States have health 
     insurance coverage by January 1, 2014. The bill also would 
     shift by one year the schedule of penalties for people who do 
     not comply with the mandate.
       CBO and JCT expect that, during the period of delayed 
     phase-in of the penalty for failing to comply with the 
     mandate, health insurance premiums for individually purchased 
     coverage would be higher under H.R. 2668 than they are 
     projected to be under current law. In addition, the number of 
     people with health insurance coverage would be reduced 
     relative to current law.
       I hope you find this preliminary information useful; if you 
     wish further details, we will be pleased to provide them.
           Sincerely,
                                             Douglas W. Elmendorf.
       Enclosure.
                                  ____


                  [From Bloomberg News, June 16, 2012]

     Health Reform Without a Mandate: Lessons From Washington State

                            (By Sarah Kliff)

       If the Supreme Court overturns the health reform law's 
     individual mandate--a decision that could come as soon as 
     Monday--it won't be totally unknown territory. For Washington 
     state, it would be quite familiar.
       Washington state attempted to pursue health insurance 
     without an individual mandate.
       In 1993, Washington also passed a law both guaranteeing all 
     residents access to private health insurance, regardless of 
     their health status, and requiring Washingtonians to purchase 
     coverage.
       The state legislature, however, repealed that last 
     provision two years later. With the guaranteed access 
     provisions still standing, the state saw premiums rise and 
     enrollment drop, as residents only purchased coverage when 
     they needed it. Health insurers fled the state and, by 1999, 
     it was impossible to buy an individual plan in Washington--no 
     company was selling.
       Washington state is among a handful of states that have 
     pursued universal access to health insurance. The challenges 
     they have faced could give some clues about the federal 
     overhaul's fate should the mandate get struck down. ``There 
     are seven states that tried this in the mid-1990s and, in 
     every case, it was a disaster,'' said M.I.T. health care 
     economist Jonathan Gruber, who worked on both Massachusetts' 
     reform law and the Affordable Care Act. ``It became pretty 
     clear that, if you want a market to work, you need a 
     mandate.''
       Washington state began pursuing health reform in 1990, when 
     the state legislature created a commission to study how best 
     to provide universal coverage for its 5 million residents. 
     The commission weighed a single-payer scheme, where state 
     would create and run its own health plan. It ultimately 
     settled on a ``managed competition'' model, where the state 
     would play a greater role in regulating the insurance market.
       ``There were essentially three goals of the law: To cover 
     everybody, to reduce the rate of health-care cost growth by 
     managing competition better and to improve health care 
     outcomes,'' says Aaron Katz, a University of Washington 
     health policy professor who served on the commission.
       Starting on July 1, 1993, health insurance companies were 
     required to accept all state residents who applied for 
     coverage. The new law also barred health plans from charging 
     sick subscribers more, a practice known as underwriting. The 
     requirement to purchase coverage, meanwhile, was not slated 
     to take effect until five years later, in 1998.
       That never came to be. After Republicans took control of 
     the Washington state House in 1994, the state repealed its 
     individual mandate. The guaranteed issue provision, however, 
     remained on the books.
       ``The legislature was loath to repeal the insurance reforms 
     because those were very popular,'' says Aaron Katz, a health 
     policy professor at the University of Washington, who advised 
     the legislature on the issue. ``That put the insurance 
     companies in a bind.''
       The bind they were in was this: The only people buying 
     health insurance were those who foresaw having high medical 
     costs. That drove health insurance premiums up. As premiums 
     went up, and insurance became less affordable, enrollment 
     decreased significantly.
       As one report from the Washington state Insurance 
     Commissioner's Office described it, the insurance market has 
     entered a ``death spiral,'' with customers only buying 
     coverage ``when they needed it.''
       Jonathan Hensley, who then served as the president of local 
     health plan Premera Blue Cross, recalls one letter he got 
     from a healthy woman cancelling her insurance policy.
       ``She wrote in her letter that she very much appreciated 
     our excellent service [and] that she would certainly pick our 
     plan again when she became pregnant,'' says Hensley, who now 
     works for another health insurer in Washington, Cambia.
       Big premium spikes indicated that many Washingtonians were 
     making similar decisions: Premera Blue Cross, increased 
     premiums on its most popular product by 78 percent over the 
     course of three years.
       Health insurance companies, meanwhile, were losing money--
     and leaving the state. Between 1993 and 1998, 17 health 
     insurance carriers had left the state's individual market. 
     The two remaining plans--Regence Blue

[[Page 11613]]

     Shield and Group Health, a health maintenance organization--
     stopped writing policies in 1999. Washington state's 
     individual market was essentially dead.
       ``What effectively happened was you got to this tipping 
     point, where we couldn't afford to do business, and 
     individual coverage was simply not available,'' says Hensley.
       Hensley, along with other health-care stakeholders, met 
     with then-Gov. Gary Locke to discuss new legislation to fix 
     the insurance market. In 2000, the Washington state 
     legislature significantly modified its guaranteed issue 
     policy. Insurers would still have to cover most residents, 
     but those with pre-existing conditions could be required to 
     wait nine months for the policy to kick in. The very sickest 
     applicants would, meanwhile, would be eligible for coverage 
     in a high-risk insurance pool administered by the state.
       Washington state's insurance market now has nine companies 
     selling individual policies, compared to the 19 that 
     participated in 1993. Thirteen percent of Washington state 
     residents currently lack health coverage, the same number as 
     when the health reform experiment started.
       Washington state's experience does not make a perfect 
     analogy for what would happen to the federal law, should its 
     individual mandate get struck down. The Affordable Care Act 
     has premium subsidies, for example, that could encourage more 
     individuals to purchase coverage. It also allows insurance 
     companies to charge older subscribers three times as much as 
     young enrollees; in Washington, everyone had to receive the 
     same rate.
       Some, however, do see parallels between the role that the 
     individual mandate played in Washington state's law--and 
     could play in the law passed in Washington, D.C.
       ``Washington state's experience demonstrated that passing 
     market reforms without requiring broad participation in the 
     system does not work,'' said Karen Ignagni, President of 
     America's Health Insurance Plans. ``The linkage is 
     essential.''
       Washington state, for its part, filed an amicus brief with 
     the Supreme Court on the health reform law, that drew heavily 
     from its own experience.
       ``We also know, from Washington state's own experience, 
     that insurance coverage for pre-existing medical conditions 
     must go hand in hand with the minimum insurance coverage 
     requirements,'' Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire, a 
     Democrat, said in a statement accompanying her filing.

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young), the author of the bill, 
recognizing his wisdom and his diligence in working on this issue and 
recognizing that fairness was absolutely vital on this issue.
  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on July 2, the President announced 
the delay of ObamaCare's employer mandate tax. Now, we know this is 
great for business, for those businesses that have the resources, the 
lobbyists, the accountants and so on to get their message out to 
Congress and the administration. But it does little for hardworking 
American individuals and families.
  A government of the people, by the people, and for the people must be 
a government that is fair to all of its citizens. It's simply unfair to 
give business a pass, but not to give such treatment to rank-and-file 
Americans.
  So that's why I introduced H.R. 2668, the Fairness for American 
Families Act. The bill gives individuals the same reprieve from 
ObamaCare that our President gives to Big Business.
  Under current law, individuals must buy insurance on January 1 or pay 
a tax. My bill would merely delay implementation of the individual 
mandate tax for 1 year as well.
  It's worth noting that the individual tax is just as confusing to 
hardworking Americans as the employer tax is to businesses; but 
families don't have teams of accountants and lawyers to help them 
comply with ObamaCare.
  It isn't getting any easier either. On July 5, an additional 145 
pages of regulations were promulgated by this administration related to 
the individual tax. So how are ordinary Americans supposed to keep up 
with all of this?
  That's why poll after poll shows that the individual mandate tax is 
so unpopular. In fact, only 12 percent of Americans like it.
  The White House said they delayed the employer tax because it's too 
darn complex for businesses. Well, I hear from my constituents every 
day that the individual tax is just as confusing. They want relief.
  The President only wants to give relief to some. I think all of our 
constituents deserve relief. And with that in mind, I ask my colleagues 
from both political parties, let's take off our political blinders for 
once. Let's do the right thing here, and let's support the Fairness for 
American Families Act.
  Let's provide the same relief to America's families that the Obama 
administration has granted to Big Business. That's only fair.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I will insert for the Record the report 
on the Ninth District of Indiana and the people who will benefit from 
that bill when it goes into effect on the first of October.

    Benefits of the Health Care Reform Law in the 9th Congressional 
                          District of Indiana


 Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and 
           the Workforce, Democratic Staff Report, July 2013

       The landmark Affordable Care Act (ACA) began delivering 
     important new benefits and protections to tens of millions of 
     American families almost immediately after it was signed into 
     law by President Obama. But the largest benefits of the law 
     will become available to consumers on October 1, 2013, when 
     health insurance marketplaces open in all 50 states. These 
     marketplaces will offer individuals, families, and small 
     businesses an efficient, transparent, one-stop shop to 
     compare health insurance policies, receive financial 
     assistance, and sign up for high-quality, affordable, and 
     secure insurance coverage.
       This fact sheet summarizes new data on the significant 
     benefits of the health care reform law in Rep. Young's 
     district. It also provides the first picture of the impacts 
     of the law in districts redrawn or newly created following 
     the 2010 Census. As a result of the law:
       8,300 young adults in the district now have health 
     insurance through their parents' plan.
       More than 9,300 seniors in the district received 
     prescription drug discounts worth $13.7 million, an average 
     discount of $680 per person in 2011, $720 in 2012, and $700 
     thus far in 2013.
       110,000 seniors in the district are now eligible for 
     Medicare preventive services without paying any co-pays, 
     coinsurance, or deductible.
       213,000 individuals in the district--including 45,000 
     children and 86,000 women--now have health insurance that 
     covers preventive services without any co-pays, coinsurance, 
     or deductible.
       135,000 individuals in the district are saving money due to 
     ACA provisions that prevent insurance companies from spending 
     more than 20% of their premiums on profits and administrative 
     overhead. Because of these protections, over 33,800 consumers 
     in the district received approximately $4.4 million in 
     insurance company rebates in 2012 and 2011--an average rebate 
     of $157 per family in 2012 and $99 per family in 2011.
       Up to 40,000 children in the district with preexisting 
     health conditions can no longer be denied coverage by health 
     insurers.
       255,000 individuals in the district now have insurance that 
     cannot place lifetime limits on their coverage and will not 
     face annual limits on coverage starting in 2014.
       Up to 91,000 individuals in the district who lack health 
     insurance will have access to quality, affordable coverage 
     without fear of discrimination or higher rates because of a 
     preexisting health condition. In addition, the 35,000 
     individuals who currently purchase private health insurance 
     on the individual or small group market will have access to 
     more secure, higher quality coverage and many will be 
     eligible for financial assistance.

  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Butterfield).
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Let me thank you, Mr. McDermott, for yielding time, 
and thank you for your leadership on this issue. I've watched you for 
years doing your work, and you are consistent. I thank you so very 
much.
  Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill. You know, I've kind of lost 
track. I think it's 38 times that the Republican-controlled House has 
voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, either in whole or in part.
  Why are my colleagues wasting valuable time legislating on what 
amounts to nothing more than a talking point and something they know 
has no chance, no chance of becoming law?
  Why is discrediting this President at the top of their agenda?
  Let me remind my colleagues that there is real work to be done here 
on this floor on behalf of the American people. Maybe my friends 
somehow forget student loan interest rates doubled on July 1. Maybe 
they forget that they rammed through a farm bill that, for the first 
time since 1973, was without a nutrition title, leaving the door open 
for food banks to be closed and for millions of needy Americans to go 
hungry.
  But, no, they didn't forget. I suggest that many of them just do not 
care.

[[Page 11614]]

  Today, for the 38th time, Mr. Speaker, we vote on a bill that would 
delay better health care, delay fixing the problem of uncompensated 
care from emergency room visits, and delay access to good, affordable 
health care for millions of good Americans.
  Therefore, I come to the floor today to urge my colleagues to oppose 
H.R. 2668. I ask you to vote ``no'' on this ill-conceived legislation.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would remind my friend that it's 
the President who has delayed the employer mandate in this arena. All 
we're looking for is fairness and equality for the American people.
  I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Paulsen), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, from the beginning, it was clear to many 
Americans that ObamaCare was far too burdensome, far too complex, and 
far too bureaucratic to be successfully implemented. And now it appears 
the Obama administration agrees.
  Just a few weeks ago, the administration announced on a blog post a 
1-year delay of the employer mandate, admitting that it is unworkable.
  Now, I've advised hundreds of businesses in Minnesota and have heard 
loud and clear the concerns that Obama's mandates and rules mean 
increased costs, higher taxes, fewer hours for workers, lost jobs and 
layoffs. But it's not fair that the administration is choosing to let 
the individual mandate take effect, letting millions of average 
Americans be hit with a mandate and new financial penalties.
  Why is the administration only concerned about protecting business, 
but not hardworking American taxpayers?
  Today we have an opportunity to also delay the individual mandate in 
order to protect all Americans. This is an issue of fairness. Average 
Americans are struggling under this law and they need relief. They need 
protection, and they need real health care reform.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the report on the 
Third Congressional District of Minnesota and the people who will 
benefit from this act.

