[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 19, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H262-H323]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REPEALING THE JOB-KILLING HEALTH CARE LAW ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX,
proceedings will now resume on the bill (H.R. 2) to repeal the job-
killing health care law and health care-related provisions in the
Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. When consideration was postponed on Tuesday,
January 18, 2011, 5 hours of debate remained on the bill, with 30
minutes equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and
minority leader or their designees, 90 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, 90 minutes equally divided and controlled
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, 90 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2, and I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, for 20 consecutive months more than 14 million Americans
have been unemployed. As much as we would like to solve this problem,
the Federal Government cannot legislate or regulate our way to job
creation. We can, however, foster economic certainty that will
encourage families, businesses, and entrepreneurs to spend, hire, and
invest. And that is what we will try to do today.
Almost 1 year ago, Democrats launched a nearly $1 trillion government
takeover of health care that increases national health care spending by
$311 billion over 10 years and levies more than $500 billion in new
taxes on individuals, consumers, and businesses. The 2,700-page law has
led to more than 4,000 pages of new rules and regulations, and the law
is only 10 months old. The uncertainty of what this all means for
individuals and businesses today, and in the months and years to come,
is having a chilling effect on the country's job creators.
A number of provisions of the law will undermine job creation and
economic growth, but perhaps none is as alarming as the employer
mandate. For the first time in the Nation's history, employers with
more than 50 workers are required to provide government-approved health
care coverage. Those who do not or cannot afford to will be forced to
pay a $2,000 penalty for every worker beyond the first 30. If you are a
small business owner with 50 workers and you cannot afford to provide
government-approved health insurance for your workers, adding one
additional employee to the payroll will result in a $42,000 penalty.
{time} 1040
Some refer to the employer mandate as shared sacrifice. They argue
that expanding coverage to every individual means everyone must pay,
but the cost of this provision will result in more than lost dollars
and cents. Hiring new workers will be more expensive, creating a
disincentive for job creators to put Americans back to work.
The employer mandate isn't the only challenge facing employers. Last
year the administration released a regulation on the so-called
grandfather provision, a provision intended to protect current plans
against the law's costly and complex requirements. It is also central
to the President's promise that, If you like your current health care
plan, you can keep it.
Unfortunately, the regulation falls far short of the President's
promise. By the administration's own estimates, up to 69 percent of all
employer plans and 80 percent of small business plans will be denied
grandfathered status in just 2 years. One estimate indicates 87 million
Americans will face changes to their current health care plans.
Instead of keeping what they already have, individuals and employers
will have to pay more for something new and unfamiliar. The more costly
it is for employers to provide coverage, the more likely existing
health plans will be eliminated and the need for government assistance
will grow. And as the rolls for government programs expand, the cost to
taxpayers will skyrocket.
At a time when every job creator should be encouraged to grow and
hire, the Democrats' health care law instead forces employers to choose
between rising health care costs and government penalties. It is time
to end the uncertainty facing families, employers, and workers. It is
time to push ObamaCare aside so America's job creators, both large and
small, can move forward with the confidence they need to hire new
workers.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2, the Republican
Patients' Rights Repeal Act.
The question is just simply fundamental here, whether or not people
will be able to have control over their health care needs and their
health insurance needs, or whether or not we will go back to the chaos
of the previous system that is dictated by the insurance companies
where people are thrown off of policies willy nilly, where people are
not reimbursed for costs willy nilly, given excuses, paperwork back and
forth, where young people are thrown off their parents' policy when
they graduate from high school, and whether or not they will have
insurance or not, or whether people will have the freedom to make the
choices, to have insurance that will cover them, that will get rid of
the preexisting conditions that eliminate their coverage, that will get
rid of the lifetime caps so that those people who contract cancer
[[Page H263]]
or other chronic diseases find out they have run out of insurance at
the exact moment they need it. No longer will that be the case under
the current law.
Now, the choice is to repeal that law and to make it more difficult
for small businesses to provide insurance. Since the enactment of the
tax credit under this law, we now see that hundreds of thousands of
employees have been extended health insurance by small businesses
employing 50 workers or less because of that tax credit, a tax credit
that is scheduled to increase.
So we already see the hundreds of thousands of employees that did not
have access to insurance because they worked for small businesses today
have insurance. That's not the reporting of the government. That's the
reporting of the health insurance companies where people and businesses
are making applications for insurance.
So what we see now is young people are once again covered and can
have the security that they will have health insurance while they go to
school or while they start a new job that may not have health insurance
with that coverage. We now see that people who may have had a bout of
cancer early on know that that will not disqualify them from having
insurance as they go out and continue to work to provide for their
families.
We now see that after 2014 when people change their jobs or they lose
their jobs, they will have insurance so they will not have to go to the
poor house because of the insurance costs that they will not be able to
provide for because they are unemployed. They will not be locked into a
job that they don't want. They will be able to be entrepreneurial and
go out and seek a new job knowing that they will have health insurance.
That's the certainty of this legislation.
We can now choose the chaos of the current insurance system. We can
choose the chaos of people getting a letter saying you no longer have
insurance, getting a letter saying your child is no longer covered,
getting a letter saying your premium is up 59 percent, as they did last
year in California. We have seen health insurance premiums jump
dramatically over the cost of living over the last decade and over the
last decade have seen more and more businesses shed coverage for their
employees.
The Republicans want to believe that there is certainty in that. The
Republicans want to believe that that's a comfort to the American
working family. The Republicans want to believe that that's a comfort
to grandparents who see their grandchildren thrown off their parents'
policies.
That's not a comfort. What is a comfort is the freedom to know that
never again will you have to contest the arbitrary rulings of an
insurance company about your preexisting conditions, about the coverage
of your child's health care. Never again will you have to contest
whether or not you will get help paying for your pharmaceuticals if you
are a senior. Never again will you have to pay for preventive medical
checkups to try to keep you healthy if you are a senior. That's the
certainty that this legislation presents.
Last night I had a telephone town hall meeting with over a thousand
seniors in my district, and all of them--almost all of them, I would
say there were three or four in the call--almost all of them wanted the
certainty of knowing they were going to get help with their
pharmaceutical payments. They struggle with the doughnut hole.
They were appreciative of the $250 check they got last year, and they
were appreciative of the help they were going to get paying for their
pharmaceuticals this year. That's the certainty that we ought to reject
by rejecting repeal of the health care act.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a member of the
committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).
Mr. PETRI. Today I rise in support of H.R. 2, legislation which would
repeal the health care law passed last year. Even if it is unlikely
that this bill will pass the Senate, I think it's important for the
House majority to state its position in the clearest possible terms to
encourage a general reevaluation of the new law.
Make no mistake. My colleagues and I support health care reform which
would ensure that all Americans, including those with preexisting
conditions, have access to affordable coverage. However, the health
care law that passed last year takes a fundamentally wrong approach to
achieving that goal and will only make worse our skyrocketing health
care costs and Federal deficits.
My State of Wisconsin is a leader in terms of providing efficient,
high-quality care; and I have been meeting and will continue to work
with medical providers in my State as well as my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to develop proposals which will reward high-quality,
low-cost medical services instead of simply giving government more
control over our health care.
Only by implementing proposals that rein in out-of-control health
care costs will we be able to make affordable coverage available to all
Americans. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this
important issue.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the chairman for yielding.
As we sit here this morning, there are millions of Americans sitting
in front of computers or the want ads desperately looking for their
next job, 15 million unemployed Americans. The question they are asking
this Congress is why don't you work together to help small businesses
and entrepreneurs create jobs for our country?
The answer the majority gives them is we will get to that someday.
What they are doing today raises some real questions as well.
A mother has two 4-year-old twins who are diagnosed with leukemia and
tries to buy health insurance. The insurance company says we won't sell
it to you because your children have leukemia, or we will charge you
five times as much.
We say that should be illegal and the law today the majority tries to
repeal says differently. A ``yes'' vote for repeal means she is told,
Sorry, no insurance.
A person who has faithfully paid his premiums for years and suddenly
needs a quadruple bypass heart operation receives a letter from his
insurance company that says, Sorry, we are rescinding your coverage. We
say, and the law says, that should be illegal. But a vote for repeal
says, Sorry, you are on your own.
A pregnant woman who has a very difficult pregnancy and gives birth
to a child with severe impairments that cost hundreds of thousands of
dollars each month, the law says, and we say, that the insurance
company should be legally obligated to pay her bills as long as she and
her baby need it, no lifetime policy limits.
{time} 1050
But a vote for repeal says she's on her own.
A senior citizen who runs out of prescription drug coverage the
Fourth of July or Labor Day, the law says, and the bill says, they
should get some help to continue to buy their prescriptions for the
rest of the year. But a vote for repeal says she's on her own. We're
all on our own on paying the debt. Our President is meeting with the
President of China today; and as we do that, the majority is adding
over $1 trillion to the national debt with this vote.
Ladies and gentlemen of the House, this bill doesn't create jobs for
the middle class. It creates pain for the middle class. The right vote
is ``no'' on this repeal. The right course is get back to the job of
creating jobs for the American people. Vote ``no.''
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to another
member of the committee, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Wilson).
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your
leadership.
Mr. Speaker, one of the many threats of this unconstitutional health
care takeover is the unfunded State mandates. In my home State of South
Carolina, newly inaugurated Governor Nikki Haley has correctly warned
that the Palmetto State cannot afford the health care mandate. Governor
Haley even went so far as to ask the President to opt out of this
unfunded mandate. The reason is because the health care takeover calls
for an additional $1 billion in new State spending.
[[Page H264]]
The takeover will cripple small businesses. A recent study by the
National Federation of Independent Business, NFIB, America's largest
organization of small businesses, has indicated that the mandate will
lead to the elimination of 1.6 million jobs.
This law imposes burdens on all Americans. It's a threat to senior
citizens in that it will lead to waiting lists, deferral services, and
rationing. It's a threat to our Nation's youth in that it burdens them
with excessive debt.
Mr. Speaker, the liberal health care takeover destroys jobs, limits
freedoms, and expands Big Government.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Woolsey), a member of the committee.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak out in emphatic opposition
to H.R. 2, the repeal of the Affordable Care Act.
Mr. Speaker, one of my sons, the father of two and a wonderful
husband, came home last week to Petaluma from 6\1/2\ weeks in the
hospital. He has many, many more weeks' recovery ahead of him, but I
can tell you that this family that still has a huge challenge ahead of
them would not have a chance without health care, the health care
coverage that they have.
This bill, by the way, goes in precisely the wrong direction. Just
when we should be strengthening the historic reform we passed last
year, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to tear it
apart. Have you never experienced another person that had the needs
that my family has today even if it wasn't in your family?
Repeal, we know, would leave millions out in the cold, stripping them
of access to affordable health coverage. In fact, Blue Shield of
California recently announced a rate increase of as much as 59
percent--59 percent--for some 200,000 policyholders. Does the majority
not see the problem with runaway costs that are passed on to middle
class families already burdened by a deep recession? Do you want to
return to the broken health care system that had people crying out for
reform in the first place?
The claim that cutting government spending is the most important of
all flies in the face of the CBO that has concluded that their bill
would add $230 billion--your bill, the Republican bill--$230 billion to
the Nation's debt by 2021. Do not vote for this.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend
and colleague, a member of the committee, the gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. I thank my friend for yielding me time.
I rise today in support of H.R. 2, which repeals the job-destroying
government takeover of health care.
Voters rejected the ``government knows best'' philosophy in November.
In contrast, Republicans believe that American innovation and reduced
government control are keys to successful health reform that reduces
health care costs. For instance, it's estimated that 1 percent of the
most seriously ill account for more than 25 percent of all health care
expenditures. What if we could improve the care of these patients and
at the same time reduce costs?
We can. We can by harnessing the power of innovation and health
research in fields like regenerative medicine. Regenerative medicine
develops technologies to replace or regenerate organs and tissues using
the patient's own cells. These treatments could reduce the cost of
chronic diseases by $275 billion a year. Consider the fact that Dr.
Anthony Atala at the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at Wake Forest
University has been able successfully to grow bladders for bladder
replacement surgeries from the recipient's own cells. Yet despite
several successful bladder transplants, the FDA insists he go through
additional clinical trials on animals and spend millions of dollars in
testing that is clearly unnecessary based on his success with the human
transplant surgeries.
The Federal Government's regulatory burden is stifling innovation in
America, and the government takeover of health care, passed by the
ruling Democrats last year, will impose more job and innovation-
destroying regulations on health research. Therefore, I urge my
colleagues to vote in favor of investing in new health technology and
research by voting ``yes'' on H.R. 2.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), a member of the committee.
(Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
2.
Over one-third of my constituents in the 15th Congressional District
of Texas are currently uninsured. With passage of the Affordable Care
Act, that number, which has risen year after year, is finally coming
down. I project that the percentage of uninsured individuals could drop
to only 10 percent.
Right now, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, children who are 26 and
under can stay on their parents' policy as they finish school and
search for a job. With the passage of health care reform in 2010,
senior citizens who hit the doughnut hole are now going to receive
rebates and small businesses have had their taxes cut, all the result
of the Affordable Care Act. If the proposed health care act repeal were
to pass, it will destroy this progress I have seen in my district and
in my State.
The families and businesses in my district cannot afford more
uncertainty. They cannot afford to go back to the old health care
system that was not working for millions of Americans and whose
spiraling costs were driving our Federal budget into the abyss.
Right now, the Affordable Care Act is extending affordable health
care insurance to millions of Americans. However, here in Congress, the
majority party is asking the House to repeal the law we passed without
holding hearings and without offering a meaningful alternative to the
American people who are working, who are presently without insurance,
or who have preexisting medical conditions. Those Americans were
struggling to pay for hefty premiums to insurers. If there are some
things that need to be fixed in the present law, we can fix them, but
throwing out all the progress we have made is not the answer.
The focus of this new Congress should be reducing the staggeringly
high 9\1/2\ percent unemployment rate. Instead, we have a bill before
us today that makes it harder for businesses to provide benefits to the
employees that eliminate the hundreds of thousands of new jobs that
were being created in the health and medical fields.
The Affordable Care Act doesn't reduce jobs; it saves lives. I
strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to a
physician on the committee, the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 2, the repeal of ObamaCare.
For the past 30 years, I haven't been a politician but a physician
treating patients and delivering babies in rural east Tennessee. And I
can say without hesitation that we have the finest health care system
in the world.
Health care should not be a partisan issue, and I personally have
never operated on a Democrat or Republican cancer in my life. You can't
spend $1 trillion and have a bill that's over 2,500 pages long and not
have something good come out of it. This bill is not, however, good
medicine for our country.
The repeal of ObamaCare doesn't mean that we aren't for health care
reform. Quite the contrary. What I discovered in my own practice of 30
years was health care was becoming more and more unaffordable for our
citizens. And we had a group of patients, a group of citizens, who
didn't have affordable health insurance coverage. This we need to
address.
This bill does increase the number of people having insurance, but
does nothing to control the costs. The other side says that if we
repeal ObamaCare, it will increase the costs and decrease access.
{time} 1100
Let's take a look at three government-run plans. One is TennCare, my
State's Medicaid program; the Massachusetts Care; and Medicare.
In TennCare, we had a plan that had competing interests. It would
compete
[[Page H265]]
for your business. It was supposed to hold costs down. We saw our costs
in Tennessee from 1993 until 2004 and 2005 go from $2.6 billion to $8
billion. It tripled. And what we found was that half the people who
went on the government plan had private health insurance and dropped it
and got on the government plan. This plan took up almost every new
dollar our State took in. We balanced this on the backs of college
students. We have less highway patrolmen in our State than we had 30
years ago, and we have 2 million more people. What our Democratic
Governor did was rationed care by cutting the rolls of TennCare
patients and also limiting the access to physicians to eight visits per
year.
Let's look at Massachusetts Care where there is a mandate right now.
You are required to buy a good or service and the government decides
what the right good or service is, not you as the consumer. So what
happens is it hasn't held the costs down there either. They have the
highest private insurance premiums in America in Massachusetts.
Emergency room visits are not down. And why is that? The same as
TennCare. These plans don't pay for the cost of the care, shifting more
cost over to the private sector, making it more and more expensive.
The second thing this mandate does is it empowers lobbyists. How it
does that is you will see the lobbyists come to us, the politicians,
and say, Hey, we want this medicine or this device on our plan. And
these are the people that write the checks to the politicians, so you
are empowering them.
Let's finally look at Medicare, a program that started in 1965 as a
$3 billion program. The government estimators at that time said in 25
years this will be a $15 billion program. It was over a $100 billion
program. Today, it is over $400 billion.
So we have three examples where costs are out of control in the
government-run plans.
The senior citizens understand this. When you take $500 billion out
of a plan, and in the next 10 years we are going to add 36 million
seniors, three things are going to happen when you have got more
patients chasing fewer dollars: You will have decreased access, you
will have decreased quality, and you will have increased costs. That is
a given.
We had the President say last year, I will go over this bill line by
line.
I have read this bill. I wanted to go over it. I wanted to have
meaningful health care reform but was denied that privilege.
Without exception, our States are almost broke, every one of them.
And we are adding another unfunded Federal mandate to require them to
pay and implement a plan that is already breaking them, the expansion
of Medicaid, which is an entitlement.
Businesses get it also. If this is such a great plan, why have, to
date, 222 businesses opted out, including McDonald's and, of all
people, the SEIU, the government's employee union who fought for this
and then opted themselves out? I find that ridiculous when you see
that.
The doctors get it. The doctor fix, the SGR fix is not in this bill.
It is a cost that was hidden. As doctors are squeezed, they cannot see
patients that cannot pay the cost of the care.
Malpractice is not in this bill. I can tell you as an OB-GYN doctor,
it is over the top. It is almost unaffordable for us.
So the American people get it. The people of Tennessee get it. And we
as elected representatives get it. We got that in the election of
November 2.
I want to encourage my colleagues to vote to repeal ObamaCare.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield myself 30 seconds.
I would just say to the gentleman from Tennessee it is universally
recognized that there was no worse-designed health care plan than
TennCare; that all you did was extend the benefits and no cost
containment and no pay-fors, and it damn near bankrupted the State.
It is also recognized that nowhere have health care costs gone up
faster than in the private sector, much faster than Medicare because,
once again, there is not much in the way of cost containment. You just
reimburse people for the cost.
This legislation has cost containment, and that is why CBO says, if
you repeal it, you will drive up the short-term deficit to $30 billion
and long-term deficit to $1.2 trillion. That is the difference.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), a
member of the committee.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I appreciate the gentleman's yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2, a bill that would
repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
The Affordable Care Act, signed into law in March of 2010, is an
important first step in reforming our health insurance system, a system
that everyone knows is broken. The Affordable Care Act provides access
to the insurance market for millions of Americans, puts in place
important consumer protections, and reduces our country's deficit.
This new Congress was elected promising a transparent process with
input from all Members. This repeal bill, however, has not even been
considered by a single committee in the House. Members are also being
shut out of the process.
I cosponsored four amendments submitted to the Rules Committee; none
were accepted.
I cosponsored an amendment to ensure that women continue to receive
the protections provided by the Affordable Care Act. The Republicans
did not allow this amendment to come up to the floor.
I cosponsored an amendment to ensure that all seniors will continue
to receive the increased benefits in Medicare and that the doughnut
hole will continue to be closed. The Republicans did not allow this
amendment to come up for a vote.
I cosponsored an amendment to ensure that small businesses continue
to receive the tax cuts provided for in the Affordable Care Act. The
Republicans didn't allow this amendment to come up for a vote.
I cosponsored an amendment to ensure that we are responsible stewards
of our Federal budget and to prevent this repeal bill from adding to
the deficit. The Republicans did not allow the amendment to come up for
a vote.
This new Congress ran on a campaign of lower taxes on small
businesses and reducing the Federal budget deficit. This bill, however,
would raise taxes on small businesses and individuals and add a
trillion dollars to the deficit.
Just to be clear, a vote for this bill will be a vote for higher
taxes and increases in the deficit. Although there is an effort to
bring this repeal bill to the floor today, what is being proposed in
place of affordable care? Nothing.
My office has dealt with this for years. Please, vote ``no'' on this
bill.
Mr. KLINE. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Roe) to respond to the gentleman from California's comments.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, just to address my colleague from
California, I would argue that Tennessee has thought this plan well
out; and the problem with this plan is, when you have more services
chasing fewer dollars, you are going to create waits in a situation
where you shifted the cost.
You talked about the private health insurance costs going up. That is
true. There is innovation, liability. There are a lot of reasons for
that, Congressman, but one of the main reasons is an overpromise by
government programs that shifts costs. We saw that in our State. We can
do better.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), a member of the committee.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the repeal of
the government's takeover of health care.
We are well aware of how the health care law created hundreds of
billions of dollars in new taxes while doing little to drive down costs
and causing millions to lose access to health coverage. Even more
troubling is how dramatically this law grows government and constricts
individual freedom and American exceptionalism.
When this laws was passed, the Democrats said it would create 4
million new jobs. Instead, we got over 2,000 pages of job-killing new
taxes and less choice. This law was clearly an overreach of government
control.
In place of government-run health care, true reform can be achieved
through multiple patient-centered alternatives, including expanding
HSAs,
[[Page H266]]
association health plans, and allowing the purchase of health insurance
across State lines.
Americans agree. A Gallup/USA Today poll this week confirms that only
13 percent of Americans support the current law. Simply put, the
American people want this law repealed, and so do I, as I promised.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, my mother always told me that
if you have your health, you have everything, which is why I have
always believed every American should have access to the care they need
to be healthy.
Now my colleagues want to repeal health care without an alternative.
Well, it is easy to say you are against something, but it is much
harder to come up with solutions. Americans deserve to know how my
colleagues' plan will protect patients.
Specifically, women shouldn't get denied care based on gender or have
to pay hundreds more in insurance premiums than men, nor should they
need a permission slip to see an OB-GYN.
The 32 million Americans without insurance need access to coverage.
Insurers shouldn't deny children coverage because they have been
sick.
{time} 1110
Medicare must be kept solvent over the long term, and seniors should
have access to affordable prescriptions. Americans shouldn't face
outrageous annual premium hikes, such as the 59 percent increase many
of my own constituents are looking at today.
The health care reform bill addresses each of these problems and many
more. It is irresponsible to repeal without a plan to fix the issues in
our health care system. Further, thanks to Governor Schwarzenegger's
efforts before leaving office, California is leading the way in
implementing reforms already authorizing health insurance exchange
marketplaces to buy affordable insurance. Repeal will cripple health
reform efforts in my State and leave it without direction going
forward.
I can't support legislation that does not offer solutions and goes
backward. Let's focus on creating jobs and not taking away health care
from patients.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a new
member of the committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanna).
Mr. HANNA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2 so that we
may replace the well-intentioned but ill-conceived health care law
signed last year with reforms that increase access to care and lower
costs.
We know that the current law raises premiums. We know that it cuts
Medicare by more than $500 billion. That's unacceptable to the over
120,000 seniors in my district who rely on Medicare benefits. We know
it raises taxes, imposes costs on small businesses, and will
substantially burden New York taxpayers.
Tomorrow I will vote to instruct committees, including the Education
and Workforce Committee, to produce thoughtful and improved
legislation. I look forward to supporting reforms that lower premiums
through competition; allow folks with preexisting conditions access to
affordable health care; reform the medical liability system; preserve a
patient's ability to keep their own plan; and expand incentives to
encourage personal responsibility for health care coverage and costs.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of the committee.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the budget-
busting legislation that fails to create one new job and returns our
health decisions to insurance companies rather than doctors.
Repealing the health reform law would be a big mistake. Instead of
focusing on job creation or retirement security or fair taxes, we're
debating repealing a law that protects Americans from insurance company
abuses and provides fairer and more accessible health care for
children, for veterans, for seniors, for employees, for employers. The
law saves the average taxpayer money, and it saves the insured money.
On Monday, we celebrated Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Dr. King
fought for an America where everyone regardless of race or class
background had access to the American opportunity. He said, ``Of all
the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking
and inhumane.''
Today, the new majority is trying to repeal the health reform law
that we enacted just one year ago. That historic law provides secure
health insurance coverage to almost all Americans and lowers the
deficit. The days of ``you're on your own'' are past now. The law
ensures that health insurance companies actually have to provide health
insurance, not just in name, but it requires that they spend your
premium dollars on actually providing health care.
If this reform law were repealed, Anna's 24-year-old son in Kendall
Park, New Jersey would become uninsured; Todd from Eatontown would not
be able to get insurance due to his preexisting condition; and
thousands of seniors on Medicare, like Howard from Monroe, would not be
able to afford his lifesaving prescriptions.
Matthew from West Windsor wrote me to say, ``I just graduated from
college, and I'm working at a job with no health care.'' He's grateful
now that he can be on his parents' health insurance plan, but he's
concerned if this is repealed. He says, ``I have a preexisting
condition, and shockingly, I truly would be without insurance and in
deep trouble if this law were reversed.''
I urge my colleagues to vote no on repealing the health care reform
law.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to
another new member of the committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Rokita).
(Mr. ROKITA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of freedom for every American and
against the expansion of government. The people of Indiana sent me to
Washington, D.C. with very specific instructions: Get the government
out of our lives.
Therefore, I will be voting yes on H.R. 2. Every honest person in
this debate knows that this law doesn't solve the problems in our
health care system. Its solution, to destroy the best health care
system in the world and replace it with even more inefficiencies,
government controls, loss of personal freedom and trillions in new
costs to the taxpayers, will fail.
And let's not forget that there are programs already in place that
are supposed to do many of the things the President has talked about
his law doing. We should start with reforming those. Also, health
savings accounts, insurance across State lines, covering preexisting
conditions, and even subsidizing the poor's purchase of a private
policy should all be implemented.
Health care is not a right, and if we are not careful, the feel-good,
empty promises made in this law will bankrupt our country and leave our
grandkids to pay for it.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), a member of the committee.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Miller.
I rise today in opposition to a regressive and unfair piece of
legislation, H.R. 2. We must protect the American people from the
Republican NoCare agenda. Their agenda for America is simple:
NoCare if you lose your job.
NoCare if you or your child has a preexisting condition.
NoCare if you are a senior in the doughnut hole.
NoCare if you're under 26 and on your parents' plan.
NoCare if you get sick and your insurer drops your coverage.
NoCare if your insurer hikes your premiums higher than you can
afford.
NoCare for Indian health care services reauthorization.
NoCare for community health centers.
NoCare for closing the disparity gap in America's health care
delivery system.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this repeal that would take away
the progress that we are making to protect our constituents. I urge my
colleagues to stop protecting insurance companies
[[Page H267]]
and, finally, finally, take a step toward empowering the American
people.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to
another new member of the committee, a physician, the gentleman from
Indiana, Dr. Bucshon.
Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you, Chairman Kline.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2, the repeal of the
Affordable Care Act. I consider this one of the most crucial votes in
this Congress. As a cardiothoracic surgeon, I can speak from the
perspective of a physician who has dealt with the growing need for
health care reform in our country.
We all know there are too many uninsured; too many underinsured. But
a government solution is the wrong approach. This law does nothing to
address the critical issue in health care today, and that's the rising
cost of health care.
Now let's touch on my patients. Sixty to 70 percent of my patients
are in Medicare. A $500 billion cut in the funding of Medicare and
decreasing reimbursement for physicians, for hospitals and other
providers over the course of time will lead to what it has led to in
every other country that has a government health care system--rationing
of health care for some of the most vulnerable people in our society,
our American seniors.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a member of the committee.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, it is important that we focus attention on the substance
of the debate on health care. Some think that just calling repealing
health care reform ObamaCare or calling it a job killer when it will
actually create jobs, or even calling it a government takeover when it
doesn't even include a public option constitutes the discussion.
But we need to talk about what is actually in the bill and what is
actually going to be repealed, because we need to talk about what's
going to happen to those under 26 that are now able to stay on their
parents' policies. Repeal will kick them off of those policies.
We need to talk about what's going to happen to those with
preexisting conditions. We need to talk about what is happening to
those who can now get checkups, annual checkups and preventive care
with no copays and deductibles.
{time} 1120
We need to talk about the fact that we are digging senior citizens
out of the doughnut hole and that repeal will keep them in the doughnut
hole.
Insurance reform: No rescissions, no cutting off insurance in the
middle of a treatment.
We need to talk about what we are doing as to unreasonable increases.
That's what you're going to be repealing if you repeal health care
reform.
Affordability: All Americans under health care reform in 2014 will be
able to afford health care. We will be giving tax credits to businesses
to encourage them to provide health care.
This bill will create jobs. You will be destroying jobs. And you say
nothing about the deficits. The CBO has already calculated that you
will significantly increase the deficit if this bill passes.
Mr. Speaker, health care reform is a matter of life and death. If
Republicans want to repeal health care, they ought to be clear and tell
the public what will actually happen to young adults, those with
preexisting conditions, seniors, what is going to happen to the
doughnut hole or insurance abuses or the future of the affordability of
health care.
We should not just be resorting to labels and slogans. We have to be
clear as to what we are doing to the public.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to another new
member of the committee, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy).
Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, the Constitution of the United States has limits.
Surely one of those limits must be that Congress cannot compel a
private citizen to engage in a private commercial transaction.
Surely the Congress of the United States cannot compel a person to
purchase life insurance, because generational debt is a bad thing.
Surely the Congress of the United States cannot compel someone to
purchase vision insurance or dental insurance.
The Constitution of the United States places limits on Congress, and
it is time that this body honored those limits envisioned by our
Forefathers. To ask for self-restraint or respect for the Constitution
should not invite challenges to our humanity or accusations of moral
acquiescence.
I am from the upstate of South Carolina; and every time I go home, I
hear about the need for health reform and about the fear that people
have with respect to preexisting conditions; but I support a solution
that is patient centered and not government centered. I support a
solution that is affordable and not generational embezzlement, and I
support a solution that is consistent with the Constitution.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a
member of the committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Tierney).
(Mr. TIERNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, it is deeply disappointing that, following
last week's near universal calls for unity and cooperation and amidst
all of the calls to lower the temperature of political discourse and to
move to working together to solve America's pressing issues, the new
Republican majority is moving full steam ahead with an attempt to
repeal the Affordable Care Act.
The health care law may not be perfect--that prospect would always
certainly be open to debate and suggestions on how it might be improved
might also be open to debate--but instead of working together and
building on the work that has been done and the progress that has been
made, we find ourselves here today, debating and voting on a bill,
which, while it may pass the House, most certainly will never become
law--nor should it.
Some may call it political catharsis. Others may call it pure
theater, plain and simple; but let's be clear: the positive impact the
existing health care reform law is having on millions of residents and
families in all of our districts is very real, and the law's important,
commonsense consumer protections are very popular.
Specifically, this misguided legislation will spell the end of one
meaningful consumer protection which I and others fought to get into
the law. This protection, the medical loss ratio requirement, holds
insurance companies accountable and ensures consumers are receiving the
health services for which they are paying top dollar.
In 1993, many private companies routinely spent 95 cents of every
dollar on health services. By 2008, in the absence of regulation
otherwise, many had reduced their spending on health services to below
75 percent, some to even less than 60 percent of those premium dollars.
That meant that companies could spend up to 43 cents of your premium
dollar on executive salaries, advertising, lobbyists, bonuses,
dividends, and other administrative costs instead of using it for what
you had contracted for--health care.
To keep their excessive profits up, you may have been charged ever-
higher premiums or may have been denied care through a number of
anticonsumer gimmicks. You might have been denied coverage because you
or your family member had a preexisting condition or because you had
coverage capped annually or in a lifetime, stopping coverage when it
was most needed, or, as a parent, you were refused coverage for your
children under 26 even if they were still unemployed or were working
someplace where coverage wasn't available.
All of these injustices are addressed in the bill. Its repeal would
reverse that. I ask that this misguided bill fail, and I ask my
colleagues to vote against it.
Mr. KLINE. May I inquire of the Speaker how much time is remaining on
each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota has 26\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 22 minutes
remaining.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 1
minute to
[[Page H268]]
another new member of the committee, the gentlelady from Alabama (Mrs.
Roby).
Mrs. ROBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to stand with my colleagues in support of
H.R. 2 that will repeal the Health Care Reform Act.
Sadly, this law is less about providing health care for all citizens
and more about expanding Federal Government.
It translates into substantial cost, over $500 billion, that must be
paid for by hardworking, tax-paying Americans. In economic hard times,
it is our responsibility to ensure that this does not occur. If we do
not repeal this law, our inaction will serve as nothing less than gross
fiscal irresponsibility. This must not happen.
I want to tell you about the owner of the Pizza Hut in Headland,
Alabama, who will be forced to close his doors due to the costs
associated with this law. Then there is the gentleman who owns
pharmacies throughout the Southeast, who told me he has the ability to
create two jobs but who cannot do so because he doesn't know what the
Federal Government is going to do to him next.
Just like our forefathers answered the call to right wrongs, we too
must answer a call. The citizens in our districts have spoken, and in
their words, We must repeal this law.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is time that this
Congress does what President Obama called on Americans to do last week:
approach our debates and our differences with civility and honesty.
We appear to be doing reasonably well with regard to civility, but
less so with honesty. Once again, we tackle health care, and the debate
is sliding back to one-line attacks and misrepresentation instead of
the new health care law's merits or its actual impact on real
Americans.
The Affordable Care Act has been referred to as a ``job-crushing
law.'' This is simply not honest as my colleagues across the aisle
disregard the fact that, since it was signed into law last March, over
1 million private sector jobs have been added to the economy, with
207,000 of those jobs coming from the health care sector.
Some speak of the repeal as if eliminating health care reform would
have no meaningful fiscal consequences. This, too, is not honest. The
Congressional Budget Office has estimated full repeal would increase
the deficit by $230 billion over 10 years and another $1.2 trillion in
the following decade.
Some argue that repeal will, in fact, reduce the deficit. If this is
true, why have we yet to see a positive score that affirms such a
point?
Repeal does nothing, absolutely nothing, other than leaving families
with real health issues no place to go for help.
What do I tell the parents of the 9,000 children in my district with
preexisting conditions who will be unable to access coverage when the
ban on discriminating against children with preexisting conditions is
repealed?
When insurance companies can claim cancer or pregnancy as a
preexisting condition, what will survivors and mothers do for health
coverage?
What will the 126,000 so affected individuals on eastern Long Island
do?
What will the 2,400 young adults who have been able to stay on or to
rejoin their parents' health insurance on eastern Long Island do if
repeal is successful?
What will the 112,000 Medicare beneficiaries who can now receive free
cancer screenings and other preventive care do?
What about the 8,500 part D prescription drug plan recipients who can
no longer count on the doughnut hole being closed and who will, once
again, face higher drug costs if repeal is successful?
Mr. Speaker, simply replacing the positive impact the Affordable Care
Act has had on American families with inaccurate arguments does not
solve our problem. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
legislation.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to
another new member of the committee, a physician, the gentleman from
Nevada, Dr. Heck.
Mr. HECK. Mr. Speaker, increasing access to high-quality health care
while reducing costs, that was the goal of the recently enacted health
care law. But no matter how well-intentioned, very few now stand by
that law in its entirety. The new health care law will cost money that
taxpayers don't have, and it will cost jobs we can't afford to lose.
Now is the time to reexamine this misguided law before young families
are forced to buy something they can't afford or face fines from their
government, before seniors are forced to find new doctors or lose the
kind of insurance plans they enjoy now, before small businesses shed
jobs or are forced to close their doors due to budget-busting
regulations.
{time} 1130
More access, lower cost. It's safe to say that every American
supports that idea. As an emergency medicine doctor, I know that I do.
And working on the front lines of health care I've seen what works and
what doesn't. Forcing people to buy insurance or fining them,
eliminating seniors' access to Medicare Advantage, and burdening small
businesses with onerous taxes don't work.
What the American people want are solutions that don't cost more
taxpayer money and don't prevent small businesses from hiring new
employees; making sure people don't lose their coverage once they get
sick; letting dependent children stay on their parents' insurance until
they turn 26; making sure anyone who wants to buy insurance can
purchase a policy regardless of preexisting condition; and allowing
consumers choice while creating incentives to purchase insurance that
fits their needs works. Some of these solutions are there, but there is
more wrong with this bill than there is right.
So let's repeal this law that doesn't work. Let's repair those pieces
that could work. Let's replace it with patient-centered solutions that
will work. And let's give the American people the health care they
deserve.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono), a member of the committee.
(Ms. HIRONO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, Democrats' top priority is creating jobs. We
want to work with Republicans to achieve this goal, but instead of
focusing on jobs and growing the economy the new leadership has decided
to start by debating H.R. 2, which will repeal patients' rights, put
insurance companies back in charge, and add to the deficit.
Yesterday, the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee held the only
hearing the new Congress will have on this bill. We heard from families
from Maine to Florida, from Rhode Island to Missouri, real people, real
stories. Freedom was a common thread in their stories. Because of
health care reform, these families are free from worrying about being
denied coverage because of a preexisting condition and free from
worrying about escalating medical debt because of lifetime caps on
their insurance plans. These families now have a sense of security and
peace of mind.
For over 37 years, thanks to Hawaii's landmark Prepaid Health Care
Act, our families have largely been protected from some of the most
unfair insurance company practices, but health care reform is still
helping thousands of families and small businesses across my State. A
mother in Kailua, Hawaii contacted me to tell me that she can now add
her 21-year-old son and 24-year-old daughter to her work-sponsored
insurance plan. This mom used to pay $900 a month for just her
daughter's health insurance and prescription drugs. Now she pays $300 a
month to cover both of her children under her company's plan. This
family used to spend $10,800 a year for health care for one child; now
they spend $3,600 a year for health care for the entire family.