    Benefits of the Health Care Reform Law in the 3rd Congressional 
                         District of Minnesota


 Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and 
           the Workforce, Democratic Staff Report, July 2013

       The landmark Affordable Care Act (ACA) began delivering 
     important new benefits and protections to tens of millions of 
     American families almost immediately after it was signed into 
     law by President Obama. But the largest benefits of the law 
     will become available to consumers on October 1, 2013, when 
     health insurance marketplaces open in all 50 states. These 
     marketplaces will offer individuals, families, and small 
     businesses an efficient, transparent, one-stop-shop to 
     compare health insurance policies, receive financial 
     assistance, and sign up for high-quality, affordable, and 
     secure insurance coverage.
       This fact sheet summarizes new data on the significant 
     benefits of the health care reform law in Rep. Paulsen's 
     district. It also provides the first picture of the impacts 
     of the law in districts redrawn or newly created following 
     the 2010 Census. As a result of the law:
       3,300 young adults in the district now have health 
     insurance through their parents' plan.
       More than 8,800 seniors in the district received 
     prescription drug discounts worth $12.2 million, an average 
     discount of $620 per person in 2011, $680 in 2012, and $1,070 
     thus far in 2013.
       108,000 seniors in the district are now eligible for 
     Medicare preventive services without paying any co-pays, 
     coinsurance, or deductible.
       220,000 individuals in the district--including 54,000 
     children and 87,000 women--now have health insurance that 
     covers preventive services without any co-pays, coinsurance, 
     or deductible.
       150,000 individuals in the district are saving money due to 
     ACA provisions that prevent insurance companies from spending 
     more than 20% of their premiums on profits and administrative 
     overhead. Because of these protections, over 16,600 consumers 
     in the district received approximately $1.4 million in 
     insurance company rebates in 2012 and 2011--an average rebate 
     of $303 per family in 2012 and $160 per family in 2011.
       Up to 40,000 children in the district with preexisting 
     health conditions can no longer be denied coverage by health 
     insurers.
       282,000 individuals in the district now have insurance that 
     cannot place lifetime limits on their coverage and will not 
     face annual limits on coverage starting in 2014.
       53,000 individuals in the district who lack health 
     insurance will have access to quality, affordable coverage 
     without fear of discrimination or higher rates because of a 
     preexisting health condition. In addition, the 42,000 
     individuals who currently purchase private health insurance 
     on the individual or small group market will have access to 
     more secure, higher quality coverage and many will be 
     eligible for financial assistance.

  I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). 
He's been here for a number of years, always fighting for health care, 
and he is living proof that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. 
He's here today fighting for health care, just like he did the first 
day he got here.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for the time; and I 
rise in strong opposition to the seriously misnamed H.R. 2668, Fairness 
for American Families Act. It's a lot of baloney. This is nothing more 
than a sorry political stunt that would undermine the critical portions 
of the Affordable Care Act, which is already bringing enormous benefits 
to the American people.
  Delaying the individual mandate by 1 year will simply undercut ACA 
when it is the time that we must be focusing on fully implementing the 
law. Just today, we found that the health insurance premiums in New 
York are going to fall by an average of 50 percent when the exchanges 
are up and running. Other States can do the same thing, and that is the 
experience which we're finding across the country. This is happening 
elsewhere.

                              {time}  1645

  I would point out that repealing the individual mandate is going to 
cost Americans additional health care costs, not decrease them.
  Let us move forward with the implementation. I ask my Republican 
colleagues to cooperate with us in that goal. I ask them to work with 
us to better the welfare of the American people by seeing to it that 
this comes into law. The Congress has spoken and the American people 
approve. I say that it is time for us to provide real benefits to the 
American people rather than continue playing these sorry and tired 
political games.
  I say shame on those of us who are wasting the time of this body. Let 
us address the problems of the economy. Let us deal with jobs, 
employment. Let us deal with student loans, where the interest rate is 
doubling. Let us see to it that we implement this law which will do 
away with things that are so hurtful to the American people, such as 
having Americans unable to get insurance because they have a 
preexisting condition or where insurance companies can cancel a policy 
because people are getting sick. It is time for us to deal with the 
real problems.
  Einstein observed that insanity is doing the same thing over and over 
again with the full expectation that the results are going to be 
different, but getting the same result. I say this country needs better 
leadership, better understanding, and a Congress that will work on 
behalf of the American people. As I look around, I do not see that on 
this floor today.
  Again, I say shame. This is a terrible, terrible waste of the 
people's money and the people's time. It costs a lot for us to make 
this Congress meet and to conduct its business, and we are wasting that 
time now with this kind of nonsensical legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to both H.R. 2667, the 
Authority for Mandate Delay Act, and H.R. 2668, the Fairness for 
American Families Act. Here we are once again taking another cheap shot 
at the Affordable Care Act (ACA), rather than working to continue 
providing its benefits to the American people. Both pieces of 
legislation are political stunts which will not help Americans get 
access to quality, affordable health care
  There is no need for passage of H.R. 2667 since the President has 
already acted to delay by one year the employer responsibility 
requirements under ACA. Given the fact that this type of change has 
long been sought by my friends on the other side of the aisle and their 
allies, you would think they would be praising the President for taking 
this action. Instead, they have done nothing but used this as another 
opportunity to score cheap political points, which is very telling.
  Although I wish the employer responsibility provision would be 
implemented on time, the

[[Page 11615]]

fact of the matter is that this delay will have very little practical 
impact. Over ninety six percent of large employers already offer health 
coverage to their employees. It is important that we take our time in 
getting these new reporting requirements right, which is exactly what 
the President is doing. Since the President has already acted in this 
manner, H.R. 2667 is duplicative and unnecessary.
  H.R. 2668 also should be rejected by this body. The individual 
mandate is the cornerstone of the ACA, and the Supreme Court has 
affirmed its constitutionality. Simply put, delaying the implementation 
of the individual mandate is just a back door attempt to undermine the 
entire law. The Affordable Care Act has already brought many benefits 
to the American people. Thanks to the law, 206,000 people in my 
district have access to preventative services without a co-pay, and 
8,500 young adults have health insurance through their parents' plan. 
Adopting this bill today would jeopardize this progress we have made in 
recent years.
  Today we received news that health insurance premiums will fall by an 
average of 50 percent in New York once their exchanges are up and 
running in 2014. The individual mandate is a key reason for this. For 
years, New York had a prohibition on discriminating against individuals 
with a pre-existing condition. However, the State did not require all 
individuals to purchase insurance, which caused rates to skyrocket. The 
individual mandate, combined with the new health insurance 
marketplaces, are in large part responsible for this precipitous 
decline in insurance rates in New York. We should ensure that these 
results are replicated in my home State of Michigan and across the rest 
of the country. Repealing the individual mandate will increase 
Americans' health care costs, not decrease them.
  I hope we can come together and work in a bipartisan manner to 
improve our health care system and provide real benefits to the 
American people. Until that day comes, I urge my colleagues to join me 
in voting against these two pieces of legislation, as they are nothing 
more than political stunts which do nothing to address the problems we 
face as a Nation.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a fellow 
physician colleague in the United States House, the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Roe).
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in strong support of the Fairness for American Families Act. 
As chairman of the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pension Subcommittee, 
I've held three hearings outside the Beltway--one in North Carolina--
where we talked to businesses and individuals about the effect of the 
Affordable Care Act on them and their businesses.
  Let me just tell you about some people that I heard from. One was a 
divorced server in a restaurant that had her hours cut from 40 to 29 so 
that the company could stay in business. This woman now is missing an 
entire week's worth of hours every single month. She can't pay her 
bills unless she gets another job. The same problem for adjunct 
professors at the local community college.
  And now, the audacity of what we've done is we've forced businesses 
to cut these hours, where they make less money, and then penalize you 
when you don't buy something. That's wrong. The right thing to do is to 
delay this for both individuals and businesses so they can work out the 
problems. That was the President's suggestion. I strongly support this 
bill.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, according to a report on the First 
Congressional District of Tennessee, 5,800 young adults have insurance 
on their parents' plan, 13,000 seniors receive prescription drug 
benefit reductions, and 168,000 seniors are now eligible for preventive 
care that's free. And on and on it goes.

    Benefits of the Health Care Reform Law in the 1st Congressional 
                         District of Tennessee


 committees on energy and commerce, ways and means, and education and 
           the workforce, democratic staff report, july 2013

       The landmark Affordable Care Act (ACA) began delivering 
     important new benefits and protections to tens of millions of 
     American families almost immediately after it was signed into 
     law by President Obama. But the largest benefits of the law 
     will become available to consumers on October 1, 2013, when 
     health insurance marketplaces open in all 50 states. These 
     marketplaces will offer individuals, families, and small 
     businesses an efficient, transparent one-stop shop to compare 
     health insurance policies, receive financial assistance, and 
     sign up for high-quality, affordable, and secure insurance 
     coverage.
       This fact sheet summarizes new data on the significant 
     benefits of the health care reform law in Rep. Roe's 
     district. It also provides the first picture of the impacts 
     of the law in districts redrawn or newly created following 
     the 2010 Census. As a result of the law:
       5,800 young adults in the district now have health 
     insurance through their parents' plan.
       More than 13,100 seniors in the district received 
     prescription drug discounts worth $16.9 million, an average 
     discount of $580 per person in 2011, $630 in 2012, and $680 
     thus far in 2013.
       168,000 seniors in the district are now eligible for 
     Medicare preventive services without paying any co-pays, 
     coinsurance, or deductible.
       177,000 individuals in the district--including 34,000 
     children and 75,000 women--now have health insurance that 
     covers preventive services without any co-pays, coinsurance, 
     or deductible.
       168,000 individuals in the district are saving money due to 
     ACA provisions that prevent insurance companies from spending 
     more than 20% of their premiums on profits and administrative 
     overhead. Because of these protections, over 26,000 consumers 
     in the district received approximately $3.7 million in 
     insurance company rebates in 2012 and 2011--an average rebate 
     of $69 per family in 2012 and $201 per family in 2011.
       Up to 36,000 children in the district with preexisting 
     health conditions can no longer be denied coverage by health 
     insurers.
       190,000 individuals in the district now have insurance that 
     cannot place lifetime limits on their coverage and will not 
     face annual limits on coverage starting in 2014.
       Up to 103,000 individuals in the district who lack health 
     insurance will have access to quality, affordable coverage 
     without fear of discrimination or higher rates because of a 
     preexisting health condition. In addition, the 28,000 
     individuals who currently purchase private health insurance 
     on the individual or small group market will have access to 
     more secure, higher quality coverage and many will be 
     eligible for financial assistance.

  I yield 1 minute to the leader of the Democratic Party, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him also for 
his leadership on this health care issue. I've watched him lead this 
debate for nearly three decades, and I'm so pleased that you are here 
to defend the Affordable Care Act on the floor today, as our Republican 
colleagues try for the 38th time to repeal it. It is nothing more than 
a waste of time. This matter has been settled in Congress, at the 
Supreme Court, and at the ballot box. It is the law of the land.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill that is on the floor today is something that 
the President has very clearly said he will veto. Yet Republicans still 
want to vote for the 38th time to repeal the Affordable Care Act while 
we're still waiting for the first time to vote for a jobs bill.
  The American people expect and deserve this Congress to work together 
to grow the economy, creating jobs, and strengthening the middle class, 
the backbone of our democracy. It's been over 6 months since this 
Congress took office. It's been over 3 months since the Senate passed a 
budget bill. For all of that time, Democrats have proposed a budget 
that would reduce taxes on the middle class, strengthen the middle 
class, reduce the deficit, create jobs, and grow the economy. And for 6 
months the Republicans have said ``no.'' Instead, for 38 times they 
have wanted to waste the public's dollar repealing, once again, the 
Affordable Care Act.
  What does a vote for this bill mean? A vote for this bill means 
that--just on the provisions already in place--you are voting so that 
children with a preexisting medical condition can now face 
discrimination. Because you will eliminate the end of that 
discrimination. Right now, children no longer face discrimination on 
the basis of a preexisting condition. A vote for the bill eliminates 
that.
  Right now, young adults are gaining coverage through their parents' 
plans. A vote for this bill strikes that down. Right now, seniors are 
paying less for prescription drugs and getting better treatment at a 
lower cost. A vote for this bill strikes that down. Americans no longer 
face lifetime limits on care. A vote for this bill eliminates that. 
Families are receiving rebates from insurance companies because of the 
medical loss ratio. It's very important in this bill. Insurance 
companies were

[[Page 11616]]