I recently heard from a senior in Waimea on Hawaii Island who
referred to her $250 Medicare doughnut hole rebate check as a blessing
in these tough economic times. Let's be clear: The Patients' Rights
Repeal Act will hurt, not help, middle class families and small
businesses in Hawaii and across our Nation.
[[Page H269]]
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against H.R. 2.
Mr. Speaker, listen to Stacie Ritter's story. Stacie is the mother of
twin daughters, Hannah and Madeline, now 11, who were diagnosed with
leukemia at the age of 4. Stacie has always worried about her
daughters' health and having health insurance to cover the stem cell
transplants and other cancer treatments. Because of health care reform,
Stacie doesn't have to worry about the twins being denied coverage
because of a pre-existing condition. This repeal bill will allow
insurance companies to deny Hannah and Madeline health insurance for
the rest of their lives. The 19.4 million children in our country with
pre-existing conditions would face the same fate.
Listen to Dr. Odette Cohen, from Willingboro, New Jersey, a small
business owner. The small business tax credits in the health care
reform law not only lower the cost for her to provide good health
insurance for her employees, but they also give her the flexibility to
hire another nurse practitioner. She'll be seeing more patients and
growing her business and helping the economy.
According to Forbes Magazine, major health insurance companies around
the country are reporting a significant increase in small businesses
offering health care benefits to their employees. Repeal would either
force small businesses to drop their employees' coverage or businesses
would bear the full cost of insurance themselves.
Speaker Boehner has pledged to listen to the people. Because of
Hawaii's landmark Prepaid Health Care Act of 1974, which mandates that
employers provide insurance coverage for their full-time employees,
Hawaii's families have largely been spared from some of the most unfair
insurance practices. But health care reform still helps thousands of
families across our state.
A mother in Kailua, Hawaii contacted me to thank us because she could
now add her 21-year-old son and 24-year-old daughter to her work-
sponsored insurance plan. This mom used to pay $700 a month for her
daughter's health insurance and $200 a month out-of-pocket for her
prescription drugs.
Now, this mother pays just $300 a month to cover both of her children
under her company's health plan. This family used to spend $10,800 a
year for health care for one child. Now, they spend $3,600 a year for
health care for the whole family. This family is using the money saved
on health insurance for other household needs, including paying down
past medical debt.
Middle class families are saving money because of health care reform.
Young adults, many of whom are having a hard time finding jobs, now
have health insurance. Under H.R. 2, thousands of young adults will
lose their insurance coverage, including 2,500 in Hawaii.
Here's what else repealing health care reform will do to the people
of Hawaii:
193,000 seniors in Hawaii who have Medicare coverage would be forced
to pay a co-pay to receive important preventive services, like
mammograms and colonoscopies.
Medicare would no longer pay for an annual check-up visit, so 193,000
seniors in Hawaii who have Medicare coverage would have to pay extra if
they want to stay healthy by getting regular check-ups.
In Hawaii, 17,959 Medicare beneficiaries received a one-time, tax-
free $250 rebate to help pay for prescription drugs in the ``donut
hole'' coverage gap in 2010. I recently heard from a senior in Waimea
on the island of Hawaii who referred to this check as a blessing. She
was able to use that money to pay for her other medical bills.
Medicare beneficiaries who fall into the ``donut hole'' in 2011 will
be eligible for 50 percent discounts on covered brand name prescription
drugs. Closing the Medicare donut hole is an especially critical issue
for Hawaii as we are home to the Nation's largest percentage--36
percent compared to 26 percent--of Medicare beneficiaries that fall
into this gap of prescription drug coverage. Without repeal, the burden
of high prescription drug costs would hurt millions of Medicare
beneficiaries across the country.
An estimated 28,700 small businesses in Hawaii would no longer be
eligible for the new federal tax credits that will help make providing
health care coverage for their employees more affordable.
Let's be clear, the Patients' Rights Repeal Act will hurt, not help
middle class families in Hawaii and across our Nation. That's bad
enough. But this repeal also expands the federal deficit. The non-
partisan Congressional Budget Office reported that repealing the health
reform law would increase the federal deficit by $230 billion over the
next ten years and more than $1.2 trillion in the following decade.
At a time when our focus needs to be on jobs, bills should pass the
following 3-pronged test: 1) Does it create jobs? 2) Does it strengthen
America's middle class? and 3) Does it reduce the deficit? On all
counts, H.R. 2 is a resounding failure. I urge my colleagues to join me
in voting against H.R. 2.
Mahalo nui loa (thank you very much).
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to another new
member of the committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross).
Mr. ROSS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of
repealing and replacing the recently enacted health care law that
nationalizes nearly one-sixth of our country's gross domestic product.
This past November, the American people sent a resounding message to
Congress and to this administration that they do not want to pay higher
taxes for a one-size-fits-all health care system that replaces doctors
with bureaucrats. Instead, the American people want complete control of
their health care dollars and health care decisions, and they want to
be able to take their policies with them from job to job without being
penalized by the Federal Government.
Americans need privatized health care that forces competition in
order to achieve affordability, choice, and innovation. As a small
business owner, I understand that adding $104 billion in taxes and
compliance costs to our unstable job market creates a massive burden on
our taxpayers and is not the best way to encourage economic growth.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. KLINE. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. ROSS of Florida. Imposing new regulations on small businesses by
mandating employers provide health insurance stifles economic growth
and makes it difficult for businesses to survive.
We can bring down costs and increase affordability by allowing the
free market to create robust competition. One commonsense reform is to
allow for the interstate sale of health insurance. By breaking down the
barriers to the sale of health insurance, American citizens will have
the ability to choose the plan that best fits their needs at a rate
that is affordable to them. By allowing competition, we bring costs
down and provide the best possible product for the American people.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, in 1986 over 66 percent of America's
employers provided retiree health insurance. In 2009, that number had
collapsed to 29 percent. What the health care bill did was use a tried
and true method of setting up a reinsurance program that we use for
flood insurance, terrorism insurance, and to insure the nuclear energy
industry.
This fund, which will cost-share and cost-spread the high claims of
older 55-plus Americans, is a program that employers have stampeded
into. Over 4,700 employers have entered into this program. Over half
the Fortune 500, many whose corporate logos are right here--something
that Coke and Pepsi and AT&T and Comcast can come together on--are
voting with their feet because this is a program that works.
Mr. Speaker, public employers are also taking advantage. This map
shows yellow States who have not entered the program. If you notice, no
yellow States have not entered the program. All 50 States with
Republican governors and Democratic governors have entered into this
program, States who are suing the Federal Government to overturn the
health care bill--they know a program that's going to work to make sure
that their health care costs are going to be controlled and spread.
This means that police officers, teachers, people working in
corporations who are 55 and up can retire with confidence, opening up
opportunities for young Americans which clearly the prior system was
not going to allow.
Mr. Speaker, this bill will blow up this program, which employers who
are voting with their feet say will work. That is not creating jobs.
This program creates jobs. It lowers costs for employers and provides
an avenue for young people to have a future in this country.
We should vote ``no'' on this legislation. Let's grow America's
economy. Let's preserve the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to another
physician, the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Fleming.
[[Page H270]]
Mr. FLEMING. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. Speaker, repealing ObamaCare is an imperative for four reasons.
First, while it increases the numbers under coverage, it will
ultimately sharply reduce access to care. Like Canada and Britain,
socialized medicine will mean carrying an insurance card that will
entitle you only to less choice, longer waits, and rationing.
Second, while the health care system is now hard to navigate, under
ObamaCare it will be a nightmare. With over 150 new mandates and
agencies controlled by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats and IRS
agents, to whom will we turn when the system fails us?
Third, as yet another entitlement program financed through a Disney
fantasy of accounting, it will add to the current entitlement fiasco in
Washington, exploding the budget for many generations to come.
And finally, with higher taxes and more constrictions on businesses,
employed Americans will continue to decline or become an endangered
species altogether.
Let's repeal the worst legislation in a generation, ObamaCare.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Can I just say to the gentleman from
Minnesota, I think I'm starting to understand the physician shortage in
the country; most of them are in the Congress, apparently.
Mr. KLINE. And we're so happy to have them.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Tonko).
{time} 1140
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I am committed to working with my colleagues
to create jobs. But here we are, debating repeal of health care reform
instead of focusing on job creation. In fact, health care reform was a
good start. Since enactment in March of 2010, private-sector job growth
has grown by some 1.1 million jobs. Among those, over 200,000 jobs were
created in the health care sector alone. That is why my top priority
remains job creation and growing our economy--not obsessing on
repealing a bill that is working.
If my friends on the other side of the aisle are successful, then
seniors, young people, and small businesses in the capital region of
New York would be hurt. Take my constituent Tim from Albany, New York,
for example. Tim is forced to dig into his pocket to pay for
prescription drugs even though he is a retired pharmacist on Medicare.
However, health care reform provides Tim extra assistance in paying for
his prescriptions and ensures that the so-called doughnut hole payment
will be no more in the very near future.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased, following the comments
of the gentleman from California, to yield 1 minute to another
physician, a new member of the committee, the gentleman from Tennessee,
Dr. DesJarlais.
Mr. DesJARLAIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2. As a
practicing physician for nearly two decades in Tennessee, I stand
before you as an expert witness to failures of a government-run health
care model. ObamaCare takes the problems I've seen in my home State and
expands them to a national level.
This bill raises taxes, increases spending, and will add $701 billion
to the Federal deficit. Most importantly, ObamaCare will ultimately end
up restricting patients' access to quality health care by placing
Washington bureaucrats between patients and their doctors.
Moving forward, we do offer solutions. We must work towards reducing
waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare, instituting meaningful tort
reform--thus reducing the practice of defensive medicine. We can
accomplish these goals without the creation of a giant, new Federal
bureaucracy.
By voting to repeal this unnecessary health care bill we will
effectively put a stop to the creation of a massive entitlement program
that we did not want, we do not need, and we cannot afford.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Bass).
Ms. BASS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2.
In survey after survey, the number one issue facing our country is
jobs. Last year, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said the
number one issue we should be working on is jobs. Well, the health care
reform act is a jobs bill.
In the seventies and eighties I worked in several hospitals in the
Los Angeles area. During those years, there was such a severe shortage
of health care providers that hospitals recruited nurses from Canada
and the Philippines. Right now, there is an estimated shortage of
400,000 nurses nationally. Right now, there is an estimated shortage of
50,000 doctors. Right now, there are waiting lists of several years to
get a slot in nursing schools and other allied health professions.
So if there is a shortage of medical personnel right now and health
care reform expands coverage to 30 million people, then can someone
explain to me how health care reform is not a jobs bill?
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2, repealing
the government takeover of health care passed by the 111th Congress.
Now, I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and many of
their supporters in the mainstream press don't like us to use that
term, but let me defend it for a moment. When you order every American
to buy health insurance--whether they want it or need it or not--that's
a government takeover of health care. When you order almost every
business to provide government-approved health insurance or pay higher
taxes and send their employees to government-run health exchange
programs, that's a government takeover of health care. When you pass
legislation that makes it all run with hundreds of billions of dollars
in higher taxes, mandates, bureaucracies, and even public funding of
abortion against the wills of the overwhelming majority of the American
people, that's a government takeover of health care--and the American
people know it.
Last year, House Republicans pledged that if the American people gave
us a second chance to lead this Congress, we would repeal and replace
their health care reform with health care reform that focuses on
lowering the cost of health care insurance without growing the size of
government. And we're keeping that promise today.
Now, some in the cynical political class are saying this is a
gimmick, it's an empty gesture. Well, we have another term for it on
our side of the aisle--it's a promise kept. And House Republicans are
here to stand with the American people and say with one voice, We can
do better. We can do better than their government takeover of health
care. We can pass legislation that will be market-based, patient-
centered. But it all begins with today.
So I urge my colleagues to join us in repealing this government
takeover of health care before it ever takes effect and then work with
us as we build health care reform that is worthy of the American
people.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to explore one of the aspects of
this repeal promise that's being kept.
Thus far, there are hundreds of thousands of seniors who have gotten
$250 rebate checks to help them pay for prescription drugs. I would ask
anyone on the other side, what does the legislation say about whether
or not the seniors will have to repay those checks to the government?
I would yield to anyone who can answer.
Mr. KLINE. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Patients'
Rights Repeal Act.
Proponents of this bill contend that the current health care law will
destroy jobs, but CBO estimates of $230 billion support the fact that
it is the repeal being debated today, not the health care law, that
would harm jobs
[[Page H271]]
and drain funds from potential job-building appropriations.
Essentially what is being repealed are the protections afforded to
taxpayers through the recently enacted health care legislation, the
relief given to American taxpayers who were for so long paying the
bills for uncompensated health care costs--which we never hear
mentioned over there--and the progress our country made last year to
come out of the dark ages as one of the only three developed countries
in the world that do not provide universal health care.
Forty-eight hundred seniors in my district and over 1 million seniors
in the country were relieved last year by the doughnut hole rebate. But
repeal would reintroduce that stress. Nearly 44 percent of non-elderly
constituents in New Jersey and 134 million Americans nationwide have
preexisting conditions.
Repeal would reintroduce the hopelessness these Americans felt in the
past as health coverage denied and stole their ability to access
quality health care. Repeal would remove nearly 1.2 million young
adults from their parents' health care plan--including my grandson
who's 23 and is on his mother's plan--and remove their ability to take
preventative measures now to avoid becoming a burden to the system.
I urge defeat of this bill.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, I'll take about 10 seconds to respond to my friend, the
gentleman from New Jersey, about the $250. It's not contemplated in the
legislation, nor is it our understanding of the scoring that there is
any intention of that $250 being brought back from those seniors.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, as a health care
professional for almost 30 years, I actually sat down and read all
2,000 pages of the health care bill. And as I read through the measure,
I became increasingly alarmed at the level of control over an
individual's health that would be vested in the Federal Government.
I've spent my life working with those facing life-altering
disabilities and diseases. And I've been quick to point out that while
we have the best health system in the world, there must be
improvements. That is why I am supporting the repeal of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act--and I believe there are plenty of
reasons for my colleagues to join me.
The law mandates purchase of a government-defined insurance plan, a
mandate that the President opposed on several occasions when running
for office. As a result of failing to live up to this promise, the
Justice Department is now attempting to defend the mandate on the
grounds that it is a tax.
According to the nonpartisan Medicare Actuary, because of the law,
national spending will increase by more than $310 billion over the
first 10 years. The law will not lower health care costs, despite
numerous claims that we've heard.
According to a Congressional Budget Office analysis, health insurance
premiums could rise by an average of $2,100 per family. This increase
comes despite promises of lower premiums.
{time} 1150
Mr. Speaker, if this law remains in place, up to 35 million people
could lose health care access. According to the former CBO Budget
Director, the health care law, quote, ``provides strong incentives for
employers, with the agreement of their employees, to drop employer-
sponsored health insurance for as many as 35 million Americans.''
The National Taxpayer Advocate issued a report that suggests 40
million businesses will be impacted by the new IRS 1099 filing
requirements. This will require vendors and small businesses to do
paperwork on any transaction over $600. In addition, the Taxpayer
Advocate does not believe that this will result in improved tax
compliance. This provision is so unrealistic that even the President's
Small Business Administrator has called for its repeal.
Mr. Speaker, we must repeal and replace this law and continue
together as the entire Congress, not just two parties, and move forward
with commonsense ideas that will include better access, affordability,
quality, and promote patient choice. I encourage my colleagues to join
me and vote for repeal.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
Mr. COHEN. I am going to cite two Republicans who give good reasons
to oppose this legislation and keep health care reform. One of the new
Republicans, when he didn't think he was going to get his insurance
immediately, said, ``What am I, not supposed to have health care? It's
a practicality. I'm not going to become a burden for the State because
I don't have health care, and God forbid I get into an accident and I
can't afford the operation. That can happen to anyone.'' He succinctly
summed up the reason why everyone should have the same opportunities as
Members of Congress have to have health care.
But more importantly, in a more intentional way, one of the most
revered doctors in the world, former Republican majority leader,
Senator Bill Frist, said yesterday that he urged the Republicans to
drop the charade and build on the legislation. He said if he would have
been here, he would have voted for the bill. And it was important to
consider the bill the ``law of the land'' and move on from there. ``It
is the platform, the fundamental platform, upon which all future
efforts to make the system better for the patient and the family will
be based.'' And that is a fact. It has strong elements. I support Dr.
Frist.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a member of the
committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts).
Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
I rise today in support of House Bill 2. This simple two-page bill
seeks to repeal the new unconstitutional health care law that will
create a massive new entitlement program, cost taxpayers more than $2
trillion per decade, increase taxes, and impose job-destroying mandates
on businesses, cut Medicare by hundreds of billions of dollars, and
further increase health care premiums for individuals by more than 10
percent.
The goal is not only to repeal the new health care law, but also to
replace it with real reforms, debated openly through the ordinary
legislative process, that are truly about reducing health care costs--
reforms such as allowing small businesses and individuals to join
together in national group plans to cut premium costs; allowing
individuals to purchase health insurance across State lines, thereby
increasing competition for their businesses; and enacting medical
malpractice liability reform legislation.
I will continue to push for commonsense reforms that are focused on
truly reducing health care costs for all Americans. I urge my
colleagues to support H.R. 2.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Peters).
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, with unemployment in Michigan at over 12
percent, I am not going to support a bill that raises taxes on small
businesses. Let us be clear. Voting for the Patients' Rights Repeal Act
will eliminate the Small Business Health Care Tax Credit. Small
businesses have faced outrageous increases in their health care costs
over the past decade. This tax credit helps reduce that burden and is
already making a real difference.
The L.A. Times reported that small businesses are signing up for
health care coverage for their employees, despite the bad economy,
since the tax credit took effect. Among firms with three to nine
employees, there has been a 46 percent increase in the number offering
health benefits. But this bill would put a stop to that.
The Detroit News reported that last week more than 126,000 small
businesses in Michigan would lose the tax credit under this bill. The
last thing that small businesses in Michigan and across the country
need right now is higher taxes. But that's exactly what this bill would
deliver.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and join me in
standing up for our small businesses.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a new member of the
committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Barletta).
[[Page H272]]
Mr. BARLETTA. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of repealing the health care
law. I believe everyone should have access to affordable, quality
health care. However, the law passed last year does the contrary. It
makes health care less affordable; it diminishes the quality of care;
it forces seniors out of their Medicare drug coverage, and it prevents
small businesses from getting Americans back to work.
In my district, we have the highest number of seniors in
Pennsylvania, and the $206 billion in cuts in Medicare Advantage will
cause 7.5 million seniors to lose their retiree drug coverage by 2016.
Small businesses face a $2,000 fine per employee if their plans do not
meet a bureaucrat-approved standard.
At a time when the unemployment level in my district is over 9
percent, Congress must not discourage job creation by placing mandates
and levying penalties on those who will get us back on track towards a
more prosperous Nation.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, while America desperately wants more and better
jobs, Washington Republicans want to waste time today debating a health
care repeal charade. But let's look at what health care reform repeal
would actually do.
In my congressional district alone, repealing this law would allow
insurance companies to deny coverage for up to 360,000 individuals with
preexisting conditions, including up to 45,000 children. Let's mend
this act, don't end it.
A repeal would eliminate health care tax credits for up to 19,000
small businesses and 164,000 families. Mend it, don't end it.
A repeal would eliminate new health care coverage options for 3,100
uninsured young adults. It is time to mend it and not to end it.
In 50 years, Mr. Speaker, health care reform will stand beside Social
Security, the GI bill, and Medicare as a pillar of American health care
and humane values. The people of that time will not understand why it
was hard to pass in the first place or why we are spending time today
rehashing old business. It's time to fix health care reform's remaining
deficits and to mend it, not to end it.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the
time remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 8\1/2\
minutes; the gentleman from Minnesota has 15 minutes.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to another new member of the
committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
Mr. KELLY. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, last week Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said
that the economy cannot begin to recover until small businesses
prosper. Well, the overreaching and burdensome requirements of
ObamaCare will hurt small businesses. And their benefits are not even
certain. Small companies, which account for over half of the private
sector economy, are more likely to struggle than survive under this
law.
If I had followed the plan prescribed for my dealership after the
government takeover of General Motors, I would have lost the business
that my father started 57 years ago. We need to address the years of
hard work and the spirit of entrepreneurship that will be destroyed
under this law.
Small employers have limited autonomy under ObamaCare. The Federal
Government is dictating what benefits they must offer and then
punishing them for expanding their operations or paying their people
more.
The choices for small business under ObamaCare are: provide
government-mandated health care and face ruinous costs, or drop the
coverage and pay fines just to keep those folks employed.
If we burden small businesses with the requirements set forth in this
law, we hamper the recovery of the U.S. economy and damage the spirit
of free enterprise that has made America great for over two centuries.
ObamaCare should be replaced with a smaller, more commonsense program.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, in an effort to balance the time here--we
have an embarrassment of riches in numbers of speakers; that's what
happened in November--I yield 1 minute to a member of the committee,
the gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
{time} 1200
Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support for H.R. 2, repealing
last year's misguided health care law.
Whether it's dropped coverage, higher costs or lost jobs, the
unintended consequences of the administration's plan have piled up. I
don't think the law is salvageable. We must craft a bipartisan
replacement that actually lowers costs and expands access to care
without raising taxes and slashing Medicare.
Americans want consensus-minded reforms to expand coverage for
preexisting conditions and prevent insurers from imposing unfair caps
or canceling policies. They want reforms that provide more choice over
how to spend their health care dollars, like purchasing health
insurance across State lines and expanded health savings accounts. And
they want commonsense legislation to curb junk lawsuits and to stop the
costly practice of defensive medicine.
I urge my colleagues to join me in fulfilling the wishes of voters
and repealing ObamaCare. Then we can work together on reforms that
deliver the high-quality, low-cost care the American people deserve.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
chairman of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, the first rule of the physician is ``do no
harm.'' The government takeover of health care does a lot of harm, and
the damage will get worse.
Just on pure economics, it's a bitter pill. Small businesses are
bracing for tax increases and higher costs. They are dropping coverage;
they are holding off on new hires. The Federal Government is taking on
a new open-ended entitlement it can't afford, and that at a time of
historically high deficits, annual deficits and a national debt.
Washington yet again is building a new bureaucracy to tell people what
to do.
The Federal Government has no business making private medical
decisions that ought to be between you and the doctor. It violates the
principles on which this country was established, American
exceptionalism. America is not Europe. Our system is based on the
individual, on choice, on freedom, on individual initiative and
competition.
The mandate that asks individuals to buy health insurance is an
intrusion on our personal liberty and a violation of our constitutional
principles.
Allowing taxpayer money to pay for abortions is reprehensible and
cannot be allowed to stand.
We can address the issues in our health care system without the
government running everything and spending uncontrollably. We heard
what the American people said last November and in our town halls. To
get health care right, we have to start by repealing a misguided law
that is bad policy and bad medicine.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from California (Mr. McNerney).
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the health care
law and in opposition to its repeal. The health care reform, which was
signed into law last year, is clearly not perfect and could be
improved. However, the law as enacted will have significant benefits to
millions of American citizens, to businesses, to local governments, and
to the country as a whole.
The benefits to individuals in need of health care with preexisting
conditions, the seniors, the young adults under 26 years of age, and
many other groups are well known and will be missed if the law is
repealed.
But most significantly, the law will drive down the cost of health
care by encouraging and incentivizing quality care and good outcomes in
health care treatments instead of encouraging potentially unnecessary
procedures. It rewards quality rather than quantity of health care.
This will ultimately reduce the cost, both public and private, of
health care in this country.
Because of these reasons, I strongly oppose repeal of health care
reform.
[[Page H273]]
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, the claim that this new health care law will
somehow cut our budget deficit is proof that logic does not always
prevail here in Washington, DC.
This is a $2 trillion additional entitlement; and just like past
entitlement programs, this one will be far more costly than projected.
As a result, our budget deficit is going to increase unless we repeal
this. It's going to increase our dependence on China and Japan to
finance our debt.
The credit-rating agencies say we are on the verge of losing our AAA
credit rating and this debt contagion, you all see it, is continuing to
spread across Europe. Let us take this important step. Repeal this $2
trillion fiscal train wreck and begin work on market-based solutions
that will actually lower health care costs.
This will give us some hope in the future of bringing that budget
into balance and not hitting that fiscal train wreck.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a new
Member of this body, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).
Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, Americans have wanted health care reform for
some time now, but they don't want what passed last spring.
This is a 2,000-page bill that gives us more mandates and more
regulation. It doesn't accomplish the goal of reducing cost and
increasing access; and it puts our health care decisions in the hands
of bureaucrats, not in the hands of patients and family members where
it belongs.
There is a better way. With today's repeal, this is the first step.
Tomorrow we begin the process of replacement with commonsense market-
based solutions that are going to bring costs down, solutions like
competition across State lines, portability, price transparency, tax
parity, and allowing folks who have preexisting conditions to obtain
coverage.
I look forward, starting tomorrow, to working with not only my
friends here on the right but also my colleagues here on the left to
craft a bill that's going to work for the American people.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Larsen).
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in
opposition to this patients' rights repeal and deficit explosion act.
The bill before us today, according to the nonpartisan CBO, is going
to add $230 billion to our national debt. We should not stand for that.
The bill before us today is going to repeal efforts that we put in
place to be sure that young adults can get on to their parents'
insurance plans. If we repeal this, it is going to knock 20,000 young
adults in Washington State alone off their parents' plans.
If we repeal this bill today, it's going to take away help for 45,000
seniors in Washington State who are relying on the efforts that we have
done over the last couple of years to be sure that we are closing the
Medicare doughnut hole. Repeal of the health care reform law is going
to put those folks back into the doughnut hole.
Finally, we ought to oppose repeal of this bill because of the simple
fact that there is a young woman in my district who has severe mental
health illness and her family was able to take her onto their health
care plan because of the provisions we have put in there about
preexisting conditions. That family is now saving $10,000 a year out of
pocket.
I am asking folks to oppose the repeal of this bill.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire again as to the time
remaining on each side, please.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Lucas). The gentleman from Minnesota has
10 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California has 6\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, then at this time I am pleased to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Long).
Mr. LONG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2. In this country,
we have the finest doctors, the finest nurses, the finest protocols,
the finest facilities in the world. That's not a government-run system.
I swore to uphold the Constitution 2 weeks ago today in this, the
people's House.
The people have spoken, and they don't want Washington bureaucrats
coming between them and their doctors. They would like to make their
own decisions.
You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but that's exactly
what the majority tried to do last year by using 10 years of taxes to
pay for a 6-year program, increasing spending by $2.6 trillion. Now,
that's not what I would call affordable when it's one-sixth of this
Nation's economy.
When I think of the 2,000-page bill, I think of a big block of cheese
out there, pretty tempting looking. Well, the Americans I hear from,
they don't want that cheese. They want out of the trap of government-
run health care.
{time} 1210
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN. I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from
California.
So we have several dozen new Republican Members of this House, and as
a result, the first thing we are going to do is to attempt to repeal
health care.
Let me review what has happened. These new Members came into office,
and they were all given the opportunity to sign up for health insurance
coverage for their own families; and unless they had better coverage,
most of them took that opportunity. But now in the very first
legislative act of this new Congress, they are going to deny that
opportunity for coverage for their own constituents.
So their children are covered--their spouses are covered--but what
about the children of their constituents? What about their loved ones?
What about their businesses? They have full employment now. But what
about their constituents whose employers will not be able to provide
coverage for their own constituents when they repeal this law? This law
was modeled after the plan that Members of Congress have now and that
our new colleagues were only too happy to sign up for.
I think this is the height of hypocrisy. Do unto others as you would
do unto yourselves. Treat your constituents as you have treated
yourselves.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).
Mr. DOLD. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 2. And what
we've heard today on both sides of the aisle is how this is going to
affect small business. Well, I run a small business. That's where I
came from. And let me tell you that this is going to have a devastating
impact on small business.
What this law did is it addressed access to insurance. It does not
address cost or quality. These are the things that we need to address.
My health insurance rates for the people that I work with each and
every day last year went up 44 percent--44 percent.
There is no question that we need reform. We need a healthy debate.
We need openness in this body to actually discuss what needs to be
going forward in health care. What we had last year was anything but.
There was no bipartisanship in what happened last year. The only
bipartisanship in last year's bill was the opposition to it.
I welcome the opportunity to reach across the aisle to Members on the
other side, to work with them to craft a bill, one that will talk about
malpractice reform, one where the government will not come in between a
decision that you make with your physician.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. KLINE. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. DOLD. We have an opportunity here, an opportunity for real
reform. We want that. We need that. The American people have demanded
it. From American businesses and people all across the United States,
they demand it.
And from the other side who said we came in and had health care
reform, I did not take the congressional plan. We know we can do
better, and I ask my colleagues on the other side to support H.R. 2.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, we have two remaining
speakers.
[[Page H274]]
Mr. KLINE. We're in that time of trying to balance here.
At this time, I will yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Florida
(Mrs. Adams).
Mrs. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of repealing the
government takeover of health care and replacing it with commonsense
reforms that will reduce the costs and increase the access to quality,
affordable health care for especially my constituents in Florida.
The American people have soundly--soundly--rejected the Democrats'
flawed government takeover of health care, and it is time to show them
that their voices have been heard.
The existing health care law moves this country in the wrong
direction by raising taxes, cutting Medicare, restricting private-
sector job creation, and putting power into the hands of Washington
bureaucrats rather than into the hands of individuals themselves.
Individuals want to make their own health care decisions. They don't
want government making them for them.
Repealing the current health care law is the first step towards
keeping our pledge to the American people that we are serious about
cutting spending, creating jobs, and limiting--limiting--the
government's role in our everyday lives.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland).
(Mr. SOUTHERLAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. SOUTHERLAND. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding me
this time.
I rise in support of this legislation. As a third-generation small
business owner following the footsteps of my father and my grandfather,
I understand how crushing the tax burden is going to be upon small
business.
The NFIB estimates that 1.6 million jobs will be lost by 2014 due to
this insurance mandate; 66 percent of those job losses will occur in
small business. James Edens, the owner of Edens Heating and Air in
Tallahassee, stated to me that he will not hire, he cannot hire
additional staff, due to the uncertainty.
Repealing this legislation will provide much-needed certainty to
small businesses around this country, allowing them to hire and invest
in their employees.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Runyan).
Mr. RUNYAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2 to repeal the
2010 health care legislation. The law that we seek to repeal today is
not the best way to provide cost-effective, quality health care for all
Americans.
I support enacting incremental reforms such as enabling individuals
to purchase coverage across State lines, allowing small businesses to
pool together to purchase more affordable coverage, and prohibiting
insurance companies from denying coverage to those with preexisting
conditions.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2. Let's work together on
reforms that truly reduce costs and provide quality health care.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. May I inquire of the Chair how much
time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota has 5 minutes
remaining; the gentleman from California has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. So in the hours that we've spent thus far during this
debate, we could have been debating ways to help small businesses and
entrepreneurs create jobs for the American people, but we did not.
Instead, we have gotten the slogan, ``job-killing health care bill.''
The slogan is very much at odds with the facts.
The fact is that since the health care bill was signed by the
President, the private sector has generated 1.1 million new jobs. The
fact is that the chief economist for Barclays says he believes that the
economy is on track to add many, many jobs this year, probably 200,000
or so per month is his projection.
We've heard about protecting the children and grandchildren of the
country against mounting debt. For years, there has been an
understanding here that the referee in budget disputes has been the
Congressional Budget Office, through Republican and Democratic
majorities. Republican, Democratic, and Independents, they are the
referee who decides what the rules are. So the Congressional Budget
Office was asked by Speaker Boehner to score this repeal, and they came
back and said, Well, Mr. Speaker, this is going to add over $1 trillion
to the national debt over the next 20 years. The majority didn't like
what they said, so they just chose to ignore it and make up the rules
as they go along.
But what they haven't done as they've gone along is still answer the
fundamental question we started with this morning. When a mother of two
4-year-old twins goes to buy health insurance and the health insurer
says, ``I'm sorry, we won't insure your family because your 4-year-olds
have leukemia,'' should that be legal or not? That's the question.
The law the President signed in March says it should be illegal. This
repeal says, let's go back to the good old days where the insurance
companies made that decision.
We are not going back. We should go forward as a country to create
jobs for our people and end the charade we've seen on the House floor
here this morning.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I had two more speakers en route. They are
not here. So I plan to close, and I will reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I want to thank all of our colleagues who participated in this debate
today. I think it has shown some fundamental disagreements and some
fundamental differences.
First of all, there is the strong suggestion here from an NFIB study
that was done before this law was ever written, that has nothing to do
with this law, saying you might lose jobs. But what do we see since the
law has passed? We see that for employers of under 10 employees, health
care coverage has risen by 10 percent because we've made it less
expensive for small businesses to offer that health insurance.
{time} 1220
That is not a self-interested study. What you see from United Health
Care, the largest health insurer in the country, 75,000 new customers
to their health plans from employees of small businesses because the
small businesses find it affordable to extend health insurance as a
benefit of working for that small business.
Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Kansas City says the number of small
businesses buying insurance since April, the first month after the
legislation was signed, has jumped 58 percent.
Small business employers are for the first time able to extend
affordable insurance to their employees, and that is why the job
creation that Mr. Andrews referred to of a million jobs since the
passage of this bill has continued and expected to continue. That is
why it is different than the history prior to the Obama administration
where over 8 years almost 800,000 jobs were lost during those years of
the Bush administration.
But there is something more important in this legislation, and that
is whether or not families will have the control of their health
insurance destiny, whether they will have the freedom to make these
choices. Many on the other side of the aisle said this is a
bureaucratic system. Has anybody, any family in America, any single
mother, any spouse, any child, any grandparent, met a more bureaucratic
system than the American health insurance system? There is no more
bureaucratic system.
When you send in your premium, they tell you you sent it to the wrong
place. When you send in your bill, you sent it to the wrong person.
When you send it to the right person, they say that person has left
their job. When you say, I went to the doctor, they say you should've
called us first. When you say, I had emergency surgery, they say, you
should've called us first; we're not covering it.
[[Page H275]]
You want to talk about bureaucracy, ladies and gentlemen, and that is
why this legislation is growing in popularity, because small businesses
see, senior citizens see, parents with children under 26, they see a
chance to liberate themselves from the most arbitrary, the most
capricious system in our entire free economy, and that is the insurance
companies. Everybody has been run around the block by their insurance
company. It is something that they all share.
It is almost the same problems they share with their cable company,
not quite. That is not as dramatic as here because this is life and
death. This is the security of your family. This is whether or not you
can change jobs. This is whether or not your children will be
protected. This is whether or not your parents will be able to afford
their prescription drugs, because that is what this legislation enables
and gives the freedom to American families to have.
Repeal, we go back into the clutches, the clutches of these
bureaucrats spread across the world. In the insurance company, you call
for help and you reach somebody in another country, in another time
zone with no understanding of the emergency that your family, your
child, your parent, your grandparent faces. Nobody wants to go back
there, ladies and gentlemen. Nobody. They have been there for 50 years,
and health care costs have gone up faster than any other segment in our
economy. Faster than anything you can imagine. Faster than a speeding
rocket, faster than a speeding airplane. Faster than Superman, health
care costs have gone up because of insurance bureaucracies.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I actually don't know anybody who
is supporting the red tape of the insurance company. What I find
interesting is that we think it is a better solution to add thousands
of pages of new government regulations and thousands of new government
bureaucrats on top of that system and think somehow it is going to be
better.
Let me address a couple of things that have come up in this debate
and some things that we discussed in the past. One of them is the cost
of this bill. Other committees have talked about it and will again.
There have been claims today that repeal will cost the taxpayers
variously $230 billion or a trillion dollars based on what the CBO has
said. We find that incredible that repealing this job-killing
legislation is actually going to cost us money. So the question comes
why are these things different.
It turns out there is a wonderful piece in The Wall Street Journal
today that addresses that specifically. I will just quote it. It says:
How then does the Affordable Care Act magically convert a trillion
dollars in new spending into painless deficit reduction? It is all
about budget gimmicks, deceptive accounting and implausible assumptions
used to create the false impression of fiscal discipline.
We heard some words today addressing that fact. Some of our
physicians pointed out that in order to get the numbers to add up, you
have to assume that we are going to continue to punish physicians who
are providing Medicare services. And there is nobody in this body who
believes we are actually going to do that. Nor did they believe that we
were going to do it when that sort of gimmicky accounting was used to
justify the cost in the first place.
We have heard discussions about how this is a very good deal for
businesses large and small; and yet if you look at associations,
organizations that represent businesses across America, they are saying
today, not just 6 months ago or a year ago, but saying today that they
support repeal of this job-killing legislation. And a short list, just
some of them are the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the
National Retail Federation, the National Restaurant Association, the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the International Franchise Association, the
America Bankers Association, American Hotel and Lodging Association,
the National Stove and Gravel Association, and on and on. Businesses do
not like this government takeover of health care, and they support
repeal. This is not a good deal for businesses.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle chose to focus their
remarks on a handful of provisions included in the law that are more
attractive than tax hikes, penalties imposed on employers, and higher
health care costs. And no one is disputing that such provisions exist,
but it is wrong to suggest that the only way to reform health care is
to bankrupt our Nation with this albatross.
I believe we can improve health care without orchestrating a
government takeover. That is why I look forward to casting my vote to
repeal this law so we can move forward to carry out the wishes of our
constituents. Repeal is the first step toward the right kind of reform.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous
consent that any minute or two that I have left be granted to the
chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee during that portion of
the debate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Michigan will control the time.
There was no objection.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all persons in the
gallery that they are here as guests of the House and that any
manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation
of the rules of the House.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, if I may just ask how much extra time I might
have been given by the gentleman from Minnesota.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 1\1/2\ additional minutes.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, today we take a step toward compassionate, innovative,
and job-creating health care. It is ironic we must end something to
realize a new beginning, but that is exactly what ObamaCare has
compelled us to do; and that is precisely what we will do today.
It's time to be honest with the American people. Remember the
Hippocratic oath? First, do no harm.
ObamaCare produces the opposite of growth, compassion, and innovation
in health care. It destroys jobs, busts budgets, creates an
unsustainable set of mandates on individuals, employers, and States. It
will stifle innovation and the development of life-saving medicines. It
will make health care more expensive, not more affordable.
Mr. Speaker, that is not compassionate. That won't produce
innovation, and that's why repeal is the first step toward a better
beginning. What is compassionate about forcing employers to provide
insurance that they cannot afford to employees who will lose their jobs
due to ObamaCare? What is compassionate about creating a rigid new
entitlement that States are commanded to fund with money that they
simply do not have? What is compassionate about cutting over $200
billion from the Medicare Advantage program, leaving seniors with fewer
services, higher co-pays, and more out-of-pocket expenses? What is
compassionate about shackling more Americans with greater government
dependence?
ObamaCare was created--erected--on a foundation of false promises: if
you like your health insurance, you can keep it; health care premiums
will go down; employers will not drop coverage; seniors won't see any
changes in their Medicare benefits.
Today we know that those were only slogans--sound bites in a cynical
sales pitch--and certainly not promises kept. Yes, today repeal will
pass in the House. We will then embark on reform that I believe can be
supported by both Republicans and Democrats.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. UPTON. I yield myself an additional 1 minute.
Ensuring those with preexisting conditions have access to affordable
coverage, we'll do that. Allowing families to include their children up
to 26, we'll do that. Medical liability reform to reduce the unneeded
cost of defensive medicine, we'll do that. Provide incentives for
employers rather than penalties and mandates that will cost jobs and
depress wages, we will provide those incentives. Yes, we will.
{time} 1230
Those are just some of the principles that I believe we can agree on
with both sides of the aisle.
So first is repeal; then replace. I'm ready for the challenge to put
real health reform back together that is bipartisan rather than
partisan and
[[Page H276]]
achieves the goal of lower health care costs for every American family.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
I strongly oppose this effort to repeal the health care bill.
Millions of Americans are already benefiting from this legislation:
insurers have stopped discriminating against sick children; seniors are
saving money on prescription drugs; and small businesses are receiving
billions of dollars in tax credits to provide health care coverage.
Repeal will roll back these benefits.
The repeal bill reminds me of the story of Robin Hood, but in
reverse. Repeal will take essential health benefits from millions of
struggling American families and give new powers and profits to the
insurance companies. If we repeal health reform, there will be no
prohibition on discrimination against over 100 million Americans with
preexisting conditions; no prohibition on insurance companies canceling
your coverage when you get sick; no prohibition on lifetime caps and
annual limits; no required coverage for young adults on their parents'
policies; no assistance to seniors struggling to afford the cost of
drugs in the doughnut hole; no free annual checkups and preventive care
in Medicare; no tax credits for families and small businesses to pay
for health insurance.
These changes will affect every congressional district in the
country. My staff has been analyzing what the impacts of repeal will be
in each district. These are now available on our Web site. They tell a
compelling story.
We have a new Member on our committee from West Virginia. In his
district, repeal will mean increasing prescription drug costs for
12,000 seniors and taking new preventive care benefits from over
100,000 Medicare beneficiaries.
We have another new Member on our committee from New Hampshire. In
his district, repeal will mean eliminating tax credits for nearly
17,000 small businesses. In my own district, repeal would mean over
50,000 constituents would lose protections against rescissions. And
these aren't just statistics. Behind every number is a real person with
real problems, like diabetes or breast cancer or a child with special
needs.
Repeal is a boon for the insurance companies but an enormous setback
for American families. If we pass this bill, the insurance companies
can raise their rates, discriminate against millions of Americans with
preexisting conditions, and cut off coverage when someone becomes sick.
There are many reasons to oppose repeal. The health reform bill is
creating thousands of new jobs. It will cut the deficit by curbing the
growth of health care costs, saving taxpayers over a trillion dollars.
This is why I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this legislation. If
there's a change the Republicans want to make, let them propose it. But
don't throw it all out the window and say they're going to do all these
things we've already done.
I urge Members to oppose this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman emeritus of
the Energy and Commerce Committee, Joe Barton, whose State could lose
perhaps 64 hospitals that would close with the continuing of ObamaCare.
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman and look forward to
working with him as the chairman of the committee.
Mr. Speaker, before I begin to discuss health care, I would like to
say that our prayers continue to go out to Congresswoman Giffords in
Arizona. We are very gratified to learn of her continuing progress. We
hope that some time in this Congress she does come back to the House
floor and give her voice to the voice for her constituency. We all miss
her and we wish her the very best.
Mr. Speaker, we are here today because the existing law of the land
on health care is fatally flawed. Most of us think it is
unconstitutional. We think it is overreaching. We think the Federal
Government is intervening more and more into the daily practice of
health care between the doctor-patient relationship. And we think it
needs to be repealed before it does irreparable harm to our health care
system, which is the best in the world.
We think that on basic principles it's unconstitutional. We believe
that you shouldn't have the Federal Government mandate that an
individual has to have health insurance, whether he or she wants it.
That particular constitutional question is wending its way through the
courts and we hope soon to have an answer to that question.
We want to repeal today so that we can begin to replace tomorrow. We
want to deliver on our Pledge to America that we meant it when we said
if the American voters gave us the majority, we would repeal this
existing law, and that is step one. But step two is to replace it. I
see that my good friend from California, Congresswoman Eshoo, is on the
floor. She and I have an amendment in the new law on biosimilars that
passed with a huge bipartisan majority, and we hope that that's one of
the things that will be kept. We do believe that we should be able to
do something on preexisting conditions. We do believe that children
should be allowed to stay on their parents' plans until the age of 26.
So there are some things in the new law that we think are worth
keeping. But until you sweep away the bad things, we cannot begin to
work on the good things.
So, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, we hope that we can repeal it
on a bipartisan basis in the House and, under the leadership of Mr.
Upton and Mr. Camp and others, begin to replace it tomorrow.
Please vote to repeal this law today.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the control of the balance of the
time of the Energy and Commerce Committee to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey who chaired the Health Subcommittee in the
last Congress and who has done a great deal to advance this
legislation, Mr. Frank Pallone.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from New
Jersey will control the balance of the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. PALLONE. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2
minutes to the dean of the House of Representatives and the House
sponsor of the health reform legislation, the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Dingell).
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. I thank my good friend.
Well, so much for openness and transparency. We're going to do all
this without any hearings, without knowing what's going on. But I'm
going to tell you a little bit on my Republican side of the aisle here
about what this is really going to do:
Insurance companies will be able to deny 292,000 individuals in my
district, including 33,000 children, an opportunity to have health
insurance, and this will be because of preexisting conditions. They're
going to increase the number of uninsured in my district, the 15th of
Michigan, by 20,000. They will increase the costs to hospitals of
providing uncompensated care in the 15th District alone by $182
million. They're going to cost each American $1,000 more because the
uninsured are going to go in and get health care anyhow.
I want to tell you what is going to happen with one young lady who
has a terrible condition called endometriosis. She is going to receive
now health insurance through the legislation passed because that
insurance will flow to her until she is 26 on her father's insurance.
But you're going to take that away from her. And you're going to see to
it that the doughnut hole doesn't close because of the fact that you
are saying no longer is this law going to be in effect.
We want to see to it that the American people benefit from this. The
repeal that you're talking about today will see to it that they do not.
What's it going to do to the deficit? Add $1.4 trillion to the deficit.
It's going to do more than that. It's going to add $230 billion to the
annual deficit. And it's going to see to it that Americans can no
longer be assured that they are going to not have their health
insurance canceled because of a sickness which occurs to them. It is
going to
[[Page H277]]
hurt small business because it's going to take billions in tax benefits
away from small business who would do this.
I urge the House to vote down this outrageous piece of legislation.
{time} 1240
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the chairman of the
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida,
Mr. Cliff Stearns.
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, let me give you some important reasons why
we need to repeal this law.
Yes, you will create jobs--but in an ever-expanding Federal
bureaucracy. The Joint Economic Committee reported this bill creates
over 150 new Federal offices. With that, of course, small businesses
must comply, are mandated to comply, with all the new and many
regulations.
Now, if this bill is so good, why is the Obama administration giving
a pass to over 220 organizations and corporations that have received
exemptions from this law, including many, many unions?
With the proposed $500 billion cut in Medicare and the increase in
taxes that is already occurring, this law is simply not credible. With
record unemployment, this law will hurt small businesses and prevent
job creation, adding burdensome taxes, and it will not increase growth
in this country.
Republicans will replace this bill with a health care law based upon
choice, competition, and the traditional American exceptional value
system, which is compassion--but compassion with accountability. We
need to repeal this law.
Mr. PALLONE. I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to thank my colleague from Florida, who just
spoke, for saying and admitting that health care reform does create
jobs, because, if you listen to the Republicans, they have been saying
over and over again that that's not the case. But he finally said, yes,
it does create jobs.
That's what we really should be doing here. We should be creating
jobs and improving the economy, not talking about repealing health care
reform, which already is providing so many benefits to many Americans.
Yesterday, I saw a statement from our former Republican majority
leader, Senator Frist from Tennessee, who said that we shouldn't do the
repeal. He recognized the fact that this legislation, this health care
reform, is actually making a difference in people's lives and that we
should build upon it, as Senator Frist said, a Republican, rather than
just trying to do an outright repeal, which is a complete waste of
time.
Now what I am hearing from my constituents is that they like the
benefits that are already coming out from health care reform, whether
it is eliminating all the discriminatory practices, like lifetime caps
or preexisting conditions or annual caps, or being able to put your
children up to age 26 on your policies. These benefits have already
kicked in, and Americans actually like the benefits. They understand
why they are helpful to them.
The only group I can think of that actually would benefit from repeal
is the big insurance companies. Unfortunately, that is the bidding, if
you will, that the Republicans are doing, the other side of the aisle.
The insurance companies want to continue to increase premiums by more
than double digits. They don't want to cut into their profits.
One of the things that kicked in on January 1 is a provision that
says that 80 percent of your premiums have to actually go to provide
benefits. They can't go to the shareholders or to the profits of the
insurance companies. The insurance companies are the only ones that
benefit from repeal because they can raise premiums, they can have
discriminatory practices, and they can just increase their profits.
I will use an example. I think the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) used this example before about someone who has breast
cancer.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.
Now, because of the policies of the health insurance reform, if
people have breast cancer and there are recurrences, they will not
experience lifetime caps or annual caps. They will be able to go back
and have chemotherapy or whatever is necessary.
Those are the types of benefits that have kicked in, and they should
continue. We should oppose repeal.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, before I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Stearns).
Mr. STEARNS. I thank my colleague.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the gentleman from New Jersey didn't listen to
me when I just spoke.
It's creating 150 new government agencies, and these are all
government jobs. So, if you're talking about increasing jobs, they're
government jobs.
It also includes $500 billion in taxes, burdensome 1099 paperwork
requirements, according to a study by the Nation's largest small
business association, the NFIB. I would like you to talk about that
1099.
These employer mandates that are in the health care bill are
terrible, and it is estimated they will wipe out 1.6 million jobs over
just 5 years.
So I caution the gentleman from New Jersey to listen carefully to my
speech.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted we have the opportunity
today to revisit the health care bill that was passed last year.
I am delighted because, first of all, when it came to the floor last
year, this bill affected every aspect of health care in America, and we
did not have the opportunity to offer one amendment on the floor. In
addition to that, this bill takes $500 billion out of Medicare, which
means less money to nursing homes, hospitals, and Medicare
beneficiaries. Then the claim that this would reduce the deficit by
$138 billion was calculated by including 10 years of tax revenues under
this bill but only 6 years of expenditures.
How can you claim that we are supporting insurance companies by
repealing this bill when the insurance companies supported the bill,
and they supported the bill because it mandates that small businesses
and individuals buy health insurance?
So I would urge the repeal of this legislation, and then we can fix
health care the way it should be fixed.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, this Republican bill is the wrong prescription for our
country. It isn't just a repeal; it's a bad deal.
It's a bad deal for small businesses and middle class families, who
would lose tax credits included in the new law to help them pay for
health insurance.
It's a bad deal for grandma, who will face higher costs for the life-
saving medications she needs. It's a bad deal for pregnant women, who
could be denied coverage when they need it the most.
Lydia Swan, my constituent, shared her story with me during the
health care debate last year. Lydia was pregnant when her husband
switched jobs. Her new insurance company said her pregnancy was a
preexisting condition, and they wouldn't pay any expenses. So Lydia was
insured, but she wasn't covered.
That is wrong. It is just plain wrong.
Mr. Speaker, a newborn child should be a pleasure and not a
preexisting condition. New parents expect some sleepless nights. They
don't expect their insurance company to deny coverage for the
pregnancy. New parents should worry about the baby and not about the
medical bills.
The new health care law closes the book on these kinds of insurance
company abuses. Let us not today reopen it once again. Say ``no'' to
this Republican bad deal that takes away patients' rights and freedoms,
and say ``yes'' to a health care system that protects American
families.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, before I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts must not be familiar
[[Page H278]]
with a waiver under the Medicaid program called Katie Beckett--the
poster that he showed us of the young child with preexisting
conditions. This program Katie Beckett still exists. There is a waiver.
There is opportunity for children with preexisting conditions to get
coverage.
The Democrats are also disingenuous when they claim credit for
immediately covering children with preexisting conditions. ObamaCare
got it wrong. They did not guarantee that children would have their
preexisting conditions covered. It is ironic that this legislation was
actually drafted incorrectly.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, my friends on the Democrat side are
supporting this bill based on 10 pages of the legislation: immediate
access to insurance for the uninsured, an extension of dependent
coverage, no lifetime or annual caps. Ten pages. This health care law
was 2,990 pages. This is only volume 1.
What do you find when you go through the entire bill? This is what
they are defending their bill on? This is only volume 1 of 4. And
what's in here?--a $500 billion cut to Medicare, a $500 billion cut to
Medicare for our seniors.
{time} 1250
What else is in here? Five hundred billion dollars of tax increases.
What else is in here? Six years of benefits for 10 years of cost. What
else is in here? A new entitlement program.
Our Nation is broke. It is broke because of our entitlement program,
and this law added a new entitlement.
Mr. PALLONE. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Eshoo).
Ms. ESHOO. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to what I think is really an
unwise, unwarranted, and unfair effort to repeal the historic health
care law which has brought much-needed insurance reforms to the
American people.
For the first time in our Nation's history, Congress passed
legislation to ensure that every American has a comprehensive health
insurance plan just as Members of Congress have. We've reduced the
deficit by $143 billion over 10 years and $1.2 trillion over 20.
I want to tell an important story which I think underscores why
repeal is wrong.
Ronit Bryant in my district was battling stage four breast cancer--
that's the worst--when her HMO decided to stop paying for her
treatment. In the middle of her treacherous ordeal through a
mastectomy, chemotherapy, a bone marrow transplant, and radiation, she
was also battling her insurance company in Federal court where she had
to listen to lawyers argue over whether her life was worth saving or
not. A woman of less strength would never have made it through this. I
am proud to say that Ronit made a full recovery. She watched her
children grow, and she went on to become the mayor of one of the major
cities in my district, Mountain View, California.
So a 50 percent discount on prescription drugs for seniors makes
sense. Prohibiting rescissions--what was done to Ronit, eliminating
that makes sense. Allowing children to stay on their parents' insurance
policy until the age of 26 makes sense. Thirty-five percent tax credits
for small businesses make sense.
What the Republicans are doing today does not make sense. It's wrong
for America; it's bad for Americans, and I urge my colleagues to reject
it.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the
Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I might just respond: ObamaCare spends over
$1 trillion but leaves 23 million people uninsured.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been
arguing that we can't afford to repeal ObamaCare. I would argue just
the opposite. Our country cannot bear the true cost of ObamaCare, and
it must be repealed.
Our repeal would mean that Americans with employer-provided health
coverage will keep their current plan, yet the administration estimates
that seven out of 10 individuals will lose their current coverage under
ObamaCare.
Our repeal means that half of all employers--as many as 80 percent of
small businesses--will be able to keep their current plan rather than
lose it over the next 2 years. The administration's estimates reveal
that their own onerous regulations will force most businesses to give
up their current plans, subjecting them to costly new mandates that
will increase premiums.
Our repeal means that 7.4 million more seniors will participate in
Medicare Advantage plans, according to the Medicare actuary. Our repeal
also means that the Medicare Advantage beneficiaries will not face an
average increase of $873 per year in out-of-pocket costs between now
and 2019.
Our repeal means that individual health insurance premiums will not
increase by $2,100.
Our repeal means that taxpayers will not face $569 billion in tax
increases scheduled to take effect over the coming years.
Our repeal means that the economy would keep an estimated 750,000
jobs that will be lost because the incentives included in ObamaCare
actually discourage individuals from working, according to the CBO.
Our repeal means that national health spending will go down by $310
billion, according to the Medicare actuary.
Our repeal means that seniors' part D premiums won't increase by 4
percent in 2011 or rise up to 9 percent in 2019 as CBO estimates would
happen under the current law.
Without repeal, employer retiree drug coverage will drop from 20
percent of retirees to 2 percent by 2016, according to the Medicare
Trustees Report.
Finally, repeal means that States will avoid a massive forced
expansion of their Medicaid programs, at a cost of $20 billion to the
States, at a time when they cannot sustain Medicaid.
The costs of leaving this job-slashing health care law in effect are
much too high. It must be repealed.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I am very, very sorry that my Republican friends have chosen to put
this repeal bill through. In light of the events in Tucson, we all say
we are going to work together. The American people want us to work
together. This is not the way to do it. If there's a problem with the
bill, we should tweak it or change it. We shouldn't repeal it. If there
is a problem and things need to be changed, we should put our heads
together and try to do it.
The Republicans say that they want to cut costs in government. The
CBO says that this bill will save us $230 billion over 10 years and
$1.2 trillion over 20 years; and the first thing the Republicans bring
up is to repeal this bill, which will add to the deficit.
This is political theater. It's a charade. This isn't going to be
repealed. Let us put our heads together and figure out what makes
sense.
All important bills that were put in in the past 50 or 60 years, from
Medicare to Medicaid to Social Security to the civil rights bills of
the 1960s, they needed to be tweaked as we saw what the problems were.
I'm willing to change the bill, but repealing it is the absolutely
wrong way to do it.
I am delighted to revisit this issue because we can finally get the
truth out. The American people understand that right now, if they have
a preexisting condition, they cannot be denied coverage. An insurance
company right now, with this bill, cannot say, ``Sorry, you have a
lifetime cap or an annual cap and we're not going to insure you.'' The
insurance company now can't deny your 24- or 25- or 26-year-old child
insurance to be on your plan. We are finally closing the doughnut hole
to put more money in the hands of senior citizens.
This is what the Republicans would repeal. They say that this is a
government takeover of health care. No, it isn't. And if they had
better plans for health care, they were in power for 6 years with the
President and both Houses of Congress and they did nothing to make
health care affordable for the American people.
Let's work together. Let's change the bill. Let's tweak the bill.
Don't repeal it.
[[Page H279]]
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the vice chair of the
full committee, the gentlelady from North Carolina, Sue Myrick.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, we oppose this health care law for many
reasons. I'm especially concerned about the negative effect it may have
on the ability of our doctors to care for their patients as they see
fit.
It creates well over 156 bureaucracies, programs, and regulatory
systems which will further regulate and control the way medicine is
practiced, paid for, and allocated. Doctors who practice medicine as
small business owners are already forced to dedicate significant
resources and manpower to keep up with the bureaucracy of reimbursement
alone.
This law does nothing to slow the growth of Medicare and Medicaid
programs--we know those are two huge problems we have to deal with--but
it will surely add to the regulatory burdens faced by doctors,
patients, and, most importantly, the American people, who are going to
have to foot the bill.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Congress from
Texas, I supported the health care reform law proudly. Texas has some
of the highest rates of uninsured in the United States.
{time} 1300
Twenty-six percent of our Texans are uninsured--6.4 million
residents--compared with the national average of only 16.7 percent.
Over the past 8 years in Texas, employer-based insurance coverage has
dropped 18 percent. Now, only 48 percent of Texans have health
insurance provided by their employers--well below the national average.
Texas has some of the highest health insurance premiums in the U.S. A
family of four making $44,000, the average premium out-of-pocket is
$6,548--almost 15 percent of their income. In Texas, our State
Department of Insurance report to the legislature acknowledged the
positive impact of the Affordable Care Act.
The State of Texas Department of Insurance concluded the Affordable
Care Act will have a positive impact on the State and help Texans gain
access to private insurance coverage. As the Department of Insurance
report states, ``the removal of underwriting restrictions, new premium
rating reforms, availability of subsidies and limitations on out-of-
pocket expenses for low- and middle-income families should make it
easier for many low-income Texans to obtain private insurance.''
In our district in Houston and Harris County, 40 percent of my
constituents were uninsured when we passed the Affordable Care Act in
March of last year. Repeal, H.R. 2, would be a major setback to what
we're trying to do in our own district.
To cite a few local statistics from the repeal on my constituents:
increase the number of people without insurance by almost 217,000;
allow insurance companies to deny coverage to at least 102,000 people
in our district, including at least 12,000 children with preexisting
conditions; eliminate health care tax credits for 14,600 small
businesses and 177,000 people; increase prescription drug costs for
4,400 seniors in my district who fell into that doughnut hole except
for health care reform.
My Republican colleagues want to work on improving it. I'm here to do
it, but repeal is not the answer.
Biennial Report of the Texas Department of Insurance to the 82nd
Legislature
(December 2010)
(Mike Geeslin, Commissioner of Insurance)
Texas Department of Insurance,
Austin, Texas, December 31, 2010
Hon. Rick Perry, Governor,
Hon. David Dewhurst, Lieutenant Governor,
Hon. Joe Straus, III, Speaker.
Dear Governors and Speaker: In accordance with Section
32.022, Texas Insurance Code, I am pleased to submit the
biennial report of the Texas Department of Insurance
(Department or TDI). The report summarizes needed changes in
the laws relating to regulation of the insurance industry,
provides information on market conditions, and includes
reviews required by Senate Bill 1 (81st Legislature, Regular
Session).
The Department is available to discuss any of the issues
contained in the report and to provide technical assistance.
Please contact me or Carol Cates, Associate Commissioner of
Government Relations, with any questions or if you need
additional information. Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mike Geeslin,
Commissioner of Insurance.
Texas Department of Insurance: Securing the Future of Texas
Mission
To protect insurance consumers by: regulating the industry
fairly and diligently promoting a stable and competitive
market providing information that makes a difference.
Values
We have a passionate commitment to service in the public
interest. We are:
Responsible Stewards: accountable, efficient, effective
``Using resources wisely''.
Professional: knowledgeable and fair ``Adhering to the
highest ethical standards''.
Collaborative: cooperative, inclusive, diverse ``Respecting
others' opinions and expertise''.
Resilient and Creative: open-minded and proactive
``Learning from the past to enhance the future''
Balanced: fulfilled and well-rounded ``Celebrating personal
and professional successes''.
Senate Bill 1--Rider 18: Review of Health Insurance Availability and
Affordability
The 81st Legislature included in Senate Bill 1 a directive
to the Texas Department of Insurance to conduct a review of
``the accessibility of health benefit plan coverage for and
the affordability of health benefit plan premiums for low-
income families and families not eligible for employer-
sponsored insurance.'' Following is a summary of the results
of the review.
Like many states, Texas has struggled with increasing
healthcare costs and insurance premiums that have prohibited
many individuals from obtaining affordable health insurance.
The rising cost of insurance affects individuals at all
income levels and employers of all sizes but is particularly
challenging for low income workers and small business owners.
In 2009, the U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey
(CPS) reports that 6.4 million Texans were uninsured for the
entire year (Table One). Of the Texans who have health
insurance, slightly more than half (53.8 percent) have
private coverage, down from 56.9 percent in 2007 and lower
than the national average of 63.9 percent. Texas workers are
less likely to have employer-sponsored coverage with 48.2
percent of Texans enrolled in employment-based plans compared
to a national average of 55.8 percent.
TABLE 1: SOURCES OF HEALTH INSURANCE--2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National
Source of insurance Number Texas average
percentage (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private Insurance............. 13,257,000 53.8 63.9
Employment................ 11,893,000 48.2 55.8
Individual................ 1,531,000 6.2 8.9
Government Insurance.......... 6,925,000 28.1 30.6
Medicaid.................. 3,951,000 16.0 15.7
Medicare.................. 2,730,000 11.1 14.3
Military.................. 1,052,000 4.3 4.1
Total Insured......... 18,224,000 73.9 83.3
Total Uninsured....... 6,433,000 26.1 16.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2010 Annual
Social and Economic Supplement.
(Note: Numbers may not add up to totals as some people have more than
one type of insurance.)
Like other states, the majority of uninsured in Texas live
in families with low to moderate incomes (Table 2). Detailed
analysis of 2008 CPS data shows that 59 percent of the
uninsured (3.5 million people) reported family incomes below
200 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL). Another 12
percent had incomes between 200 and 249 percent FPL. The data
also confirms that individuals with lower incomes were much
more likely to be uninsured than those with higher incomes.
Forty-five percent of individuals under 50 percent of FPL
were uninsured compared to only 14 percent of individuals at
250 percent or higher.
TABLE 2: UNINSURED RATES BY POVERTY LEVEL--2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Number Percent of uninsured
Income as a percentage of poverty level uninsured total within income
uninsured category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under 50%...................................................... 817,821 13.5 45.5
51% to 99%..................................................... 793,071 13.1 39.0
100% to 149%................................................... 1,064,129 17.5 37.0
150% to 199%................................................... 897,803 14.8 33.7
200% to 249%................................................... 703,379 11.61 31.9
250% or Higher................................................. 1,800,667 29.7 14.3
------------------------------------------------
Total...................................................... 6,076,870 100 25.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2009 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.
While most states have experienced declining rates of
employer-sponsored coverage in recent years, the decline in
Texas is more pronounced. Since 2001, the percentage of
Texans with employer coverage has dropped from 58.5 percent
to the current rate of 48.2 percent, an 18 percent decrease
in eight years. Additional data from the annual Medical
Expenditure Panel Survey--Insurance Component (MEPS-IC)
indicates that even when firms offer insurance, many
employees are ineligible or choose not to purchase coverage.
The MEPS-IC survey, administered by the federal Health
Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) collects
detailed information on employer-sponsored insurance,
including data for both large firms (defined as 50 or more
employees) and small businesses (2-49 employees). Table 3
summarizes information on both insurance offer rates and
participation rates for large and small businesses and
clearly indicates important differences based on firm size.
Some of the more significant findings are:
[[Page H280]]
Most large firms (94 percent) offer health insurance
compared to only 34.2 percent of small firms.
Nearly half (49.1 percent) of employees in small firms work
for an employer offering coverage, compared to 95.7 percent
of employees in large firms.
Of those employees with employer-sponsored health coverage,
more than 3.8 million work in large firms compared to 653,162
workers in small firms.
More than 1.3 million workers have access to coverage in a
large or small firm but are not enrolled. Not all are
uninsured; some have other coverage, such as a spouse's
employer-sponsored plan. However, a large number of these
eligible workers are uninsured and have not enrolled due
primarily to costs.
Although most large employers offer coverage, many workers
are not eligible. More than one million workers in large
firms do not qualify for their employer-sponsored plan
because they work part time, are temporary or contract
workers, or have not worked long enough to meet the required
waiting period. Again, however, not all of these workers
are uninsured.
More than one million employees in small firms also do not
have access to coverage. Most of these workers (1,038,936)
are employed in firms that do not offer coverage. Another
169,415 workers are not eligible for coverage offered by
their employer.
TABLE 3: EMPLOYER SPONSORED INSURANCE: OFFER AND PARTICIPATION DATA--
2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Insurance Enrollment Data Small firms Large firms
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Total number of firms.............. 324,554 125,685
2. Total number of employees.......... 2,041,132 6,375,152
3. Percentage of firms that offer 34.2% 94.0%
insurance............................
4. Number of firms that do offer 110,997 118,144
insurance............................
5. Number of firms that do not offer 213,557 7,541
insurance............................
6. Number of employees working in 1,002,196 6,101,020
firms that offer insurance...........
7. Percentage of employees working in 49.1% 95.7%
firms that offer insurance...........
8. Number of employees working in 1,038,936 274,132
firms that do not offer insurance....
9. Number of employees eligible for 832,781 4,947,118
coverage.............................
10. Number of employees who are 653,162 3,818,716
enrolled.............................
11. Percentage of all employees that 32% 60%
have employer-sponsored coverage.....
12. Number of employees who have 179,619 1,128,402
access to coverage but are not
enrolled.............................
13. Number of employees who do not 1,208,351 1,428,034
have access to coverage..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2009 Medical
Expenditure Panel Survey-Insurance Component.
Of those employers that do not offer coverage, extensive
research shows the most common reason cited is the increasing
cost of insurance. Consistent with national trends, Texas
employers and employees have experienced significant premium
rate increases over the past ten years, despite a number of
programs and industry efforts to hold down costs. As Table 4
below indicates, average premium costs across all firms
(including both fully insured and self-funded) have more than
doubled in the past ten years.
TABLE 4: AVERAGE EMPLOYER-SPONSORED INSURANCE PREMIUM COSTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average annual premium Average annual premium
Year for single coverage for single coverage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999.......................................................... $2,336 $6,208
2000.......................................................... 2,627 6,638
2001.......................................................... 2,924 7,486
2002.......................................................... 3,268 8,837
2003.......................................................... 3,400 9,575
2004.......................................................... 3,781 10,110
2005.......................................................... 4,108 11,680
2006.......................................................... 4,133 11,680
2008.......................................................... 4,205 11,967
2009.......................................................... 4,499 13,221
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey-Insurance Component 1997-
2006, 2008-2009 (No survey available for 2007).
Though most employers are challenged by significant premium
increases, higher rates are usually more difficult for small
firms (those with 2-50 employees) to absorb. Because a small
employer's rates are based on the age, gender and health
status of the employer's workers and their dependent
enrollees, rates can vary significantly from the average cost
based on a group's specific demographics. Generally, groups
with younger, healthier employees will pay lower premiums
while groups with older, less healthy workers will pay higher
rates. An employer with even one worker with a pre-existing
condition may see their group rates increase by up to 67
percent based on health status underwriting factors. TDI data
shows groups that are subject to a combination of the highest
allowed rating factors may see premium rates for individual
employees in excess of $20,000 a year, a cost that is higher
than maximum rates charged for coverage in the Texas Health
Insurance Pool for individuals who are uninsurable in the
individual market.
Over the last 10 years, the Department of Insurance has
conducted significant research to collect information on
uninsured Texans and uninsured small businesses, why they
have no coverage, how much they can afford, and options to
assist them with purchasing coverage. Through a federal State
Planning Grant administered by HRSA, TDI conducted multiple
focus groups, surveys, and community events across the state.
Though some of the study findings are somewhat dated, many of
the conclusions are likely still applicable given the high
cost of insurance and continued high uninsured rate.
Beginning in 2002 and continuing through 2006, TDI hosted
more than 60 focus group sessions with individuals, small
business owners and their employees in 20 different cities
across Texas representing all of the major geographical areas
of the state. Focus group sessions were attended by uninsured
individuals or small employers who were unable to provide
insurance for their employees. The personal stories expressed
at these focus group sessions underscored the challenges many
consumers face when trying to find affordable health
coverage. (For additional information on the research
findings, please see TDI reports at: http://
www.tdi.state.tx.us/health/spg.html.)
The primary conclusion from these discussion sessions was
that health insurance remains unaffordable for many of these
individuals and employers. The vast majority of participants
expressed willingness to pay for insurance, and most had
attempted to buy coverage within the past year but could not
find a benefit plan that was affordable. More than 90 percent
of the attendees were employed or owned their own business,
and many participants expressed frustration with the fact
that ``average, working, responsible citizens'' could not
afford coverage.
Even when employer coverage is offered, many employees
decline to enroll due to employee premium payments and cost
sharing requirements. While the majority of employers pay at
least half the cost of the premium for employee-only
coverage, employer contributions for both employee and
dependent coverage have declined as more employers struggle
to keep up with increasing premium costs and other economic
pressures. Employees increasingly are asked to share more of
the cost of coverage through increased premium contributions
and higher cost-sharing policy provisions, particularly in
the small group market. In 2009, the MEPS-IC data show small
employers in Texas reported the third highest individual
deductible levels in the country at $1,634, compared to a
national average of $1,283. Large employers had the sixth
highest individual deductible at $990 compared to a national
average of $882. For family deductibles, small employers
reported the sixth highest average ($3,210 compared to $2,652
nationally), and large firms were at the second highest level
($1,883 in Texas compared to $1,610 nationally).
In addition to premium contributions and deductibles,
enrollees in group health plans face other out-of-pocket
expenses, including co-payments and coinsurance, which vary
depending on the type of service provided (i.e., primary care
visits, specialist visits, emergency room services, hospital
admissions, etc.). The data included in Table 5 illustrates
average costs for some of the most common cost-sharing
provisions in 2009 but is not inclusive of all expenses an
enrollee pays under a typical health plan.
These data underscore the relatively high cost low income
families incur to enroll their families in employer-sponsored
benefit plans. While some workers may find employee-only
coverage affordable depending on the employer's actual
contribution rate and the employee's overall financial
circumstances, adding family coverage would likely be cost-
prohibitive for most low-income workers up to 200 percent of
poverty, and for many even above those income levels. Add
these premium contribution requirements to high family
deductibles and other coinsurance expenses, and most low
income families are likely unable to afford employer
sponsored coverage. Table 6 shows the cost of the average
employee contribution for individual and family coverage as a
percentage of the 2010 income levels for each poverty level
listed (100, 150, and 200 percent of federal poverty level,
FPL). For workers with health plans that require higher
employee premium payments than the average, the cost of
coverage as a percentage of income will be even higher.
TABLE 5: AVERAGE COST SHARING REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYER-SPONSORED
INSURANCE, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small firms Large firms
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Total Employee-Only Premium..... $4,391 $4,523
Average Total Family Total Premium...... $12,674 $13,288
Average Individual Deductible........... $1,634 $990
Average Family Deductible............... $3,210 $1,883
Average Co-payment for an Office Visit.. $26.03 $23.44
Average Percentage Coinsurance for an 19.08% 18.0%
Office Visit...........................
Average Employee Payment for Employee- $588 $1079
Only Coverage..........................
Average Employee Payment for Family $3,924 $4036
Coverage...............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2009 Medical
Expenditure Panel Survey-Insurance Component.
[[Page H281]]
TABLE 6: AVERAGE EMPLOYEE PREMIUM CONTRIBUTIONS AS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME BY FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL (FPL)--2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small firms
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avg. employee contribution for employee-
only coverage ($588) as percentage of
family income by FPL
Avg. employee contribution for family
coverage ($3,924) as a percentage of
family income by FPL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family size Poverty level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100% FPL 150% FPL 200% FPL 100% FPL 150% FPL 200% FPL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family of 1................. 5.4% 3.6% 2.7% -- -- --
Family of 2................. 4.0% 2.7% 2.0% 26.9% 18.0% 13.4%
Family of 3................. 3.2% 2.1% 1.6% 21.4% 14.3% 10.7%
Family of 4................. 2.7% 1.8% 1.3% 17.8% 11.9% 8.9%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large firms
Avg. employee contribution for employee-
only coverage ($1,079) as percentage of
family income by FPL
Avg. employee contribution for family
coverage ($4,036) as a percentage of
family income by FPL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family size Poverty level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family of 1................. 10.0% 6.6% 5.0% -- --
Family of 2................. 7.4% 4.9% 3.7% 27.7% 18.5% 13.8%
Family of 3................. 5.9% 3.9% 2.9% 22% 14.7% 11.0%
Family of 4................. 4.9% 3.3% 2.4% 18.3% 12.2% 9.2%
While premium amounts alone exceed the budgets of many
Texas families, out-of-pocket expenses (co-pays, co-
insurance, and deductibles) add to the burden. Using 2007
MEPS-IC data for average costs of out-of-pocket expenses for
non-elderly enrollees adjusted for private coverage in Texas,
Texans pay an average of $631 annually per person in out-of-
pocket expenses. Table 7 illustrates this with examples.
TABLE 7: IMPACT OF HEALTH COSTS ON TEXAS FAMILIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example A: Family of four with a household income of
200% FPL:
Annual income.................................... $44,100
Average annual premium........................... $13,221
Average annual employer premium contribution..... ($9,197)
Average annual employee premium responsibility... $4,024
Average annual cost of out-of-pocket expenses.... $2,524
Average annual cost to family (% of income).. $6,548 (14.8%)
Example B: Individual with an income of 200% FPL:
Annual income.................................... $21,660
Average annual premium........................... $4,499
Average annual employer premium contribution..... ($3,508)
Average annual employee premium responsibility... $991
Average annual cost of out-of-pocket expenses.... $631
Average annual cost to Individual (% of $1,622 (7.5%)
Income).....................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the vast majority of Texans with private insurance
coverage are enrolled in an employer-sponsored benefit plan,
an estimated 1.5 million residents have purchased some type
of individual medical insurance. The individual market offers
a wide variety of options designed to meet varying healthcare
needs. Some policies provide comprehensive coverage similar
to benefits included in an employer-sponsored plan while
others provide more limited benefits. Other plans provide
supplemental coverage to Medicare or only cover certain
diseases, such as cancer. People shopping in the individual
market have the opportunity to choose the plan that best fits
their needs and financial situation, which vary widely among
consumers.