overly profiting at the expense of policyholders. This is a vote for 
the insurance companies and against policyholders. Soon, being a woman 
will no longer be considered a preexisting medical condition. The 
Republicans don't like that.
  And when I say don't like, what will also be coming up in the bill is 
it will take away access to affordable coverage for 129 million people 
with a preexisting medical condition. Just think of it. Do any of you 
know anyone with heart disease, cancer, diabetes, or a child born 
prematurely? That's a preexisting condition forever--one that also has 
lifetime limits on it, if you have your way.
  It takes away the guarantee that women pay the same premiums as men 
for the same coverage. Women have so much to gain in this bill because 
for so long we have been discriminated against on the basis of being a 
woman. You want to take that away from us again. It takes away the new 
cap on America's out-of-pocket health care costs. The list goes on and 
on about what is the law now that will be taken away and what will 
become the law in fewer than 6 months that was very helpful for 
America's families.
  The gentleman told us a story about a small businessman. We always 
say the plural of anecdote is not data, but we all have our stories to 
tell. They are illustrative. Ninety-six percent of America's businesses 
are not affected by this law.
  Mr. Speaker, last year, in San Francisco, I met with Julie and Matt, 
parents of a little 2-year-old girl, Violet. Violet was born with a 
rare and life-threatening form of epilepsy. For Violet and her family, 
the Affordable Care Act was life-changing. Before the act, Violet had a 
preexisting condition. So she would be discriminated against in terms 
of health insurance. Violet had lifetime and annual limits on the 
coverage that she could get. A little child with such an early 
preexisting condition could possibly exhaust her lifetime limits before 
she was in third grade.
  Imagine being in their shoes. Imagine Julie and Matt watching this 
debate, following the work of Congress, and what it means to them. What 
it means to them is the health of their child, the financial security 
of their family, and hope for the future. Imagine the fear, the 
uncertainty, the frustration they feel when they hear this debate. 
Imagine what it would be like to witness it 38 times and the threat 
that it is to your family's security.
  So there are Violet and other children like her. We hear stories over 
and over again. Whatever we're doing, I always like to envision what it 
means to children and what it does for our children. This means a great 
deal to our children and to their families. It honors the vows of our 
Founders of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A healthy 
life, the liberty to pursue your happiness, to be whatever you want--an 
artist, be self-employed to start a business, to change jobs. To be 
able to follow your passion, not policy. And not to be confined because 
there's a preexisting condition in your family or to be confined 
because of fear of someone getting ill.
  Really, what is important today is what it does or how it damages the 
health security of America's families. But it's also the missed 
opportunity. When, if ever, do the Republicans intend to bring a bill 
to the floor that will create jobs for our country? When are we going 
to have a budget that does just that?
  You said you wanted the Senate to pass a bill and then we would go to 
conference. That's called regular order. The Senate passed a bill 3 
months ago. And still, the Republicans resist. What are you afraid of? 
Are you afraid that the public will see the contrast between a 
Democratic budget, which invests in people, which builds the 
infrastructure of America, which has provisions to bring jobs home to 
America, and that strengthens the middle class instead of the 
exploitation of the middle class that is contained in the Republican 
budget?
  So all this is a smokescreen. It's just make-work projects. It's just 
subterfuge. Let's do anything other than what the American people 
expect us to do here. They expect us to work together. They expect us 
to compromise. They expect us to find solutions. They expect us to get 
results for them. They expect us to act the way we used to here and be 
respectful of each other's views, instead of having a Republican anti-
government, ideological agenda which says nothing--nothing--is our 
success, to do nothing is to succeed, and never is our timetable.
  So let's not waste the public's time, and the taxpayers' dollar on 
initiatives that are going no place. They're political stunts and an 
excuse for a legislative agenda that is not worthy of this House of 
Representatives, that is not deserving of the respect of the American 
people, and the form of this legislation will not have my support.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. * * * The fact of the matter is that this bill, 
understanding that ObamaCare is a huge, destructive element in job 
destruction-- Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the gentleman's 
words be taken down.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman 
will be seated.
  The Clerk will report the words.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw my previous statement.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).
  Mr. HURT. Mr. Speaker, in response to the minority leader's 
statement, I would suggest that this is in fact a jobs bill. This is a 
bill about health care. It is about the quality of health care. It is 
also about preserving jobs for this country.
  I rise in support of the Fairness for Families Act, a House 
initiative that would delay the enforcement of the individual insurance 
mandate, a central element of the President's health care law. This 
bill would provide hardworking individuals and families with the same 
relief that the Obama administration recently gave to American 
employers.
  As I travel throughout our district, I consistently hear about the 
law's devastating effect it has on our families, our workforce, and our 
struggling economy. Whether it's the community college in Danville that 
is cutting employee hours because it simply cannot afford to comply 
with the law or the family in Charlottesville that is coping with 
skyrocketing insurance premiums, there is no question that the people 
of Virginia's Fifth District continue to be negatively impacted by this 
law.
  While the administration continues to praise this legislation, the 
American people are left with nothing but broken promises.
  At a time when too many across this country are out of work, it only 
makes sense that we act to reduce the burden on individuals and 
families by suspending this mandate while continuing our efforts to 
repeal this flawed law and replace it with market-oriented policies 
that will lower costs for all Americans.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert letters from 
consumer groups opposing the bill--Easter Seals, American Diabetes 
Association, American Heart Association, and others.
  I also would like to enter into the Record the report on the Fifth 
Congressional District of Virginia and those who will benefit from the 
Affordable Care Act.

    Benefits of the Health Care Reform Law in the 5th Congressional 
                          District of Virginia


 committees on energy and commerce, ways and means, and education and 
           the workforce, democratic staff Report, july 2013

       The landmark Affordable Care Act (ACA) began delivering 
     important new benefits and protections to tens of millions of 
     American families almost immediately after it was signed into 
     law by President Obama. But the largest benefits of the law 
     will become available to consumers on October 1, 2013, when 
     health insurance marketplaces open in all 50 states. These 
     marketplaces will offer individuals, families, and small 
     businesses an efficient, transparent one-stop shop to compare

[[Page 11617]]

     health insurance policies, receive financial assistance, and 
     sign up for high-quality, affordable, and secure insurance 
     coverage.
       This fact sheet summarizes new data on the significant 
     benefits of the health care reform law in Rep. Hurt's 
     district. It also provides the first picture of the impacts 
     of the law in districts redrawn or newly created following 
     the 2010 Census. As a result of the law:
       5,900 young adults in the district now have health 
     insurance through their parents' plan.
       More than 11,400 seniors in the district received 
     prescription drug discounts worth $15.6 million, an average 
     discount of $590 per person in 2011, $720 in 2012, and $800 
     thus far in 2013.
       165,000 seniors in the district are now eligible for 
     Medicare preventive services without paying any co-pays, 
     coinsurance, or deductible.
       201,000 individuals in the district--including 37,000 
     children and 87,000 women--now have health insurance that 
     covers preventive services without any co-pays, coinsurance, 
     or deductible.
       188,000 individuals in the district are saving money due to 
     ACA provisions that prevent insurance companies from spending 
     more than 20% of their premiums on profits and administrative 
     overhead. Because of these protections, over 57,300 consumers 
     in the district received approximately $4.6 million in 
     insurance company rebates in 2011 and 2012--an average rebate 
     of $115 per family in 2011 and $88 per family in 2012.
       Up to 37,000 children in the district with preexisting 
     health conditions can no longer be denied coverage by health 
     insurers.
       235,000 individuals in the district now have insurance that 
     cannot place lifetime limits on their coverage and will not 
     face annual limits on coverage starting in 2014.
       Up to 91,000 individuals in the district who lack health 
     insurance will have access to quality, affordable coverage 
     without fear of discrimination or higher rates because of a 
     preexisting health condition. In addition, the 51,000 
     individuals who currently purchase private health insurance 
     on the individual or small group market will have access to 
     more secure, higher quality coverage and many will be 
     eligible for financial assistance.
                                  ____

                                                    July 16, 2013.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker of the House, U.S. House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi: Today, 
     millions of Americans face barriers to health insurance 
     coverage. Many go without insurance because it is simply 
     unaffordable. Others have life-threatening chronic diseases 
     such as cancer, diabetes, heart disease or stroke and are 
     denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions. Starting in 
     2014, the Affordable Care Act will remove these tough 
     barriers to health insurance.
       New patient protections will require insurers to cover 
     people with pre-existing conditions, eliminate limits on the 
     coverage a patient can receive, and ban the practice of 
     charging women and people with health conditions more for 
     their coverage. In fewer than 80 days, the doors to new 
     insurance marketplaces will be open to enroll uninsured 
     people and the marketplaces, along with tax credit subsidies, 
     will help more Americans afford life-saving care
       However, for these important protections to stay in place 
     without disrupting the health care market--and driving up 
     costs for everyone--the insurance market must include a mix 
     of both healthy and sick people. We already know what a 
     health care system without a minimum coverage requirement 
     looks like: many healthy Americans opt not to buy health 
     coverage until they are ill, and costs skyrocket as insurance 
     pools fill with people in urgent need of treatment and care. 
     People with pre-existing conditions are charged exorbitant 
     rates for health coverage, putting critical care out of reach 
     for many American families. As a result, many people with a 
     chronic illness must resort to emergency room care, which 
     lowers their chances of surviving their illness and drives up 
     costs system-wide.
       We are therefore opposed to H.R. 2668, legislation that 
     would delay the minimum coverage provision that is 
     instrumental to the effectiveness of the patient protections. 
     By ensuring near universal coverage, the new patient 
     protections help end cherry-picking and cost shifting in the 
     current health care market, which drives up costs for 
     everyone. Last year the Supreme Court upheld the 
     constitutionality of the minimum coverage provision and our 
     organizations support its scheduled implementation.
       We also believe that H.R. 2667 is unnecessary and detracts 
     from the more critical job we all must undertake to help more 
     Americans gain access to high quality, affordable, health 
     insurance.
       The undersigned organizations believe that we all have a 
     duty to spread the word about the new health insurance 
     options that will allow people to compare prices and shop for 
     health insurance where they live. That is why our respective 
     organizations are opposed to votes that hamper the 
     implementation of the law or wrongly direct attention away 
     from the important job of informing people about new coverage 
     options.
       We look forward to working with you to help you and your 
     constituents get information about the new options for 
     fairer, more comprehensive, and more affordable health care 
     coverage.
           Sincerely,
     American Diabetes Association.
     American Heart Association.
     Consumers Union.
     Families USA.
     National Partnership for Women & Families.
     National Women's Law Center.
                                  ____

                                               American Academy of


                                            Family Physicians,

                                                    July 15, 2013.

   Insurance Coverage Requirement Is Foundation of Improving Access, 
              Quality and Cost Containment in Health Care

     Statement attributable to: Jeff Cain, MD, President, American 
         Academy of Family Physicians.
       The Affordable Care Act's requirement that individuals have 
     health insurance--either through their employer, a federal or 
     state health care program, or as an individual purchaser--is 
     the foundation of improving access to care and vital to 
     ensuring everyone has health care coverage. For that reason, 
     the American Academy of Family Physicians strongly supports 
     the health coverage requirement for individuals. We urge 
     Congress to preserve this element of health care reform.
       The cost of providing care to uninsured patients is a major 
     driver of skyrocketing costs of health care. Health 
     professionals struggle with economic losses that result from 
     providing care to uninsured patients. Individuals whose usual 
     source of care is the emergency room have no access to 
     comprehensive, coordinated services that prevent unnecessary 
     often-uncompensated ER use and hospitalizations. Worse, the 
     professionals who see these patients for incident-specific 
     health issues and do not know the patient's medical history 
     must repeat expensive tests and procedures. The cost of these 
     fragmented and costly interventions are passed on through 
     rate increases to the insured, which in turn drives up the 
     cost for employers, governments, and individuals.
       One way to end this increasingly expensive cycle is to 
     require everyone to have health insurance. The AAFP has 
     consistently called for ensuring that everyone has access to 
     health insurance and care provided in a patient-centered 
     medical home. The Affordable Care Act does just that with its 
     requirement that individuals who don't get health benefits 
     through work buy coverage--with appropriate subsidies if 
     necessary--or receive health care through Medicaid.
       If Congress hopes to improve the quality of health care and 
     rein in escalating costs, it must end the fragmented, 
     duplicative system that results from lack of health 
     insurance. Ensuring that all individuals have health care 
     coverage is not only good health care policy, but it is also 
     good economic policy. Without a coverage requirement, many 
     patients will continue to have no coverage, other patients 
     will see insurance premiums rise due to covering the cost of 
     uninsured patients, businesses will continue to grapple with 
     rising health care costs, and health professionals, will have 
     to absorb significant financial losses due to providing 
     uncompensated care.
                                  ____


National Women's Law Center Critical of House Bills Aimed at Hampering 
                            Health Care Law

       Washington, DC.--The House of Representatives is slated to 
     vote today on H.R. 2667 and H.R. 2688, two bills aimed at 
     undermining the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
       The following statement is from Marcia D. Greenberger, Co-
     President of the National Women's Law Center:
       ``Thanks to the ACA, millions more American women will have 
     access to affordable health insurance options when enrollment 
     in health insurance marketplaces begins in October. But 
     rather than help the American people learn about new coverage 
     options and their benefits, the House leadership is working 
     relentlessly to hamper, if not totally prevent implementation 
     of the law. Their efforts could cost uninsured and 
     underinsured women and their families dearly, taking away the 
     critically important health and financial security promised 
     by the ACA's landmark reforms.
       ``We urge the House of Representatives to put aside any 
     attempts to roll back the ACA and get on with the urgently-
     needed work of ensuring its success.''
                                  ____

                                    National Committee to Preserve


                                   Social Security & Medicare,

                                    Washington, DC, July 16, 2013.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the millions of members 
     and supporters of the National Committee to Preserve Social 
     Security and Medicare, I urge you to vote against H.R. 2668 
     and any legislation that would delay the individual 
     responsibility

[[Page 11618]]

     provision to obtain health insurance. The individual 
     requirement is a critical component of the Affordable Care 
     Act (ACA). Without it, the intent of the law--to offer 
     affordable coverage to the uninsured--would be undermined.
       This differs from the Administration's decision to delay 
     for one year the requirement for large employers to offer 
     employee health insurance or pay a penalty, made to 
     accommodate the business community's request for additional 
     time to prepare for the new system. Currently, the majority 
     of employers already provide health insurance to recruit and 
     retain employees, and the employer delay will not change 
     this. For large employers that do not offer health coverage 
     or plan to delay providing coverage, such as some retail and 
     restaurant chains, their employees will be able to purchase a 
     health plan in one of the subsidized marketplaces. Because 
     federal subsidies will be available to those with low-to-
     moderate incomes to purchase insurance through the exchanges, 
     some employees may end up with less expensive and more robust 
     health plans from the exchanges than they would have received 
     from their employers.
       In contrast, delaying the individual requirement to 
     purchase health insurance will undercut the ability of the 
     ACA marketplace exchanges to offer affordable health 
     coverage. Requiring individuals to purchase health insurance 
     is necessary because it spreads health risks across the 
     entire population, thus healthier and/or younger individuals 
     would help keep overall expenditures lower. Younger enrollees 
     benefit from risk sharing between generations as they age and 
     require more health care.
       According to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll, more 
     than seven in ten young adults stated that it is very 
     important for them to have health insurance. However, the 
     high cost of insurance was the biggest barrier for purchasing 
     insurance. The same poll found that about half of those under 
     age 65 believe that they or household members have a pre-
     existing condition, and a quarter of them were denied health 
     insurance or paid higher premiums because of it. In order to 
     reverse these wrongs, the individual insurance requirement is 
     needed to create a health system that will put affordable 
     coverage in reach of young and old alike.
       We support the Affordable Care Act, and urge you to vote 
     against H.R. 2668 and any legislation that would delay the 
     individual responsibility requirement. Millions of American 
     are counting on it and need affordable health coverage as 
     soon possible.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Max Richtman,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____