Unlike the group market, it is important to note that
individual health insurance is subject to strict medical
underwriting requirements that determine whether or not a
person is eligible to purchase coverage. People with pre-
existing health conditions or a past history of health
problems are often declined coverage or may receive plans
that exclude coverage for certain services related to their
pre-existing condition. Premiums are based on the applicant's
medical status, age, gender, and area of residency, and are
usually significantly higher for older applicants or people
with health conditions.
Although TDI does not collect detailed enrollment or
premium cost data on the individual market and is unable to
determine the number of enrollees by type of plan, the
insurance association America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP)
conducted a survey in 2009 of insurers participating in the
individual health insurance market. Limited data on state-
specific results show that average annual premiums in Texas
for a comprehensive health insurance policy were $3,208 for
single coverage (i.e., one person) and $6,459 for family
coverage. Single policies had an average annual out-of-pocket
maximum limit (the maximum amount a person would pay for
eligible healthcare services) of $5,000, while family
policies had an annual limit of $10,000.
Because the individual market allows carriers to medically
underwrite applicants and select only those individuals that
meet the carrier's specific requirements, some applicants
will be unable to purchase individual coverage at any price
from any carrier. Though the federal Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (PPACA) of 2010 prohibits carriers from
denying coverage of dependents based on health conditions
beginning with new policies issued on or after September 23,
2010, this provision does not extend to adults until 2014.
Individuals who cannot obtain coverage in the individual
market and have no access to group coverage may obtain
insurance from the Texas Health Insurance Pool (THIP,
formerly Texas Health Insurance Risk Pool) or the newly
created federal Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP).
THIP was created by the Texas Legislature to provide
insurance for individuals who are unable to obtain coverage
from the commercial market. It also serves as the Texas
alternative for individual health insurance coverage under
the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act of 1996 (HIPAA), guaranteeing insurance to qualified
individuals who lose coverage under an employer-based plan.
Eligibility and premium rating requirements are established
by law.
The federally operated PCIP was created under the recently
enacted federal healthcare reform legislation, PPACA.
Beginning in 2014, PPACA requires insurers to accept all
applicants regardless of health status. To assist individuals
with health conditions who cannot obtain commercial coverage
prior to 2014, PPACA includes provisions for federally or
state run insurance programs. Texas opted for the federally
operated insurance pool, PCIP. The PCIP functions in many
ways like the THIP, but there are some critical distinctions
which significantly affect cost, eligibility and covered
benefits.
Both THIP and PCIP provide comprehensive health coverage
for individuals with previous health conditions. To enroll,
individuals must be legal U.S. citizens and a resident of the
state, and must provide evidence that they were declined
coverage for insurance or have a current or previous medical
condition that makes them uninsurable. However, PCIP requires
an individual be uninsured for at least six months before
they are eligible to enroll. This provision precludes
enrollees in the THIP from enrolling in the PCIP.
Premium rates for coverage in THIP and PCIP vary
dramatically. Rates for THIP are set at twice the average
rate (200 percent) for standard coverage offered in the
commercial market and are adjusted semi-annually to reflect
changes in the market rates. Rates also are adjusted based on
the age, gender, and geographic location of the enrollee,
which reflects variations in local healthcare costs and
expected healthcare utilization. Rates are higher for
individuals with a history of tobacco use. Enrollees may
choose from a range of deductible options and plan cost-
sharing limits, with annual deductibles from $1,000 up to
$7,500. Higher deductibles will lower the premium rate for
the enrollee. Due to the variability of rating factors,
monthly premium costs vary widely from a low of $160 a month
for an individual age 18 or lower with a deductible of $7,500
to a high of $2,207 a month for a male age 60-64 with a
deductible of $1,000. In 2009, 13 percent of THIP enrollees
selected a $1,000 deductible, 38 percent a $2,500 deductible,
37 percent a $5,000 deductible and 10 percent a $7,500
deductible. The average monthly premium was $620.
Premium rates for PCIP are set at the average standard rate
in the commercial market and vary based on the age of the
applicant and the plan they select. Monthly premiums for
Texas enrollees beginning January 1, 2011 are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age 0- Age Age Age Age
Plan type 18 19-34 35-44 45-54 55+
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard........................ $174 $261 $313 $400 $567
Extended........................ $234 $351 $422 $539 $749
HSA............................. $181 $271 $325 $416 $578
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Plan descriptions available at www.pcip.gov/
PC1P_%20pamphlet_benefits_summary.pdf.
While both programs (PCIP and THIP) provide comprehensive
coverage, PCIP has no waiting period for treatment of pre-
existing conditions, an important benefit for this population
since all enrollees have some pre-existing medical condition
as a condition of eligibility. By contrast, the THIP includes
a 12 month pre-existing condition exclusion waiting period
for most new enrollees (with exceptions for enrollees with
creditable coverage and some enrollees with continued
coverage under a previous employer plan). This means that,
while individuals in PCIP are immediately eligible for
benefits for their pre-existing condition, enrollees in THIP
must wait 12 months before pre-existing conditions are
covered.
Impact of Federal Health Reform
The federal health reform Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act includes significant private insurance market
provisions
[[Page H282]]
that will dramatically alter the insurance market in Texas
and other states. The law includes a series of reform
requirements that begin in 2010, with the most dramatic
changes occurring in 2014. With a few exceptions, most of the
initial reforms effective in 2010 through 2013 will primarily
affect individuals who already have insurance coverage and
will have little impact effect on individuals who are
uninsured or who are enrolled in public plans. However,
beginning in 2014, several federal requirements should
significantly assist lower income families and employees
obtain affordable health insurance, including the following:
Advanceable tax credits will be available to families
earning up to 400 percent of federal poverty level to
purchase affordable health insurance;
Insurance plans must meet certain benefit requirements and
cost-sharing provisions designed to ensure benefit plans
provide comprehensive services with limited out-of-pocket
costs to enrollees;
Most large employers will be required to offer health
insurance benefits that meet minimum requirements or may face
penalty payments;
Insurance plans are prohibited from denying coverage based
on an individual's health status;
Insurance plans will not be able to increase premiums based
on an individual's health status or gender, and premium rates
for older individuals are limited; and
Insurance Exchanges will provide access to health insurance
plans that meet standard benefit requirements and provide
simplified application and enrollment procedures for
individuals, small businesses and Medicaid/CHIP enrollees.
The provisions listed above will require federal
regulations and, in some cases, state legislative and/or
regulatory action to fully implement. Until the details of
these requirements are finalized, it is impossible to predict
the long-term impact on the affordability of insurance
coverage. However, the removal of underwriting restrictions;
new premium rating reforms, availability of subsidies and
limitations on out of pocket expenses for low and middle
income families should make it easier for many low-income
Texans to obtain private insurance.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Walden), whose State would be devastated with the Medicare
Advantage cuts.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, 42.7 percent of Oregon's seniors--that's
about 200,000 in Oregon, nearly 41,000 in my district--were enrolled,
at the time this law was established, in Medicare Advantage programs.
You know, under this bill, under this new law, Medicare gets whacked
by $500 billion, and the reports indicate one out of two seniors might
lose their Medicare Advantage across the country.
Look, I want a patient-centered health care system. It's your life.
It's your health. You should have the right to choose your doctor and
your hospital and make those decisions. We will address, with our
replacement bill, preexisting conditions, making sure kids who are in
college or up to 26 or whatever the age is decided by the committee are
going to be able to be covered by your insurance.
But I'll tell you what. In the law that is on the books today, it
drives up the cost of health care, it drives up premiums, and it adds
to the Nation's debt when you look at it in the long term, according to
CBO.
The manager at Taurus Freight, a small freight logistics business in
Bend, Oregon, told me recently, because of the 1099 reporting provision
in this bill, she's going to quit buying from various businesses,
consolidate. It's going to cost jobs and put new headaches on small
businesses.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. UPTON. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. WALDEN. And I think that's one of the big arguments here that I
get from the people out in my district is: Why did the government take
over this, put all of these other provisions in, ram a bill through the
House that creates this new trillion dollar entitlement that costs jobs
and doesn't drive down the cost of health care?
We can do better than this, given the chance. And under the
Republicans, the committees will actually have a chance to work on a
bill for replacement and everybody can participate from both sides of
the aisle. And we will get it right and get to a patient-centered
health care system in America that does reform the current system and
drives down costs.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter).
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I speak to you today on behalf of the
women of America, the millions of whom I will never meet but are set to
receive countless protections from the Affordable Care Act by the time
it is fully implemented in 2014.
Health care reform is a major victory for women, and any attempt to
repeal or defund this legislation is simply unfair to us, our
daughters, our mothers, and our grandmothers. The fact of the matter is
that the Affordable Care Act ends the widespread discrimination that
has existed and will come back against women in the health care system.
It took us decades until we passed this bill to make it illegal,
finally, for insurance companies to charge women higher premiums and
stop the egregious practice of charging them 48 percent more and to not
cover domestic violence victims. Yes, that's right. In eight States and
the District of Columbia, insurance would not cover victims of domestic
violence on the grounds, I assume, that it might happen again.
Equally egregious, women were routinely denied health insurance if
they had children. In many places pregnancy was considered a
preexisting condition, as were D&Cs. But both of those reprehensible
practices are outlawed in the passage of the Affordable Health Care.
Thanks to the new law, women do not have to worry any more about
being treated as second-class citizens or being discriminated against
for being a woman.
But that's not where the benefits end. When it's fully implemented,
all maternity services will be included in health insurance plans. They
will no longer be able to deny coverage or charge higher premiums for
people who have had C-sections or pregnancy.
I speak to you today on behalf of the women of America, the millions
whom I will never meet, but are set to receive countless protections
from the Affordable Care Act by the time it is fully implemented in
2014. Health care reform is a major victory for women and any attempt
to repeal or defund the legislation is simply unfair to us, our
daughters, our mothers, and our grandmothers.
The fact of the matter is that the Affordable Care Act ends
widespread discrimination against women within the healthcare system.
Now the Republican Majority is proposing to replace this legislation
with a resolution, another promise to America. What do they promise?
Quite simply, that they will figure out a new healthcare plan at some
point in the future, and in the meantime you're on your own.
It took us decades to finally make it illegal for insurance companies
to charge women higher premiums, and to stop the egregious practice of
discrimination against domestic violence victims. It is unfathomable to
take these protections away in exchange for a vague promise of some
help down the road.
Prior to passage of the Affordable Care Act, women faced severe
discrimination from health insurance companies. Through a practice
known as ``gender rating,'' women who purchased insurance on the
individual market faced the prospect of paying 48 percent more in
premium costs than men.
Equally egregious, women were routinely denied health insurance
coverage if they had been victims of domestic violence. Shocking as it
is, insurance companies often classified domestic violence as a ``pre-
existing condition'' and it was completely legal for insurance
companies to deny coverage to domestic violence victims in eight states
and the District of Columbia.
No more. Both of these morally reprehensible practices are outlawed
with the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Thanks to the new law,
women no longer have to worry about being discriminated against for
being born a woman.
This is not where benefits for women end. By the time the Affordable
Care Act is fully implemented in 2014:
Maternity services will be included in all health insurance plans
offered as part of the health insurance exchanges.
Insurance companies will no longer be allowed to deny coverage or
charge higher premiums for women with ``pre-existing conditions'' like
C-sections or pregnancy.
Insurance companies will no longer be allowed to place ``lifetime
limits'' on health benefits for women, and end care when it is needed
the most.
Women who do not have access to insurance through employers will be
able to obtain insurance through health insurance exchanges. These
exchanges are being designed as we speak to offer a wide selection of
health insurance plans at competitive rates.
Women will receive free preventative health services, from mammograms
to pap smears.
[[Page H283]]
The ``donut hole'' in Medicare Part D will be closed through the
Affordable Care Act, helping women pay for healthcare as they grow
older.
All these benefits and protections are provided to women while
lowering our Nation's deficit--a priority of both parties.
The choice is clear. For the health and well-being of our Nation's
women, we must end this ill-advised attempt at repeal, and implement
the valuable protections of the Affordable Care Act.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, before I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan), I yield 30 seconds to the gentlelady from
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, in reference to the comments that were
just made about women in the health care law, I would just remind the
body one of our primary concerns with this legislation was the way in
which women would be adversely impacted when you look at the
comparative results board and the fact that they were going to change
the ratings that were coming from the task forces, and it would be more
difficult for women under the age of 50 and over the age of 75 to get
mammograms. And I use that as an example.
We need this bill off the books.
Mr. UPTON. Again, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Sullivan).
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of legislation to
repeal ObamaCare. This health care law is bad for patients, bad for
doctors, bad for small businesses, and terrible for our troubled
economy.
I hear from small business owners across the First Congressional
District every day. Many are being forced to cut back on health
benefits. They can't afford to hire new employees, and they are scared
to death that ObamaCare will put them out of business.
Not only is this unconstitutional to force the American people to
purchase government-approved health insurance, but this prescription
for disaster has put our Nation on a path to bankruptcy by adding
billions of dollars to our already record-setting deficit.
In addition, ObamaCare actually reverses over 30 years of bipartisan
efforts to keep tax dollars from funding abortions, which I find
reprehensible.
Mr. Speaker, repealing ObamaCare is not the end of the debate over
reforming our health care system. It's the first step in implementing a
health care system that works for all Americans without costly,
unconstitutional government mandates that destroy jobs.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, over and over today I've heard supporters
of this bill saying it is just the first step, then maybe they'll think
about fixing the bill. Well, tell that to the millions of Americans who
are now reaping the benefits of the legislation, who, if this actually
became law, would lose what they have only just now gained: Citizens
whose children suffer from diabetes or asthma and have finally been
able to get coverage; citizens like the small business owners I met
with last fall in Denver who, because of the health reform law's tax
credits, are finally able to get health insurance for their employees;
and citizens like the next generation of our country's leaders, like my
young neighbor who has type 1 diabetes and is going to college but
knows he will have insurance and he can stay on his parents' insurance.
I keep hearing ``repeal and replace,'' but, frankly, Mr. Speaker,
that's not what we're doing today. We're repealing these benefits that
help millions of Americans and we are replacing them with nothing.
If the proponents of this bill really intended to cover these things,
why didn't they just put the 10 pages that my colleague talked about in
the bill? The reason is because, if you want to give benefits like this
to millions of Americans, to young people, to women with gender
disparity, and to small businesses, you have to have comprehensive
reform.
{time} 1310
We all know it. And that's why we need to resist this effort. We need
to resist repealing this legislation. And we need to work together
across the aisle to implement it in a way that helps every single
American.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, before I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Terry), I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas,
Dr. Burgess.
Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
You know, the fact is on those tax credits for small business, they
are so confusing--and I hear this from my small businesses all the time
back home--no one understands how to actually make those benefits work.
And they are time limited. They will soon expire.
But here's the real deal. If you really wanted to help small
business, let's repeal that 1099 provision. Why was it even in there?
Well, one reason, so the IRS could enforce the mandate. But the other
reason was maybe they're going to need a value-added tax in order to
pay for this monstrosity. Let's repeal it and get it done the right
way.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I embrace this opportunity to repeal this
trillion-dollar tragedy. That's the cost of it over 6 years; yet in
order to make their numbers work so they can come here and argue that
this is deficit neutral, they only have benefits for 6 years. It's full
of gimmicks like that. The reality is that it's raising taxes to the
amount of $569 billion. That is a job killer. And it hurts senior
health care by taking $523 billion out of Medicare over the next 10
years and puts bureaucrats in charge of your health care. That's wrong.
That's a tragedy.
What we will do right is in the next phase. Starting very soon in our
committee, we will begin an open process, not the one that was used
where a bill was written in the Speaker's office and then driven to the
House floor with no amendments allowed. We will do this right. We will
have the people involved. This whole body will be involved. Even the
other side of the party is going to be involved in our committee, which
we weren't allowed before. So we will do this right and do it right for
the American citizens.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard talk on the other side of the aisle about
small business, but I would point out that repeal would eliminate tax
credits for small businesses. In Mr. Burgess's district, there are up
to 13,600 small businesses that are eligible for the tax credit, and
repeal would force these small businesses to drop coverage or bear the
full costs of coverage themselves.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
misguided and costly legislation. First, I think we should be spending
our time here on creating jobs instead of rehashing settled law.
Secondly, I want to speak on behalf of the millions of Americans
already benefiting from the strong consumer protections in this law.
Across the country, parents now know that their children can be insured
after graduation from high school or college.
Seniors in the dreaded doughnut hole have received help to pay for
prescription drugs and now can have a free physical each year. And
women no longer have to worry about paying higher premiums, because
insurance companies often consider females a preexisting condition. And
all Americans are now eligible for free preventive screenings. People
already sick can no longer be dropped from their plans. Lifetime and
annual coverage limits, that fine print that can thrust a family into
bankruptcy just because someone gets sick, these are gone. Because the
law bans insurance companies from excluding folks from preexisting
conditions, people who need insurance the most can now have access to
it.
For some of my colleagues, these important provisions may seem
abstract; but for my constituent Gwendolyn Strong and her family, this
law means everything. Before, the Strongs lived in constant fear that
Gwendolyn, diagnosed with spinal muscular atrophy, would reach her
policy's lifetime limit and then become uninsurable because she has a
preexisting condition. But the consumer protections in the Affordable
Care Act mean that Gwendolyn will receive the care that she needs, and
her family is protected from bankruptcies.
[[Page H284]]
A vote for this misguided bill will put the future of the Strong
family and millions of other families at risk again. The impact is
real. In my district, Medicare benefits will be taken from 100,000
seniors. It will raise taxes on over 16,000 small businesses. And none
of us can afford the $230 billion that repeal will add to our deficit.
That's why I am urging my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, for
the sake of the Strong family, for the sake of all families, vote
``no'' on H.R. 2.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Dr. Murphy.
Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, Republicans agree, and we
want families to keep their kids on their plans if they wish. And last
Congress that's why we offered proposals that would have allowed
dependent children to stay on their parents' plans. But once again, the
other side is trying to hide 3,000 pages of a law by discussing only 10
pages. We all want to work on this, and we will achieve this in the
replacement bill.
But the other side also fails to mention the other part of this 2,900
pages that will ignore what's going to cause health insurance premiums
to go up 17 percent because of this care plan. What good is coverage on
a policy if a family can't afford it?
On another issue, chronic illness consumes 70 percent of health care
costs and 90 percent of Medicare. The health care bill, however, cuts
$500 billion from Medicare, and much of that by eliminating chronic
care management that otherwise could save lives and money. So for 7.4
million seniors on Medicare Advantage, if you like your plan, you can't
keep it.
So what does chronic disease management do? UPMC in Pittsburgh
reduced hospitalization rates for diabetics by 75 percent. Washington
Hospital in Pennsylvania cut readmission rates 50 percent for heart
disease. And Gateway Health Plan reduced asthma readmissions by 28
percent. It's better care at lower cost; but the health care bill says
if you're sick, you're on your own.
Tragically, it pays to amputate the feet of a diabetic, but won't pay
a nurse $5 to make sure you are following up on prescriptions,
therapies, diets, and treatments. The new law does have a pilot and
grant program to be sure, but you will find no reimbursement code for
disease management. That's why we must repeal and replace this bill for
the sake of our seniors and for the sake of our children.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).
Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2, the Patients'
Rights Repeal Act.
Day after day, new studies are showing just what's at stake in this
debate over health care reform. The Department of Health and Human
Services released a staggering report stating that up to 129 million
Americans with preexisting medical conditions could lose their newly
enacted protection from insurance company discrimination. The CBO has
reported that this Republican repeal bill would add $230 billion to the
Federal debt. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid found that
repealing health care reform would reduce the solvency of the Medicare
program by 12 years.
Repeal of last year's health care reforms would raise insurance costs
for people in my home district of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and across
the country, whether they are small business owners, retirees, working
Americans, or recent college graduates. Health care reform took power
away from the insurance companies and gave it back to the American
consumers. Repeal of this reform would allow private health insurance
companies to go back to the practice of cherry-picking low-risk
customers and sticking it to the rest of us. What's more, it would
increase prescription drug costs for seniors who fall into the doughnut
hole, raising the average cost of prescription drugs for these seniors
by over $500 this year and by over $3,000 in 2020.
In a nutshell, the Republican repeal means this: children with
preexisting conditions denied coverage; young people up to age 26 can't
stay on their parents' plans; pregnant women and breast and prostate
cancer patients could be thrown off their insurance policies; seniors
will pay more for their drugs; the deficit will increase by $230
billion; small businesses pay higher taxes.
That doesn't sound very good to me. Repeal helps no one, no one but
the insurance industry. I adamantly oppose this effort to repeal this
health care reform bill.
{time} 1320
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, before I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas, Dr. Burgess, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, with my slow drawl, I don't
think in 30 seconds I can refute everything the gentleman from
Pennsylvania had to say--but 120 million people with preexisting
conditions, they would all have to have hang nails and fever blisters
to have preexisting conditions. And if you believe those statistics,
I've got a beach I can sell you in Pennsylvania.
This business about $230 billion savings, we've already discussed
that. They use 10 years of revenue and 6 years of charges. It's smoke
and mirrors.
And, finally, on the issue of the doughnut hole, the drug companies
have already solved that problem.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas, Dr. Burgess, the vice chair of the Health Subcommittee.
Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, it is important that we have this vote today, and it is
important that we vote to repeal this legislation. Let me be clear: I
was for and supportive of reforming the health care system, but the law
that was passed does not do what was necessary to be done.
We heard from our constituents over and over again in the summer of
2009: don't mess up what we all have and please do something to help us
with costs. We ignored them on both counts.
I am troubled because of the drafting errors in this law. I am
troubled because we have had not a single oversight hearing in the 10
months since this law was passed. And I am troubled because from the
start the government takeover of health care has provided numerous red
flags to which Congress has not responded.
Secret deals: what about the five groups of health care providers,
doctors, insurance companies, medical device manufacturers, drug
companies, who were all invited down to the White House, along with a
labor union, to kind of come up with some ideas for health care reform.
They came out to the Rose Garden and said, We saved $2 trillion. I
simply asked for that information in a committee hearing and was
denied. $2 trillion in savings, and I am asked to believe that no one
wrote anything down?
This was not transparency; this was a photo op. How could we ever be
expected to be legislators if we are not even knowing that the ending
was written before the bill was even on the floor?
The President promised the American people that there would be open
hearings and meetings that would be televised on C-SPAN, but that
didn't happen.
Amendment after amendment was offered in committee. Some were, in
fact, accepted by Chairman Waxman and the Democrats, but then the bill
went to the Speaker's office. The Speaker, along with the White House,
rewrote the bill. It doubled in size, it came to the floor, and it was
pushed through.
Why even have the committee hearings if Speaker Pelosi and the White
House are going to rewrite the bill to suit their needs?
Inattentive construction was all over the place in this legislation.
The President kept saying, if you like what you have, you can keep it.
But apparently that's only true for some people.
Now, many people felt that Members of Congress actually ought to take
what they were forcing the American people to take.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. UPTON. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. BURGESS. But, in fact, that was not true. Members of Congress are
required now to be covered under the exchange. Their staffs are
required to be covered under the exchange.
But are there exemptions? Yes, committee staff and senior leadership
staff
[[Page H285]]
are not required to be covered under the exchanges; neither are the
White House occupants. It ought to be the same for everyone. These
loopholes need to be closed.
The difficulties in this bill are just too legion to mention. If it
could have fixed the problem, I would have been for it; but it is a
destructive and pernicious blight, and the expansion of the Federal
debt truly does threaten the very fabric of our Republic.
Mr. PALLONE. I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to mention the gentleman from Texas was
decrying the HHS study about preexisting conditions. These are very
serious preexisting conditions: heart disease, cancer, asthma,
arthritis, high blood pressure. They are people that have had their
policies canceled or they couldn't get insurance because of these
preexisting conditions. I don't think they should be belittled.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, today's health care repeal debate reminds me
of tennis great John McEnroe's famous rant, ``You can't be serious.''
Everyone knows this vote is symbolic, putting off for another day the
hard work of revising portions of this historic law that need
attention, or adding provisions that would greatly improve the law.
There is no disagreement about the need to repeal the 1099
requirement for small business, but we should also add provisions to
allow the government to bargain for lower drug prices and create more
competition among health care plans. To me, that's what the public
option was for.
Health care changes already in effect are helping people in my
district. Five thousand seniors received $250 last year to help cover
the doughnut hole portion of their Medicare prescription drug costs,
and they will get 50 percent drug discounts this year; 49,000 people
under age 26 are now covered by their parents' insurance plans; 1,100
local families who went bankrupt due to health care expenses before the
law was enacted no longer fear lifetime limits on insurance coverage;
people like Elleni M., who suffers from Graves' disease and has gone
without health insurance since 2000, can no longer be denied coverage.
There are similar statistics and stories in every congressional
district.
But let me highlight one more issue brought into stark relief by the
recent rampage in Tucson. Our colleague, Gabby Giffords, and other
shooting victims received top-notch, timely care at the University of
Arizona Medical Center's level 1 trauma facility. Such facilities give
victims of severe injuries a 25 percent greater chance of survival. The
law the House is poised to repeal expands level 1 trauma care through
Medicaid and discretionary grants.
My home is home to the Harbor-UCLA Medical Center level 1 trauma
center, and that's where victims of a natural disaster, a terrorist
attack, or another Tucson-like massacre will be brought. We can't be
serious if we cut aid to level 1 trauma centers.
Mr. Speaker, bipartisanship is hard, and it sadly won't start with
this vote.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the repeal of this
measure. The health care law this body passed last year means well, but
we all know that it will never deliver on the promises that my
colleagues have made.
Let me tell you why this is not a rant and why we are serious.
Earlier, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe) spoke to the body on
this. ObamaCare makes the same fundamental mistakes that TennCare in
Tennessee made. Do we not learn from our mistakes?
ObamaCare and TennCare bet that the near-term cost incurred by
Washington's health care mandates will be made up by long-term savings.
That's 10 years of revenue for 6 years of expenses. Tennessee lost that
bet, and it nearly bankrupted the State. Unless we repeal ObamaCare,
America will go down the same road.
We know hundreds of mandates, thousands of mandates, and hundreds of
bureaucracies don't add up to a savings. By repealing and replacing, we
can keep the promises we made last year, better care at lower cost; but
we can do it in a way that will deliver through competition, not
mandates.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I met with everyday Americans
in Chicago who shared with me their personal stories, tragic stories
but common stories, about how our flawed health care system has
devastated their lives. At its core, access to health care is a moral
issue.
Midge Hough told me how her 24-year-old daughter-in-law, Jennifer,
and her unborn child both died because Jennifer could not find health
insurance because of a preexisting condition. Her preexisting
condition? A prior pregnancy.
By the time emergency health care was mobilized, it was too late for
Jennifer and her baby. She left behind her husband and a 2-year-old.
Today, the Affordable Care Act mandates that pregnancy is no longer
considered a preexisting condition.
David Zoltan has diabetes, and because of his preexisting condition
he couldn't get insurance after losing his job 2 years ago. He is
holding the insulin that he needs to live; but thanks to the Affordable
Care Act, David has coverage under Illinois' preexisting-condition plan
and no longer ends up in the emergency room to get his lifesaving
insulin.
The Republican plan puts the insurance companies right back in the
driver's seat to decide who they will and won't insure based on
profitability, how much they will charge, what benefits they will
cover.
The Affordable Care Act ends insurance company abuses, creates rules
of the road, and puts Americans in charge.
{time} 1330
The Republican plan is not health care. For millions of Americans, it
means no care.
Mr. UPTON. I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Scalise).
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, prevention of discrimination against people
with preexisting conditions was something we presented last year. It is
something that's going to be one of the hallmarks of our replace bill.
I hope the gentlelady supports us in preventing discrimination against
preexisting conditions. That's part of the actual replacement that we
are going to put forward that is real reform.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the Member from New
Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. I thank the distinguished chairman of the
Energy and Commerce Committee. Mr. Speaker, this health care reform
bill was a bad bill passed at the wrong moment. It is, in my opinion,
one of the major reasons why we face such economic uncertainty in this
country. Businesses don't know what it will cost to hire somebody.
Businesses don't know what's coming down. Employers don't know what the
world is going to be like. And consumers feel the same way.
Now, in the course of this debate, we've talked about the issue of
preexisting conditions and how the Republicans are not going to allow
for preexisting conditions to be included in their alternative. Nothing
could be farther from the truth. Republicans have consistently offered
proposals to give individuals with preexisting conditions medical
access to affordable health care coverage; but we will do it in a way
that will be predictable, it will be fair, it will be competitive, it
will save costs, it will make health care transparent, and it will keep
premiums down. We have an opportunity now to make changes that should
have been made from the very beginning.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, could I ask again about the time remaining
on each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 18\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan has 23\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. PALLONE. At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. My
first observation is, after hearing my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle this morning, it reminds me of the movie ``Groundhog Day,''
the same
[[Page H286]]
thing over and over again, same old same old.
My advice would be that taking your notes from 2009 and 2010 are
stale and irrelevant today. Now some, I guess the cynics out there, are
wondering why you would proceed with this measure as soon as you took
over the majority. Some would say that it is just political theater,
but I venture to guess that there's another reason: time is not on your
side. The more time you allow for this bill and its full
implementation, you lose your argument because you're wrong.
You said it was a government takeover of health care. Wrong. Time has
proven you wrong. You said it would be costing thousands and thousands
of jobs by now. You were wrong. And with the passage of more time, that
only will be solidified that you misread it.
I'm not questioning your intent or sincerity, but you just were
simply wrong. Because what happened in the interim? People found out
that they were able to get insurance for their children despite
preexisting conditions. They could keep their children up to age 26
years on their policies. Seniors were helped with the problems they
faced with the doughnut hole. That's what's happened. So I understand.
You were in charge for 12 years and did nothing. We moved forward
with something meaningful, and all you can think of is to go back to
the inaction.
And you say ``replace.'' Then why do you force repeal without a
discussion to the American people of what you want to replace it with?
Isn't that a fair assumption? You were wrong in 2009. You were wrong in
2010. And you are wrong today.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members to
address their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, before I yield 1 minute to Dr. Gingrey of
Georgia, I would like to yield 15 seconds to Dr. Burgess of Texas.
Mr. BURGESS. I thank the chairman. And I would address to the
chairman: the gentleman who previously spoke must understand that this
legislation was litigated in front of the American people for the last
2 years. They rendered their verdict, and the jury verdict in November
was, ``We reject what you have done. We want something better.'' That's
what this process is about today.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I would yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas who
just spoke was right about not causing thousands of job losses. It cost
4 million lost jobs since the Democrats took over in 2007.
Mr. Speaker, I have seen a number of posters here this morning
showing really fairly well-to-do people struggling with health care
issues. I don't have a poster; but if I had one, it would show men and
women all over this country in cities holding soup cans in line
waiting, hoping desperately to get a job. And I will guarantee you,
every one of them would take those jobs even if they didn't have health
insurance.
The point here, Mr. Speaker, is the Democratic priority was entirely
wrong. Yes, it's something they've been wanting to do since the 1930s;
and, yes, it's something the American people didn't want since the
1930s. Every time it's come up, the American people don't want the
government to take over health care. They have rejected it time and
time again.
We will vote for H.R. 2 and pass it. And if the Senate and the
President want to ignore the will of the American people, they do it at
their own peril.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
I hear talk on the other side of the aisle about jobs, but I would
point out that under Democratic policies, including health reform,
there's been a strong private sector job growth this past year. In
2010, there have been 12 straight months of private sector job growth.
And under the Obama administration overall this past year, we have
created a total of 1.3 million new private sector jobs.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, with the exception of a liberal in
Congress, the only person that would suggest that this ObamaCare law
would actually reduce the deficit has got to be an Enron accountant.
If you look at this bill, it rations care, it raises health care
costs for families--yes, that was scored to raise the cost of health
care. It's actually pushing thousands of doctors out of the practice of
medicine.
This job-killing bill is not reform. What we need to do is go back to
the table and actually repeal this and replace it with real reform. But
if all of my colleagues on the other side are correct in what they're
saying about what's good about this, then why is it that when this bill
was in committee, we actually brought up an amendment that said, if
this is so good, all the Members of Congress have to join the
government option. Guess what happened, Mr. Speaker? Every single
member of the committee who voted for this bill voted to exempt
themselves from it. So clearly that tells you, if you're not willing to
put your money where your mouth is, it's not good law.
Let's repeal this and start over with real reforms that actually
lower the cost of health care, that address real problems like making
sure people with a preexisting condition can't be discriminated
against. Let's restore the doctor-patient relationship. That starts
with repeal.
Mr. PALLONE. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I'm opposed to this effort to repeal a bill,
a reform bill without anything to replace it at hand. It's asking
Americans to jump without a parachute and without a net. And it's the
wrong thing to do because we are a country that has always moved
forward.
I want to mention two ways this bill moves forward which we should
not repeal. One is that we have finally addressed this horrific
geographic disparity where physicians and hospitals get treated
differently, unfairly around the country. We finally are fixing that,
long, long overdue.
And, second, this bill really helps us move forward to reduce waste
in our medical industry. A Dartmouth study suggested as much as 30
percent of all the things we do have been wasted in health care because
we haven't had the right incentives.
Where I come from in Washington State, we're doing things that we
need to export around the country to stop waste in medicine. At
Virginia Mason they just won the national Leapfrog to the Top Award,
where they've saved over $1 million a year just by bringing
efficiencies in how you provide supplies. At GroupHealth, they've
reduced the readmission rate by about one-third by bringing
efficiencies to the system.
At the Providence-Everett Hospital, I was so impressed when I met a
Dr. Brevig, a cardiac physician, who brought some efficiencies in how
they handle cardiac patients. So instead of moving the patient all
around, they bring the physicians to the patient. Do you know what?
They've knocked almost a full day off the time you have to be in a
hospital, and they've reduced the infection rate by almost one-half,
improving quality.
{time} 1340
At Children's Hospital, they are building a hospital which uses 30
percent less square footage than the average hospital.
These are the types of efficiencies that we need to reduce the rate
of medical inflation. This is one of the reasons that the Congressional
Budget Office found that this bill will actually reduce the deficit by
$230 billion. Let's keep moving forward and not go backwards. Defeat
this bill.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Latta).
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong opposition to
ObamaCare. ObamaCare will single-handedly have more negative
ramifications on the American economy than any bill passed in our
Nation's history. If not repealed, the $1.2 trillion government
takeover of health care will increase the cost of care, eliminate jobs,
and cause budget deficits and the national debt to explode.
The Democrats' health care takeover contains $569 billion in taxes,
increased government spending, a half-trillion-
[[Page H287]]
dollar cut in Medicare, increased costs to the States, and mandates on
businesses. All of these are hurting the economy and making it harder
for small businesses to create jobs and get people back to work. We
need greater competition and more choices for consumers.
Since this bill became law last spring, I have heard the same message
across the Fifth Congressional District: Businesses aren't hiring new
employees, buying new machinery, or expanding their businesses because
of increases in costs under the legislation. Imposing these higher
costs on businesses will lead to lower wages and fewer workers.
Mr. PALLONE. I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I heard the gentleman from Louisiana say that Members of
Congress were not in the exchange, and that is simply not the case. And
I don't want to hear it repeated from the other side of the aisle. This
current bill that we passed says that Members of Congress have to go
into the exchange and have the same health care benefits through the
exchange as any other American. So don't keep repeating that because it
is simply not true.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Burgess) to respond to that.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, it is important that Members of Congress
understand the parameters here. Indeed, we are required to buy our
health insurance in the insurance exchanges as provided under the
health care law. There are no insurance exchanges as they exist right
now, so it is anybody's guess. We are probably still under the Federal
Employees Health Benefits Plan, but nobody is actually certain about
that. What is certain is that there were exemptions. There were
exemptions for senior staff, senior leadership staff, committee staff,
the White House, and political appointees in the Federal agencies.
Everyone should be treated equally. Some are not more equal than
others.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Latham).
Mr. LATHAM. I thank the chairman of the Energy and Commerce
Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to understand and remember how
we got here. When the Senate passed their bill on Christmas Eve of
2009, there was not a soul on either side of the aisle in the House of
Representatives who thought that that turkey would work. The bill that
they passed, everybody knew it was bad. So when it became procedurally
impossible to change it, the Democrats decided to push for this bill
that everyone understood would not work, and that is what we are
dealing with today.
I think it is very promising that now--Iowa just yesterday joined a
lawsuit so there is a majority of the States in this country that now
say let's repeal this, that the individual mandate is unconstitutional.
So not only are we stuck with a horrible bill, an unconstitutional
bill that everyone knows and understood back then would never work, now
they want to preserve this. We have got to repeal this and replace it
with commonsense reforms that will actually work for the American
people.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 14\1/2\
minutes and the gentleman from Michigan has 18\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, we can do better. There are many
reasons to start over on health care reform. Do it right, and listen to
the American people.
Number one, the current bill further destroys jobs at a time when we
need jobs.
Number two, it actually increases our health care costs.
Three, it increases government spending.
Four, it raises taxes on hardworking families and small businesses.
Five, it takes away our choice of physicians.
Six, it cuts Medicare for seniors. Good-bye Medicare Advantage.
Seven, it threatens our world-class quality health care system.
Eight, it will add to our already growing budget deficit.
Nine, it includes taxpayer funding for abortions.
Ten, it is unconstitutional. And there are many, many more.
I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2, and let's
start the process of repealing this bill, the current health care
reform bill, and replacing it with a bill that America deserves and
America wants.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of hundreds of
thousands of Wisconsin families who have already begun to benefit from
health care reform. I am mindful of the children, young adults, and
seniors who would lose access to affordable health care coverage should
the measure Republicans are pushing today to repeal our recently passed
health care law come to pass.