                                                 Service Employees


                                          International Union,

                                    Washington, DC, July 16, 2013.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the more than 2.1 million 
     members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), 
     including more than 1 million nurses, doctors, lab 
     technicians, nursing home workers, home care workers and 
     others, I urge you to oppose the Authority for Mandate Delay 
     Act (H.R. 2667) and the Fairness for American Families Act 
     (H.R. 2668). Rather than a productive, bipartisan effort to 
     ensure successful implementation of the Affordable Care Act, 
     these bills are yet another misguided political effort to 
     undermine the law and chip away at the protections the law 
     provides.
       The Affordable Care Act makes healthcare more available and 
     affordable for millions of Americans. Right now, there are 
     more than 100 million Americans--of all ages, occupations, 
     incomes and political parties--who are benefiting from the 
     Affordable Care Act. Because of this law, insurance companies 
     are prohibited from rescinding insurance coverage based on a 
     pre-existing condition, seniors can afford lifesaving 
     prescriptions, young people can stay on their parents' plans 
     until age 26, and progress is being made around the country 
     to give Americans new options to purchase affordable health 
     coverage.
       Sadly, rather than engaging in bipartisan efforts to ensure 
     successful implementation, some seek to score political 
     points to undermine support for the law. These bills--like 
     the dozens of others--serve nothing more than to distract 
     from the core work SEIU is committed to: making sure people 
     know about the new options available to them for more 
     accessible, affordable coverage where they live.
       Despite the delay tactics and millions of dollars spent to 
     derail the Affordable Care Act, the law is moving forward and 
     new healthcare markets will be ready to offer high-quality, 
     lower-cost healthcare coverage to middle-class Americans as 
     of January 1, 2014. SEIU will continue to work together with 
     organizations from all walks of life--including labor, small 
     businesses and responsible employers, healthcare providers 
     and advocates, faith leaders and elected officials--to make 
     sure Americans are informed when it comes to their healthcare 
     choices under the law.
       H.R. 2667 and H.R. 2668 are part of a concerted strategy to 
     refight political battles of the past, rather than bipartisan 
     efforts to continue moving this law forward. We urge you to 
     oppose these misguided bills. Votes on these bills may be 
     added to SEIU's Congressional scorecard at www.seiu.org. If 
     you have any questions, please contact Steph Sterling, 
     Legislative Director.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Mary Kay Henry,
     International President.
                                  ____

                               American Public Health Association,
                                    Washington, DC, July 16, 2013.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Public 
     Health Association, a diverse community of public health 
     professionals who have championed the health of all people 
     and communities around the world for more than 140 years, I 
     write in opposition to the Fairness for American Families 
     Act, legislation to delay the individual mandate under the 
     Affordable Care Act (H.R. 2668).
       Implementation of the ACA is critical to addressing the 
     biggest challenges facing our health system including the 
     escalating costs associated with our health care system, 
     uneven quality and deaths due to medical errors, 
     discriminatory practices by health insurance providers and 
     the shrinking ranks of the nation's primary care providers. 
     The ACA is helping to shift our health system from one that 
     focuses on treating the sick to one that focuses on keeping 
     people healthy. The individual mandate is central to reducing 
     the number of uninsured Americans, controlling health care 
     costs and ensuring the availability of affordable health 
     insurance coverage. Delaying this key provision will only 
     undermine our progress in creating a healthier nation.
       The ACA will provide an additional 30 million uninsured 
     individuals with affordable and comprehensive health 
     insurance coverage. Since its enactment, the law has provided 
     71 million Americans with access to preventive health care 
     services such as vaccines, disease screenings, well-child 
     visits and tobacco cessation counseling without co-pays or 
     deductibles. More than 34 million seniors have also accessed 
     preventive services without cost through the Medicare 
     program. More than 3 million young adults up to age 26 are 
     able to stay on their parents' health insurance plans and 
     nearly 18 million children with pre-existing conditions are 
     protected from insurance coverage denials. In addition, the 
     ACA provides critical mandatory funding through the 
     Prevention and Public Health Fund for community-based 
     prevention and wellness activities including efforts to 
     control the obesity epidemic, reduce tobacco use and 
     modernize vaccination systems.
       Protecting the ACA and working to effectively implement 
     this critical law will remain a top priority for APHA and we 
     will consider including this vote in our 2013 annual 
     congressional vote record.
       We ask you to oppose this and future efforts to delay or 
     repeal the full implementation of the ACA and we look forward 
     to working with you to protect and improve the health of the 
     American people.
           Sincerely,

                                          Georges C. Benjamin,

                                              MD, FACP, FACEP (E),
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                     Easter Seals,


                                     Office of Public Affairs,

                                    Washington, DC, July 16, 2013.
       Dear Member of Congress: Easter Seals is asking you to 
     oppose the Authority for Mandate Delay Act (H.R. 2667), 
     legislation to codify the recent administration-issued delay 
     in the implementation of the employer mandate included in the 
     Affordable Care Act, and the Fairness for American Families 
     Act (H.R. 2668), legislation to delay the implementation date 
     of the individual mandate, also part of the Affordable Care 
     Act. The structure of this law allows access to appropriate 
     and high quality health care services which are essential for 
     people with disabilities to live, learn and work and play in 
     their communities.
       The goal of the health care reform law is to assure that 
     all people have access to quality, affordable health care 
     that meets their individual needs. It is through the types of 
     changes included in the Affordable Care Act that we can hope 
     to enable all Americans, including people with disabilities 
     and chronic conditions, to be healthy, functional, live as 
     independently as possible and participate in their 
     communities.
       The circumstances facing people without insurance, or those 
     that are under-insured, have not changed since passage of 
     this law in March of 2010, even if some might say the 
     political landscape has become more complex. We strongly urge 
     you to reject steps to dismantle this tightly-crafted process 
     before it has had a chance to be put into place. The law, if 
     given the time and tools to be successful, can make great 
     strides to provide affordable, quality health care to those 
     who have difficulty attaining or retaining insurance 
     coverage.
       Easter Seals looks forward to working with you as the 
     effort to ensure quality health care is available to more 
     Americans moves forward.
           Sincerely,
                                               Katherine Beh Neas,
                             Vice President, Government Relations.


[[Page 11619]]

  Mr. McDERMOTT. I now yield 5 minutes to the minority whip, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak the truth. This bill and the other bill 
are not real; they are purely partisan politics. They have nothing to 
do with reality. My friends and Mr. Speaker, the American people ought 
to know that is the truth.
  These bills take time, with no effect. And everybody in this House--
the majority leader and 434 of the rest of us--know these bills are 
going nowhere. They are, in fact, the 38th and 39th effort to repeal 
the Affordable Care Act, an attempt which has been made some 37 times 
already with no substantive alternative to assure quality, affordable 
health care for all Americans. My friends, that is the truth.
  This is a game. This is political messaging, nothing more, nothing 
less. It is a ``gotcha'' game.
  The President has already taken action to make sure that businesses--
some 4 percent of the businesses in America, by the way, are affected 
by what the President did and your purported bill--to make sure that 
they can do the paperwork properly. The administration took the right 
action.
  Your first bill is not necessary and you know it. It is a setup so 
that your second bill, which takes away the individual mandate--which 
America ought to know, Mr. Speaker, would undermine the very benefits 
that are today being enjoyed by seniors, by young people, by children 
with preexisting conditions, and by so many millions of Americans 
enjoying the benefits today. But without the individual mandate, as the 
Heritage Foundation pointed out so many years ago--a position they have 
now changed, of course--was absolutely essential to make sure that we 
could bring costs down. The New York Times of course, today, 
ironically, said on its front page that there is a possibility that 
premiums are going to be reduced 50 percent.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would tell my friends in the press, in the media, 
don't take any of these votes for real. They're ``gotcha'' votes so 
that maybe some people will vote ``yes'' to confirm the President's 
opinion and then say, But we don't want to undermine the Affordable 
Care Act--as all of you who have voted so often have expressed your 
willingness and intent to do. But then they will vote ``no'' on the 
individual mandate, and you will say, of course, My, my, my; they were 
for businesses but against all you individuals. That RNC ad I'm sure is 
written already. That's what this is about, ``gotcha'' politics.
  Isn't it a shame. Isn't it a shame, when millions of Americans have 
no health care, when millions of Americans have no jobs, when people 
are being furloughed in the defense sector, undermining the security of 
our country--in Virginia and in Maryland--undermining our national 
security, that we spend our time here on this floor with ``gotcha'' 
politics, with no expectation whatsoever that either of these bills 
will ever become law.
  This is simply messaging. This is simply saying for the people who 
have been, for the last 4 years, trying to repeal the Affordable Care 
Act. And so many people were absolutely positive that President Obama 
was going to go down to defeat on the horns of the dilemma of the 
Affordable Health Care Act. It didn't happen. The American people said, 
No, we don't buy that argument. We believe providing Americans with 
health care is an important objective. We believe in making sure that 
kids and individuals with preexisting conditions can get health care, 
making sure that seniors won't be driven into poverty by paying for 
expensive drugs to keep them alive, making sure that people get 
preventive health care and are not disincentivized in doing that by 
additional costs.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend.
  Ladies and gentlemen, we really need to come together and talk about 
how we reasonably move forward.
  Speaker Boehner said, when the President was reelected, well, the 
Affordable Care Act is here. But you continue, you continue this very 
day, to pretend you're going to repeal the Affordable Care Act. That's 
maybe what your constituents want. That's maybe good politics for you, 
but it's lousy substance. That's the truth.
  This is a ``gotcha'' vote. The press ought to disregard and 
constituents ought to disregard anything other than this is a vote to 
end the Affordable Care Act. Reject it. Reject it. Reject this politics 
as usual.
  Mr. Speaker, today's votes are a sad and unnecessary gimmick.
  What Republicans are focusing on with these bills is not real--it's 
part of a political game that comes at the cost of spending time on the 
actual challenges we face, like creating jobs and replacing the 
sequester.
  I'm not surprised that Republicans continue to force votes to repeal 
the Affordable Care Act, because that's been their position all along.
  Today's votes are more of the same--efforts to undermine a law that 
has been enacted by Congress, upheld by the Supreme Court and 
reaffirmed with the reelection of President Obama.
  The Administration has already announced they are delaying employer 
penalties by one year, while they continue to work with America's 
businesses to simplify reporting requirements.
  They have already taken the needed steps to give the four percent of 
employers impacted by this policy more time to adapt their health 
coverage to new requirements--making today's legislation both redundant 
and irrelevant.
  With respect to the individual responsibility requirement--no delay 
is needed.
  Consumers will soon be able to use new insurance marketplaces to 
purchase insurance products that cover pre-existing conditions, do not 
impose arbitrary limits on your coverage, and do not charge women 
higher premiums than men for the exact same policy.
  Many will be eligible for tax credits to help them cover the cost of 
insurance as well.
  Today's legislation will only serve to increase both premiums and the 
number of uninsured.
  It's time Republicans stop playing games with America's health care 
and focus the People's House on the issues the people care about: 
replacing the sequester and creating jobs.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members to direct 
their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to 
the majority leader of the United States House of Representatives, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the Fairness for American 
Families Act.
  You know, Mr. Speaker, it's interesting here on the floor to hear the 
leadership of the minority continue their cries of objection based on 
claims of politics and process. Now we're talking about substance here. 
Instead, what we hear are objections about our position, somehow 
insinuating that we don't care about people's health care. Well, Mr. 
Speaker, I would say it is exactly the opposite. We're talking about 
substance and we're talking about ways that we can improve the 
prospects for quality health care for Americans.
  For several years, Republicans have been warning the American people 
about the devastating impact ObamaCare will have on both jobs and 
health care, and it now appears that Democrats--and even the President 
himself--are beginning to agree. The decision by the administration 
earlier this month to delay the employer mandate to 2015 is a clear 
signal that even the administration doesn't believe the country is 
ready to sustain the painful impact this law will have. Fortunately, 
others, including some of the law's most ardent supporters, are 
starting to realize the same.
  Just this week, Democratic leaders of the House and Senate were sent 
a letter from the presidents of three major unions warning that if 
changes were not made to the Affordable Care Act, it would ``destroy 
the foundation of the 40-hour workweek that is the backbone of the 
American middle class.''
  Now, Mr. Speaker, to me, that's real. That's not just games. That's 
real.

[[Page 11620]]

  Now, continuing, these union leaders claim that if the Affordable 
Care Act was enacted without being modified, it would ``destroy the 
very health and well-being of our members, along with millions of other 
hardworking Americans.''
  These consequences resulting from employees having their hours cut 
and their health benefits jeopardized represent what these leaders 
described as ``nightmare scenarios.''
  Mr. Speaker, I'd submit again, that's real. That's not just games.
  It is now explicitly clear to people across political lines that 
promises were made and now broken, and ObamaCare is not working. Now, 
this is the direction we need to take. This is the common ground. If we 
have bipartisan agreement that things just aren't working under 
ObamaCare, let's work to improve the situation for Americans.
  Why is it that working Americans have to suffer the financial burdens 
of an overreaching, government-run health care system while the same 
consequences for big business are delayed a year? The White House won't 
offer an answer to that because, I believe, they've run out of excuses. 
They've run out of ideas, and now they're starting to backpedal.

                              {time}  1715

  The Fairness for American Families Act will extend the delay of these 
mandates to all Americans. No family's health, well-being, or 
employment should suffer while businesses get a break. I sincerely hope 
that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would join us in this 
effort to bring basic fairness to everyone.
  I would like to thank Congressman Todd Young from Indiana for his 
hard work on this issue, and I urge my colleagues in the House to 
support this legislation.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to report on 
the Seventh Congressional District of Virginia, where the promises have 
been kept:
  4,500 young adults have health insurance on their parents' plan;
  10,000 seniors have received help with their drug costs;
  112,000 seniors are now eligible for preventive care at no cost;
  288,000 people in the Seventh District now have insurance that does 
not have lifetime limits.
  The promises have been kept in the Seventh District.