Over the years, I have heard thousands of stories from constituents
about their struggles to find access to affordable health coverage.
This year, my constituents' calls and letters have changed. They have
transformed into stories of thanks and gratitude.
I think of Kate of Fitchburg, Wisconsin, whose family has already
seen the benefits of this law in the short time its provisions have
been in effect. Kate recently shared with me how her 16-year-old
daughter, Maggie, had been unable to receive affordable health care
coverage because she was born prematurely with a genetic anomaly that
requires frequent doctors' visits. However, as a result of health care
reform, Maggie is no longer denied health coverage because of her
preexisting condition. Kate also has the peace of mind knowing that
once her daughter becomes an adult, she can remain on Kate's health
insurance until she turns 26.
Additionally, Kate's parents are both on Medicare and have fallen
into the prescription drug doughnut hole. As a result of our recently
passed health care law, they have already received additional help to
pay for their medications.
Unfortunately, Kate's family would no longer enjoy these benefits
should this measure we are considering today to repeal the health care
reform law succeed. And Kate's family isn't alone. Under repeal,
147,000 young adults in Wisconsin would stand to lose their insurance
coverage through their parents' health care plans. And once again,
people would be discriminated against because of preexisting
conditions. And 46,000 Wisconsin seniors would face higher prescription
drug costs. I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Harper).
Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, the so-called Affordable Care Act is nothing
short of politics above economics. This penalizing law is loaded with
excessive constraints and oppressive Federal mandates on States. As
Medicaid rolls rise, State revenues continue to fall, and this law only
increases the challenges governors face in their attempts to balance
their budgets.
Instead of granting State executives the authority to tailor their
Medicaid programs to their State's diverse populations, the Affordable
Care Act implements a one-size-fits-all maintenance of effort provision
which restricts States from changing their Medicaid programs.
Republicans want to provide States with the flexibility they need to
manage their health programs. This is simply one reason why I am
committed to repealing this carelessly crafted health care law and
replacing it with reforms centered on decreasing costs and protecting
our middle class jobs.
Mr. PALLONE. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Lance).
{time} 1350
Mr. LANCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2, an
important first step toward implementing sustainable health care reform
that our Nation can afford.
[[Page H288]]
The health care law passed last year includes sleights of hand to
mask the true cost of the measure. For example, 6 years of entitlements
and subsidies are paid by 10 years of taxes, and premiums are collected
for the first 10 years for a long-term care program with no benefits
during that period.
Douglas Holtz-Eakin said it best when he wrote in today's Wall Street
Journal that the health care law is ``all about budget gimmicks,
deceptive accounting, and implausible assumptions used to create the
false impression of fiscal discipline.''
Failure to repeal the health care law will add an additional $700
billion to our national deficit in the next 10 years. However, we can
work together in a bipartisan capacity to enact commonsense health care
solutions that lower health care costs without raising taxes or adding
to our national debt.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Louisiana, Dr. Cassidy.
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, I discuss this bill as a doctor who has
been treating the uninsured for 20 years.
Now, opponents of repeal argue that this gives Americans insurance,
but what in truth it often gives is Medicaid. Now, Medicaid is a
Federal-State program, which is often called ``welfare medicine,'' and
it is a program which is destroying State budgets.
Last spring, the New York Times spoke about how this has implications
for patient care. They spoke of a woman on Michigan Medicaid with
metastatic cancer who could not find an oncologist because Michigan
Medicaid had been cut so much because of Michigan's budget problems.
Carol died a week after the article. That's Medicaid.
Now, the supporters of the ObamaCare bill believe that more people on
Medicaid is good. Republicans disagree because what happened in
Michigan is happening across the Nation.
Last year, before this bill was passed, 20 States cut Medicaid
payments, and 39 cut provider payments. This is threatening to bankrupt
them. Now imagine what happens when their rolls double. Mandating that
16 million more Americans get put on Medicaid is not health care; it is
a way around State budgets. It is the illusion of coverage for
patients.
Let's repeal this law and pass real reform.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie).
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I believe the health care bill passed last
year will not only burden American families but will also bankrupt
already struggling State governments.
It has been estimated that the health care bill will saddle Kentucky
with a $303 million unfunded mandate. This burden will leave fewer
resources available for public education, infrastructure projects, and
other worthwhile State efforts.
It is not just Kentucky. States all across the Nation face the same
dilemma. They are facing already difficult budget situations, and will
soon be strapped with higher Medicaid costs as a result of the health
care law. Further, the law prohibits States from altering their
Medicaid offerings, essentially removing their ability to contain the
rising costs.
We must stop this law from going into effect and from further
burdening our State governments and American families. I urge my
colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Let me thank the ranking member for the time and
certainly thank him for his leadership on our committee.
Mr. Speaker, as we debate the Republican proposal to repeal health
care reform, I hope--I truly hope--that the American people will open
their eyes and realize that this legislation will put insurance
companies back in charge of their health care.
I don't know about my friends on the other side. I don't know what
kind of districts you represent, but I represent a low-wealth rural
district in eastern North Carolina. My constituents need affordable
health insurance. They need access to health care now.
In my district, this repeal would allow insurance companies to deny
coverage to 261,000 individuals with preexisting conditions. It would
eliminate health care tax credits for up to 11,600 small businesses and
193,000 families. The number of people without health insurance in my
district would grow by 56,000 people. It would increase the costs to
hospitals for uncompensated care by more than $65 million, and it would
increase prescription drug costs for 7,300 seniors who hit the Medicare
drug doughnut hole.
So I take great offense to any effort to repeal health care reform.
This repeal would only lead to bigger Federal deficits and higher taxes
for small businesses. Children, students, seniors, and small businesses
owners would be devastated by losing these protections.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my Republican colleagues to stop playing politics
with health care.
Open your eyes, and see the pain of America's working families.
Listen to the silent majority in your districts, not the loudest people
in your districts. Reject this repeal effort, and let's debate ways and
means of creating jobs in America.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Olson).
Mr. OLSON. I thank my colleague from Michigan.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 2.
Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues have come to this floor tonight to
highlight the numerous job-destroying provisions in this new health
care law. They have outlined serious threats to our health care system
and our economy.
Now I would like to highlight something that was not included in the
law--medical liability reform.
My home State of Texas has implemented liability reform with positive
results. It is a model for America to follow. Before reform in Texas,
doctors could not afford to stay in practice. Frivolous lawsuits were
forcing them to close their doors. Now, with reform, they are
flocking--flocking--to Texas.
Here is the proof:
Since implementation in 2003, we have seen a 60 percent increase in
the number of doctors practicing in our State--60 percent--and a 27
percent drop in the cost of medical liability insurance premiums.
We must repeal and replace this economy-busting health care bill by
enacting meaningful health care reform. On November 2, we made a
promise to the American people. Today, it is a promise kept.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. McKinley).
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, this law needs to be repealed for a host
of reasons, especially because of its impact on small businesses and
seniors.
Recently, I spoke to an owner of a coal mine in West Virginia which
has 24 employees. She told me the act has caused her annual premiums to
increase by $84,000.
It was the wrong approach, and it will cost jobs.
Let's not lose sight, though, of our most vulnerable citizens in our
society--senior citizens. The law's $500 billion in cuts to Medicare is
unconscionable. Reducing benefits for some senior citizens and
jeopardizing access to other care is unacceptable to those of our
Greatest Generation.
Congress should never have broken its promise that it made decades
ago by cutting the health care senior citizens deserve. Let's repeal it
and replace it with something that is bipartisan, that lowers costs,
that saves jobs, and that protects our senior citizens.
Mr. PALLONE. I yield myself 15 seconds, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. McKinley mentioned seniors.
I would point out that, beginning in 2011, the health care reform
provides a 50 percent discount for prescription drugs for Medicare
beneficiaries. There are 12,100 Medicare beneficiaries in
Representative McKinley's district who benefit from these provisions.
Seniors benefit from this bill, and if you repeal the bill, those
seniors are going to have a loss.
I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H289]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would like to note, at the present
time, the gentleman from Michigan has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining; the
gentleman from New Jersey has 10\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. UPTON. I would just say I was hoping I was going to get a few
extra seconds from people yielding back their time, but that apparently
is not the case.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, the
gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Cory Gardner.
{time} 1400
Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. Speaker, I am here to talk about jobs. I want to highlight a
story about what is happening to one company in my district when it
comes to this health care bill, one company in my district that employs
130 people, a manufacturing a company, one of the few left in the
country. Even during the worst of the recession, this company kept
every single employee employed by having them paint houses and rake
leaves instead of firing them, because they felt obligated to their
employees.
Without this health care bill, they predicted that their health care
costs would increase by about 5 percent. With this health care bill,
their cost will increase by 20 percent--an additional $200,000 a year--
to afford the cost of the health care bill. That's six people that they
could have employed and hired and put to work, providing them with
benefits, but instead we passed a job-destroying health care bill.
It is time for this Congress to act to fulfill the promise it made to
America, the promise to repeal this bill and to put in its place
solutions that will actually increase the quality of care and decrease
the cost of care. The time is now. Let's act before we lose one more
job.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Matsui).
Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the bill before us.
This bill would cost the American small business owner dearly.
In Sacramento, over 88,000 small businesses are eligible to take
advantage of the tax credits provided under the current law to help
offer and afford meaningful health insurance coverage.
Gordon, the owner of a communications firm in midtown Sacramento,
covers 100 percent of his 13 employees' health insurance premiums. This
is the firm's second highest expense next to payroll. As a result of
the tax credits in the Affordable Care Act, Gordon's company is
expecting to save roughly 25 percent in employee premiums. This frees
up much-needed capital so Gordon's business can prosper and expand.
Another small business that will grow as a result of the tax credits
is a small cafe owned by Pat and Kim in downtown Sacramento. They
currently employ four full-time employees who receive full benefits and
25 part-time employees. With the savings they are planning to see from
the tax credits, Pat and Kim will be able to hire another full-time
employee.
This is the type of job creation that we need to help repair our
economy and see small businesses thrive again. That is why repeal is so
dangerous and why the Affordable Care Act is so critical to small
businesses in Sacramento and throughout our country.
For these small businesses, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on
this bill.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Pompeo).
Mr. POMPEO. Madam Speaker, last week, Kansas Attorney General Derek
Schmidt filed to join a Federal lawsuit challenging the
constitutionality of ObamaCare, and I want to applaud Attorney General
Schmidt, Governor Sam Brownback, and the 25 other States that have
taken on the duty of correcting what this Congress did
unconstitutionally last cycle.
Our Nation was founded on liberty, and that liberty was enshrined in
our Constitution. They gave to us, as Members of Congress, certain
powers, enumerated and very limited. The ObamaCare law strikes at the
heart of that constitutional principle and for the first time requires
every citizen of America and Kansas to buy a health care product or
face a stiff penalty. Never before has Congress required anyone to buy
a private product in this way. It can't be right. If that power were to
exist in Congress, our power would be unlimited, and that's not how our
Founders intended it.
I urge every one of my fellow colleagues to take aim at this law
which threatens our liberty, our health care system, and jobs in
America and Kansas.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Speaker, about a year ago, I got a call from Donna, a mother
who lives in Plainfield, Vermont, and this was her story:
She has a son who had his first job. It paid like 9 bucks an hour and
it came with no health care, but they were excited that her son was
getting out in the workforce, learning discipline, learning self-
responsibility. But he lost the health care because he was no longer on
her policy. He got into an accident. He's fine, but he has $20,000 in
medical bills that were uncovered. That is a burden on him and it's a
burden on the family. When she learned that we passed health care that
included coverage for her 21-year-old son, she was ecstatic. It
relieved an enormous burden on this family because they knew that their
son would have coverage.
This repeal bill is taking away that coverage for Donna's son. Why?
The question that we have is different from the campaign where we
made our arguments. We now are in Congress and we have a mutual
responsibility to decide whether we are going to spend our time here
continuing to make partisan political points or making practical
progress for the American people.
You have some good arguments about the health care bill and about
what reforms we need, and we've got to wrestle with the cost of health
care. No matter how we pay for it, the cost can't go up higher than
wages and salaries. But what we should do is improve what we have,
correct what must be corrected, and get rid of what doesn't work. But
to throw it all out, all these insurance reforms--health care for
Donna's son, preexisting conditions, preventive care for seniors where
by getting care in time it's going to save us money--that's the wrong
thing to do.
When does it make sense to toss out the good rather than correct the
bad?
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
I appreciate what the gentleman from Vermont just said. I want to
assure him that as we look at the replace piece of this, that element--
to make sure children under the age of 26--will, in fact, be covered. I
made that point in the Rules Committee 2 weeks ago, and we will be
doing that again in the days to come.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Kinzinger).
Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, for the last 10 months, I
have traveled around my district and I've heard from people through the
campaign and then now as a Member. I heard from people that we need to
repeal this health care bill. The folks back home get it. They
understand that this is a budget-busting bill that is going to add
mountains of debt on our children, and it's job killing to the tune of
hundreds of thousands of jobs a year.
Recently, 200 economists came out and recognized that this is a
``major barrier to job growth'' and ``creates massive spending
increases and a crushing debt burden.'' The path to affordable health
care starts with being able to buy insurance across State lines,
providing reduced premiums, and also we have to have lawsuit abuse
reform. That is a key element to getting health care costs down.
Ultimately, we have to have reforms, though, that will protect the
doctor-patient relationship that is so sacred in America and in
medicine.
So today we begin working to carry out the voice of the people by
implementing health care solutions that will reduce costs, increase
accessibility, and protect American jobs. Today we begin advocating for
the next generations of Americans, not advocating for the next election
in America.
[[Page H290]]
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Madam Speaker, I would just like to point out again--we've said it
over and over again--that the CBO, which gives the official estimate,
says that over the next 10 years the health care reform saves $230
billion, and after that, for 10 years, over $1 trillion.
The Republicans can't get away from the fact that if they repeal this
bill, all that is going to do is increase the deficit significantly,
because our bill, the current law, actually reduces the deficit.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia, Morgan Griffith.
Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I believe the minimum
essential coverage provision penalty is unconstitutional.
I took an oath to uphold the Constitution. This time last year, as a
member of the Virginia House of Delegates defending that Constitution,
I was proud to cast my vote for House Bill 10, which mandated no
Virginian shall be required to buy health insurance.
{time} 1410
Our attorney general has joined the fray and filed suit in court and
is winning. As Virginians, we did not accept the change of George III,
nor will we accept the change of ObamaCare.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time at this
point.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the
great State of Michigan, Dr. Benishek.
Mr. BENISHEK. Madam Speaker, before coming to this House, I have
actually been taking care of patients for the last 30 years, and as a
surgeon, I work with patients to provide care and earn their trust. The
doctor-patient relationship is the very foundation of the practice of
medicine. Unfortunately, the health care law passed in the last
Congress does not build the doctor-patient relationship; it undermines
it. Full of hidden costs and red tape, the law overregulates and limits
patient choices.
We need to repeal this bill, start over, and craft health care
legislation that actually puts patients first and puts them in charge
of their care. Repealing this bill is not the end of health care
reform. This gives us a second chance to tackle the problems of our
system while focusing on what makes our system great.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Weiner).
Mr. WEINER. I thank the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee and
my colleagues.
You know, we're at about the halfway mark of this debate today. So I
think it's time for us to kind of take a little review and also offer
people listening at home kind of a viewer's guide to what they have
heard and what they are likely to hear coming forward.
There are basically three formations of the argument by the
Republicans:
First, they start by making stuff up. You kind of have to wonder if
any of them actually read the bill: 137 new agencies--not true; new IRS
agents--not true; death panels--not true; Members aren't covered--not
true; no tort reform in it--not true.
You know, I want to just advise people watching at home playing that
now popular drinking game of you take a shot whenever the Republicans
say something that's not true, please assign a designated driver. This
is going to be a long afternoon.
Then there are my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle that
are basically pursuing the ``we don't really mean it'' strategy. My
good friend, the new chairman, Mr. Upton, started his remarks with this
long litany of things they are going to do in the new bill. They're
going to have coverage for preexisting conditions. They're going to
have help for the doughnut hole. They're going to make sure there are
incentives for small businesses to offer insurance. You know what they
call that, my colleagues? They call that the bill they're repealing. It
sounds very strange, but they want to repeal the bill but they still
want to give it a big hug and embrace as if they support the things.
And then, of course, there is the old fallback, and this is a
particularly powerful one for the newer Members who are just joining
us. It's kind of the bogyman strategy. You know, you pull those canards
out of the sky: It's socialized medicine. Socialized medicine? Giving
people incentives to go to private insurance companies? How is that
socialized medicine? If that's the case, you all have socialized
medicine.
Now, it's worth noting that this is the same Republican Party who
last year in their budget alternative and this year in their campaign
manifesto said, We want to end the Medicare program as we know it. I
mean, they don't talk about it much, but that's their philosophy. And
we have a fundamental disagreement about it. They say there is going to
be a government takeover of health care. Really? Who's taking over what
health care plan?
We're offering people tax incentives, small businesses tax incentives
to go buy private insurance plans. You know, this was a proposal first
made by Republicans that was adopted. We decided that that was the way
to go.
But stay tuned, ladies and gentlemen. This is the sign of a
philosophical division. You have one side that stands up for patients
and for citizens and for businesses and the other side which is a
wholly owned subsidiary of the health insurance industry.
But we've seen it. Whether they're making up things, whether they're
creating bogymen, or whether they're saying, Well, no, we don't really
mean it, this is a harbinger.
And I would say to Americans watching at home, think what side you're
on. If you're in love with insurance companies and want them to succeed
and you don't care about anything else, by all means, this is your
team. These are your guys. But if you believe that we need to make sure
that people get health insurance, that they're not passing along their
bills to the taxpayers each and every single day, that you believe in
programs like Social Security and Medicare, these are your guys.
This is kind of your half-time wrap-up for the debate that we're
having here today. And those are the two sides. Ladies and gentlemen,
pick your side.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). Members will
address all of their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas, Dr. Burgess.
Mr. BURGESS. I thank the chairman.
Remarks to the Speaker.
All right, Madam Speaker, who loves insurance companies? Was it the
party that gave them a constitutional mandate that drilled their stock
prices through the roof last March 23? Maybe it was.
We talk about new agencies and that the Republicans are misleading
the American people on how many new agencies are created. Your own
Congressional Research Service said the actual number of new agencies
is in excess of 150 but the actual number is unknowable. They took a
phrase from former Secretary Rumsfeld in that regard.
What about the new agencies? What about the Office of Consumer
Information of Insurance Oversight? Where did that come from?
Authorized in the bill? I think not. Appropriations in the bill? Your
guess is as good as mine, but they're out there today hiring people and
renting space.
The Independent Payment Advisory Board. Is that just a canard or is
that a real phenomenon that threatens the financial solvency of every
hospital, public or private, in this country?
Exchanges. Good idea? Bad idea? We can have that debate. But it is
the subsidies within the exchanges that are intolerably high and paid
for by taking the money out of our seniors' Medicare system.
These are the problems. These are the issues that should be debated.
We're talking about modest changes on the margins.
The real fundamentals of this bill are so deeply flawed and the risk
to the American public because of the expansion of the deficit is so
real, it requires the repeal of OB taken today.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Madam Speaker, again, Dr. Burgess talked about impact on hospitals. I
want to point out that the health care reform law benefits hospitals by
covering more Americans and thereby reducing the costs of providing
care to
[[Page H291]]
the uninsured. Repeal would undo this benefit, increasing the costs of
uncompensated care by $249 million annually for hospitals in his
district.
I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
Mr. WEINER. I want my colleagues to understand, to say that you're
not going to give them insurance, who do you think then pays for those
uninsured? Who do you think then comes in and pays? It is your citizens
in your towns, States, and cities. That's who pays for the uninsured
and all of us who wind up footing the bill.
You talk about responsibility. What about the responsibility not to
pass the bill along to everyone else?
Mr. UPTON. May I inquire how much time is left.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 5 minutes
remaining; the gentleman from New Jersey has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. UPTON. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Canseco).
Mr. CANSECO. I thank the gentleman from Michigan.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of repealing the $2.6 trillion
Washington takeover of health care.
I spent the past year speaking with thousands of Texans in the 23rd
District. The message I received was explicit and distinct: Repeal and
replace the jobs-destroying health care law.
We must reform health care in America. However, we must do so in a
way that doesn't destroy jobs but ensures the American people can get
the health care that they need when they need it, at a price they can
afford, and doesn't put Washington bureaucrats in charge of America's
health care.
Mr. PALLONE. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. The first time I stood on the floor to
speak, I spoke to read the United States Constitution. Now I rise to
defend this great document that I carry with me every day by advocating
for the repeal of the unconstitutional health care bill, ObamaCare.
Let me convey the thoughts and feelings of the people from my home
State, South Carolina.
To the last Congress I ask: Where in this document, the United States
Constitution, or in the writings of our Founding Fathers leads you to
believe that we as free Americans should not be able to choose and pick
our own doctors? What leads you to believe that the government takeover
of health care is even constitutional? And why didn't you listen to the
millions of Americans who yelled at the top of their lungs that we
don't need or want the government to be in control of our health care
decisions?
{time} 1420
I think it's time we return this House to the people, and we can
start by repealing the job-killing, socialistic, and out-of-touch
health care bill.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I want to respond, because if
the Constitution means anything, it also shows that as Members of the
House and the Senate, the legislative branch, it's not our job to
decide constitutionality. My opinion is just as important as yours.
It's the nine people over in the Supreme Court that the Constitution
gives that authority to.
And I think the health care law is constitutional, because all those
companies serve all of our States. It's across State lines. The
commerce clause works that way. So hiding behind the Constitution--and
we read it here on the floor--this bill will be constitutional because
Social Security's constitutional, mandatory insurance in our States is
constitutional. So we can have that argument. It doesn't do any good.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Hampshire (Mr. Guinta).
Mr. GUINTA. I thank the chairman from Michigan for yielding the time.
Madam Speaker, I rise to add my voice to those calling for repeal of
last year's misguided overhaul of our national health care system.
Seldom has a well-intentioned desire, in this case making the system
work better, strayed so disastrously off course.
The new law destroys existing jobs, inserts government between you
and your family doctor, and allows Washington to still spend more
money, more borrowed money. Even worse, it fails to accomplish its
primary goal. Instead of making health insurance more affordable,
premiums today remain sky high for individuals and employers.
Now we have a two-part opportunity before this Congress. First, we
must repeal last year's unconstitutional legislation. Then we need to
begin the process of delivering what Americans are demanding, a
patient-centered health care system that is effective, efficient, and
simply reduces costs.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
The gentleman from New Hampshire, if he votes for this repeal, he is
eliminating new health care coverage options for 1,900 uninsured young
adults, increasing the number of people without health insurance by
24,000 individuals, and increasing the cost to hospitals of providing
uncompensated care by $35 million annually in his district.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 2 minutes.
The gentleman from New Jersey has 1\3/4\ minutes.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland, Dr. Harris.
Mr. HARRIS. Madam Speaker, as a physician delivering care in labor
and delivery for 26 years, I know that the last thing we need is a new
government bureaucrat looking over our shoulders when I am in that
delivery room administering an anesthetic to a mother for an emergency
cesarean section to save her baby's life. But that's exactly what
ObamaCare will do if we don't repeal it.
Instead of the last Congress making sure that the baby born that day
has a real chance at the American Dream by creating jobs and solving
America's long-term fiscal crisis, they added over $2 trillion to our
children's and grandchildren's debt with that job-destroying ObamaCare
bill. That's why we should repeal it today.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, in this debate the truth should be told about the
Republican repeal. In fact, the Republican bill should come up with a
health warning that their measure is dangerous to America's health. For
many people, the issue of having health coverage is a matter of life
and death, and I would say there are so many benefits that we have
pointed out during this debate that already exist for the average
American that to talk about repeal at this time and eliminate those
benefits for those people that have preexisting conditions that
wouldn't be able to get coverage, or would face lifetime caps or
rescissions, it simply needs to be told that the fact of the matter is
that right now there are tremendous benefits that are coming to the
average American from this legislation. And to repeal it at this point
makes absolutely no sense. It's completely a waste of time.
We have no indication that this repeal would ever go to the Senate or
ever be considered by the President. And I just wish that my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle, instead of wasting their time talking
about this repeal that is going nowhere, would instead focus on the
economy. Focus on jobs. When I talk to my constituents, that's what
they want us to deal with.
We just began this session of Congress about 2 weeks ago. The focus
should be on the economy, on jobs, on trying to do what we can to
improve the lives of the average American. We have tremendous benefits
that exist under this health care legislation now. Why focus our
attention, in this first 2 or 3 weeks of the Congress, on this repeal?
It makes absolutely no sense.
And I would ask my colleagues, after today, please, let's focus on
jobs. Let's focus on what we can do to improve the economy. Let's not
continue this debate on health care, because actually what my
constituents want is they want this bill to unfold. They like the
benefits that have already come forward. And a lot more benefits will
accrue. Most Americans will ultimately be covered by health insurance,
and that's the key. Let's focus on jobs and the economy and stop this
ruse about health care repeal.
[[Page H292]]
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, to close our debate, I yield the balance of
my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).
Mr. HULTGREN. I thank the chairman from Michigan for yielding.
Madam Speaker, the so-called Affordable Care Act has clearly failed
to make health care more affordable. Since the passage of this law, I
have heard from local families throughout my community concerned about
what this will mean to their pocketbooks and from small business owners
who are concerned about how they will keep their doors open.
Making health care affordable requires that we address out-of-control
costs, such as lawsuit abuse reform. This issue was completely and
inexplicably ignored in this act. The act has also created paralyzing
uncertainty and new layers of bureaucracy, putting new demands on
businesses in the form of mandates and new taxes, forcing them to
comply with yet-to-be-written regulations that prevent them from hiring
and stalls the economic recovery that we need so dearly.
After this vote, I look forward to working with all of my colleagues
to find ways of lowering the cost of health care, maintaining a
patient-focused system, making health care more accessible to all
Americans, and working with families and businesses to find quality
insurance. This act failed to accomplish such commonsense goals. In
fact, it made matters worse. Therefore, I will vote for its repeal, and
I encourage all of my colleagues to join with me on both sides of the
aisle and vote ``yes.''
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.
The Democrats' health care law is fundamentally flawed; and we will,
having listened to the will of the American people, vote to repeal it
today. The problem with this law, among its many faults, is it puts
government at the center of health care decisions, not doctors and
patients. Instead of families deciding what coverage is best for them,
this law has the Secretary of Health and Human Services making that
choice. Instead of families and employers deciding how much they can
afford, the IRS is making that decision.
{time} 1430
Instead of families and employers deciding if they need health
insurance, the government is mandating they purchase it.
This is all about the government. It's Washington knows best, and
it's wrong. By virtually every measure, this law is a failure. The
health care law fails to control costs. It fails to let Americans keep
the insurance they have and like. It fails to protect jobs and, in
fact, hurts job creation at a time when the unemployment rate has
remained above 9 percent for 20 months. It fails to ensure seniors have
access to their doctors and hospitals, and it fails to prevent tax
increases from hitting middle class families.
Let's review the facts. The health care law makes health insurance
more expensive for millions of Americans. Well, according to the
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Democrats' health law will
increase premiums for millions of families by up to $2,100 on average
by 2016--$2,100 more expensive than it would have been if Congress had
done nothing, almost $3,200 more expensive than the Republican
alternative we offered last Congress.
The Democrats' health care law forces millions of Americans out of
the health care plan they have and like. The Obama administration has
predicted that as many as 7 out of 10 employers will have to change the
coverage they offer their employees because of the Democrats' health
care law.
The health care law discourages employers from hiring new workers,
increasing wages, or retaining existing employees. There are over $500
billion in new job-destroying taxes, many of which hit middle class
families.
With all these taxes and new regulations, it's no wonder that major
employer groups such as the National Federation of Independent
Business, the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce, as well as Business Roundtable and The Business Council
call the Democrats' health care law destructive and dangerous.
The health care law jeopardizes seniors' health care. Again according
to the Obama administration's own actuaries at CMS, the massive
Medicare cuts contained in the Democrats' health law could threaten
seniors' access to care and cause providers to stop treating Medicare
patients.
Entitlement expansion is not health care reform, and giving new
powers and regulations to departments like HHS and letting the IRS hire
up to 16,000 new auditors, agents, and other employees is not the same
as empowering doctors and patients, and it isn't the job creation
America needs.
The American people know that like a tree that's rotten at the
center, we must cut it down and put something new in its place. That's
what we are doing today, cutting the government out of the waiting
room, out of the doctor's office and out of your medicine cabinet.
Once we have done that, we will begin tomorrow to implement step-by-
step commonsense reforms that actually lower the cost of health care
and actually respect the doctor-patient relationship. This House, this
majority, Republicans, have heard the American people loud and clear,
and we will not let government dictate your health care coverage. We
will repeal this law, and we will continue our effort until Americans
are again free to choose their health insurance plan, to choose their
doctor and to choose what is best for them, their family, and their
business. This is a Congress dedicated to empowering the American
people, not increasing the size, scope, and cost of the Federal
Government.
I urge my colleagues to vote with me to repeal this job-destroying
and cost-increasing health care law.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 4 minutes.
Madam Speaker, health care reform is an American family law.
Repealing it would hurt families all across our Nation. Repeal would
mean rescission, taking away benefits from millions of Americans,
giving power back to health insurance.
Let's be clear: This law is working. Repealing it would have real-
life consequences for millions of Americans.
As many as 19 million kids in our country have health problems
considered preexisting conditions. In the past it could have led health
insurance companies to drop their coverage. This new law changed that.
One example--there are millions: One mother in my district, Felicia
Tisdale, said she has been anxious about her daughter's health
insurance since she was diagnosed with diabetes at age 3. Ms. Tisdale
and others like her no longer have to worry about their children being
denied coverage.
More than 1 million young adults are already benefiting from the
provision that allows them to stay on their parents' plan until they
turn 26. Just one example: A constituent, Sean McCarthy, an auto
worker, told me in a letter that his two children, ages 19 and 23,
could not afford to stay in college, but he was grateful that the new
law at least enabled them to get health insurance by joining his plan.
And then seniors, millions, millions have seen their out-of-pocket
drug costs go down under this new law. Nearly 3 million Medicare
recipients have received a reimbursement check in the mail in the last
year relating to the doughnut hole.
One gentleman who I represent, Harry Wimble of Warren, Michigan,
wrote to me, thankfully, that his wife received $250 that she otherwise
would not have. He said his wife paid thousands of dollars out of
pocket in 2010 because of the doughnut hole.
Repeal would mean releasing insurance companies once again to impose
unreasonable premium increases, to deny insurance to whomever they
please whenever they please, to set annual lifetime benefit limits, to
discriminate against women through higher rates and arbitrary
definitions of preexisting conditions. Repeal would mean retreat,
retreat, from moving America ahead.
We will fight that retreat. It will not happen.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and
Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).
Mr. HERGER. I rise in strong support of this legislation to repeal
ObamaCare.
[[Page H293]]
Madam Speaker, Americans expect a new Congress to make job creation a
priority and get our country back on the path of fiscal responsibility.
Any serious plan to achieve these goals must begin with repeal of
ObamaCare.
Madam Speaker, I represent 10 rural counties in northern California
with chronically high unemployment rates. Last year I spoke with the
owner of a restaurant chain based in Redding, California. He had
originally planned to open 10 new locations this year, creating
hundreds of new jobs. But because of the higher labor costs imposed by
ObamaCare, he has decided not to expand at all.
At the other end of my district in California's Capay Valley, I have
heard from a family-owned farm that delivers fresh produce to residents
across the State. They are facing a staggering $1.7 million in costs
from the new health care mandates. Add these to thousands of similar
stories across the country, and it's clear that this law will have a
devastating impact on workers and employers alike.
That's why the National Federation of Independent Business and the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce are urging Congress to vote ``yes'' on repeal.
My friends on the other side claim that ObamaCare will reduce the
deficit. Yet no one truly believes that a new trillion-dollar
government entitlement is the solution to a deficit crisis caused by
reckless spending.
As 200 respected economists wrote just this week, the assertion that
ObamaCare is ``paid for'' is ``based on omitted costs, budgetary
gimmicks, shifted premiums from other entitlements, and unsustainable
spending cuts and revenue increases.''
These economists conclude that ObamaCare could actually increase the
deficit by more than $500 billion the first decade and by nearly $1.5
trillion the following decade.
{time} 1440
Madam Speaker, Republicans are committed to advancing genuine reforms
that reduce the cost of health care, but we must begin by doing away
with this bad law that moves our health care system in the wrong
direction.
Vote ``yes'' on repeal.
Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman
from New York (Mr. Rangel).
Mr. RANGEL. Thank you so much. I wish when the dust settles and we
have an opportunity to sit together with our Republican friends that we
can come up with a reform called ``truth in advertising'' as we label
these bills.
What was a national bill and has been signed into law now is being
referred to as the ``Democrat ObamaCare job-killing threat to your
natural life'' bill. And of course this is misleading perhaps to a lot
of new Members because they should know, as the listeners to this
debate should know, that this ain't repealing nothing.
It's an obligation that some people feel that they made to their
constituency who elected them who thought perhaps that that's all you
had to do was put in a bill.
But under 2 minutes, I can't get into this how to repeal a law; but
it starts off with a vote in the House, then you have to get a vote in
the Senate, and then you have to override a veto by the President of
the United States.
So if this is done for political reasons, I have always been able to
find some good, no matter how this thing is misconstrued, in letting
people who follow debate know this is not going to take away the
benefits that you received under the Affordable Care Act, that you will
continue to receive these preliminary benefits now, and as the years go
forward and you find that you're in need of service or some one of your
dear ones, you would find that the bill that people were screaming had
to be repealed that we would have joined in recognizing that this is
the political theater part about it, but we will be forced to review
the bill, improve it if we can, and at the same time be able to say
that it's not a Democrat bill, but the Congress in support of the
President of the United States saw fit after all of these decades of
not recognizing the right of our citizens to have health care to come
together and have a bipartisan effort to provide this care.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a true American hero, a
distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I rise in support of freedom and free enterprise. This is America
where the Constitution and freedom and free enterprise are the
hallmarks of this great democracy. I think one of the most compelling
reasons people went to the ballot box last fall and cast their vote was
they felt angry that those in power were disregarding personal
liberties and trampling the U.S. Constitution.
As you know, under ObamaCare the Federal Government forces freedom-
loving Americans to hand over their hard-earned money for a mandatory
product, in this case health insurance.
That's just not how it should be done in a democracy. In a democracy,
you have the freedom to choose if you want to buy something. In a
democracy, you have the freedom to choose if you want to purchase
health insurance. In a democracy, you have the freedom to choose just
to say no.
This vote is about freedom and free enterprise and what's best for
the future of America. As a constitutional conservative, I say vote for
freedom and repeal ObamaCare.
I will close with some words from Patrick Henry: ``The Constitution
is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people. It is
an instrument for the people to restrain the government--lest it come
to dominate our lives and our interests.''
Let's stand up for freedom and repeal ObamaCare.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 10 seconds.
Almost 50 million people have no health insurance. For most of them,
there is no freedom to choose. There's no ability to obtain it.
It is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to a fighter for health
care for many, many decades, Mr. Stark of California.
Mr. STARK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to repealing health
reform. Instead of focusing on job creation, my friends across the
aisle want to refight the health reform debate and take away patient
protections that are already helping people get the health care they
need.
It bears repeating: health reform is already helping millions of
people in America. These aren't just numbers; they are real people. In
my community, I received a letter from a young woman named Stephanie
Blazin from Castro Valley, California. Stephanie recently graduated
from college, married and moved to California where her husband was
pursuing a graduate degree. She was lucky and quickly got a job. Then
within her first few weeks of the job, she found she was pregnant. This
should have been an exciting time for a young couple to start a family.
Instead, she learned that her pregnancy was a preexisting condition and
she had obtained no coverage for any medical needs surrounding it. She
said to me, The first thought through our minds were tainted by how we
were going to financially handle this pregnancy and a baby.
Fortunately, because health reform is law and she is under age 26,
Stephanie was able to quickly change her health insurance to obtain
coverage on her father's health insurance. She now has full coverage
for her pregnancy.
Under the Republicans' plan, Stephanie would be stuck with NoCare.
That's the Republican plan. By repealing health reform, the GOP plan
would provide no protections for people's health, NoCare if you lose
your job, NoCare if you have a preexisting condition, NoCare if you are
a senior in the doughnut hole, NoCare if your insurer hikes your
premiums and you can't afford it.
The Affordable Care Act has finally enacted fair rules for insurance
companies. The Republicans want to take those protections away and put
the insurance industry back in charge.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Republican NoCare bill.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and
Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, to those middle class Americans
listening to the debate today, let me speak to you. This is your life.
This is your health. You deserve the right to make your own decisions
about your health
[[Page H294]]
care rather than being forced into some government-run plan that is
centered around what Washington needs and not what you need.
Thanks to the last Congress, this is your new health care plan. We
had our staff spend 4 months, weekends and evenings, going through all
2,801 pages of that bill, and we just said, tell us how it works. And
this is the answer. We couldn't even fit the whole bill on one page.
This is one-third of all the new bureaucracies. At the bottom line, 159
new Federal Government agencies, commissions and bureaucracies in
between you and your doctor.
Now, is this the health care reform you were hoping for? If ObamaCare
is so great for families, why are health care costs going up and going
to go up even higher? If it's so great for small businesses, why are
they here today in Washington pleading for us to stop it? And if it's
so great for seniors, why have so many been forced out of their
Medicare Advantage plan? They can't even see a local doctor anymore
because so many local doctors can't see them. They can't afford to
cover Medicare senior patients.
Health care is too important to get wrong, and ObamaCare got it
wrong. American families, our seniors and our businesses deserve
better; and the right place to start is to start over. Repeal ObamaCare
and let's come back with some commonsense reforms America can embrace.
Mr. LEVIN. It is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to another long-
time fighter for health care for Americans, Mr. McDermott of
Washington.
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, a very famous Republican 100 years ago
proposed that we have national health insurance in this country. And he
also said this--his name was Teddy Roosevelt by the way--``It's not the
critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man or
woman stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.
``The credit belongs to the man or the woman who is actually in the
arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives
valiantly; who errs, who comes up short again and again, because there
is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually
strive to do the deeds; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great
devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows
in the end the triumph of achievement, and who at the worst, if he
fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall
never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor
defeat.''
{time} 1450
Now, I have been here for 23 years, and since the Republicans
defeated the efforts of the Clintons in 1993-1994, I have waited for 16
years for my cold and timid friends to make one proposal that will deal
with the preexisting condition question. We have 125 million Americans
who cannot go out and get insurance, who cannot leave their job if they
have insurance through their job because they have a preexisting
condition, and you have been silent for 16 years. Now you want to come
up and throw this away.
Why don't we just settle down and we can make some amendments to this
bill. I think there are some things wrong with it. There is a lot of
stuff that I didn't get into it when it came through this House. I am
sure that there are some things that you would like. But throwing it
away is a political farce. You know it isn't going to work. You have
admitted it isn't going to work. It is never going to pass, and so we
go through.
Let's get the vote out of the way. Vote ``no.''
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All Members are advised to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Nunes), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, at enormous cost and in the face of
tremendous opposition across the country, the previous majority in
Congress forced on the American people a great socialist experiment in
government health care. No area of the American health care system was
left untouched by ObamaCare.
In the name of reform, the Democrat majority expanded a broken
government program, Medicaid. They cut funding from what is already the
Nation's largest unfunded liability, Medicare. And then, basking in
their glory, they added a whole new entitlement program to our
catastrophic national debt.
The American people were never told the truth. They were promised
health care choices but saw them taken away. They were promised they
would save money but saw their health care get more expensive. The most
in need were promised access to health care through Medicaid, a program
that is not only bankrupting the Federal Government but the State
governments as well.
Madam Speaker, the clock was unfortunately turned back last year.
Failed socialist policies reemerged from the dust bin of history, and
it was a dark chapter for our Nation. Instead of improving the lives of
all Americans by fixing our broken health care system, starting with
Medicare and Medicaid, the Democratic majority subjected the American
people to class warfare, anticapitalist hate speech and vitriolic
rhetoric. Bathed in excesses of power, they passed a bill that, by
their own admission, they hadn't read, and then lectured the American
people claiming that we have to pass the bill first so we can find out
what was in it.
Madam Speaker, the American people have read the bill, and they have
rejected it. Today the House will repeal ObamaCare, and we will ensure
that this renaissance of socialism in America is the shortest living
political era in our Nation's history.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
I am disappointed that this diatribe about socialism comes to the
floor today.
Madam Speaker, I yield now for a unanimous consent request to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).
(Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BACA. Madam Speaker, I oppose this repeal of the health bill that
is good for my district.
Madam Speaker, right now, Democrats and Republicans should be coming
together to create new jobs, help struggling middle class families, and
reduce the deficit. But instead of dealing with the problems of today,
our Republican friends want to turn back the clock. Now is the time for
job creation, not job elimination.
We have heard some say that health reform will bankrupt our Nation.
But we know that is not true. In fact the Congressional Budget Office
has confirmed that health reform lowers the deficit by over $1
trillion.
We have heard some say that the business community cannot afford
health care reform. But we know that repealing reform actually
increases taxes on America's small businesses, by eliminating health
care tax credits.
Repealing the health care reform law means:
Discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions--
jeopardizing coverage for up to 305 thousand individuals in my
District;
Gender discrimination that allows insurance companies to charge women
higher premiums than men for the same coverage; and
Higher prescription drug costs for seniors on Medicare--including
over 5 thousand seniors in my District who will be thrown back into the
``Donut Hole.''
Hospitals in my District are already busting at the seams. They can't
afford the $146 million in uncompensated care costs that repeal would
bring.
I refuse to go back home and tell parents in my District that 56
thousand of their children will no longer be able to find insurance
because of pre-existing health conditions.
We must continue to move forward and focus on job creation. Now is
not the time to return to the failed policies of the past.
Let's stand with American families and say ``no'' to more insurance
company control; ``no'' to increasing the deficit; and ``no'' to all
efforts to repeal health reform.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Pastor).
(Mr. PASTOR of Arizona asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 2 and I am
disappointed that the House has acted to repeal the landmark health
reform legislation we passed last year.
[[Page H295]]
This act represents a huge step backwards in ensuring that everyone has
access to affordable health care. This bill flies in the face of the
idea that health care is a right and that everyone deserves access to
care.
The repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L.
111-142) and the health provisions in the Health Care and Education
Reconciliation Act (P.L. 111-152) will have a major impact on the
people in my district. Without maintaining the strong protections
enacted under these laws, hundreds of thousands of people in the 4th
district, including 60,000 children, could be denied coverage because
of a preexisting condition. Additionally, nearly 5,000 seniors on
Medicare will face immediate increases in the cost of their medication,
while an additional 58,000 will be forced to pay out of pocket for
preventive screenings for conditions such as breast and colon cancer.
And with our economy struggling to get back on track, repealing health
care will deny hundreds of small businesses and thousands of families
in my district crucial tax credits to help offset the cost of coverage.
I have long supported the idea that health care is a right, not a
privilege. It is with that in mind that I strongly oppose this
misguided action.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), another fighter for what
matters to Americans.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan for
yielding me this time.
Madam Speaker, it is unbelievable that with so many people out of
work and millions of people uninsured that the first item of this new
Congress is to take health care away from people who just got coverage.
More people have insurance today because of the Affordable Care Act;
more small businesses are offering health insurance to their workers.
For the first time in the history of our Nation, we are headed in the
right direction. We are making health care a right and not a privilege.
The repeal will force seniors to pay for more drugs. It would kick
young people off of their parents' insurance. We will go back to a time
when insurance companies were allowed to discriminate. And once again
it will allow insurance companies to put profits above patients'
health.
We must not turn back. We have come too far. We cannot go back. The
American people are counting on us to do what is right, what is just,
what is fair. We made a promise of health care to the American people.
We must keep that promise. Vote ``no.'' Keep the promise of health care
for all of our citizens.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Tiberi), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. TIBERI. Madam Speaker, I rise in favor of this bill to repeal the
government health care law that was passed in 2009. This issue was
front and center of my campaign, as I am sure it was in many of the
campaigns of the people in this body today. Most of my constituents in
central Ohio opposed the 2,000-page bill that became law, and are just
beginning to find out what's in it. Sure, they knew about some of the
good things like dealing with preexisting conditions, which most of us
on this side of the aisle support doing something with as well. But
they didn't know about the medicine cabinet tax, for instance. That's
right, flexible savings account changes. No more over-the-counter
medicines for moms who are buying that infant Motrin for their babies.
And next year, a cap of $2,500 for that flexible savings account. They
didn't know about the health savings account withdrawal tax that will
impact many Americans across our country.
A majority of my constituents want a patient-centered approach, not a
government-centered approach; an approach where doctors and nurses are
at the center of the process, not government bureaucrats in Washington,
D.C.
In addition, Madam Speaker, a third of my seniors who are on Medicare
Advantage like the health care they have. Apparently, they won't be
able to keep it under this provision of the law.
So, today we have an opportunity, and the debate is over whether we
change what we have, repeal it and replace it with something better,
something that is patient centered and patient focused.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Neal), a member of our committee.
Mr. NEAL. During the course of the campaign, we heard that this was
going to be repeal and replace. What we have in front of us is simply
repeal, because there has never been a credible alternative offered for
replace.
This legislation is modeled after a modest, market-driven proposal
offered by that left-winger, Mitt Romney; that left-wing advocate, Bob
Dole; and, yes, that champion of liberal causes, Richard Nixon.
{time} 1500
This is an amalgamation of a series of proposals offered over many
years. But what do we hear? The usual scare tactics: ``ObamaCare''--16
years ago, it was ``ClintonCare''--``government takeover,''
``socialism,'' and the best one of all, ``death panels.''
People wonder why the language here is so charged, why it is so
incendiary. It is because of the lexicon it has chosen for the purpose
of scaring the American people. As President Bush said, If you need
health care, go to the emergency room.
Remember what this proposal does: It removes 57 million people with
preexisting conditions from insurance. It eliminates provisions for 2.4
million young adults to maintain health care on their parents' coverage
until they are 26. This bill would allow a return to discrimination
toward a woman based on higher premiums if she has had breast cancer or
perhaps even if she has been a victim of domestic violence or had a
child.
This bill that is proposed by our friends on the other side would get
rid of a lifetime cap on out-of-pocket expenses. Why is that important?
I dare them to challenge the following statistic: Half the bankruptcies
in America are health care related. People lose their jobs. They lose
their homes. They lose everything because they get sick.
I hope we oppose this repeal measure or at least until we hear a
replace proposal.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member
of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, the Democrats' health care law
has only been in place for 10 months. Yet the problems and negative
effects are already painfully clear and well documented. The American
people stood against it when it was forced through Congress last year,
and they took out their frustrations on this bill at the ballot box, in
November, with a mandate to repeal it.
This government takeover of our health care system will not improve
access to health care or lower costs for families and small businesses.
It is just not in the math if we use the same math that is used by the
rest of the country.
Since this law was passed, premiums have increased again, putting
more families in the difficult position of choosing between keeping
their health insurance, paying their heating bills, or putting food on
their tables.
In addition to failing to achieve any key goals of health care
reform, this law imposes new taxes, penalties, fees, and paperwork
burdens on small businesses that drive our economy. The National
Federation of Independent Business has found the employer mandate alone
will cost 1.6 million jobs, with about half of those lost by small
businesses.
Face it. ObamaCare massively increases taxes. It massively cuts
senior benefits. It creates over 100 new agencies, commissions, and
boards, and that will massively increase costs. Over 100 new agencies
mean more Federal employees, more tax dollars required, more
complications in access to health care, and it brings the IRS into your
private health care decisions for the first time--without addressing
the key drivers of health care costs. Adding more taxes and regulations
on job creators will only serve to prolong the economic problems and
high unemployment rates we are experiencing.
This is too big of a burden for our economy to wait. We need to start
over by repealing this bad law now and by beginning the process of
producing commonsense reforms and fiscally responsible solutions. We
can reform health care in a way that improves quality, reduces costs,
and increases access, all without burdening our economy or increasing
the debt that will be owed by our children and grandchildren.
[[Page H296]]
As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, I look forward to
following through on our promise to replace the current law with
proposals that actually accomplish these goals of reforming Washington,
bringing private market reforms, reducing costs, and dealing with
defensive medicine through real debate, real hearings, real markups,
and bipartisan input.
As an original cosponsor of H.R. 2, I urge all of my colleagues to
join me in supporting this repeal.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished
member of our committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to
the repeal of the Patients' Bill of Rights.
As Congress debates this legislation to repeal the historic health
care reform law, it is important that our constituents know what
working families, small businesses, and seniors stand to lose.
Repealing the health care reform law would remove new protections for
57 million Americans with preexisting conditions. That includes over
8,000 children in my district. It will end the chance for 2.5 million
young adults to remain on their parents' plans until they are 26 years
of age. In my district, over 4,000 young people will lose this
coverage. It will increase prescription drug costs for more than 10,000
seniors in my district who hit the Medicare part D doughnut hole. These
seniors will pay another $500 this year and, between now and 2020,
another $3,000. Some 16,000 small businesses in my district alone will
pay higher taxes.
Repeal will increase the deficit by $230 billion over the next 10
years and more than $1.2 trillion over the following decade. Repeal
will shorten the life of the Medicare program by 12 years, putting
Medicare benefits and the seniors who depend on it at great risk.
So when you consider these facts, it is clear that repealing the
health care reform law is bad for families, bad for small businesses,
and bad for seniors in my district and across our great country. I urge
a ``no'' vote.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member
of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Reichert).
Mr. REICHERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I am here today to say that I am going to vote ``yes''
to repeal this health care bill because I think the American people
deserve better.
There were promises made in this bill--promises, promises, promises.
There were promises made and, unfortunately, promises that were broken.
Think back to last year. Think back to what the American people were
promised in this bill. Three promises come to mind: One, Americans were
told that the overhaul would make health care more affordable. Two,
they were told that this would make health care more efficient. Three,
they were told that they could keep their health care if they liked it.
The American people deserve to hear the truth, and the American
people deserve better. It is their health. It is their life. Here is
the truth: Over $500 million worth of taxes on small businesses and
American families across this country and $500 billion cut from
Medicare.
Here are some examples: a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices,
wheelchairs, and walkers; a 3.8 percent tax on employers; an additional
tax penalty on employers who don't provide a certain amount of health
care for their workers; a 40 percent tax on so-called ``Cadillac''
health care plans--and government paperwork bureaucracy.
There is a requirement that you fill out a 1099 form for employees,
requiring the hiring of 16,000 IRS workers. Who is going to pay for
that?
Remember this promise President Obama made and others made: You can
keep your health care if you like it? President Obama himself said,
Well, there might have been some language snuck into this bill that
runs contrary to that promise.
Madam Speaker, the American people deserve better. The American
people deserve the truth. It is their health and it is their life.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 5 seconds.
The truth is we moved to repeal 1099. It was opposed by the now
majority.
Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a member of our committee.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman.
People deserve a serious debate on a serious subject. Unfortunately,
while serious in tone, what we are hearing from my colleagues is not
serious in content. I have listened to people come to the floor
repeatedly, talking about a government takeover of health care, which
was judged by Politifax to be the political lie of the year for 2010.
Indeed, we instead built upon the current system that is a balance to
meet the needs of the American people.
We had another serious element that has crept into the approach from
my Republican friends--the disregard of Congress' nonpartisan budget
referee. It is reckless and unprecedented. It has never happened in 34
years. These are the people who provide impartial information, which is
being imagined away by our friends on the other side of the aisle.
Yes, it will require Congress to follow through on the legislation to
realize the savings, but the answer is not to turn our backs on reform;
it is to make reform work. The current bill builds on the current
system. It incorporates elements of reform that have been supported on
a bipartisan basis for years.
{time} 1510
Now all of a sudden there is the disregard we heard for a proposal
signed into law by Republican Governor Mitt Romney.
Instead of repealing reform, we should be focusing on strengthening
it. Americans deserve a serious debate about a serious subject, hard
work to make reform work, not a ritual of going through the motions of
repeal which everybody in this Chamber knows will still be in effect at
the end of debate, at the end of the year, at the end of the Congress.
The American people deserve better.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member
of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr.
Boustany.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, I rise in favor of repeal of this bill
because it's going to fail on cost, it's going to fail on coverage, and
it's going to fail on quality.
First, cost. Premiums are going up. In fact, they're going up even
higher and at a faster rate than they would have if we had done nothing
in many cases.
With regard to the deficit, there are a number of gimmicks in this
bill: double counting, excluding the doc fix, creating new
entitlements, such as the CLASS Act, which is a Ponzi scheme. And,
finally, it does not account for the discretionary spending for this
massive increase in the bureaucracy that's going to be created. Taxes
are going to go up on innovation, especially medical innovation.
On coverage. What kind of coverage are we expanding? Medicaid
coverage. That's a ticket to the emergency room. It doesn't lead to a
good doctor-patient relationship, and it's ultimately the most
expensive and inefficient way to provide health care. And those costs
are going to be passed on to the States.
And on quality. Let me relate an instance from my own medical
practice as a cardiovascular surgeon. I was once called to see a
patient who was 101 years old. He had carotid artery blockage and was
getting ready to have a stroke. He had imminent symptoms. I was
skeptical. I went to see the guy. This fellow was vigorous, strong
handshake, lived by himself, independent, worked in his own yard, took
care of himself without any help, and so I chose to do the carotid
operation on him. Thankfully, it was successful, and it gave him 6 more
years of a high-quality life as a result of this. He died from some
unrelated cause later. But in the absence of that, he would have had a
stroke. He would have been in rehab, in a nursing home, acute care,
lots of expense, no quality to his life.
Madam Speaker, there is an art and a science to medicine, and the art
involves the doctor-patient relationship. It's built on mutual trust
and understanding, knowledge of the patient, trust on both the patient
and the doctor's part to do what's in the best interest of the patient.
But not only
[[Page H297]]
that; the doctor-patient relationship is where costs are incurred and
quality occurs. This gentleman would not have had the quality of life
if he had not had this operation and if this law had been in existence,
which would have delayed or prohibited such treatment.
Mr. LEVIN. Could I ask you, Madam Speaker, how much time there is
remaining on each side of the Ways and Means Committee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has
28\1/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) has
24\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
What the reform did was to make sure that the doctor-patient
relationship was maintained and that there would be millions more
patients in the United States of America.
I now yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of the Ways and
Means Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIND. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Madam Speaker, shortly after passage of the Affordable Care Act, a
young mother in my congressional district, Beth Ferstl, wrote me a
letter, and she wrote it on behalf of her 13-month-old son Henry. In it
she wrote: ``My son had a stroke before he was even born. He wanted to
personally thank you for passing this historic health care bill, but
he's only 13 months old; and between juggling neurologists, OT, PT and
speech therapy, he hasn't found the time. Let me be his voice. As a
voter, as your constituent, as a mother, thank you.''
I contacted Beth to find out what her family's situation was in this
particular case. She told me that because little Henry had a stroke
before he was born, literally by the time he took his first breath in
life, he was uninsurable because he had a preexisting condition.
Now, I've been to Iraq four times, I've been to Afghanistan twice,
I've met with our troops in the field. I thought I met the bravest
people in the whole world, our men and women in uniform who are laying
their lives on the line every day for us to better secure and make safe
our Nation. But if my Republican colleagues can move forward on this
repeal today and look into the eyes of little Henry Ferstl and not only
say to him, not only do we have the ability to do something to help you
but chose not to, but today we choose to take it away from you, then
you guys have got to be the bravest people in the world because I can't
do that. No one should be able to do that to the 20 million children
that have preexisting conditions throughout this country that this bill
fixed.
A young man, 21 years old, in Black River Falls came up to me after
the vote and thanked me. I asked him why, is there something in
particular that he was most concerned about in this bill? He said,
Yeah. A couple of years ago my younger brother needed a kidney so I
donated him one of mine. Because I did, even though I am perfectly
healthy today, every insurance company I've contacted is treating me as
if I have a preexisting condition and they will not insure me.
We can do better than that. That is what the Affordable Care Act is
all about, to address these injustices. I encourage my colleagues to
vote ``no'' on repeal.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, a joyful member of our
committee, Mr. Pascrell.
Mr. PASCRELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
There is not one Member of Congress in these distinguished Halls that
has not been called upon to help a constituent who has been threatened
to have their insurance taken away from them. Whether it was heart
disease, whether it was cancer, asthma, high blood pressure--I've been
through many of them. And isn't it interesting that when the
congressional office intervenes, they give things a second thought. It
should not be that way.
Who are the 2,000 economists we're talking about that are wondering
about this health care act? Are they the same ones who predicted
enormous increases in the economy of the United States in the last 10
years? Oh, those 10 years we wish to forget, we have amnesia.
Whether it be in town halls or small groups, when I have asked
individuals to raise their hands if they were against closing the
Medicare doughnut hole, allowing children to stay on a family's health
plan until 26, ensuring Americans are not denied insurance for
preexisting conditions, no one raises their hand. In the last debate I
had, Madam Speaker, just before the election, my opponent didn't raise
his hand and I went through 18 of these very specific parts of the
health care legislation.
In my district alone, repeal will increase the number of uninsured by
66,000. I can't vote for this repeal. I can't let them down or their
insurance will go up.
How about the business person? Sixty percent of businesses who go
into bankruptcy it's because of the health care bills they can't
afford. I can't let them down either.
Before I conclude, I want to make this point, Madam Speaker: last
October, Federal Judge Steeh found the mandate constitutional because
by forgoing insurance, individuals are making an economic decision to
pay for their health care costs later out of pocket. That's how we get
stuck with the bill. We need to end this.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.
Mr. PASCRELL. That means that the people of Texas pay, the people of
New Jersey pay, the people of California pay. In essence, everyone pays
for those who don't have insurance. Let's get straight on this. We
can't afford this, and we must reject repeal.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member
of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr.
Heller).
{time} 1520
Mr. HELLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in support of H.R. 2.
Last year the previous Speaker of the House told Members that we
needed to pass the health care bill so that we could find out what was
in it. Now Members and the American people have had the opportunity to
read it, and they don't like it. What they have found includes a $1.2
trillion price tag and more than 100 new Federal programs and onerous
mandates that reflect how out of touch the previous majority was with
the American people.
This Congress will reject these policies, replace them with market-
based reforms that will provide greater access and affordability of
health care. Repealing the bill would help more Nevada employers and
their workers keep the insurance that they currently enjoy. An
estimated half of all employers and 80 percent of small businesses will
be forced to give up their coverage under current law, which I find
unacceptable.
Uncertainty in the business community means fewer jobs created. In my
home State, where unemployment persists at more than 14 percent, it
also means thousands of Nevadans continue depending on unemployment
benefits when what they want is a decent job to provide for their
families.
Furthermore, we must act to prevent last year's bill from further
impacting the pocketbooks of hardworking Americans who are already
struggling. Repealing this bill will protect Nevadans from predictable
health care premium increases of at least $2,100, block a $570 billion
tax increase on all Americans, and keep Nevada's seniors in their
current Medicare Advantage plan while preventing higher prescription
drug prices.
Madam Speaker, this Congress is in the business of cutting red tape,
not creating it. I strongly support passage of H.R. 2. I look forward
to working with my colleagues to pass meaningful legislation that will
promote better, more affordable medical care.
Mr. LEVIN. It is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to a valued member of
our committee, the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
Ms. BERKLEY. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this legislative stunt
to repeal health care reform, and I'm going to tell you why.
[[Page H298]]
There are 600,000 of my fellow Nevadans who have no health insurance.
This doesn't mean that they don't get sick. It means that they wait
until they're very sick and then they go to the emergency rooms to get
care. Every hospital in southern Nevada is operating in the red. Why is
that? Because the cost of providing health care to the uninsured in
emergency rooms is astronomical.
But there's more. If we repeal this bill, we will be eliminating the
preexisting condition ban. If you have a preexisting condition, which
at least 129,000 people in my congressional district have, you will not
be able to get any insurance at all.
If we repeal this bill, all of those 20-somethings who are living at
home and because of the economy they can't find a job, they're not
going to be able to stay on their parents' health care plan. That's
26,000 people in my congressional district, including my two children.
The health care reform bill eliminates lifetime caps. Ask Jazelle
Scott, age 8, or Michael Braun, age 5. They both have juvenile diabetes
and they both have already exceeded their lifetime caps. Better yet,
why don't you ask their mothers how they're going to be able to afford
the lifesaving medication for their children if this bill is repealed.
And what should we tell our seniors, the millions that fall into the
doughnut hole that this law starts to close? We changed our minds? And
who's going to ask the 8,900 seniors in my district who received the
$250 check last year to help with the high cost of their medications to
return the check? I'm not going to do that. Or the discount that
they're going to be receiving this year on prescription medication,
it's not going to be available? I'm not going to do that to them. And
are we going to take away the preventative health care benefits that
will help 90,000 seniors in my congressional district alone? I won't do
that.
And what about the 16,000 small businesses who will now be eligible
for health care tax credits? We're saying small businesses don't want
that? I know at least one. Thousands more have contacted my office. Ron
Nolson has a small family business. He also wants to be able to provide
health care insurance for his employees.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.
Ms. BERKLEY. Finally, for those who are truly concerned about the
deficit, the CBO, the nonpartisan arm of Congress, explicitly stated
that repeal will cost $260 billion over 10 years. It appears that those
who shout the loudest about the deficit want to add to it.
Let's fix what needs fixing, and let's not repeal this lifesaving,
life-enhancing legislation. And we need to do the doctors fix, too.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and
Means Committee and deputy whip, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Roskam).
Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
You know, the past year we have had an incredible national
conversation about this issue, health care, and it has been robust and
dynamic, and it has brought about a sense of clarity. You know,
oftentimes we tell people, look, if you want to participate,
participate in the ballot box. Make your voice heard. And I really
don't think there's any arguing that last November people made their
voices heard, and they said with real clarity that they want this bill
repealed and they want it replaced with something that brings health
care costs down and deals with preexisting conditions.
Employers in my home State, Madam Speaker, just got hit hard with the
new tax increase that got jammed through by the Illinois General
Assembly. Seventy-four percent of employers in the Midwest have
recently, in surveys, said that this bill that we're talking about
repealing would have an adverse impact on their hiring decisions.
Now, it's with no sense of irony that now-Minority Leader Nancy
Pelosi, when she was Speaker, said that we have to pass the bill so
that you can see what's in it. Well, she did, and we do. And the
American public does. And the American public said, Enough. They
understand that what has to happen is that businesses have to be able
to thrive and to hire and to grow and be dynamic.
If we repeal this and replace this with the type of thoughtful health
care initiative that is going to be forthcoming, I think we will do a
world of service to everybody that we're trying to help, and that is to
change this economy so that people want to hire again.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of the
Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. I thank my friend from Michigan for yielding the time.
Madam Speaker, today we consider the first major piece of legislation
of the 112th Congress--the first.
Does this legislation create one job? Not one single job will be
created by this legislation. In fact, if this bill were to become law,
over 4 million jobs that will be created over the next 10 years will
not come to fruition.
Does this bill reduce the deficit? This bill does not reduce the
deficit by one penny. In fact, if it became law, it would increase the
deficit by $230 billion.
Does it strengthen our middle class? No, this bill will not
strengthen our middle class. It will devastate the lives of millions of
Americans who are finally free from the fear that they or their
children will not have health insurance.
I've heard from so many throughout my constituency and throughout
this country of the importance of what this bill has done for their
lives. I'm not going to go back and tell them today that that's all
undone.
And despite what you may say on the other side of the aisle, if this
bill becomes law, 3 million people in this country who have received
checks for $250 will have to pay that money back. There is no
alternative. You can say what you want. But as this law is written,
that's exactly what will happen.
For the 20 million children who now have insurance, who's going to
pay the costs for what they have incurred so far? Are their parents
going to pay it? Are they responsible for it?
Republicans are not offering a single solution to this problem. They
can't even tell you what their secret plan is. It's part of the Harry
Houdini health care strategy--now you have health care, now you don't.
Our constituents deserve better.
But don't just take my word for it. Independent sources have
confirmed the danger that repeal will cause to our country--stopping
job creation, exploding the deficit, and even shortening the life of
the Medicare trust fund by 12 years.
This bill is clearly wrong for our economy and it's clearly wrong for
our country. We cannot go backwards, no way, no how, not now, not ever.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the
Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Gerlach).
Mr. GERLACH. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Speaker, it's been almost 1 year since many of us here in the
House offered a sobering prognosis about the devastating side effects
the massive $2.4 trillion health care plan would have on our small
businesses, our seniors, and our families.
Last year many warned that concocting a scheme centered on expensive
government mandates, $500 billion in new taxes, and bigger bureaucracy
would weaken our economy and is simply the wrong prescription for
bringing about meaningful change to a health care system that truly
needs a strong dose of reform.
{time} 1530
Well, that prognosis has turned out to be painfully accurate. Small
business owners are furious over the ever-increasing insurance premiums
that continue to this day, and the 1099 mandate, which requires them to
send a slip of paper to the IRS for every business transaction of $600
or more. A new 2.3 percent tax on innovators in our thriving medical
device industry is also choking off investment and hurting job growth.
And that's jeopardizing approximately 20,000 jobs in Pennsylvania
alone.
And all the enactments, tax hikes, and mandates could put an
estimated 700,000 Americans out of work at a time when unemployment
hovers at 10 percent. Let there be no mistake: Reform is needed. But
not big government,
[[Page H299]]
high tax solutions. No, we need commonsense ideas, ideas that would
lower costs by creating more competition among insurance companies,
allowing greater freedom of choice for consumers to buy insurance
across State lines, and eliminating lawsuit abuses that drive up costs
by as much as $150 billion every year.
We have the opportunity, starting with a ``yes'' vote today, to begin
working on true reforms that will lower costs and increase
affordability and accessibility of health insurance. So let's start
that process with the right reforms today, together.
Mr. LEVIN. It is my special privilege to yield 1 minute to our very
distinguished leader, the gentlewoman from the State of California (Ms.
Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, today a bill has come to the floor to repeal patients'
rights, to put insurance companies back in charge of the health of the
American people, and to balloon the deficit. Yesterday, in the one and
only hearing on this very important bill, the repeal of patients'
rights, Democrats heard from Americans benefiting from the health care
reform. Nothing speaks more eloquently to the success of health care
reform than their own personal stories.
After hearing from seven of them yesterday, I said I wished the
entire Congress could hear your stories. I wish our Republican
colleagues would have had a hearing so they could hear from you the
difference this has made in your lives and the difference it's making
in the lives of millions of Americans. So I told them that I would
share their stories with you.
First, we heard from a young woman, Vernal Branch, who was diagnosed
with breast cancer 15 years ago. The good news is that Vernal survived
breast cancer. The not so good news is that she has a preexisting
medical condition for the rest of her life. As she told us yesterday,
the Affordable Care Act changed all that. What she said was the
Affordable Care Act, ``represents protection from the uncertainty and
fear that came with being denied health insurance coverage because of
my past disease.'' She said, ``It represents freedom for my husband and
me to make important choices about our lives and careers.''
Repeal of the patients' rights that is being proposed today would
mean that 129 million Americans under the age of 65 like Vernal would
lose their health insurance because they have preexisting medical
conditions.
Next we heard from a mom, Lori Bresnan. She has a 22-year-old son
suffering from celiac disease. Still a student, he was facing the
prospect of finishing school and entering the workforce without
insurance but with a preexisting medical condition. Because of the law,
Lori said, ``We are thrilled we have the option to keep him on our
insurance in this interim when families so often struggle to keep their
kids covered.''
In a similar vein, Alexander Lataille, a new graduate, struggling to
find work in this economy even though he has two degrees, one in
atmospheric science and one in social science--he wants to be a
meteorologist--said that if he lost his ability to stay on his parents'
insurance plan until age 26, he would be faced with a choice, ``either
to pay my student loans or to get health insurance.'' He actually said,
``I would have little choice in the matter. I would need to pay down my
college loans first and go uninsured.''
Repeal, as being suggested by our Republican colleagues, would mean
that over 1.2 million young Americans like Lori's son and Alexander
would lose their insurance coverage that they received through their
parents' plans.
We next heard from Ed Burke, who has testified before. He told me he
had testified at the invitation of Speaker Gingrich years ago. For much
of his life, Ed Burke has suffered from hemophilia. Two of his brothers
do too. They have three brothers with hemophilia. Though he has health
insurance, he has faced the constant worry that his treatments could
surpass the plan's lifetime cap. Repealing patients' rights has a clear
impact for Ed. As he said, ``I will lose the freedom to keep my job if
efforts to repeal my protections are successful.''
Repeal, as is being suggested today, would mean that over 165 million
Americans with private insurance coverage like Ed would again find
themselves subject to lifetime limits on how much insurance companies
will spend on their health care.
Next we heard from a small businesswoman, a doctor. Dr. Odette Cohen
is a small business owner from Willingboro, New Jersey. She said she
will be better able to afford to give her employees health care
coverage because of the reform. But she also told us a very personal
story, it was very powerful, about her two cousins, Rhonda and Roger.
Both of them were diagnosed with cancer about the same time. Rhonda
worked for a large corporation. She had health care. She had an early
intervention. And she received aggressive care and life-giving care.
Roger, however, received only pain treatment in the emergency room. He
worked for a small business that didn't have health insurance. So he
couldn't have that early intervention. Rhonda is alive and well. Roger
died.
As Dr. Cohen said, ``The choice to work for a small business versus a
large company should not be a choice between life and death in the
United States. But it was the choice for my cousin.'' Repeal, as is
being suggested today, would mean that more than four million small
businesses like Odette's, Dr. Cohen's, would lose the opportunity to
receive tax credits to provide health insurance to their employees. As
we know, small businesses are the engine of job creation in our
country. Odette told us that she wanted to attract the best talent, and
she wanted to have health insurance for them in order to do that.
We next heard from Claudette Therriault. She and her husband,
Richard, are seniors on Medicare. Richard is a diabetic, and his
insulin alone costs $1,000 a month. When Claudette and Richard fell
into the doughnut hole, she said, ``We had to choose between defaulting
on our loan for our home or my husband's health. Well, we chose my
husband's health,'' she said. ``But changes made are starting to end
the doughnut hole, so families like ours aren't forced to choose
between staying healthy and paying the mortgage.''
Repeal would mean that over 2.7 million Medicare beneficiaries would
again fall into the doughnut hole, and Medicare would no longer pay for
an annual checkup for 44.1 million seniors.
One of the most powerful testimonials--I say this as a mother and a
grandmother--was from Stacie Ritter. Stacie has 12-year-old twin
daughters, Hannah and Madeleine. Well, they are 11, almost 12. Can you
imagine having these beautiful daughters, Hannah and Madeleine? They
are 12 now. When they were 4 years old they were both diagnosed with
cancer. Both of them, the twins.
{time} 1540
At 4 years old, diagnosed with leukemia, Hannah and Madeline faced
stem cell transplants, chemotherapy and total body irradiation. But as
their mother, Stacie, said, ``We were very fortunate at the time. My
husband had full coverage through his employer.'' But because of the
additional cost of health care, ``We ended up bankrupt, even with full
insurance coverage.''
She told the stories about how the insurance company refused to do
this, that and the other thing. But in any event, today Hannah and
Madeline are healthy, happy 12-year-olds; but they still have a
preexisting condition. According to Stacie, ``My children now have
protections from insurance discrimination based on their preexisting
cancer condition. They will never have to fear the rescission of their
insurance policy if they get sick. They can look forward to lower
health insurance costs and preventive care.''
The repeal suggested today would mean that 17 million American
children with a preexisting medical condition could lose their health
insurance because they have preexisting conditions. It would change
everything for Hannah and for Madeline.
In Congress, on behalf of these Americans, Democrats have made a firm
commitment that we will judge every proposal that comes to the floor by
whether it creates jobs, strengthens the middle class, and reduces the
deficit.
The repeal of patients' rights fails on all three counts. In fact,
consider the cost to our Federal budget. According
[[Page H300]]
to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, repeal would add $230
billion to the deficit over the next decade.
Just less than a year ago on this floor I quoted the late Senator
Kennedy, many of us did, our inspiration in all of this, calling health
care reform ``the great unfinished business of our society.'' By
completing that great unfinished business of our society, now patients
and their doctors are in charge of their health, not insurance
companies.
Because of the wonderful testimony that we had yesterday, which was
representative of what Members of Congress have told the Rules
Committee, told our colleagues and told us from our districts across
the country, because of their stories of success of this bill only
being in force for a few months--these provisions, most of them, only
went into effect since September--because of them, because of Hannah
and Madeline, because repeal would be devastating to so many Americans,
I am pleased to join a broad coalition in opposing it, every
organization from the AARP to the UAW and everything in between, the
Catholic Health Association, Easter Seals and the NAACP.
I think we should send a strong message today with a great vote
against this repeal, which is so harmful to the health of the American
people, which is so damaging to our fiscal health as well, and to have
people know that we want to have what is best for them.
We all want them to think that in order for them to have the same
kind of access to health care that we do, we should say to them, ``Run
for Congress.'' We want them to have it because Congress has acted upon
their needs, their strengths and the strength of our country.
I urge a ``no'' on the repeal.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and
Means Committee, the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Price.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Speaker, over the past 4 years the previous majority took every
opportunity to expand the reach and the scope of the Federal
Government. You see, they believe in government solutions. We believe
in people.
We believe in solutions that embrace people and individuals. Now, as
a physician with countless personal stories, those solutions in health
care mean patient-centered solutions, not government-centered
solutions.
It's important to repeal this bill for many reasons, but two very
specific reasons. First, it's exactly what we said we were going to do.
If given the privilege of leading once again, we would vote to repeal
this bill. And, second, it's the principled thing to do. If you think
about it, all of the principles that we hold dear in health care,
whether it's accessibility or affordability or quality, or
responsiveness of the system, or innovation of the system so that we
have the highest quality, or choices, choices for patients--none of
them, none of them are improved by the current law or the bill.
Premiums are increasing, jobs are being lost because of the bill.
Quality is being defined by bureaucrats, not by patients or families or
doctors.
The good news is that there are positive solutions that embrace
fundamental American principles that allow us to solve these challenges
without putting the government in charge, and that's exactly where we
will lead over the coming months and, yes, over the coming years.
Madam Speaker, the status quo in health care is unacceptable. The
bill that was passed is destructive to both principle and to patients.
The work we will begin tomorrow, after we vote to repeal today, will be
focused on patients, on people, and not the government.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to an active former
member of our committee, the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr.
Higgins).
Mr. HIGGINS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, since 1970, health care costs have increased an
average of 9.9 percent a year, far outpacing inflation and creating a
drag on our economy by increasing the expense of new hiring and
undermining new business investment in this Nation.
This trend is unsustainable. Yet while costs are increasing, the
quality of coverage is declining. Last year, the inability to pay
medical bills caused 62 percent of all personal bankruptcies in this
country, even though the filer had health insurance in 75 percent of
these cases.
That is 868,000 American families who went broke last year simply
because they got sick, did not have insurance or their insurer refused
to cover their bills. This is unacceptable.
I often say that health care reform needed a start, not a finish, and
that we will be amending and improving the law for years to come.