    Benefits of the Health Care Reform Law in the 7th Congressional 
                          District of Virginia


 committees on energy and commerce, ways and means, and education and 
           the workforce, democratic staff report, july 2013

       The landmark Affordable Care Act (ACA) began delivering 
     important new benefits and protections to tens of millions of 
     American families almost immediately after it was signed into 
     law by President Obama. But the largest benefits of the law 
     will become available to consumers on October 1, 2013, when 
     health insurance marketplaces open in all 50 states. These 
     marketplaces will offer individuals, families, and small 
     businesses an efficient, transparent one-stop shop to compare 
     health insurance policies, receive financial assistance, and 
     sign up for high-quality, affordable, and secure insurance 
     coverage.
       This fact sheet summarizes new data on the significant 
     benefits of the health care reform law in Rep. Cantor's 
     district. It also provides the first picture of the impacts 
     of the law in districts redrawn or newly created following 
     the 2010 Census. As a result of the law:
       4,500 young adults in the district now have health 
     insurance through their parents' plan.
       More than 10,000 seniors in the district received 
     prescription drug discounts worth $13.6 million, an average 
     discount of $580 per person in 2011, $730 in 2012, and $800 
     thus far in 2013.
       112,000 seniors in the district are now eligible for 
     Medicare preventive services without paying any co-pays, 
     coinsurance, or deductible.
       236,000 individuals in the district--including 56,000 
     children and 95,000 women--now have health insurance that 
     covers preventive services without any co-pays, coinsurance, 
     or deductible.
       222,000 individuals in the district are saving money due to 
     ACA provisions that prevent insurance companies from spending 
     more than 20% of their premiums on profits and administrative 
     overhead. Because of these protections, over 67,300 consumers 
     in the district received approximately $5.4 million in 
     insurance company rebates in 2011 and 2012--an average rebate 
     of $115 per family in 2011 and $88 per family in 2012.
       Up to 43,000 children in the district with preexisting 
     health conditions can no longer be denied coverage by health 
     insurers.
       288,000 individuals in the district now have insurance that 
     cannot place lifetime limits on their coverage and will not 
     face annual limits on coverage starting in 2014.
       Up to 74,000 individuals in the district who lack health 
     insurance will have access to quality, affordable coverage 
     without fear of discrimination or higher rates because of a 
     preexisting health condition. In addition, the 42,000 
     individuals who currently purchase private health insurance 
     on the individual or small group market will have access to 
     more secure, higher quality coverage and many will be 
     eligible for financial assistance.

  Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, ``The Least Productive Congress Ever,'' 
that's the title of an article in today's Washington Post. Here is how 
the article begins:

       Congress, in case you have been living on another planet 
     for the last few years, doesn't do all that much these days.

  So we are, debating again--for the 38th time--a bill to repeal all or 
part of our Nation's health security law. We've heard this broken 
record 37 times before and it sounds the same and it goes nowhere.
  But there is more consequence to this partisan agenda than just 
wasting the American people's time and adding to the record of the 
least productive Congress ever. Wasting the American people's time 38 
times wastes the American taxpayers' money. According to CBS News 
reports, this obsession to vote over and over and over 38 times on 
these partisan bills has cost the American taxpayers more than $50 
million. That's an expensive ticket for political theater.
  So what are the facts on this legislation? The Congressional Budget 
Office, our country's fiscal watchdog, says this about H.R. 2668: 
``Health insurance premiums''--under this legislation--``for 
individually purchased coverage would be higher under H.R. 2668. In 
addition, the number of people with health insurance coverage would be 
reduced.''
  Translated, the cost for health insurance and health care for 
Americans will go up and the number of Americans with insurance 
coverage will go down under this legislation.
  Here is today's New York Times--and it says it all on the front page: 
``Many New Yorkers Will See Big Savings on Health Plans Under the 
Current Law.'' How does it start? The article says:

       Individuals buying health insurance on their own will see 
     their premiums tumble next year in New York State as changes 
     under the Federal health care law take effect.

  The facts: health care insurance costs are going down. But this bill 
will repeal all or part of the health care security law.
  This Congress is the least productive Congress ever, because instead 
of voting on a jobs agenda and growing our economy, this House is 
voting for the 38th time to do nothing. This House is out of touch with 
the American people. It is time this House caught up with the American 
people and work in bipartisanship to get Americans back to work and 
provide them more health security, not less.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to insert into 
the Record a letter of today from the National Federation of 
Independent Business.
                                                             NFIB,


                                  The Voice of Small Business,

                                    Washington, DC, July 17, 2013.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Federation 
     of Independent Business (NFIB), the nation's leading small 
     business advocacy organization, I am writing in strong 
     support of H.R. 2668, the Fairness for American Families Act 
     A vote in favor of H.R. 2668 will be considered an NFIB Key 
     Vote for the 113th Congress
       H.R. 2668 would delay the requirement that nearly all 
     Americans purchase minimum essential health insurance 
     coverage or pay a tax penalty until 2015. The delay of the 
     individual mandate is needed due to the administrative delay 
     of the employer mandate. The delay would alleviate confusion 
     for small business owners, self-employed individuals and 
     small-business employees. Delaying problematic provisions 
     provides temporary relief for individuals and small 
     businesses,

[[Page 11621]]

     while also validating the underlying problems inherent in the 
     law and its implementation. Perhaps most importantly, delay 
     provides Congress additional time to correct problematic 
     provisions in the law.
       In NFIB v. Sabelius NFIB opposed the individual mandate 
     because we believe the Commerce Clause of the U.S. 
     Constitution does not give Congress the authority to require 
     Americans to purchase a product. Unfortunately, the Supreme 
     Court determined the mandate was proper as a ``tax'' under 
     Congress'' taxing power. Whether a ``mandate'' or a ``tax'' 
     penalty, this provision requires small-business owners to 
     spend money--buy health insurance or pay a tax penalty. This 
     is money they could have used to grow their business and hire 
     more workers.
       Without significant changes, this law will continue to 
     cause problems for the small-business economy. Small-business 
     owners support continued efforts to remedy the most harmful 
     provisions in the law that are already impacting their 
     businesses and their employees. Some fundamental reforms 
     include:
       H.R. 2575, the Save American Workers Act, which would 
     change the definition of full-time employee from 30 hours per 
     week to 40 hours per week;
       H.R. 903, the American Job Protection Act, which would 
     repeal the employer mandate that is already preventing 
     business expansion and job creation;
       H.R. 763, the Jobs and Premium Protection Act, which would 
     repeal the small business health insurance tax (HIT) that 
     will increase premiums for the health insurance plans that 
     self-employed individuals and small businesses purchase.
       NFIB is dedicated to working with lawmakers to find 
     solutions that work for small business and will consider a 
     vote in favor of H.R. 2668 an NFIB Key Vote for the 113th 
     Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Susan Eckerly,
                             Senior Vice President, Public Policy.

  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the chairwoman 
of the Republican Conference, the gentlelady from Washington State 
(Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
Fairness for American Families Act, to protect families and individuals 
from a health care law that is unworkable and is making it harder and 
worse on our health care system.
  I support this bill delaying the individual mandate because it 
protects everyday hardworking American families--like my family at home 
and yours all across this country--from higher premiums, fewer choices 
of doctors, and lower quality of health care.
  We see time and time again this President at work picking winners and 
losers and ignoring his constitutional duty to uphold the law--even his 
signature law. Each time, individuals lose, families lose--America 
loses.
  The administration's decision to delay the employer mandate is no 
different. How is it fair to delay an unworkable law for big businesses 
but not for individuals and families--the very people that are going to 
have to pay the price because of this unworkable health care law?
  The fact is this law is making it worse; worse for health care, worse 
for the economy, worse for America.
  I urge my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, support this bill, 
do what is fair for the American people and their families.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds so that I can 
inform the body of the effect on the Fifth Congressional District of 
the State of Washington:
  7,000 adults, young adults, are on their parents' plan;
  5,600 seniors have had benefits around their drug costs;
  89,000 who have lacked health insurance now have it.
  All of this is because of the Affordable Care Act.

    Benefits of the Health Care Reform Law in the 5th Congressional 
                         District of Washington


 Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and 
           the Workforce, Democratic Staff Report, July 2013

       The landmark Affordable Care Act (ACA) began delivering 
     important new benefits and protections to tens of millions of 
     American families almost immediately after it was signed into 
     law by President Obama. But the largest benefits of the law 
     will become available to consumers on October 1, 2013, when 
     health insurance marketplaces open in all 50 states. These 
     marketplaces will offer individuals, families, and small 
     businesses an efficient, transparent one-stop shop to compare 
     health insurance policies, receive financial assistance, and 
     sign up for high-quality, affordable, and secure insurance 
     coverage.
       This fact sheet summarizes new data on the significant 
     benefits of the health care reform law in Rep. McMorris 
     Rodgers's district. It also provides the first picture of the 
     impacts of the law in districts redrawn or newly created 
     following the 2010 Census. As a result of the law:
       7,900 young adults in the district now have health 
     insurance through their parents' plan.
       More than 5,600 seniors in the district received 
     prescription drug discounts worth $7.5 million, an average 
     discount of $620 per person in 2011, $660 in 2012, and $1,070 
     thus far in 2013.
       113,000 seniors in the district are now eligible for 
     Medicare preventive services without paying any co-pays, 
     coinsurance, or deductible.
       180,000 individuals in the district--including 36,000 
     children and 75,000 women--now have health insurance that 
     covers preventive services without any co-pays, coinsurance, 
     or deductible.
       167,000 individuals in the district are saving money due to 
     ACA provisions that prevent insurance companies from spending 
     more than 20% of their premiums on profits and administrative 
     overhead. Because of these protections, over 700 consumers in 
     the district received approximately $100,000 in insurance 
     company rebates in 2012 and 2011--an average rebate of $512 
     per family in 2012 and $185 per family in 2011.
       Up to 36,000 children in the district with preexisting 
     health conditions can no longer be denied coverage by health 
     insurers.
       203,000 individuals in the district now have insurance that 
     cannot place lifetime limits on their coverage and will not 
     face annual limits on coverage starting in 2014.
       89,000 individuals in the district who lack health 
     insurance will have access to quality, affordable coverage 
     without fear of discrimination or higher rates because of a 
     preexisting health condition. In addition, the 45,000 
     individuals who currently purchase private health insurance 
     on the individual or small group market will have access to 
     more secure, higher quality coverage and many will be 
     eligible for financial assistance.

  Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker and Members, I rise in strong 
opposition to the further Republican attempts to undermine the 
Affordable Care Act.
  The administration recently announced that due to logistical issues 
they were delaying the employer mandate for a year. I do not support 
this measure, but it is within their authority to do it.
  However, the decision of the Department of Treasury does not justify 
delaying the implementation of other portions of the law. Implementing 
this law is too important for America's well-being and their economic 
security to delay it. Low-cost, high-quality health care is right 
around the corner. If we delay the individual mandate, the risk pools 
will be skewed so that the coverage is less affordable for those who 
choose to purchase it.
  Delaying the employer mandate will have a higher impact on States 
like mine that are refusing to expand Medicaid. If an employee makes 
between 100 percent and 133 percent of the Federal poverty level, they 
will receive no Medicaid, no subsidies, and now employers won't have to 
cover them for another year.
  I am told that this is a small number, but in a district like ours, 
which has the highest rate of working uninsured in the country, this is 
a big problem. Up to 260,000 individuals in our district who lack 
health insurance will have access to quality, affordable care without 
fear of discrimination or higher rates because of a preexisting 
condition.
  Our country has waited too long for real health care reform--coverage 
that our industrial competitors and partners provide. I oppose both 
these bills.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the 
Record a letter dated July 15, 2013, from Matt Kibbe, the president and 
CEO of FreedomWorks in support of H.R. 2668.

                                                 FreedomWorks,

                                    Washington, DC, July 15, 2013.

        Key Vote YES on Delaying ObamaCare's Individual Mandate

       As one of our millions of FreedomWorks members nationwide, 
     I urge you to contact your Representative and urge him or her 
     to vote YES on H.R. 2668, the Fairness for American Families 
     Act. Sponsored by Rep. Todd Young (R-IN), this bill--which 
     the House is expected to take up this week--would delay 
     ObamaCare's ``individual mandate.''
       Beginning on January 1, 2014, ObamaCare will require most 
     U.S. citizens to purchase government-controlled health 
     insurance.

[[Page 11622]]

     This ``individual mandate'' is, by the Administration's own 
     admission, the ``linchpin'' of the Washington takeover of 
     health care. If the mandate were to go away, the whole costly 
     and intrusive scheme would unravel.
       The individual mandate is a latter-day ``intolerable act.'' 
     Despite the Supreme Court's erroneous 2012 ruling, Congress 
     lacks authority under the Constitution to impose such a 
     mandate on U.S. citizens. And even if it were constitutional, 
     the mandate is immoral because it violates individual 
     liberty, is not necessary to ``help the uninsured'' (there 
     are less coercive and less costly ways to do so), and is 
     terribly unfair, both in its effects and how it is being 
     implemented.
       The unfairness of the mandate is this: its costly burden 
     falls most heavily on just one segment of the population: 
     young adults in their twenties and thirties. They are the 
     group most likely to be uninsured. Indeed, two-thirds of the 
     uninsured are in their twenties and thirties. ObamaCare 
     causes their insurance premiums to rise exponentially, in 
     some cases doubling or even tripling. These Americans are 
     uninsured because health insurance costs too much. 
     ObamaCare's mandate is unfair to them, because it forces them 
     to buy a product that is already too expensive, relative to 
     their needs.
       But the law is also unfair to everyone, not just 
     millennials, in terms of how it is being implemented. The 
     Obama Administration recently made a unilateral (and illegal) 
     decision to cancel the ``employer mandate'' (which requires 
     employers with more than 50 employees to offer and heavily 
     subsidize health insurance to their workers). But it left the 
     individual mandate in place for the rest of us. The 
     Administration had already displayed rank unfairness by 
     granting more than 1,200 waivers from ObamaCare provisions to 
     its labor union allies and corporate cronies. It has now 
     given Big Business the ultimate waiver, a complete exemption 
     from the mandate, while making sure that Big Insurance gets 
     its own ``ultimate gift'' from Big Government: a compulsory 
     customer base. No wonder more than 70 percent of Americans 
     oppose the individual mandate, and just 12 percent support 
     it.
       The only cure for the manifold ailments of ObamaCare is to 
     immediately defund or repeal it entirely, and to replace it 
     with patient-centered health care that will actually lower 
     costs and improve quality and access for all. Until then, 
     basic fairness demands that individuals be granted the same 
     favor as the Administration has given to businesses. The 
     individual mandate must be delayed for as long as possible. 
     H.R.2668 would delay the mandate for the same length of time 
     that the Administration claims to be ``delaying'' the 
     employer mandate: one year. That's a start.
       I urge you to call your Representative and ask him or her 
     to vote YES on H.R. 2668, to delay ObamaCare's individual 
     mandate. We may count their vote as a KEY VOTE when 
     calculating the FreedomWorks Economic Freedom Scorecard for 
     2013. The Scorecard is used to determine eligibility for the 
     FreedomFighter Award, which recognizes members of Congress 
     with voting records that support economic freedom.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Matt Kibbe,
                                                President and CEO.

  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the chairwoman of 
the House Administration Committee, the gentlelady from the great State 
of Michigan, Candice Miller.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, it appears that the Obama 
administration has finally come to the conclusion that the employer 
mandate in ObamaCare is a job killer.
  Many have speculated that the Obama administration's decision to 
delay the employer mandate until after the 2014 election was due to 
fears that job cuts and hour reductions that would result from the 
mandate's implementation would negatively impact the President's party 
at the polls.
  It does seem that those fears are justified. Recently, the Teamsters 
and other labor groups wrote to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and 
House Democrat Leader Nancy Pelosi stating that the implementation of 
ObamaCare put at risk the 40-hour workweek, the health care, and the 
take-home pay of their members.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Teamsters that the employer mandate is 
a job killer. Eliminating the employer mandate would not stop the 
individual mandate which requires every American to purchase 
government-approved insurance that they may not want, that they can't 
afford, and may not be provided by their employers or otherwise they 
have to pay a penalty. Is that fair to American families?
  The legislation, Mr. Speaker, that we are considering today would 
give every American--every American--the same 1-year reprieve from 
ObamaCare that the President has offered to businesses. Because we 
extend this help to all of the American people, the President has 
threatened to veto this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the President is not a king. He is the President. He 
does not have the authority to change the law and to delay the employer 
mandate on his own. Congress must give him that authority.
  I would say to the President that we will delay the job-killing 
employer mandate, as he has asked, and we will also extend the same 
relief to all of the American people.
  The President and Members of Congress who vote against this bill will 
have to explain to the American people why they heard the concerns of 
business but not those of the people. We have heard the people, we 
share their concerns, we stand with them, and I would urge all of my 
colleagues to stand with them as well and to support this very vital 
legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members to direct 
their remarks to the Chair and also to refrain from improper references 
toward the President.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record a 
report on the effects of the Affordable Care Act on the Tenth District 
of Michigan.

   Benefits of the Health Care Reform Law in the 10th Congressional 
                          District of Michigan


 Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and 
           the Workforce, Democratic Staff Report, July 2013

       The landmark Affordable Care Act (ACA) began delivering 
     important new benefits and protections to tens of millions of 
     American families almost immediately after it was signed into 
     law by President Obama. But the largest benefits of the law 
     will become available to consumers on October 1, 2013, when 
     health insurance marketplaces open in all 50 states. These 
     marketplaces will offer individuals, families, and small 
     businesses an efficient, transparent, one-stop shop to 
     compare health insurance policies, receive financial 
     assistance, and sign up for high-quality, affordable, and 
     secure insurance coverage.
       This fact sheet summarizes new data on the significant 
     benefits of the health care reform law in Rep. Miller's 
     district. It also provides the first picture of the impacts 
     of the law in districts redrawn or newly created following 
     the 2010 Census. As a result of the law:
       4,900 young adults in the district now have health 
     insurance through their parents' plan.
       More than 8,900 seniors in the district received 
     prescription drug discounts worth $11.8 million, an average 
     discount of $610 per person in 2011, $780 in 2012, and $630 
     thus far in 2013.
       130,000 seniors in the district are now eligible for 
     Medicare preventive services without paying any co-pays, 
     coinsurance, or deductible.
       210,000 individuals in the district--including 47,000 
     children and 86,000 women--now have health insurance that 
     covers preventive services without any co-pays, coinsurance, 
     or deductible.
       177,000 individuals in the district are saving money due to 
     ACA provisions that prevent insurance companies from spending 
     more than 20% of their premiums on profits and administrative 
     overhead. Because of these protections, over 17,100 consumers 
     in the district received approximately $2.5 million in 
     insurance company rebates in 2012 and 2011--an average rebate 
     of $138 per family in 2012 and $214 per family in 2011.
       Up to 41,000 children in the district with preexisting 
     health conditions can no longer be denied coverage by health 
     insurers.
       243,000 individuals in the district now have insurance that 
     cannot place lifetime limits on their overage and will not 
     face annual limits on coverage starting in 2014.
       Up to 73,000 individuals in the district who lack health 
     insurance will have access to quality, affordable coverage 
     without fear of discrimination or higher rates because of a 
     preexisting health condition: In addition, the 39,000 
     individuals who currently purchase private health insurance 
     on the individual or small group market will have access to 
     more secure, higher quality coverage and many will be 
     eligible for financial assistance.

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, there's a word in Yiddish, ``chutzpah,'' 
that generally translates to ``nerve.'' It has been described as that 
quality enshrined in a man who, having killed his mother and father, 
throws himself on the mercy of the court because he's an orphan.

[[Page 11623]]

  But ``chutzpah'' is also a pretty accurate description of the antics 
of the Republican Party today that--after throwing up roadblock after 
roadblock, obstruction after obstruction to ObamaCare, is now trying to 
delay access to care for millions of Americans on the grounds that 
we're not ready.
  Despite Republican obstructionism we are going to be ready, we are 
ready--and not a day too soon--for those who have been locked out of 
coverage, hit by annual benefit limits, or faced preexisting condition 
exclusions. Imagine the worry that is lifted off of the shoulders of 
Americans that have preexisting conditions that won't exist once we 
pass this.
  This is just another Republican attempted roadblock to progress, 
another obstructionism. It is ``chutzpah.''
  Mr. Speaker, it is time for the Republicans to stop efforts that will 
prevent Americans from getting the health care they need.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each 
side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 18\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Washington has 9 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to 
the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I 
acknowledge the great work of the gentleman from Georgia on this issue 
and thank him.
  Mr. Speaker, all across the country, Americans are asking one 
question: Why wasn't the mandate on them delayed? If the systems aren't 
in place for businesses to abide by this law by the deadline, why does 
the administration think that the systems will be in place for the 
individual mandate? If a delay is good for businesses, why isn't it 
good for the families in the 6th District of Virginia and across the 
Nation?
  When Members refer to ObamaCare as a train wreck, they only quote one 
of its chief architects. This announcement proves even the 
administration knows ObamaCare is headed towards devastation. Let's get 
businesses, as well as American families, off this train headed towards 
disaster. We need to delay the employer mandate, we also need to delay 
the individual mandate, but most importantly, the American people need 
a full repeal of this train wreck legislation.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman who 
helped write this bill 4 years ago and is here today to defend it, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to 
this latest Republican attempt to sabotage our Nation's health reform 
law.
  If these bills pass today, fortunately, they will not become law. It 
is just another waste of this body's time, and Americans are sick of 
it. The 38th time will not be the charm--the 38th time that we've 
redundantly voted to try to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Rather, 
these votes underscore the lengths the Republicans and other opponents 
will go to take away the basic health insurance protections of the 
American people.
  For 3 years, many of the opponents of ObamaCare have invested heavily 
in its failure. They've tried to deny funding to agencies to do their 
jobs as instructed by Congress. They've spread outright lies and 
misinformation to purposely confuse the American people. They've 
obstructed education efforts to make sure that their constituents don't 
understand the new rights and benefits under the law. But investing in 
failure is dangerous. It's dangerous for America's families; it's 
dangerous for the Nation's businesses; it's dangerous for the Nation's 
economy.
  The Affordable Care Act is the law of the land, and it is here to 
stay. Early evidence suggests that the health care law is already 
having a positive impact on the lives of millions of Americans.
  Millions of young adults are getting health insurance through their 
parents' policies when, before, they were kicked off arbitrarily by 
insurance companies; and now, with the individual mandate, millions of 
individual Americans will be able to afford the health insurance that 
they can't afford today without this legislation--without the law of 
the land, the Affordable Care Act.
  Children with preexisting conditions can no longer be denied health 
coverage or lifesaving treatment.
  Billions more of taxpayer dollars are being recovered through 
Medicare fraud.
  National health costs have dramatically slowed over the last several 
years.
  Health premiums as part of the State insurance exchanges are coming 
in lower than anyone predicted--most recently reported in New York 
State--for individuals, who will get their insurance because of the 
individual mandate; and for the first time, it will be affordable to 
those individuals since they've been required to have it.
  And, in January, the preexisting conditions that determine health 
coverage or costs will be banned. No longer will you be able to rule 
people out because of their preexisting health conditions.
  This is all good news, and it stands in stark contrast to the claims 
that we've been hearing from the other side for 3 years.
  Why on Earth would any responsible elected official try to hide the 
rights and benefits from the American people?
  My friends on the other side of the aisle are preoccupied with 
dismantling government when it protects the vulnerable or the average 
American, but they will move heaven and Earth to protect the most 
powerful or to try to score some fleeting political point. It's wrong 
and it's irresponsible.
  Mr. Speaker, playing politics with the Affordable Care Act has become 
something of an Olympic sport for the majority. These votes are nothing 
new. They are about sabotaging the law of the land in order to satisfy 
a narrow, radical element of the majority's party.
  Now is not the time to reverse course. Now is not the time to go back 
to the days when insurance companies were in charge--when people were 
thrown off their policies, when policies were taken away in the middle 
of treatment, when their children were not allowed to participate, and 
when individuals could not afford the policies at that time. Today, 
they will be able to.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I insert in the Record a notice 
from the National Taxpayers Union, dated July 15, 2013, in support of 
both H.R. 2667 and H.R. 2668.

                                     National Taxpayers Union,

                                    Alexandria, VA, July 15, 2013.


                  National Taxpayers Union Vote Alert

       NTU urges all Representatives to vote ``YES'' on H.R. 2667, 
     the ``Authority for Mandate Delay Act'' and H.R. 2668, the 
     ``Fairness for American Families Act.'' These bills would 
     delay for one year the Affordable Care Act's health insurance 
     mandates for employers and individuals, respectively. While 
     the primary goal of Congress ought to be full repeal of the 
     Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. ``Obamacare''), in the meantime 
     it is imperative for legislators to recognize and address the 
     numerous problems associated with the law.
       The Obama Administration acknowledged the detrimental 
     effects that the employer mandate will have on businesses, 
     workers, and the economy at large when it unilaterally 
     elected to delay this provision for one year. With the 
     legality of this move very much in question, the House of 
     Representatives is wisely moving to codify the change by 
     passing H.R. 2667. This would greatly assist--albeit only in 
     the short-term--the many businesses that are already cutting 
     employee hours or jobs as a result of the law.
       At the same time that businesses are making difficult 
     staffing decisions, individuals are poised to be hit by 
     Obamacare's requirement to purchase health insurance. In 
     2014, the penalty for failing to do so is $285 per family or 
     1 percent of household income, whichever is greater. By 2016, 
     the penalty jumps to $2,085 per family or 2.5 percent of 
     household income, whichever is greater. As the Supreme Court 
     ruled last year, this penalty is a tax. For many families 
     continuing to struggle due to the weak economy, the burdens 
     from the individual mandate will become increasingly 
     difficult to bear. H.R. 2668 would delay the provision for a 
     year, which would provide much-needed, temporary relief to 
     these families.
       Passage of H.R. 2667 and H.R. 2668 would help alleviate 
     some of the harmful effects that the Affordable Care Act will 
     impose on businesses and individuals. Enactment of these 
     bills would be an important step toward more significant 
     legislative goals, such

[[Page 11624]]

     as permanent repeal of both mandates and the Affordable Care 
     Act in its entirety.
       Rollcall votes on H.R. 2667 and H.R. 2668 will be included 
     in our annual rating of Congress and ``yes'' votes will be 
     considered the pro-taxpayer position.
       If you have any questions, please contact NTU Federal 
     Affairs Manager Nan Swift.

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock), another member of the Ways 
and Means Committee.
  Mr. SCHOCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
  Wow, I'm sure our listening audience at home wonders who to believe. 
We are hearing charges of politics. We are hearing claims of chutzpah.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle, this isn't politics--this 
is lawmaking.
  Has our Republic stooped so low that you would go out and raise 
millions of dollars and waste thousands of hours of your volunteer time 
to be elected to a body only to see that power which is given by the 
Constitution to do that which you were elected to do instead given to 
the executive branch--to the President?
  If you believe as the President believes, which is that this law is 
not ready to be implemented--which is that, for various reasons, HHS 
and other agencies are not able to certify that the businesses are able 
to comply--then join us in doing what the President wants to do 
legally. Join us in giving the power to the President that which he is 
already claiming unilaterally, and do what your constituents have 
elected you to do, which is to actually do lawmaking.
  Mr. Speaker, we heard claims earlier today that women were being 
discriminated against, that women's premiums were rising at a faster 
rate than men's. Let me tell you what this bill does to young people, 
who are really discriminated against because of ObamaCare.
  Young people's premiums are going up over 400 percent because of a 
community rating provision in this bill. Young people are paying a 
disproportionate, growing cost of health care in this country because 
of a discrimination factor in this bill called ``community rating.'' 
Young people who have gone to college, who have busted their tails to 
get a degree, don't want to stay on their mom and dad's insurance until 
they're 26. That's not why I went to college. I don't think that's why 
you went to college. They go to college to get a job, and this 
ObamaCare legislation and so many others of the President's policies 
are killing jobs in America. It's why half of the people who graduated 
from college last May are still unemployed or underemployed.
  For so many reasons, this bill needs to be postponed, which is what 
this legislation does. I urge its passage and a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 15\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Washington has 6 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to 
a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, a fellow physician from 
the State of Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I have in my hand a pocket Constitution, which says here in Article 
I, Section 1:

       All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a 
     Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a 
     Senate and House of Representatives.