However, the bill before us today takes us back, not forward, with no
persuasive plan to reduce costs, improve quality and coverage. This
challenge deserves a more serious response.
I urge opposition to the bill.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished
member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Buchanan).
Mr. BUCHANAN. Madam Speaker, I stand before you today as a self-made
businessman with 30 years of experience. I have been fortunate to
create thousands of jobs, meet payrolls, and balance budgets.
As the past chairman of the Florida Chamber, which represents 137,000
businesses across Florida, the number one issue 7 years ago when I was
chairman and the number one issue today is affordable health care for
small businesses.
They are the job creators. They create 70 percent of the jobs. The
Business Roundtable says today that the average employee for their
family of four is $10,000. This bill does nothing to bring down the
costs. In fact, in the next 10 years it's going to go from $10,000 to
$30,000.
I was with a pharmacist the other day, a private pharmacist. He
employs about 20 to 30 people. We talked about various things. I didn't
go there to talk to him about health care; but he brought out his
health care bill, just got it, it went up another 22 percent. It went
up 20 percent the year before.
I don't know who my friends on the other side are talking to, but
most small businesses in Florida that I know, they are very, very
concerned about health care and the escalation of the costs going
forward. It's a job killer.
With a national unemployment rate at 9.5 and even higher in our State
of Florida, this law is going in the wrong direction. We need to be
working with small businesses on solutions to help them grow, succeed
and provide health care at affordable cost.
They do create, as I mentioned before, 70 percent of the jobs. You
can't get the job unless we can help small businesses obtain affordable
health care.
{time} 1550
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes
to another distinguished former member of our committee, Ms. Sanchez of
California.
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, it's no secret
that our economy is still sluggish. So our top priority in this
Congress should be about creating jobs. It's certainly my top priority.
And I want to work with Republicans to meet that goal. Instead, House
Republicans are focused on repealing patients' rights, putting
insurance companies back in charge and ballooning the deficit. American
families have suffered and waited far too long for the freedom and
security that affordable health care provides. And now the Republican
majority is trying to take that freedom and snatch that security away.
If Republicans have their way, families will once again lose their
benefits when insurers unfairly cancel or cap their coverage. If
Republicans have their way, children with disabilities and pregnant
women won't be safe from discrimination by insurers. If Republicans
have their way, seniors in my district will be forced to return the
$250 in prescription assistance they received under the Democratic
health care reform bill, and millions of hardworking Americans will
lose the freedom to start their own business because they will be
afraid of giving up the health insurance tied to their current job.
This is a costly plan for seniors, children, and families in my
district and
[[Page H301]]
for the taxpayers of America. To stand up for families that deserve and
need our help, we must reject this plan. I urge everybody to vote
``no'' on the repeal of health care. I thank the gentleman from
Michigan.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the
Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I would like to share a
perspective from an employer in my district. Visiting this small
business, actually a few hundred employees but still considered a small
business, we toured the plant. He shared with me the benefit plans for
the employees. He went on to say that orders are coming in, but they
are refraining from hiring new people because of the uncertainty of the
cost of hiring a new employee. This shows that the health care bill,
primarily, is causing uncertainty in the employment sector and causing
employers to hold back on hiring new people. This is not good for our
economy. It's not good for our deficit. Most importantly, it's not good
for the American people. And that's why I'm extremely concerned with
the $20 billion tax on medical device makers that will just increase
the cost of cutting-edge medical technology for consumers and patients
themselves.
Madam Speaker, we need a patient-centered health care plan, one that
does not depend on new government programs, one that focuses more on
patients, and one that will cause a lot of the problems to go away.
Mr. LEVIN. Could you please tell us, Madam Speaker, the time
remaining on each side for our committee?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Mr. Levin of Michigan has 15\1/2\ minutes
remaining. Mr. Camp of Michigan has 15 minutes remaining.
Mr. LEVIN. It is now my privilege to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the very
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE of California. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. Every time
we take on this bill to repeal the very important freedoms provided by
the health care reform law, it's really a critical minute that we are
not focusing on jobs. We should be debating how to create jobs, how to
get our economy going and how to reduce the deficit. Instead,
Republicans want to add $230 billion to the deficit and to empower
health insurance companies--mind you, health insurance companies--to
take away patients' rights in their own health decisions that they
should be making with themselves and their health care physicians,
nurses, and providers.
This repeal gives insurance companies much, much, much too much
power. Literally, their idea is to return to the same failed system
that has left 50 million people, including 7\1/2\ million children,
without health care. In the current economic environment, where more
people are without coverage and where jobs are scarce, making it more
difficult for people to access health care or to keep their health care
coverage is downright wrong. Repeal of the law would set us back where
once again health care would be a privilege for those who can afford it
rather than a basic human right for each and every American.
When I voted for health care reform, I said it was in the memory of
all of those who died prematurely because they had no health care and
also in honor of and support for those who will now live longer and
healthier lives because they would have health care. Repealing this
health care law really is morally wrong, and it's fiscally
irresponsible.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished
member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Schock).
Mr. SCHOCK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
repeal of this job-killing health care law. How many times as American
citizens did we hear the President say on national television, ``If you
like your health care coverage, you can keep it?'' But for the rest of
the Americans, let me talk to you. Well, ladies and gentlemen, wake up,
because if you are one of the 80 percent of Americans who have an
employer-provided health care plan that you like, you're about to lose
it.
Simply put, the burdens placed on employers by this new law are too
costly. The estimated cost for an employer to provide the ``minimum
essential benefits'' package as prescribed by this bill will cost them
per full-time employee $12,250 a year. As we speak, businesses all
across America are crunching the numbers and figuring out that it's
financially more beneficial for them as companies to pay the $2,000 per
employee penalty and dump their employees into the government-run
health care plan. The result, of course, will be that the 80 percent of
Americans who currently like their health care coverage will be put in
a government-run system that, of course, will be riddled with
inefficiencies and limited options. Think the DMV or FEMA for your
health care plan.
Additionally, this health care legislation is riddled with job-
destroying regulations, burdens, and tax increases that will stifle
private-sector growth and smother economic recovery in this country.
According to the National Federation of Independent Business and the
Chamber of Commerce, this will cost 1.6 million jobs as it currently
stands. I urge passage of this repeal.
Mr. LEVIN. It is now my privilege to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you very much, Chairman Levin. I
really appreciate it so very much.
I have listened for the last 2 days, and I have heard my friends from
the other side refer to this as ObamaCare, so derisively, mean-
spiritedly. But let me assure you what we're talking about that is the
law of the land today is not ObamaCare. It is America's health care for
all the American people. It is the health care for that senior citizen
who is sitting down at her kitchen table thankful that she now has a 50
percent discount on all of her prescription drugs, and she does not
want to see this repealed. It's for that youngster who can now be on
his parents' insurance until he's 26 years old in these tough economic
times. The American people want this and do not want to see it
repealed.
And I want to say to the American people, have no fear, let not your
heart be troubled. This law will not be repealed. Yes, they will vote
for it today. But it's not going to be taken up in the Senate, and it's
not going to be signed by the President. So what do the American people
say about this? They want us to be concerned about jobs. And certainly
if we have to deal with this health care, why should we not be dealing
with some of the critical issues? The American people do not want this
bill, this law, repealed. They want it fixed. They'd love to see
Democrats and Republicans working together on the 1099s. Sure, there's
too much paperwork for small businesses. Let us work on that. This
medical liability issue, the number one reason why kids are not going
into medicine, let us work on that. And the reimbursement rate for our
physicians. The American people want us to fix it, not repeal it.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the
Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lee).
Mr. LEE of New York. Madam Speaker, today we are doing what we
promised the American people we would do after the November election.
We will vote to repeal last year's massive health care law. Most
importantly, we will also vote to begin replacing this massive new
government entitlement with commonsense reforms that actually remove
costs from our health care system.
{time} 1600
We can all agree our current health care system is unsustainable. It
is ripe for reform.
Passing last year's 2,300-page monstrosity will raise health care
costs by $311 billion over the next decade, according to the
administration's own actuaries. It will raise health care costs for
seniors and cut more than $500 billion for Medicare and Medicare
Advantage, which are both very popular plans.
It will cause employers to simply drop the insurance they offer
employees because they have done the math and they understand that it's
cheaper to just pay the penalty than pay for the insurance, leading to
struggling Americans being kicked out of their current plan they have
and they like.
[[Page H302]]
That is not the reform Americans deserve. We need to include medical
liability reform. The CBO has scored that at a $54 billion savings.
Meaningful reform will allow western New Yorkers to start buying
insurance across State lines to encourage competition. And meaningful
reform will empower small businesses to group together to cut costs and
provide coverage to their employees.
Republicans are pursuing these commonsense reforms because we made a
promise to the American people and because we believe health care
reforms need to address both affordability and accessibility. It can be
done, and we are committed to making it happen.
Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Maloney).
(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the
Republican bill which would take health care away from millions of
Americans, children, families, and individuals.
I have heard my Republican colleagues mention cost throughout this
day. Well, make no mistake, there would also be a cost in leaving tens
of millions of Americans uninsured.
According to a recent study published by the American Journal of
Public Health, uninsured working age Americans have a 40 percent higher
risk of death than their privately insured counterparts. The study
estimates that lack of health insurance causes over 44,000 excess
deaths annually. That works out to about one death every 12 minutes
from lack of health insurance. My colleagues, let us not forget to
count those lives as a very real and continuing cost: over 44,000
deaths a year, one every 12 minutes.
I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic plan, lifesaving
legislation, and vote against the Republican repeal of health care. It
is wrong for America. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this harmful, ill-
conceived bill.
When the Republican Majority said it was going to make the deficit
their defining issue this Congress, most of us did not realize it was
to make the deficit bigger. But according to the Congressional Budget
Office, their first act to repeal health care would do just that--add
$230 billion to the deficit while making Americans pay more for health
care.
Instead of focusing on job creation, Republicans are running up our
deficit, jeopardizing the health of millions of Americans, and
threatening the creation of new jobs.
Under the Republican repeal effort:
Insurance companies will once again be able to drop people when they
get sick--exactly when coverage is needed most;
Children with pre-existing conditions will be denied coverage, while
insurance companies would again impose devastating annual and lifetime
caps;
Young people will not be able to stay on their parents' plans until
age 26;
Pregnant women and breast cancer survivors can be denied coverage;
Seniors will face an increase in their prescription drug costs--
millions thrown back into the Medicare Part D Donut Hole. Repeal would
deny seniors a 50 percent discount on prescription drugs, re-creating
the devastating coverage gap.
Each of these things will disappear if Republicans are able to repeal
the historic health reform law.
In my home state of New York, repealing the Affordable Care Act would
be devastating. New York residents, providers, small businesses and
other employers would be denied critical new benefits of the law, from
protections against insurance industry abuses to new coverage options
and millions of dollars in support so states like New York can deliver
quality, affordable health care options to all of its residents.
Without the Affordable Care Act, New York will suffer:
77,800 young adults would lose their insurance coverage through their
parents' health plans, sometimes just after they finish school and as
they are looking for a job. Families across New York would lose the
peace of mind the Affordable Care Act provides by making sure that
young adults can stay on their parents plan to age 26 if they do not
have coverage of their own.
More than 10 million residents of New York with private insurance
coverage would suddenly find themselves vulnerable again to having
lifetime limits placed on how much insurance companies will spend on
their health care.
Insurance companies would once again be allowed to cut off someone's
coverage unexpectedly when they are in an accident or become sick,
because of a simple mistake on an application. This would leave 734,000
people in New York at risk of losing their insurance at the moment they
need it most, as one of the worst abuses of the insurance industry
would become legal again.
New insurance plans would no longer be required to cover recommended
preventive services, like mammograms and flu shots, without cost
sharing, nor would they have to guarantee enrollees the right to choose
any available primary care provider in the network or see an OB-GYN
without a referral.
Nearly 2.9 million seniors in New York who have Medicare coverage
would be forced to pay a co-pay to receive important preventive
services, like mammograms and colonoscopies.
Medicare would no longer pay for an annual check-up visit, so nearly
2.9 million seniors in New York who have Medicare coverage would have
to pay extra if they want to stay healthy by getting check-ups
regularly.
192,596 on Medicare would see significantly higher prescription drug
costs: In New York, 192,596 Medicare beneficiaries received a one-time,
tax-free $250 rebate to help pay for prescription drugs in the ``donut
hole'' coverage gap in 2010. Medicare beneficiaries who fall into the
``donut hole'' in 2011 will be eligible for 50 percent discounts on
covered brand name prescription drugs. Without the law, the burden of
high prescription drug costs would hurt millions of Medicare
beneficiaries across the country.
For the sake of argument, if we remove the moral obligation of
providing health care to 32 million Americans who would lose coverage
with this repeal, we are still left with a compelling fiscal reason for
opposing the repeal of this law:
Repeal adds $230 billion to the deficit over the first 10 years and
more than $1.2 trillion in the second decade (around one-half percent
of GDP).
Americans purchasing health insurance on their own will see their
costs rise.
Americans will get fewer health benefits for their money.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill that will
balloon the deficit, burden our children and grandchildren, halt the
creation of jobs, and compromise the health of millions of Americans.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms.
Jenkins), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Last March I voted against ObamaCare. Rather than bringing down
health care costs for all Americans, helping small businesses provide
health care for their employees, and preserving Medicare for our
Nation's seniors, this law will result in higher premiums for families,
costly unfunded mandates, including an absurd 1099 requirement,
additional job-killing taxes, and more than half a trillion dollars in
cuts to Medicare.
It was irresponsible to pass this massive job-killing plan by means
of arm twisting and gimmicks, and it is even more irresponsible to
allow implementation to begin given our national debt is over $14
trillion, unemployment rates are still over 9 percent, and many States
remain on the verge of bankruptcy.
Not only is the bill unaffordable, but it is such an overreach of the
Federal Government's power, a U.S. district judge has already deemed it
unconstitutional.
Americans want reforms to our health care system, but they have
spoken clearly: This bill is not the change they wanted.
I will be voting in support of H.R. 2, voting to repeal this
government takeover of our health care system, just as I promised my
constituents I would.
Let's repeal this bill so we can go to work replacing it with reforms
the American people want and support. I encourage all of my colleagues
in the House to listen to their constituents and join me in voting
``yes.''
Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to Ms. Edwards from Maryland.
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in strong opposition to
Republican attempts to repeal and dismantle our health care law, the
law that Congress has passed to give health care to the American
people.
Mr. Speaker, this repeal bill may fulfill an empty campaign promise,
but it fails to put the key American objectives of creating jobs and
reducing the deficit at the top of the agenda. In fact, the independent
Congressional Budget Office estimates that this repeal will
[[Page H303]]
increase the deficit by $230 billion over the next 10 years. In
Maryland, by contrast, we will save $800 million in 10 years with the
new law.
We have heard the debate, but now it is time to hear the stories of
countless millions of Americans who have a chance at real health care.
I know these stories because I hear them every day, Mr. Speaker,
stories like Chuck, an engineer from Hyattsville, Maryland, who suffers
from chronic thyroid condition and believes he will be denied health
care coverage should health care reform be repealed; Nancy, a mother in
Germantown, Maryland, who is grateful that the health care law has
allowed her 20-something daughter currently in graduate school to stay
on her mother's health insurance policy. I have even heard from
constituents of some of our Republican colleagues, afraid about having
to repay the money because they slipped into the doughnut hole. And I
want to tell you about Annie, a friend of mine, 28 years old, diagnosed
with leukemia, who would have reached lifetime caps because she and her
parents are trying to save her life.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate we are here today. Let's create jobs
and stop this theater.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Paulsen), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this effort to repeal
the job-destroying health care law that a majority of Americans oppose.
Now, last year Congress put job creation on the back burner and
instead pushed a very partisan, trillion-dollar overhaul of our health
care system. Last year, at the Democrat leadership's request, Congress
passed the bill to ``find out what is in it.'' Well, here is what we
found: a laundry list of tax increases and job-crushing mandates that
will make it harder for small businesses to make ends meet and further
delay an economic recovery. This problem is so serious that the
National Federation of Independent Business, an advocacy organization
representing countless small businesses that drive the engine of our
economy, found that the new employer mandate could cost 1.6 million
jobs.
In and around my district, hundreds of medical technology companies
are now facing higher taxes to the tune of $20 billion. We are
penalizing innovation when we should be encouraging it. We are
preventing lifesaving technologies from coming to market when we should
be promoting them. This is unacceptable.
The American people deserve health care reform that doesn't break the
bank. We need health care reform that lowers costs and doesn't increase
premiums. We should repeal this law now and replace it with
commonsense, patient-centered alternatives; otherwise, our economy will
stagnate, our small businesses will not be able to expand, and the
medical device industry in my district will continue to suffer.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Speier).
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
You know, the real question is who is supporting this repeal of
health reform. Are the doctors of America supporting the repeal? No;
the American Medical Association opposes it.
Is AARP supporting a repeal? No; they are opposed to it.
Are the hospitals supporting a repeal? No; they are opposed to it as
well.
Who supports a repeal of health care reform? The National Chamber of
Commerce, period.
So what do our constituents really want? They want the costs to be
brought down. There is not one of us who hasn't heard a complaint from
a constituent saying, I can't afford it anymore.
Well, health care reform requires that 80 percent of the premium go
to providing health care. It is starting to put a governor on the costs
of health insurance.
The second thing that people are concerned about is access for their
kids and for themselves. Well, let's talk about these children.
In my district there are 30,000 children with preexisting conditions,
and I know you have gotten the same phone calls I have gotten; a parent
calling, crying on the phone, talking about the leukemia their child
has or the asthma their child has and their fear if their spouse loses
their job they won't have health insurance and they will go to the
individual market and there will be no health insurance.
Let me tell you about Sophie O'Riley, who, at 5 years of age, had
very serious asthma. Her parents went to every insurer in the
individual market and could not get insurance. So what did they do?
They went bare for a year in order to be able to access insurance.
H.R. 2 is bad medicine. I urge a ``no'' vote.
{time} 1610
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of
the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr.
Berg).
Mr. BERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in firm support of repealing this
job-killing health care law.
This is a $500 billion tax that will hurt small businesses at a time
when we need these job creators to help put our country back on track.
America's small businesses cannot grow with the tax hikes and
government mandates in this law. Medicare payroll taxes will increase.
Costly penalties will be imposed on small businesses, and there will be
increased health care costs.
Repealing this law and removing these barriers will provide
businesses with the certainty they need to help get America back on
track.
My wife is a family practice doctor, and when this law first passed,
our first concern was this puts government between patients and their
doctors. We need to repeal this law and put those health care decisions
back between the patients directly and their doctors.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this bill lays bare what
this new Republican majority is all about. They would repeal benefits
and protections that have already dramatically improved health care for
families and small businesses, with no credible assurance they would
put anything in their place.
A ``yes'' vote would take away tax credits available to up to 17,000
small businesses in my district alone--credits that will let them offer
their employees insurance coverage just like their larger competitors
do.
A ``yes'' vote on repeal would increase the average cost of
prescription drugs for seniors in the ``doughnut hole'' coverage gap by
more than $500 this year and more than $3,000 by 2020. What seniors on
fixed incomes can afford this kind of price hike?
A ``yes'' vote on repeal would say to parents, who now for the first
time can get affordable coverage for their children with preexisting
conditions: Once again, you can be denied coverage altogether.
This legislation is flying under disgracefully false colors. Fiscally
sound? The Congressional Budget Office says it will increase deficits
by $230 billion over the next 10 years. Republicans like to call health
insurance reform ``job killing.'' But their repeal bill would cost as
many as 4 million jobs over the next decade.
Our Republican colleagues have put their tea party base above
everything else, including the health care needs of the American
people. We must recognize their cynical political gesture for what it
is. This House can and must do better.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Speaker of the House.
Mr. BOEHNER. I thank my colleague for yielding.
I am going to thank all the Members of this body for a spirited but
respectful debate on what is a critical issue to the American people.
Both sides of the aisle have very different viewpoints on what
government's role in this health care issue should be, and if there is
one thing that we do agree on, it is that this health care law needs
improvement. The President said as much yesterday.
Why does it need improvement? One only needs to look at the facts.
Yesterday, 200 economists and experts put out a letter calling this
health care bill ``a barrier to job
[[Page H304]]
growth.'' The letter talks about how employers are struggling to keep
up with all the mandates and tax hikes in this law, flooding the job
market with additional uncertainty.
The one thing the American people wanted out of health care reform
was lower costs, which the authors of this law promised; but according
to these economists, this law will increase spending by nearly $1
trillion--and that is a minimum number--and add nearly $1.5 trillion to
the national debt.
So, if we agree that this law needs improving, why would we keep it
on the books? Why would we keep one hand tied behind our backs when we
are dealing with 10 percent unemployment and a $14 trillion national
debt?
Now, let me be clear about what repealing this health care law means
for families, small businesses, and taxpayers:
Repeal means preventing more than $770 billion in tax hikes and
eliminating all the mandates and penalties so that small businesses can
grow and hire new workers.
Repeal means reducing spending by $540 billion, another step in
tackling the massive debt that faces our kids and grandkids.
Repeal means protecting more than 7 million seniors from losing or
being denied coverage under Medicare Advantage--a program they like.
Repeal means paving the way for better solutions that will lower
costs without destroying jobs or bankrupting our government.
And repeal means keeping a promise. This is what we said we would do.
We listened to the people. We made a commitment to them--a pledge to
make their priorities our priorities. When you look at the facts and
when you listen to the people, this is a promise worth keeping.
Let's stop payment on this check before it can destroy more jobs and
put us into a deeper hole. Then let's work together to put in place
reforms that lower the costs without destroying jobs or bankrupting our
government.
Let's challenge ourselves to do better.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Reyes).
Mr. REYES. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong opposition to H.R. 2, which
seeks to dismantle the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Repealing this law would be detrimental to districts like the one I
represent, which have unsustainably high rates of people without health
insurance. Nationally, about one in five people is without health
insurance. The problem in my district means one in three is without
basic health coverage. That's 230,000 people in my district alone.
When these individuals can't get preventative care and they get sick,
they wind up in the emergency room, which is the most expensive kind of
health care there is. According to the latest figures from our county
hospital, more than $500 million of local property tax dollars have
been used to cover the costs of those who could not pay for treatment
and services--$500 million.
We passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to help
address this problem and provide affordable health care insurance to
those who currently are uninsured.
I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 2.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).
Mr. CRENSHAW. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for
his great leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I plan to vote to repeal this health care law and
replace it with some commonsense, workable solutions. Why? Because I've
been listening to my constituents--listening to what they have to say,
what they ask for.
I can tell you they are not asking for a bill that weakens our
economy and causes jobs to disappear. They are not asking for a brand
new entitlement and then pretending only partly to pay for it. They are
not asking for a bill that takes away the rights of seniors to have a
choice in the Medicare program, and they are certainly not asking for
new taxes--but that's what they're getting under this health care bill
unless it's replaced.
What they are asking for is the right to choose their own doctors and
the right to get the treatment they need when they need it. That's what
they're asking for. They're asking that we bring down the cost, to make
some commonsense reforms, to make it more affordable, more accessible.
That's what we should focus on.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to a former, very distinguished member of our committee, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Under no circumstances would I vote to repeal the most effective,
most meaningful, most sensitive health legislation that has been passed
in this country since the Medicare-Medicaid provisions of the 1960s.
Under no circumstances would I vote to repeal legislation that would
provide the 107,000 individuals in my congressional district who have
preexisting conditions.
{time} 1620
Would I vote to repeal health insurance for more than 32 million
Americans who otherwise would have no coverage? No way.
Vote this legislation down. Let's support the American people, keep
them with health care.
The Seventh Congressional District of Illinois includes some of the
most medically underserved communities in America. Census data revealed
that 24 percent of families and 44 percent of children under 18 live
below the poverty line. As a result, many of these individuals are
susceptible to an anomaly of diseases and poor health. In fact, some
communities on Chicago's west side experience infant mortality rates
comparable with third-world countries. By repealing Public Law 111-148,
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will take away support
for community health centers, which provide critical resources for
millions of Americans in every state and territory. In my district,
there are many Medicare and Medicaid recipients that have established
community health centers as their medical homes. Medicaid beneficiaries
that rely on health centers for usual care were 19 percent less likely
to use the emergency room at a hospital than other providers for
nonemergency and usual care services. Overall, health centers save the
health care system between $9.9 billion and $17.6 billion annually.
Community health centers provide high quality health care regardless
of the ability to pay, and health centers in Illinois have a tremendous
impact on our economy and employment. In 2008, 40 health centers
operated over 350 sites, contributed almost one billion dollars to the
Illinois economy, and directly employed almost 6,000 Illinoisans.
Indeed, for every 10 people employed by an Illinois health center, an
additional 4 jobs were created in their surrounding communities.
Illinois health centers served over 1.1 million patients--nearly 80% of
whom fell below the federal poverty level and 30% who had no health
insurance, helping them cope with chronic health conditions and general
health issues to be able to work and care for their families.
Repeal of the health care law would eliminate $11 billion in support
for community health centers over the next 5 years, funding that will
nearly double the number of patients served today and greatly
strengthen Illinois's economy. Repealing the health care law would
dramatically harm the health of hundreds of thousands of citizens in
Chicago and Illinois.
Repeal of the health care law would greatly increase an already high
level of health disparities among African-Americans and Hispanics. In a
recent study, comparing health outcomes among African-Americans and
Caucasians found that the gap in health disparities across the Nation
was narrowing across ten (10) indicators; however, in Chicago, the
reverse was occurring in health disparities among African-Americans and
Caucasians are widening. Given all that has been stated above, the
reversal of health care reform would have tremendous negative impact on
Chicago when considering the unemployment rate, the crisis in the
housing market and the abundance of the urban poor that exists within
our communities. Most affected will be the working poor who are most
commonly uninsured as their company provides little or no medical
benefits. The middle aged childless individual who is not eligible for
Illinois public aid and naturally men without children who are not
veterans or eligible to be covered through Illinois public aid are
affected as well. Lastly, we must consider the devastating impact the
burden of the uninsured has placed on the healthcare delivery system,
specifically hospitals who avoid caring for uninsured patients and
resulting in the lack of access to primary and specialty care. The
funding from the Affordable Care Act would assist community
[[Page H305]]
health centers to stay on track to add 20 million new patients (for a
total of 40 million patients) over the next 5 years.
Repeal of the health care law would eliminate health coverage for
young people up to age 26 who would not be allowed to stay on their
parents' plans. Repeal would force 2,600 young adults in my district to
find other coverage or returned to the ranks of the uninsured.
Repeal would deny tax credits to buy health insurance coverage for
158,000 families in my district. Additionally, it would increased the
numbered of uninsured residents to 48,000 in my district.
There are 107,000 to 282,000 residents in my district with pre-
existing conditions like diabetes, heart disease, or cancer, including
7,000 to 30,000 children that the repeal legislation if passed would
encourage health insurance companies to discriminate based on pre-
existing conditions.
Repeal would eliminate tax credits for health insurance up to 14,100
small businesses in my district. These tax credits under the current
law would provide small businesses up to 35% of the cost of providing
health insurance.
The health care law is critical to Chicago and Illinois. Community
health centers are vital partners in the health and economic well-being
of Chicago and Illinois. For this reason, I do not support H.R. 2,
Repeal the Job-Killing Health Care Law and Health care related
provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Brooks).
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, Americans enjoy the best health care in the
world. Every year, profit motive and American ingenuity create new and
better diagnostic tools and treatments. Yes, there are ways to improve
America's health care, but President Obama's socialized medicine is not
it. For example, we can cut health care costs by implementing tort
reform, by forcing health care competition, and by removing illegal
aliens from America who get free health care at our cost.
Socialized medicine strangles creativity and obstructs life-saving
medical advances. It is care rationed by bureaucrats with mind-numbing
regulations. Simply stated, socialized medicine pulls all America down
to health care mediocrity.
Lives and freedom are at stake. We must repeal this job-killing
government takeover of America's health care. Today, I will proudly
vote to do exactly that.
Mr. LEVIN. It is my privilege to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the
Patients' Rights Repeal Bill, and I find it absolutely regrettable that
my Republican colleagues have made this their first priority of the new
Congress.
Rhode Islanders sent me here with a clear purpose to create jobs,
strengthen our economy, and reduce the Federal deficit. Those are the
issues we need to address, and doing so should be our first order of
business and our top priority. Instead, we are considering a bill that
will increase already skyrocketing health care premiums for Rhode
Island families and businesses, give insurers back the power to deny or
drop coverage when people get sick, and raise the deficit by an
additional $230 billion over the next 10 years and over $1 trillion the
decade after that.
Pressing the reset button on health reform will not only bring our
progress toward affordable and accessible health care to a screeching
halt, it will force us to repeal the rights of patients and rescind tax
breaks to the very small businesses that fuel our economy.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and join me in getting to
work on the people's priorities--job creation, economic innovation, and
deficit reduction. We have come such a long way.
We have already seen the benefits of health care reform in covering
children with preexisting conditions, allowing adult children to stay
on their parents' health care coverage, and eliminating the yearly and
lifetime caps. These are major steps forward in health care reform. All
that goes away if we repeal this health care law that we've seen put
into effect. Please oppose this Republican bill that's before us today.
Mr. Speaker, the Affordable Care Act is just beginning to ease costs
and increase access to care for thousands of Rhode Islanders. Almost
10,000 seniors have already received a $250 rebate check for their
prescription drugs to cover the Medicare Part D ``donut hole.'' That's
one small but important step toward making prescription drugs
affordable. Over 3,500 young adults now have access to their parents'
health plans, giving them peace of mind knowing that they can remain
covered until age 26. Additionally, over 18,000 small businesses in
Rhode Island have already received information from the IRS on the tax
credit to help provide coverage to employees. These tax credits will
help ease the burden of rising health care costs on private sector job
growth.
Health reform is about more than just statistics or economics; it is
about helping real people who are just trying to make it day to day. It
is about the grandmother in Cranston whose life will be saved because
her breast cancer was detected earlier through a free preventive health
screening; it is about the father in Coventry who works for a small
business and will finally have health coverage to manage his diabetes;
and it is about the mother in Warwick who won't face bankruptcy to
treat her daughter's Multiple Sclerosis because of lifetime insurance
caps.
These are just some of the examples of how the Affordable Care Act is
beginning to make a positive difference in people's lives. As I've said
in the past, this law is not perfect, and I look forward to working
with my colleagues to improve it where changes need to be made.
However, pressing the reset button will not only bring our progress
toward affordable and accessible health care to a screeching halt, it
will literally force us to repeal the rights of patients and rescind
tax breaks to the very small businesses that fuel our economy.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and join me in getting to
work on our immediate challenges--job creation, economic innovation and
deficit reduction.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo).
Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support
for the repeal of this health care monstrosity. It was a bill passed
over the objections of most Mississippians, built on unconstitutional
individual mandates and unprecedented burdens for State governments. In
short, this government takeover is poised to destroy the greatest
health care system in the world. Don't take my word for it, but look at
how some of the most ardent backers have been quietly working to obtain
special waivers so they will not be held to the same standards most
small businesses face.
Mr. Speaker, it's time we give all Americans the same relief the
President's political friends have worked so hard to get--relief from
this job-destroying legislation--by voting in favor of this repeal. I
am proud that the first speech I have given in this Chamber and the
first bill I have co-sponsored in this Congress is one to repeal this
2,700-page monstrosity.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from
Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to share the story of
Patricia Maisch.
Pat, as her friends call her, lives outside Tucson and has been
fittingly hailed as one of the heroes during the tragic shooting of our
colleague, Gabby Giffords. Pat actually knocked the second gun clip out
of the shooter's hand as he was attempting to reload, very likely
saving the lives of more innocent people.
She was in line to talk to her Congresswoman to share that she
thought that the title of the repeal bill was disingenuous, and because
Pat and her husband own a small business north of Tucson. The spouse of
one of their employees has a preexisting condition, and they have been
unable to find affordable insurance to cover her. Pat wanted to tell
Congresswoman Giffords that the health reform law will help them
provide insurance for this employee. She wanted Gabby to stand up to
attempts to repeal health care reform. Pat was unable to deliver her
message to her representative but asked that I share it with you now.
Heed the words of Pat Maisch. Heed the words of millions of Americans
needing health care. Don't repeal health care reform.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).
Mr. FLORES. Mr. Speaker, back in September of last year, one of the
owners of a small Waco, Texas, software company showed me a notice he
had just received from his health insurance provider. This notice
showed that as a
[[Page H306]]
result of ObamaCare he was faced with a 30 percent increase in his
health insurance premiums. Now he has to deal with the harsh reality of
cutting the size of his workforce to deal with this increase, or worse,
to cancel coverage altogether.
What is even more disturbing is that this is just the beginning of
what is to come under ObamaCare. All across our Nation this cost-
increasing, job-killing, tax-hiking bill is inflicting irreversible
damage on American employers and families. Rather than learn from this
in the outcome of the midterm elections, Democrats choose to oppose and
dismiss Republican efforts to repeal ObamaCare and to replace it with
something better. There are solutions and clear alternatives to
improving our health care system, and the first step is to repeal
ObamaCare.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield for the purpose of making an unanimous consent
request to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).
(Mr. ACKERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ACKERMAN. I rise in strong opposition to repealing the Patients'
Bill of Rights.
Today, the House will vote to take away new health-care freedoms from
my constituents and give that power right back to the big health-
insurance companies. Repeal of the health-care law puts insurance
companies right back into the driver's seat of rationing health-care
decisions for the rest of us. Repeal means they get to decide who is
denied health coverage because of a pre-existing condition in my
district; which young adults in my district can and cannot remain on
their parents' plans; and which constituents who are sick in my
district would have their plans rescinded just because they got sick in
the first place. And the list of lost health-care freedoms goes on and
on and on.
Mr. Speaker, what specifically does repealing the health-care law
mean for the 5th congressional district of New York? Repeal would mean
as many as 311,000 people could be denied health coverage, including up
to 37,000 children, because of a pre-existing condition. Repeal would
mean that 2,400 young adults up to age 26 in my district would no
longer be able to choose to stay on their parents' plans until they get
that first job with health insurance. And repeal would mean that
335,000 constituents in my district would lose the most vital consumer
freedoms, such as protection from unreasonable policy rescissions and
the prohibition of annual and lifetime spending limits.
Already, my constituents and millions of others across the country
are benefiting from the new health care law. Seniors in the Medicare
prescription-drug ``donut hole'' received a $250 payment last year and
are scheduled to receive a 50 percent discount on their drugs this
year; children are now no longer being denied health coverage because
of pre-existing conditions, repeal and they will be denied again; and
young adults have been able to keep coverage thorough their parents'
plans. Turning back the clock, to repeal the new law, as if it never
happened is not only harmful, but costly: according to the independent
and non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, repeal would add $230
billion to the deficit.
Last year, on this very floor, upon passing the Affordable Care Act,
I said that we were acknowledging the moral and economic costs we pay
every day for our failure to make health coverage affordable and
accessible to everyone; that we were recognizing that having more
people with quality coverage saves both lives and costs; that we were
unequivocally stating that people in this country shouldn't have to go
bankrupt to pay their medical bills; and that no one, no one, should
ever have to go to an emergency room just to receive routine medical
care. Let us not undo the good we have done.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support access for all
Americans to health care and to oppose this bill.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time is
remaining on both sides for Ways and Means?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Levin) has 2 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Camp) has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2.
A lot has been said during this debate about what the American people
want. Some have said the American people want ObamaCare, many others
have said that they want a repeal of it. Well, I was not in Washington
over this past year, I was in Michigan hearing complaint after
complaint from regular citizens and small business owners about the
cost and unreasonable mandates that are in ObamaCare. I told them to
stay tuned. Well, the American people have spoken. And over the past
week, I've had an opportunity to engage my constituents even more,
including hosting three telephone town hall meetings. We did a survey
as part of those town halls, and over two-thirds of the more than 1,000
people that took part in this survey agreed with my position of
repealing ObamaCare. I understand the real concerns and health issues
that people have, but we will address these issues in the replace
portion that you will be seeing soon, so please stay tuned.
I am also a small business owner, and I have been talking to other
small business owners, and they, too, are frustrated. Provisions like
the costly mandate requiring them to file additional 1099 forms have
made them angry.
We cannot continue to have legislation that forces small business--
job creators--and future generations to foot the bill. Our replacement
plans bring hope, so stay tuned.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in voting to
replace this bill.
{time} 1630
Mr. CAMP. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee).
Mr. NUNNELEE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
As a former Member of the Appropriations Committee in the Mississippi
State Senate, I was responsible for balancing our State's budget. The
Affordable Care Act will push added costs to already strapped States
and will ultimately require tax increases at the State level.
The overall cost to implement health reform in Mississippi is $1.7
billion over 10 years. From fiscal years 2014 to 2020, this dramatic
increase in enrollment will cost our taxpayers an extra $225 million to
$250 million a year. Approximately 400,000 new individuals will be
added to our Medicaid rolls because of the expansion, meaning one in
three Mississippians will be on Medicaid.
More money devoted to Medicaid means less funding for other necessary
State services and added financial burdens on our taxpayers in
Mississippi, as well as the rest of the taxpayers of this Nation that
will further stifle job creation.
So because of that, I will proudly vote to repeal this law.
Mr. LEVIN. I regret this bill is being brought up today, but there
are at least two silver linings.
Number one, this bill will not become law. Health care reform remains
the law of this land. And, secondly, and most importantly, it gives us
Democrats a further chance to talk sense with the American people.
We on this side are on the offensive on this issue. We are going
everywhere. We are an American truth squad. There will be a vote today
on this bill. It may well pass. It will not prevail.