  It doesn't say anything in there about the President.
  Mr. Speaker, if you've noticed a lot of times, the weaker one's 
argument, the louder the volume, and I'm hearing a lot of volume from 
the other side of the aisle, including from their leadership. They have 
a weak argument, Mr. Speaker--there is no question about it--in saying 
that the bill has already passed.
  If the bill has already passed, what right does the President have to 
change the law without coming back to the Congress?
  We are giving them the opportunity to do that. Of course, we are also 
giving the young people in this country the opportunity to get the same 
break that these large Fortune 500 companies may be getting in regard 
to delaying the employer mandate for 1 year. Let's do the same thing 
for these young people who are no longer 26. They're 26\1/2\; they're 
not living in the basement anymore; they have a job. Let's give them 
the same 12-month break that we're giving to employers.
  Pass this bill. It's a good bill. We have the authority to do it, not 
the President.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield myself 30 seconds.
  There are 8,300 young adults who are still getting insurance on their 
parents' plans; more than 8,500 seniors are receiving prescription drug 
discounts; 86,000 seniors are now receiving preventative care without 
having to pay for it under the Medicare program; 195,000 now have 
health insurance that covers preventative care with no co-pays and 
insurance; and on and on and on it goes.
  I enter into the Record the health care reform law as it affects the 
11th Congressional District of Georgia.

   Benefits of the Health Care Reform Law in the 11th Congressional 
                          District of Georgia


 committees on energy and commerce, ways and means, and education and 
           the workforce, democratic staff report, july 2013

       The landmark Affordable Care Act (ACA) began delivering 
     important new benefits and protections to tens of millions of 
     American families almost immediately after it was signed into 
     law by President Obama. But the largest benefits of the law 
     will become available to consumers on October 1, 2013, when 
     health insurance marketplaces open in all 50 states. These 
     marketplaces will offer individuals, families, and small 
     businesses an efficient, transparent one-stop shop to compare 
     health insurance policies, receive financial assistance, and 
     sign up for high-quality, affordable, and secure insurance 
     coverage.
       This fact sheet summarizes new data on the significant 
     benefits of the health care reform law in Rep. Gingrey's 
     district. It also provides the first picture of the impacts 
     of the law in districts redrawn or newly created following 
     the 2010 Census. As a result of the law:
       8,300 young adults in the district now have health 
     insurance through their parents' plan.
       More than 8,800 seniors in the district received 
     prescription drug discounts worth $12.6 million, an average 
     discount of $620 per person in 2011, $760 in 2012, and $900 
     thus far in 2013.
       86,000 seniors in the district are now eligible for 
     Medicare preventive services without paying any co-pays, 
     coinsurance, or deductible.
       195,000 individuals in the district--including 47,000 
     children and 78,000 women--now have health insurance that 
     covers preventive services without any co-pays, coinsurance, 
     or deductible.
       169,000 individuals in the district are saving money due to 
     ACA provisions that prevent insurance companies from spending 
     more than 20% of their premiums on profits and administrative 
     overhead. Because of these protections, over 19,900 consumers 
     in the district received approximately $2.8 million in 
     insurance company rebates in 2012 and 2011--an average rebate 
     of $82 per family in 2012 and $134 per family in 2011.
       Up to 43,000 children in the district with preexisting 
     health conditions can no longer be denied coverage by health 
     insurers.
       248,000 individuals in the district now have insurance that 
     cannot place lifetime limits on their coverage and will not 
     face annual limits on coverage starting in 2014.
       Up to 129,000 individuals in the district who lack health 
     insurance will have access to quality, affordable coverage 
     without fear of discrimination or higher rates because of a 
     preexisting health condition. In addition, the 45,000 
     individuals who currently purchase private health insurance 
     on the individual or small group market will have access to 
     more secure, higher quality coverage and many will be 
     eligible for financial assistance.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
a gentlelady who, prior to coming to Congress, worked as a nurse and 
who is a pivotal member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlelady 
from Tennessee, Diane Black.
  Mrs. BLACK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the President has previously described his health care 
law as ``a new set of rules that treats everybody honestly and treats 
everybody fairly.''
  Now, according to President Obama, if you're a big financial 
institution or a government contractor, you don't have to comply with 
ObamaCare's mandate

[[Page 11625]]

next year; but if you're a Tennessee family who is trying to make ends 
meet, you do or you will get taxed. To add insult to injury, this 
President now has the audacity to say that he will veto the House 
legislation delaying the employer mandate and the individual mandate 
that we are considering today.
  First of all, the employer mandate delay was proposed by him, so why 
would he veto his own idea? Secondly, why would he turn his back on the 
American families, who are merely asking for the same relief that he 
said he is going to give to Big Business?
  President Obama's veto threat is a pathetic excuse for leadership, 
and I suggest that we call his bluff and pass this legislation to 
protect the American people and their livelihoods from ObamaCare. It is 
simply not fair of President Obama to give business an exemption from 
his costly health care law without making the same allowances for 
individuals and families.
  I call on President Obama and congressional Democrats to do the right 
thing by supporting the Authority for Mandate Delay Act and the 
Fairness for American Families Act in order to protect the American 
people and to ensure fairness for all.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Record the effect of the 
Affordable Care Act on the Sixth Congressional District of Tennessee.

    Benefits of the Health Care Reform Law in the 6th Congressional 
                         District of Tennessee


 committees on energy and commerce, ways and means, and education and 
           the workforce, democratic staff report, July 2013

       The landmark Affordable Care Act (ACA) began delivering 
     important new benefits and protections to tens of millions of 
     American families almost immediately after it was signed into 
     law by President Obama. But the largest benefits of the law 
     will become available to consumers on October 1, 2013, when 
     health insurance marketplaces open in all 50 states. These 
     marketplaces will offer individuals, families, and small 
     businesses an efficient, transparent one-stop shop to compare 
     health insurance policies, receive financial assistance, and 
     sign up for high-quality, affordable, and secure insurance 
     coverage.
       This fact sheet summarizes new data on the significant 
     benefits of the health care reform law in Rep. Black's 
     district. It also provides the first picture of the impacts 
     of the law in districts redrawn or newly created following 
     the 2010 Census. As a result of the law:
       5,600 young adults in the district now have health 
     insurance through their parents' plan.
       More than 9,800 seniors in the district received 
     prescription drug discounts worth $12.7 million, an average 
     discount of $590 per person in 2011, $640 in 2012, and $690 
     thus far in 2013.
       134,000 seniors in the district are now eligible for 
     Medicare preventive services without paying any co-pays, 
     coinsurance, or deductible.
       184,000 individuals in the district--including 40,000 
     children and 74,000 women--now have health insurance that 
     covers preventive services without any co-pays, coinsurance, 
     or deductible.
       188,000 individuals in the district are saving money due to 
     ACA provisions that prevent insurance companies from spending 
     more than 20% of their premiums on profits and administrative 
     overhead. Because of these protections, over 26,900 consumers 
     in the district received approximately $3.9 million in 
     insurance company rebates in 2012 and 2011--an average rebate 
     of $69 per family in 2012 and $201 per family in 2011.
       Up to 40,000 children in the district with preexisting 
     health conditions can no longer be denied coverage by health 
     insurers.
       217,000 individuals in the district now have insurance that 
     cannot place lifetime limits on their coverage and will not 
     face annual limits on coverage starting in 2014.
       Up to 101,000 individuals in the district who lack health 
     insurance will have access to quality, affordable coverage 
     without fear of discrimination or higher rates because of a 
     preexisting health condition. In addition, the 37,000 
     individuals who currently purchase private health insurance 
     on the individual or small group market will have access to 
     more secure, higher quality coverage and many will be 
     eligible for financial assistance.

  I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson 
Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you to the manager--Dr. McDermott, I like to 
call him--who has been a mainstay of good health care in this Congress 
for a very long time. He is managing as well with the gentleman from 
Georgia, who has practiced medicine.
  But we can have a disagreement. The vigorous disagreement that we 
have, I must say, Mr. Speaker, is with the weight of truth that falls 
on what we have done on behalf of ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act.
  I enjoy sledding. I enjoy the snow. When you get on a sled, it rolls 
down and you're happy, and you come to a successful end. We've rolled 
down, and we keep on rolling because the Affordable Care Act is 
allowing young people to have insurance. It's reducing the cost of 
prescription drugs for our seniors. It's allowing a State like Texas, 
which has the highest number of uninsured--some 121,000-plus in my 
district--to now have insurance. It allows about 10 community health 
facilities to be able to begin enrollment this coming September and to 
be able to outreach to those families, who will now have coverage for 
them and their children.
  Let me be very clear. How many times do I have to say, no, you cannot 
have your way?
  The Supreme Court has ruled. This is the law of the land, and there 
is no reason whatsoever to go back on a plan that has allowed the New 
York insurance rates to go down on health care. There is nothing wrong 
with the President engaging business. These are large companies that 
have said we just need to look at it so we can streamline it. That's to 
make it better. If they undermine the individual mandate, 13 million 
Americans will not have insurance.
  How many times do I have to say ``no''?
  The Affordable Care Act is going well. People are insured and 
Americans are healthier. Let's keep the Affordable Care Act. Vote 
``no'' on the underlying bills.
  When will you ever understand that it's over? It's over.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
  Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank Dr. Price for his work on the Fairness for 
American Families Act, and I rise in support of the legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, President Obama made many promises when promoting his 
health care law. He promised that, if you liked your coverage, you 
could keep it; he promised that it would lower the cost of premiums; he 
promised that it would create new jobs and promote economic growth.
  Unfortunately, western Pennsylvania workers and families are 
experiencing just the opposite.
  A mom who works at a food service company in Beaver County, 
Pennsylvania, called my office last week to talk for an hour about how 
the law is impacting her family. She just had her hours cut by almost 
half thanks to the employer mandate. Her husband's job security is also 
now at risk. The lost hours, income, and job security have made it 
difficult for them to afford the necessities of life, and it will make 
it almost impossible to send their daughter to college next year.
  President Obama recently postponed the employer mandate. In so doing, 
he has conceded that the law is unworkable for businesses. If 
businesses deserve a break from ObamaCare, then why don't the rest of 
the American people?
  We need workable, commonsense, and patient-centered reforms that 
increase access to care and reduce costs. Today's legislation is a 
necessary first step in achieving the kind of health care reform that 
the American people deserve.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup), a gentleman who is engaged in 
the health profession.
  Mr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Speaker, the unilateral decision by this 
administration to delay certain provisions of Federal legislation 
undermines the very rule of law. If President Obama can pick and choose 
what he wants to enforce within ObamaCare, what prevents him from doing 
the same with other legislation? That is my concern.
  And while this administration is determined that their signature 
piece of legislation is too complicated for businesses, the individual 
mandate still

[[Page 11626]]

stands. Businesses get a break, but individuals get no relief from the 
burdens of this law.
  Why do hardworking individuals not deserve relief from the hardships 
of the Affordable Care Act? If the President and his allies in Congress 
stand by their decision to delay one mandate, is it not fair to delay 
the other?
  Realistically, a permanent delay through the full repeal of ObamaCare 
and its mandates is the only workable solution.
  Don't Americans deserve equality under the law and fairness for all?
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I inquire as to whether the gentleman 
from Georgia is prepared to close.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. As we have no more speakers, I am prepared to 
close.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I have in my hand here a letter signed by 30 economists from Harvard, 
Yale, MIT, Stanford, Rice, the University of Chicago, and everybody 
else, all of whom say we need a mandate. If this mandate were taken out 
of the law, the Affordable Care Act would be dead. What they say is 
that the individual mandate does not specify what care people receive; 
it simply requires people to pay a reasonable amount for any care that 
they may ultimately receive.
  No less a conservative than Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee for 
President, noted when signing the Massachusetts equivalent of the 
individual mandate:

       Some of my Libertarian friends balk at what looks like an 
     individual mandate. But remember, someone has to pay for the 
     health care that must, by law, be provided: either the 
     individual pays or the taxpayers pay.

  Everyone in this body spends $1,000 a year beyond their own health 
care costs paying for the uninsured in this country. People walk into 
the emergency room and they get taken care of because the hospital 
cannot refuse them and the doctor cannot refuse them, and so they're 
taken care of and then it's passed on to you and me.
  The individual mandate says everybody should pay according to their 
ability.
  Going on, Mr. Romney said:

       A free ride on the government is not libertarianism.

  Everywhere they've tried this without subsidies and mandates, it has 
failed. They say in the five States that have tried comprehensive 
insurance market reform without an individual mandate, healthy people 
choose to stay out of insurance, sick people took it up, and the 
premiums go up. That's exactly what the CBO says.
  So what you are saying, by repealing the individual mandate, is you 
want to drive up the costs on the people who now have insurance. That's 
a very strange political position to be taking.
  I must say, I listened to all these people who don't like the 
individual mandate and all this stuff. If you spend 2 years ranting 
about the Affordable Care Act and you run a campaign and spend hundreds 
of millions of dollars and rant against the Affordable Care Act, it's 
not surprising that people may be a little confused.
  When I was in medical school in 1963, the American Medical 
Association spent 3 or 4 years ranting against Medicare; and when the 
people went out to enroll people for Medicare, they got the door 
slammed in their face. Old people said, I'm not going to have that kind 
of government health care in my house. Well, let me tell you something. 
If you tried to take Medicare out now, you would find you have taken on 
a really ugly junkyard dog. You're not going to take out Medicare in 
this country now.
  You can confuse people for a while, but as they see and as I reported 
on everybody's district, it is already affecting kids who didn't have 
insurance because of a preexisting condition; it's affecting kids who 
didn't have insurance from their job and are now on their parents' 
insurance; it took away lifetime limits on care; it took away all the 
things that people worry about when they want health care security. 
They now have it, and you're saying let's take the individual mandate 
out and have the whole house come down, because that's what these 
economists have said.
  I enter this letter into the Record, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.


                   Why We Need the Individual Mandate

       The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) 
     requires people to buy health insurance when they can afford 
     to do so. This ``individual mandate'' is essential to address 
     two features of current health insurance markets: the fact 
     that millions of people cannot afford health insurance 
     coverage, and the fact that insurance companies frequently 
     charge high or unaffordable premiums to people who need 
     insurance most--those suffering from costly illness or 
     injury.
       This mandate is one of three pillars that together support 
     ACA's private market approach. The first pillar is insurance 
     market reform--ending the ability of insurance companies to 
     discriminate against sick or injured people with high medical 
     costs. Subsidies to help Americans of modest means gain 
     access to affordable health coverage provide the second 
     pillar. The individual mandate provides the third pillar. It 
     requires people to obtain insurance so long as that coverage 
     is affordable. The mandate expresses a basic obligation of 
     citizenship as well as an economic reality. Without the 
     mandate, some people will choose to gamble or to free-ride, 
     undermining the fairness and financial stability of the 
     health insurance system.
       Few of the uninsured could personally finance medical 
     treatment for a serious illness or injury. Moreover, this 
     country embraces the fundamental principal that everyone 
     should have to minimally decent medical treatment when 
     needed, without regard to ability to pay. Federal legislation 
     and the custom and practice of health care providers embody 
     this principle. A healthy individual's decision to forego 
     affordable insurance coverage thus imposes real costs on 
     others, while raising premiums on many people with serious 
     medical needs who require the most help.
       The individual mandate does not specify what care people 
     receive. It simply requires people to pay a reasonable amount 
     for any care they may ultimately receive. No less a 
     conservative than Mitt Romney noted, when signing 
     Massachusetts' equivalent of the individual mandate: ``Some 
     of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an 
     individual mandate. But remember, someone has to pay for the 
     health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the 
     individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on the 
     government is not libertarian.''
       The ACA's individual mandate is based on Massachusetts's 
     successful 2006 reforms. That landmark effort covered about 
     two-thirds of the formerly uninsured, while reducing premiums 
     for individual purchasers by about 50% relative to national 
     trends--with strong public support.
       In contrast, insurance reform without subsidies and 
     mandates has consistently failed. In the five states that 
     have tried comprehensive insurance market reform without an 
     individual mandate, healthy people chose to stay out of 
     insurance, sick people took it up, and premiums increased. 
     Only broad participation in insurance markets can end the 
     cycle of insecure coverage and high costs.
       The Obama Administration's recent decision to delay ACA's 
     requirement that large- and medium-sized employers sponsor 
     coverage for their employees or pay a penalty is independent 
     of the individual mandate. The employer assessment is 
     designed to bolster the ACA's financing and to ensure equity 
     between large firms who do and do not provide insurance. This 
     assessment will have only a very small impact on employers, 
     since 97% of firms with more than 50 employees already offer 
     insurance. The individual mandate stands in stark contrast, 
     as nearly one in five non-elderly Americans is currently 
     uninsured.
       Delaying the employer assessment has almost no effect on 
     the implementation of the ACA. The only important effect will 
     be to raise one fewer year of revenue from this component of 
     the law. In contrast, delaying the individual mandate would 
     cut at the core of the vision of private-market based 
     insurance market reform.
       Requests to delay the individual mandate are really 
     requests to gut the Affordable Care Act. Millions of 
     Americans face immediate health care needs and financial 
     challenges addressed by health reform. They cannot wait.
       Signers
         Henry Aaron, Senior Fellow and Bruce and Virginia 
           MacLaury Chair in Economic Studies, Brookings 
           Institution; Kenneth J. Arrow, Professor Emeritus, 
           Stanford University; Susan Athey, Professor of 
           Economics, Stanford Graduate School of Business; Linda 
           J. Blumberg, Senior Fellow, Health Policy Center, The 
           Urban Institute; Len Burman, Director, Tax Policy 
           Center, Urban Institute; Amitabh Chandra, Professor of 
           Public Policy, Harvard University; Philip J. Cook, ITT/ 
           Terry Sanford Professor of Public Policy, Duke 
           University; David Cutler, Otto Eckstein Professor of 
           Applied Economics, Harvard University; Claudia Goldin, 
           Henry Lee Professor of Economics, Harvard University; 
           Jonathan Gruber, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts 
           Institute of

[[Page 11627]]

           Technology; Vivian Ho, Baker Institute Chair in Health 
           Economics, Rice University; John Holahan, Institute 
           Fellow, Urban Institute; Jill Horwitz, Professor of 
           Law, University of California at Los Angeles; Genevieve 
           M. Kenney Co-Director and Senior Fellow Health Policy 
           Center, Urban Institute, Frank Levy, Lecturer, 
           Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical 
           School; Peter H. Lindert, Distinguished Research 
           Professor of Economics, University of California at 
           Davis; Eric S. Maskin, Adams University Professor, 
           Harvard University; Alan C. Monheit, Ph.D., Professor 
           of Health Economics, Rutgers University School of 
           Public Health; Richard Murname, Juliana W. and William 
           Foss Thompson Professor of Education and Society, 
           Harvard Graduate School of Education; Joseph Newhouse, 
           John D. MacArthur Professor of Health Policy and 
           Management, Harvard Medical School; Harold Pollack, 
           Helen Ross Professor of Social Service Administration, 
           University of Chicago; Matthew Rabin, Edward G. and 
           Nancy S. Jordan Professor of Economics, University of 
           California at Berkeley; James B. Rebitzer, Professor of 
           Management, Economics, and Public Policy and Everett V. 
           Lord Distinguished Faculty Scholar, Boston University 
           School of Management; Meredith Rosenthal, Professor of 
           Health Economics and Policy, Harvard School of Public 
           Health; Christopher Ruhm, Professor of Public Policy 
           and Economics, University of Virginia; Jonathan 
           Skinner, James O. Freedman Presidential Professor of 
           Economics, Professor of Community and Family Medicine, 
           Dartmouth College; Katherine Swartz, Professor, Harvard 
           School of Public Health; Paul N. Van de Water, Senior 
           Fellow, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; Kenneth 
           E. Warner, Avedis Donabedian Distinguished University 
           Professor of Public Health, Dept. of Health Management 
           & Policy, University of Michigan School of Public 
           Health; Stephen Zuckerman, Co-Director and Senior 
           Fellow, Heath Policy Center, The Urban Institute.

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  There are a lot of folks who've come to the floor on the other side 
of the aisle to speak about this piece of legislation. Curiously, there 
aren't any individuals who came from those States that have actually 
passed legislation to implore Congress not to continue with the 
individual mandate--Alabama, Arizona, Missouri, Ohio, individuals from 
the other side of the aisle who didn't come down to the floor.
  We get asked by folks on the other side about where's the jobs bill? 
Well, in addition to all the remarkable pieces of legislation on jobs 
that we have indeed passed and sent over to the Senate and it then 
gains dust over there, this is a jobs bill. I don't know if our friends 
on the other side haven't talked to their employers back home. 
Employers large and small, all of them say, Look, this is damaging job 
creation. We had one before the committee on Ways and Means that my 
friend from Washington and I sit on just last week who said he wasn't 
going to be able to expand his business. He couldn't, because of this 
bill. So this is a piece of jobs legislation.
  We have a number of folks on the other side who say, Look, this is 
just about politics. Mr. Speaker, you talk about politics. You've got 
the President saying that he's going to delay the reporting 
requirements for the employer mandate for a year. And, by the way, that 
just happens to be after the 2014 election. You talk about politics.
  Then you talk about delay. Some of my friends on the other side, they 
act as if this is something that we have indeed supported in the past. 
This is delay. This isn't repeal. In fact, we appreciate that the 
administration has awakened to the challenge of this piece of 
legislation.
  They've recognized that it doesn't work for businesses and job 
creators because of the uncertainty and fewer jobs being created, so 
they have promoted a delay of 1 year for the employer mandate. But that 
uncertainty remains for those employers, and they're not going to be 
able to hire significant individuals.
  And that uncertainty and that oppression of government-run health 
care isn't just for business. It's also true for individuals.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would say that I just encourage my friends to 
read the bill. This is the bill, H.R. 2668. It's very short and easily 
read. It simply changes the year requirements for the individual 
mandate from 1 year, 2014, to a year's delay in 2015. That's all it 
does. It simply equalizes the treatment for individuals as for 
businesses.
  I know that many of them haven't read the bill. If they did, they 
would recognize that this bill has no change in it for preexisting 
illnesses or injuries and the rules thereon. It has no change for 26-
year-olds being covered on their parents' health insurance. It has no 
change for lifetime limits. It has no change for the medical loss ratio 
provision. It has no change for gender equity. It has no change for 
out-of-pocket limits, and it has no change for anybody's insurance 
being taken away.
  All this bill does, Mr. Speaker, is simply say that individuals ought 
to be treated fairly and equally, just like businesses, that we ought 
to delay the individual mandate for a year.
  I call on my colleagues to support and vote for H.R. 2668, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, the administration recently announced that 
the Obamacare employer mandate, requiring businesses to provide their 
workers with health insurance, will be delayed until 2015. This 
decision is proof that even this administration acknowledges that the 
Obamacare law has adverse affects on American families and small 
businesses.
  At a time when the economy is still struggling to recover, we should 
be focused on reducing taxes on hardworking Americans and providing 
incentives for businesses to grow and create jobs. The Congressional 
Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the employer mandate will raise 
taxes on American businesses by $117 billion. In addition, the National 
Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) estimates that the employer 
mandate will result in 125,000 to 249,000 lost jobs as a result of 
higher insurance costs.
  Unfortunately, the administration is still moving forward with the 
implementation of the individual mandate in 2014, which will have 
negative effects on the American people. The average individual premium 
is expected to increase somewhere between 20 and 30 percent in 2014. 
CBO also estimates that the individual mandate will increase taxes on 
American families by $55 billion.
  Mr. Speaker, I support passage of H.R. 2667, the Authority for 
Mandate Delay Act, and H.R. 2668, the Fairness for American Families 
Act. At the same time, we must permanently repeal these burdensome 
mandates. That is why I authored H.R. 582, the Healthcare Tax Relief 
and Mandate Repeal Act, with 97 of my colleagues, to repeal the 
Obamacare individual and employer mandates, providing relief for 
American families and businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, now is not the time to impose extra burdens on American 
families and businesses when our economy is struggling to get back on 
track. I strongly support repeal of the individual and employer 
mandates and I am committed to working with my colleagues to carefully 
and thoughtfully implement real healthcare reform.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 
opposition to H.R. 2667 and H.R. 2668, two cynical Republican bills 
that play politics with Americans' lives. Instead of spending our time 
voting on the 38th and 39th Republican attempts to delay, undermine, or 
repeal the Affordable Care Act, we should be focused on implementing 
the law of the land and supporting real solutions to getting Americans 
the health care we all need.
  The requirement that individuals have health insurance is the 
foundation of the Affordable Care Act's ability to improve access to 
quality, affordable health insurance. H.R. 2668 would delay this 
requirement, threatening access to affordable health insurance for an 
estimated 129 million Americans with pre-existing health conditions.
  The Affordable Care Act has already begun to improve Americans' 
access to health care. Insurance companies are now required to cover 
children with pre-existing conditions, and in 2014 insurers will be 
prohibited from discriminating against adults with pre-existing 
conditions as well. An estimated 3.1 million young adults now have 
health insurance through their parents' plans because of the Affordable 
Care Act, and 6.3 million seniors have saved $6.1 billion on their 
prescription drugs.
  The patient protections and health system reforms that will go into 
effect in 2014 rely on the individual responsibility provision of the 
Affordable Care Act. This provision does not apply to those who cannot 
access affordable

[[Page 11628]]

coverage, and it protects all Americans from sharp increases in health 
insurance premiums in the health insurance marketplaces.
  H.R. 2667, which would delay the employer health insurance mandate, 
is unnecessary and detracts from the important work of ensuring that 
more Americans gain access to affordable, quality health insurance.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2667 and H.R. 2668 to defend the 
advances already made under the Affordable Care Act and the benefits 
yet to come. These bills are not intended to help Americans access 
affordable health care. They are merely the most recent Republican 
efforts to undermine the Affordable Care Act.
  The Affordable Care Act is the law of the land, and it is already 
helping Americans improve their health. We must come together to 
implement the law effectively and ensure that more Americans have the 
opportunity to access affordable health insurance and improve their 
health.
  Ms. CLARKE. Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 2668 the Fairness for American 
Families Act; which would seek to delay until 2015 the requirement that 
individuals maintain minimal essential health care coverage.
  Once again, for the 38th time, Republicans are voting to repeal parts 
of the Affordable Care Act.
  The individual responsibility requirement under the Affordable Care 
Act, which calls for purchasing coverage or paying a penalty, covers 
only those who have access to affordable coverage. If an individual 
does not have access to coverage with premiums that are 8 percent or 
less of their income, the individual is exempt.
  Individuals are also exempt if their income is so low they do not 
have to file a federal tax return; or if they qualify for an exemption 
based on hardship, religious beliefs, and certain other factors; or 
they spend less than three consecutive months without coverage.
  Therefore, the Republicans' disingenuous concern that Americans will 
be punished if they are unable to afford coverage is simply not true!
  The Affordable Care Act's individual responsibility provision is a 
critical component of the additional patient protections and reforms 
that go into effect in 2014. Health experts have determined that if, 
beginning in 2014, insurers can no longer deny coverage to people with 
pre-existing conditions and can no longer charge them higher premiums, 
premiums in health insurance marketplaces would rise sharply unless all 
Americans with access to affordable insurance either purchase it or pay 
a penalty.
  This is yet another attempt to obstruct and undermine the successful 
implementation of the Affordable Care Act.
  The result of this bill's delay of the individual responsibility 
provision would be to limit access to affordable coverage for millions 
of Americans and thereby, weaken one of the primary premises of the 
Affordable Care Act.
  Don't fall for this trick! I ask my colleagues to stand in with me in 
solidarity and vote no on this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on H.R. 2668 has 
expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 300, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 
consideration of H.R. 2668 is postponed.

                          ____________________