More Than 200 Organizations Opposed to H.R. 2, Patients' Rights Repeal
Act
AARP
AFL-CIO
AFSCME
AIDS United
Alliance For A Just Society
Alliance for Children and Families
Alliance for Retired Americans
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Art Therapy Association
American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry
American Association for Psychosocial Rehabilitation
American Association of Pastoral Counselors
American Association of University Women (AAUW)
American Association on Health and Disability
American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network
American Counseling Association
American Dance Therapy Association
American Diabetes Association
American Federation of Teachers
American Foundation for Suicide Prevention/SPAN USA
American Group Psychotherapy Association
American Heart Association
[[Page H307]]
American Lung Association
American Mental Health Counselors Association
American Muslim Health Professionals
American Nurses Association
American Psychiatric Association
American Psychiatric Nurses Association
American Psychological Association
American Public Health Association
American Small Business League
Anxiety Disorders Association of America
Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum
Association for Ambulatory Behavioral Healthcare
Association for Community Affiliated Plans
Association for the Advancement of Psychology
Association of University Centers on Disabilities
Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal
Nurses (AWHONN)
Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law
Black Women's Health Imperative
B'nai B'rith International
California Primary Care Association
California Rural Indian Health Board
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
Campus Progress
Catholic Health Association
Catholics United
Center for American Progress Action Fund
Center for Clinical Social Work
Center for Community Change
Center for Integrated Behavioral Health Policy
Center for Medicare Advocacy
Center for Reproductive Rights
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Centers for Community Change
CHADD (Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/
Hyperactivity Disorder, Inc.)
Child Welfare League of America
Childbirth Connection
Children's Defense Fund
Children's Dental Health Project
Children's Health Fund
Clinical Social Work Association
Clinical Social Work Guild 49, OPEIU
Coalition on Human Needs
CommonHealth ACTION
Communication Workers of America
Community Action Partnership
Community Catalyst
Community Organizations in Action
Consumer Action
Consumers Union
Corporation for Supportive Housing
Cystic Fibrosis Foundation
Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance
Direct Care Alliance
Disability Rights Wisconsin
Doctors for America
Easter Seals
Eating Disorders Coalition for Research, Policy & Action
Every Child Matters Education Fund
Faith in Public Life
Faithful America
Faithful Reform in Health Care
Families USA
Health Care for America Now
Herndon Alliance
HIV Health and Human Services Planning Council of New York
(Planning Council)
Japanese American Citizens League
Jewish Women International
Labor Council for Latin American Advancement
Leadership Council on Aging Organizations (65
organizations)
Leadership Council on Civil and Human Rights
League of Women Voters of the U.S.
LiveStrong
Main Street Alliance
Maryland Women's Coalition for Health Care Reform
Mautner Project: The National Lesbian Health Organization
Medicare Rights Center
Mental Health America
MomsRising
Montana Women Vote
NAACP
NAADAC, the Association for Addiction Professionals
NARAL Pro-Choice America
National Alliance on Mental Illness
National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum
National Association for Children's Behavioral Health
National Association for Rural Mental Health
National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated
Disorders--ANAD
National Association of Area Agencies on Aging (n4a)
National Association of Chronic Disease Directors
National Association of Community Health Centers
National Association of County Behavioral Health and
Developmental Disability Directors
National Association of Mental Health Planning & Advisory
Councils
National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners
National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems
National Association of Social Workers
National Association of State Mental Health Program
Directors
National Black Leadership Commission on AIDS
National Coalition for LGBT Health
National Coalition for Mental Health Recovery
National Coalition on Health Care
National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
National Consumers League
National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare
National Council of API Physicians
National Council of Asian Pacific Americans
National Council of Jewish Women
National Council of La Raza
National Council of Urban Indian Health
National Council on Aging
National Council on Problem Gambling
National Disability Rights Network
National Education Association
National Farmers Union
National Federation of Families for Children's Mental
Health
National Foundation for Mental Health
National Gay & Lesbian Task Force Action Fund
National Health Law Program
National Hemophilia Foundation
National Hispanic Medical Association
National Indian Health Board
National Institute for Reproductive Health
National Latina Health Network
National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health
National Medical Association
National Minority AIDS Council
National Network of Public Health Institutes
National Organization for Women
National Partnership for Women and Families
National Physicians Alliance
National Puerto Rican Coalition
National Research Center for Women & Families/Cancer
Prevention and Treatment Fund
National Senior Citizens Law Center
National Spinal Cord Injury Association
National Viral Hepatitis Roundtable
National WIC Association
National Women's Health Network
National Women's Law Center (and 37 other orgs)
NETWORK
Out of Many, One
Paralyzed Veterans of America
Partnership for Prevention
PHI (Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute)
Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health
PICO
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Prevention Institute
Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association
Progressive States Action
Raising Women's Voices for the Health Care We Need
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
Safe States Alliance
Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law
School Social Work Association of America
SEIU
Small Business Majority
Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine
Summit Health Institute for Research and Education, Inc.
The AIDS Institute
The Arc
The Association for Community Affiliated Plans (ACAP)
The Greenlining Institute
The Ministry of Caring, Inc
The National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care
The Patients' Union
Therapeutic Communities of America
Third Way
Treatment Access Expansion Project
Trust for America's Health
U.S. PIRG
U.S. Positive Women's Network
U.S. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Association
Union for Reform Judaism
United Autoworkers
United Cerebral Palsy
United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society
United Neighborhood Centers of America
United Spinal Association
United Steel Workers
Universal Health Care Action Network
Universal Health Care Foundation of Connecticut
Vermont Legal Aid--Office of Health Care Ombudsman
Voices for America's Children
Witness Justice
WomenHeart: The National Coalition for Women with Heart
Disease
Young Democrats of America
Young Invincibles
YWCA USA
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, today we're debating the repeal of economically damaging
legislation that punishes job creators and does nothing to control
rising health care costs. We can't afford the $1.2 trillion price tag
on the government takeover of health care while our national debt
stands at $14 trillion.
[[Page H308]]
Today, we can right a serious wrong and still achieve the goals we
share, like ensuring access to quality, affordable health care for all
Americans; real health care reforms that control costs; and ensuring
that Americans with preexisting conditions get the care they need at a
price they can afford.
In my district in eastern and southeastern Ohio, more than 26,000
senior citizens currently enrolled in Medicare Advantage are at risk of
losing this program because of the $200 billion in cuts to Medicare
required by this job-destroying health care law.
Later today we will vote to repeal the government takeover giving us
the opportunity to start over and enact real patient-focused health
care reforms.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Buerkle).
Ms. BUERKLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2 because I
believe that the American people deserve health care reform that will
actually reduce costs and improve access without damaging the quality
of our health care. Last year's enacted health care reform was a
victory for Big Government and an affront to our Constitution. This law
is so fundamentally flawed, it must be repealed.
When our Founders envisioned this legislative process, it was meant
to be a deliberative one--thoughtful and respectful of the American
citizens' freedom. Last year, that vision faltered; and Congress failed
in its duties to the American people when they enacted this Affordable
Care Act.
As a registered nurse and an attorney who represented a major
teaching hospital, I am aware of the problems of our current system, in
particular, the problems arising from government restrictions on the
purchase of health insurance, government regulations on hospitals and
businesses, and tort liability issues.
Unfortunately, this Affordable Care Act does not alleviate these
problems and will further damage an overburdened system. According to
the Health Care Association of New York State, my home State, we will
face a $15 billion reduction in Medicare and Medicaid--affecting our
hospitals, our skilled nursing facilities, our home health agencies and
hospices over the next 10 years.
We need to implement true health care reform in a manner that
preserves patient choice, protects access to health care, and controls
costs without hurting job growth.
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, in 1966 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., whose life and
legacy we just finished celebrating, expressed his concerns about
health care. He stated, ``Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in
health care is the most shocking and inhumane.''
Those words were brought home to me last year when a constituent from
Florence, South Carolina, told me that she had just been informed by
her insurance carrier that because of her 8-year-old daughter's cancer
treatments, her family had reached their lifetime benefits limit.
What could be more inhumane than repealing this law's patients'
rights and telling that mother that the lifesaving treatments for her
daughter must end?
What could be more shocking than the injustice suffered by the
middle-aged woman who called into a radio program to complain that
although she had paid her premiums her entire adult life, she was
dropped by her insurer when she contracted breast cancer. How can we
repeal the remedy for this injustice?
Dr. King also taught us that the time is always ripe to do right.
After nearly a century of debate, last March the time was ripe. And
getting rid of these discriminatory practices was the right thing to
do. And that is the reason I called the bill the Civil Rights Act of
the 21st Century.
Interestingly, today we are hearing some of the same rhetoric about
repeal of patients' rights that we heard regarding voting rights.
Do I feel that changes should not be made? Absolutely not.
When the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, it did not cover public
employees.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CLYBURN. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
When the 1965 Voting Rights Act became law, it did not cover
congressional and legislative redistricting.
The Fair Housing Law wasn't perfect when it was passed.
Bipartisan changes were made to improve all of these measures. I
sincerely hope that we can develop some bipartisan modifications that
increase efficiency and effectiveness and decrease costs and
duplication--none of which will be achieved through repeal.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1640
Mr. CANTOR. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Minnesota
(Mrs. Bachmann).
Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding.
ObamaCare, as we know, is the crown jewel of socialism. It is
socialized medicine. The American people spoke soundly and clearly at
the ballot box in November. And they said to us, Mr. Speaker, in no
uncertain terms, repeal this bill. And so today this body will cast a
vote to repeal ObamaCare.
And to those across the United States who think this may be a
symbolic act, we have a message for them: this is not symbolic. This is
why we were sent here, and we will not stop until we repeal a President
and put a President in the position of the White House who will repeal
this bill, until we repeal the current Senate, put in a Senate that
will listen to the American people and repeal this bill.
Because what has been the result, Mr. Speaker? It's been this: it's
been job loss, it's been increases on costs to the American people. I
have seen everything from 26 percent increases on health insurance to
45 percent increases on health insurance. This will break the bank, and
we won't let that happen to our country.
So make no mistake, Mr. Speaker. We are here to stay and our resolve
is firm. We will continue this fight until ObamaCare is no longer the
law of the land and until we can actually pass reform that will cut the
costs of health care.
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chair of the
Democratic Caucus, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Equal protection under the law is the cornerstone of our
Constitution. That is why we as Nation strive to form a more perfect
Union in a commonsense way of looking out for one another. No one can
prepare for a birth defect, catastrophe, or accident of life that may
await any one of us. This Congress cannot disenfranchise the 129
million Americans with preexisting conditions impacted by this repeal
proposal. The proposal that is before us is not worthy of the party of
Lincoln or the tea party. Repeal, repeal, repeal is not a plan. It is
an empty political refrain.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are honorable people. I
cannot accept that they are indifferent to the 129 million Americans
with preexisting conditions who would continue to be denied coverage
and forced to pay higher rates with repeal. I cannot accept that they
are indifferent to millions of children who would once again face
denial of health care coverage. I don't believe they are indifferent to
the millions of seniors who would be facing higher prescription drug
costs because of repeal. I cannot accept that they are indifferent to
the families that face cancer diagnosis and would once again be subject
to lifetime limits on coverage and possible bankruptcy because of
repeal. Addressing these fundamental issues of fairness was what the
health care legislation and law is all about.
In this Chamber, and clearly down the hall, we understand the charade
of this repeal legislation. But it is not lost on the 129 million
Americans with preexisting conditions that are counting on us.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady
from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).
Mrs. NOEM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the first time on the floor of the
United States House of Representatives to make a case for a very
important piece of legislation, namely H.R. 2, the health care repeal
bill.
[[Page H309]]
Mr. Speaker, there are a multitude of reasons why this law should be
repealed, but the most important is because it is a major impediment to
job creation for small businesses and job creators in South Dakota and
across this country. According to one study, an employer mandate alone
could lead to the elimination of 1.6 million jobs between 2009 and
2014, with 66 percent of those coming from small businesses.
Mr. Speaker, one of the most important jobs and job-creation measures
that we can do this year is to repeal this bill and to replace it with
commonsense policies that actually lower costs for families and for
small businesses, expand access for affordable care, and protect
American jobs. What I heard time and time again on the campaign trail
last year from South Dakota's small business owners is that they are
simply waiting. They are waiting to hire another worker or to invest in
new technology because of the looming threat of this health care law.
Whether it's a foundry owner in northeastern South Dakota or a
motorcycle parts manufacturer in central South Dakota, the refrain is
the same: get the government off our backs, and we'll be the small
business job-creation engine that this country so desperately needs
right now.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to listen to the citizens of this
great country on this important issue.
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the chair of our policy
committee.
Ms. DeLAURO. Yesterday, men and women from all across America came
here to tell us what the repeal of health care would mean for them.
Stacie Ritter of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, told us how her 11-year-old
twin daughters were both diagnosed with leukemia at age 4. She
explained how the Affordable Care Act finally ensured her daughters
could get coverage and the care that they need.
Claudette Therriault of Sabbattus, Maine, told us how health care
reform had given her access to critical preventive care, the type of
care that saves money and saves lives. Ed Burke of Palm Harbor,
Florida, told us how the prohibition on lifetime caps had brought
security and peace of mind after years of living with hemophilia.
We hear stories like this every day in my district and all across
America. Yesterday, a report found that up to 129 million Americans
under age 65 have preexisting conditions and could lose their coverage
if reform is repealed. I understand their fears. I too have a
preexisting condition. I am an ovarian cancer survivor.
The Center for American Progress reports that repeal would add almost
$2,000 a year to family insurance premiums, destroy up to 400,000 jobs
a year over the next decade. And the Congressional Budget Office says
repeal would add $230 billion to the deficit. Repeal will take away
valuable benefits, destroy jobs, cause premiums to rise, and add
billions to the deficit.
If my colleagues across the aisle will not listen to the facts and
the numbers, then listen to the poignant stories of their and our
constituents. What will happen to Stacie's twins, Claudette, Ed, and
millions of other Americans if health care reform is repealed? What
will happen to children with preexisting conditions, to seniors in the
doughnut hole, to small businesses trying to help their employees find
quality health insurance? Repeal is a mistake. We should work to
further strengthen our health care system; and we should do that, not
roll back hard-won progress. Health care should not be a political
game.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the secretary of
the Republican Conference, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to find that the President
has finally found common ground with the conservatives. The President
wrote in The Wall Street Journal yesterday that he issued an executive
order calling for all agencies to identify job-killing and costly red
tape that could be eliminated. We should help him resolve this by
eliminating thousands of new regulations that will be dumped on
individuals and businesses over the next 4 years by this bad health
care law. The Federal Register contains 6,123 pages of requirements for
the new health care rules created by this law.
{time} 1650
The Center for Health Transformation lists 159 new Federal agencies
created by this law.
We can replace this bad bill with bipartisan reforms that can let the
people both keep their job and their health insurance.
Mr. Speaker, let's support the President's initiative and reduce bad
regulations by repealing this bad law.
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how many more speakers
there are on the other side?
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, we have five remaining speakers.
Mr. CLYBURN. I have two speakers remaining.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the
Republican Conference, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, let me offer 1.6 million reasons why we
should repeal ObamaCare. That's the number of jobs that will be lost
from just one provision, the employer mandate, according to the NFIB,
the largest small business organization in America. The half a trillion
dollars in new taxes, the 1099 form, the minimum benefit standard, all
job-crushing regulations. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to ObamaCare, you
cannot help the job seeker by punishing the job creator.
Let me offer 2.6 trillion more reasons that we must repeal ObamaCare.
That is the true cost of this legislation; $700 billion more added to
the deficit.
Now, I know my friends on the other side of the aisle will contend
something else, but somehow in their accounting they left out the $115
billion it costs to implement. They double-counted almost half a
trillion dollars in taxes, Social Security, cutting Medicare by half a
billion, the sleight of hand of 10 years of taxes, 6 years of spending.
Mr. Speaker, you cannot improve the health care of a nation by
impoverishing its children.
Here is one more reason, Mr. Speaker. The American people don't want
it. It's personal.
Here is my story. Two days ago I was in San Antonio, Texas. My mother
had a large tumor removed from her head. They wheeled her away at 7:20
in the morning. By noon, I was talking to her, along with the rest of
our family. It proved benign. Thanks to a lot of prayers and good
doctors at the Methodist Hospital in San Antonio, my mother is fine. I
am not sure that would be the outcome in Canada, the UK, anywhere in
Europe.
No disrespect to the President, but when it comes to the health of my
mother, I don't want this President, or any President, or his
bureaucrats or commissions making decisions for my loved ones. Let's
repeal it today, replace it tomorrow.
Mr. CLYBURN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to
the majority whip, the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy).
Mr. McCARTHY of California. Let me thank the gentleman for yielding.
First of all, let me say I respect my friends on the other side of
the aisle. I do believe you all, like us, want to improve America's
health care system. Congressional Republicans and Democrats don't
differ on that goal.
Where we differ, and differ quite drastically, is on how to
accomplish this goal. And the American people's opinion on health care
reform radically differs from that, Mr. Speaker, of President Obama and
the congressional Democrats.
Americans understand that our health care system, warts and all, is
still the very best in the world. We have the best doctors, nurses,
hospitals, and health innovators in the world.
We should be working together to improve the system rather than
turning it over to thousands of health care bureaucrats who believe
they can make better choices than patients and doctors.
The debate today is a little different than the debate that I
remember when this bill was passed, Mr. Speaker. Members are not held
over for a weekend vote. There are not protesters outside rallying,
wanting, Mr. Speaker, to have their voices be heard. Today is an open,
cordial discussion.
That's what the American people asked for, a health care system that
[[Page H310]]
works, that doesn't deter, a health care system devised by the patient
and doctor.
Mr. Speaker, our families deserve better, our small businesses
deserve better, and to all my colleagues, America deserves better.
Let's repeal this health care bill, start to replace it with an open
and an honest debate, where the American people are involved, patients
are involved, doctors are involved, and the American public can have a
health care bill that lowers the cost without destroying jobs and a
health care system that keeps the innovation we know so well.
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the vice chair of the
Democratic Caucus, the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).
Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Listening to this debate, I can understand why Americans might be
confused about the direction of health care in this Nation. But let me
thank my Republican colleagues for producing at least one important
result by debating this misguided Republican plan to repeal patients'
health care rights.
Millions of Americans are now beginning to understand the valuable
rights and freedoms they secured when the Affordable Health Care Act
became law last year. Last year, when Eric, a self-employed architect
in my district, wrote to me that he and his wife were in a terrible
bind, he explained something. They had insurance, but they could only
secure the most costly of insurance with the highest deductibles. But
the real bind wasn't that. The real bind was that their insurance
company refused to include, within their health insurance policy, their
8-year-old son because their 8-year-old son had suffered from a stroke.
Now, for Eric and his wife and his son, health care reform was real.
Today, Eric and his family can get insurance for their son because
today Eric and his wife have a right to be insured and to have their
son insured because no insurance company today can discriminate against
any child for a preexisting condition.
That's what health care reform was all about. It was also about
making sure that today America's businesses could afford to offer
health insurance to their employees.
Health insurance reform was about reducing the cost of health care,
and that's why the impartial referee that we use here in Congress, the
Congressional Budget Office, has said that this health reform that was
passed last year will save us money, despite all the rhetoric that you
hear.
My Republican friends say repeal these health care rights and
protections that were extended last year. Do that today, and in the
future we will restore those rights and make them prettier as well.
Well, we have a bird in the hand. We don't want to go after two in
the bush. For 12 years, they had control of the Congress. For 6 years,
they had a Republican President to work with. They never once did it.
Let's keep that bird in the hand and move forward for the rest of
America.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this health care bill is a
job-destroying bill.
Shifting who pays simply does not reduce the cost of health
insurance. As a matter of fact, when you look at it, the CMS says over
the next 10 years we will see an increase of $311 billion in the cost
of health care. This is $2.3 trillion of new taxes on Americans.
The deficit: Over the first decade, over $500 billion of new deficit
spending; $1.5 trillion in the second decade.
Massive bureaucracy: 68 new programs, 47 new bureaucratic entities,
and 29 pilot programs as a part of this bill.
It destroys the relationship, the intimate relationship between a
patient and a physician.
The NFIB, the National Federation of Independent Business, says that
over the next 10 years we will lose 1.6 million jobs in America because
of this bill. By destroying the bill that destroys jobs, we've made
progress.
{time} 1700
Finally, we already have a $76 trillion hole in unfunded
entitlements. By increasing the number of entitlements, we've simply
increased the hole, another $2.7 trillion expansion in entitlement
spending. The 10 years' revenue simply does not pay for the 6 years of
benefits.
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chair of the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Mr. Steve Israel of New
York.
Mr. ISRAEL. I thank my friend.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this bill. This vote establishes who
you are for. Are you for insurance company profits, or are you for the
middle class? I'm for Hannah Watson of Bay Shore, Long Island. Hannah
was born with spina bifida. She had multiple surgeries and a kidney
transplant before the age of 12. At 12 years old, 3 months after her
last surgery, her insurance company told her that she had reached her
annual cap and they would not pay for additional treatment. Thanks to
the Affordable Care Act, Hannah was able to finally get on her parents'
insurance at an affordable rate with no lifetime caps.
This health care act was for Hannah Watson. Well, I hear people
saying, do you know what? I don't have spina bifida. Why should I care?
Well, Hannah did not choose to have spina bifida. Nobody makes that
choice. The health care act helped Hannah. It helped her neighbors. It
helped others. Why would you want to look at Hannah and say, We are
repealing those protections, Hannah?
I'm for Catherine Marquardt of North Babylon. Catherine had breast
cancer; and as she was recovering from breast cancer, her insurance
company told her that it was a preexisting condition and they would no
longer pay for her treatment. Now, I hear people say, well, why should
I care? I'm not Catherine Marquardt. I don't have breast cancer. One
out of every nine women in America has breast cancer. You know somebody
who has breast cancer. Why would you want to say to them, That is
repealed, that consumer protection is repealed, you are on your own?
And finally, Mr. Speaker, I understand the notion that this is not a
perfect bill, and there are things that we can improve. My friends on
the Republican side are in the majority; and if they can think of ways
to improve it, I believe we should work with them. But this is not
improving it. This is repealing it. This is repealing every word of it.
This is repealing every vowel of it. This is repealing every consumer
protection of it. This is repealing it for every one of us, for Hannah
and Catherine, for one out of every nine women who has breast cancer
and for all Americans with preexisting conditions. And it ought not be
repealed.
I thank the gentleman.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
Mr. SESSIONS. I want to thank the majority leader, the gentleman, Mr.
Cantor.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Democrats' health care law will do
for health care what the stimulus did for jobs. My colleagues on the
other side of the aisle promised the American people greater access to
quality affordable health care. Well, the only problem is that the law
does not increase quality and does not save Americans one dime on their
health care cost. In fact, what is known as ObamaCare will end up
costing every single American more in health care premiums and in taxes
to pay for the $1.2 trillion gross expansion of the Federal Government.
Mr. Speaker, the Democrats' health care law is about taxes, it's
about mandates, it's cuts to Medicare, job losses, deficit spending,
and new Federal bureaucracies. The reality is that we cannot pay for
the health care entitlements we have, much less a new government
takeover of health care that adds trillions of dollars to our existing
liabilities, driving up costs even further and puts the Federal
Government in charge of health care decision-making.
The path to greater choice for patients and lower costs all must be a
part of an answer that is about repealing this costly health care bill.
I support the repeal today and will vote tomorrow for the resolution to
replace it with the promise of real solutions.
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina has 4\1/2\
[[Page H311]]
minutes remaining. The majority leader has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in opposition
to this bill to repeal.
Last year, we acted to reform health care in America to make it
easier for small businesses to cover their employees, to take important
steps to bring down costs, and to stop insurance company abuses that
bankrupt sick Americans and deny them coverage. We acted in the face of
a crisis, a cost crisis, which saw premiums more than double over the
last decade; a coverage crisis, which saw more than 40 million
Americans without health care insurance; and a fiscal crisis, which saw
the cost of health care driving our country deeper and deeper into the
red.
A constituent of mine from southern Maryland recently wrote to thank
us for health reform that now lets her carry her 21-year-old daughter
on her insurance, but she wrote that something else also inspired her
to support this piece of legislation, seeing ``a lot of other people
who are hardworking, honest people who were going bankrupt because of
unexpected medical expenses.'' Those were the stories we had in mind
last year when we passed the health reform law--and today, as we fight
to protect it.
Nonpartisan observers tell us it will reduce the rise in premiums for
millions, cover 95 percent of Americans, and contribute to reducing our
deficit. The opponents of health care reform have spent more than a
year painting it in apocalyptic terms, but they can't erase the history
that proves that bringing affordable care to all Americans has long
been the goal of both parties.
Just yesterday, former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a
Republican, said that the Affordable Care Act ``is the law of the land,
the fundamental platform upon which all future efforts to make that
system better will be based.'' That was Senator Republican leader of
the Senate, Bill Frist from Tennessee, one of the great medical
practitioners in this country, a doctor. In 2008, Senator John McCain
said this: ``We should have available and affordable health care to
every American citizen.''
There has been no alternative offered to accomplish that objective.
And in 2006, when signing a State bill remarkably similar to the
Affordable Care Act, Governor Mitt Romney, Republican, a leading
candidate for President of the United States in the Republican Party,
said this of that bill, almost exactly like this one: ``An achievement
like this comes around once in a generation.''
While our Republican colleagues in Congress failed to take action on
health care during a decade of doubling premiums and mounting debt,
Congress acted last year.
Now my Republican friends have come to the floor with a plan to put
insurance companies back in charge of American health care and to strip
Americans of their hard-won freedom to make health choices for
themselves.
Once again, families would face insurance companies' unfair caps on
their coverage--or find their coverage canceled altogether. Once again,
insurance companies could discriminate against children with
disabilities and pregnant women. Once again, prescription drug costs
for our seniors will go up. And once again, small businesses will be
without any help to cover their employees in a world of skyrocketing
premiums.
There's no arguing with the facts: repeal would cost our economy as
many as 400,000 jobs per year, notwithstanding the rhetoric on the
other side. They would be lost under the burden of crushing health care
costs, and repeal would pile up over $1.2 trillion of additional debt
on our children over the next two decades.
I urge my colleagues, preserve Americans' freedoms to control their
own care. Join together to protect a system that meets the objectives
set by generations of American Presidents: Truman, Kennedy, Johnson,
Nixon, Ford, Carter, George H.W. Bush, Clinton and George W. Bush, as
well as President Obama.
Oppose this repeal bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time of the gentleman from South
Carolina has expired.
Mr. CANTOR. I yield myself the remaining time.
Mr. Speaker, America did not become great by accident. We are a great
country because we continue to strive toward the protection and
expansion of individual liberties in a way that people cannot find
anywhere else in the world. Our system of free enterprise inspires
people to pursue opportunity, to take responsibility for their lives,
and to achieve success. Yet for the past 2 years, Congress and the
administration have pushed an agenda that moves America in the opposite
direction by eroding individual freedoms.
{time} 1710
It is part of a philosophy premised upon government siphoning more
money, control, and power out of the private sector. And the health
care bill we seek to repeal today is the tip of the spear.
Mr. Speaker, let's make something clear: Both parties care deeply
about health care. Likewise, Republicans have rejected the status quo.
We simply disagree with our counterparts on the other side of the aisle
that excessive government regulation and sweeping mandates on
individuals and businesses are the right way to go about effecting the
reforms that Americans want.
The construct of this bill is fundamentally unworkable. Instead of
preserving the doctor-patient relationship, this legislation we seek to
repeal is rooted in having Federal bureaucrats come between patients
and their doctors, limiting choices.
If you go back to the health care debate last Congress, the
President, then-Speaker Pelosi, and then-Leader Reid often spoke of two
goals: one, we should strive to lower costs; and, two, if Americans
liked the health insurance coverage they had, they should be able to
keep it.
Mr. Speaker, we believe in the aftermath of this bill's passage these
goals have not and cannot be met. Therefore, doesn't it stand to reason
that we must repeal this bill and begin an honest debate about a better
way forward? Of all the most disingenuous myths in this town, perhaps
the biggest is the notion that repealing the health care bill will
increase the deficit. Let's remember here, we are adding an open-ended
entitlement. The new law is riddled with budget gimmicks that double-
count savings, offset 6 years of benefits with 10 years of tax
increases, and rely on cuts to Medicare and tax increases to fund a new
entitlement.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office works hard to provide
accurate accounting; but it is only able to score the legislation put
in front of them, even if it includes budget gimmicks and fiscal shell
games designed to hide its true cost. The reality is this trillion-
dollar new government entitlement will lead to a one-size-fits-all cure
and put our country and our States on a path to bankruptcy. At a time
when we need to do everything in our power to encourage job creation,
the health care bill hangs around the necks of businesses and serves as
a barrier to job creation.
Mr. Speaker, if we want to deliver real results, the right way to go
about health care reform is to lower costs and improve access. That is
why, after the House passes this repeal of ObamaCare, we will begin a
two-step process of: first, conducting oversight of the law and the
impact it has had on our economy and our health care system; and, two,
beginning work on a new vision to improve health care without
bankrupting our country and taking away the health care that most
Americans want and like.
This majority is dedicated to achieving results for the American
people. As we have said before, Mr. Speaker, we are a cut-and-grow
Congress. We will cut spending and job-destroying regulation and grow
private-sector jobs and the economy. Repealing last year's health care
law is a critical step. Mr. Speaker, we can do better, we will do
better, and I urge my colleagues to support repeal.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask that my
colleagues listen to the American people and vote for H.R. 2,
legislation to repeal Obamacare and, in essence, open the door to the
passage of replacement legislation that offers needed, meaningful and
bipartisan health care reform.
Considered in its entirety, Obamacare is a crippling blow to both
health care in America
[[Page H312]]
and our economy. Not only will Obamacare over time erode and undermine
the quality of health care in America, it will to a progressively
greater extent increase the deficit, drag down the economy, hurt
businesses, and destroy jobs.
The near total lack of transparency and misuse of power last year by
the then-majority in forcing through Obamacare's passage, makes it the
quintessential example of how a bad bill can become law. The American
people are rightfully angry, and we in Congress had better listen to
them.
Obamacare, which would create nearly 160 boards, commissions and
programs and would vest sweeping powers on bureaucrats to determine
what benefits are covered and not and at what cost, is so fundamentally
flawed that it needs to be repealed and replaced.
The American people want and I support meaningful and sensible health
care reform, but it shouldn't be paid for by giving the government
control of our health care system, with new unconstitutional mandates,
massive tax hikes, and $2.6 trillion in new government spending.
Rest assured that if Obamacare were sound and prudent policy--
fiscally and morally--and an efficacious way of facilitating quality
health care coverage, the American people, as well as Members of
Congress from both sides of the aisle and across the ideological
spectrum, would be strongly supporting it. If it were a good law,
honest explanations, not subterfuge and granting of special favors and
treatments, would convince a large majority of the American public to
embrace it.
Government should not be about strong arming through a policy or law
and then using every trick, gimmick, and unholy alliance to defend that
law or policy at any cost. What were missing in passing and promoting
Obamacare and are the foremost conditions that must be employed moving
forward are honesty and transparency.
The selling of Obamacare has been replete with misleading figures on
costs and savings. While claims are made that the health care law will
cost $940 billion over ten years and reduce the deficit $143 billion
over the same period, those figures can be readily demonstrated to be
unrealistic. In actuality, best estimates are that the new law will
cost taxpayers $2.6 trillion over ten years when fully implemented and
will add $701 billion to the deficit in its first ten years.
Why the gross discrepencies? For one, the drafters of the law took
full advantage of the fact that the Congressional Budget Office, CBO,
evaluates legislation over a ten year window. Significant benefits of
the law don't take effect for four years, meaning that the law requires
ten years of tax increases and ten years of Medicare cuts to pay for
six years of spending. When all provisions of the law are fully
implemented, the ten year cost rises to $2.6 trillion.
Additionally, a $143 billion savings turns into a $701 billion
deficit when adjustments are made for budget gimmicks: $53 billion in
claimed savings by increasing social security payroll taxes are already
spoken for by social security beneficiaries; $70 billion in claimed
savings from the new Community Assistance Services and Support (CLASS)
program are the result of benefits not being paid out for five years--
while eventually benefits will exceed premiums collected--even
Democratic Senator Kent Conrad called the CLASS program a ponzi scheme
of the first order; $398 billion in claimed savings from the Medicare
Hospital Insurance Trust Fund are double-counted to pay Medicare
benefits and to be used for other programs; $115 billion in new
government spending needed to implement the law were not counted in
initial estimates; and $208 billion for the fix to avoid pending
Medicare payments reductions to physicians were not counted.
CBO warns that the current trajectory of federal borrowing is
unsustainable and could lead to slower economic growth in the long run
as debt rises as a percentage of GDP. The federal debt is currently
over $14 trillion. The total federal deficit rose from $455 billion in
FY2008 to $1,413 billion in FY2009, and is estimated to be $1,342
billion for FY2010. A realistic assessment is that Obamacare will
exacerbate our nation's debt.
At a time when unemployment is at record highs (currently 9.4 percent
nationally and 9.2 percent in New Jersey), Obamacare will cause
significant job losses for the U.S. economy. The National Federation of
Independent Businesses (NFIB) found that the mandate for employers to
provide health insurance could lead to the elimination of 1.6 million
jobs through 2014, with 66 percent of those jobs coming from small
businesses. Two-thirds of new U.S. jobs are created by small businesses
and even President Obama has called small businesses the ``backbone of
our Nation's economy.'' However, Obamacare hurts small businesses with
mandates, new taxes, onerous paperwork burdens, and higher health care
costs.
Rather than reducing the costs of health care, Obamacare will
increase total health care spending by $311 billion over the next ten
years over what it would have been absent Obamacare, according to
Medicare's chief actuary.
Obamacare requires employers with 50 or more employees to provide
government-approved health care, and to pay a $2000 penalty per
employee (after the first 30 employees) if they do not provide
coverage. Perversely, the small business tax credit in the law, with
the purpose of aiding small businesses, actually will act as a
disincentive to small business owners who otherwise might increase
wages and hire additional workers. The small business tax credit is
only temporary, and, additionally, it starts to phase out for companies
that pay their employees more than $25,000 or employ more than 25
workers. Many business owners, particularly in high cost states, would
get no benefit. CBO estimated that only 12 percent of small business
workers would benefit.
The law also has an onerous requirement for businesses to file a
report with the IRS for every vendor with which it has more than $600
in transactions in a year. This will be an enormous paperwork burden on
all businesses, but may be particularly troublesome for small
businesses to comply.
Mr. Speaker, for the first time ever, Obamacare forces Americans to
acquire an approved health plan or pay a stiff penalty--like they
committed a crime. The penalty is significant--the greater of $750 per
person per year (up to $2,250 per family) or 2 percent of household
income. No person in America should be coerced into buying medical
insurance. Just this week, a motion was filed to add six additional
states to the lawsuit, which is challenging the healthcare reform law
as unconstitutional because of the law's individual mandate requiring
the purchase of health insurance. Twenty-six states are now part of
that lawsuit. Virginia had filed a separate lawsuit on similar grounds,
and last month received a favorable ruling.
Under Obamacare, premiums for non-group family insurance will
increase by as much as $2,100 per year. The CBO estimated that by 2016,
premiums will increase by 10-13 percent over what would happen under
current law.
Obamacare, which directs reductions of more than one-half trillion
from Medicare, will take away certain benefits from senior citizens and
disabled persons. Medicare Advantage is used by over 11 million people
nationwide including 15,983 people in my Congressional district alone.
Obamacare's $206 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage plans will
result in millions either losing that coverage or being denied the
opportunity to enroll in a Medicare Advantage plan. Further limiting
patient choice, actuaries at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services warned that Medicare cuts in the law are so drastic that
providers might end their participation in the program. So much for the
President's promise that if you like your health plan, you can keep it;
no you can't! And so much for his promise that if you like your doctor,
you keep seeing your doctor; you might not be able to.
Obamacare also will add more than 16 million people to the Medicaid
program, which--in addition to threatening the participation of
physicians in the program that reimburses doctors only 56 percent of
the market rate for medical procedures--also further endangers already
strained state budgets.
On January 7, 2011, 33 Governors and Governors-elect wrote to the
President, HHS Secretary Sebelius, and leadership in Congress regarding
the excessive constraints placed on the states by healthcare-related
federal mandates. The Governors note that the federal requirements will
force states to cut other programs, such as education, in order to fund
a ``one-size-fits-all'' approach to Medicaid.
Additionally, Obamacare fails to institute real medical liability
reforms to end junk lawsuits and curb the costs of defensive medicine--
these have long been identified as significant forces in driving up
health costs.
Finally, it is a tragic flaw that, even though President Obama told a
joint session of Congress that ``no Federal dollars will be used to
fund abortions, and Federal conscience laws will remain in place,'' his
legislation constitutes the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v.
Wade itself, and makes a mockery of that pledge.
Repeal of Obamacare will pave the way for implementation of better
health care solutions that will lower costs, increase access, and
improve quality without destroying jobs or bankrupting our government.
Goals of responsible health care reform should be to provide credible
health insurance coverage and access for everyone, strengthen the
health care safety net so that no one is left out, and incentivize
quality and innovation, as well as healthy behaviors and prevention.
Indisputably, the private health insurance market has to be reformed to
put patients first, and eliminate denials of pre-existing conditions
and
[[Page H313]]
lifetime caps and promote portability between jobs and geographic
areas, including across state lines. Reform should also include
revision of the tax code to promote affordability and individual
control. Medicare reforms are necessary to make it more efficient and
responsive, with sustainable payment rates.
Of course, responsible health care reform will respect basic
principles of justice: it will put patients and their doctors in charge
of medical decisions, not insurance companies or government
bureaucrats. It will also ensure that the lives and health of all
persons are respected regardless of stage of development, age or
disability.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives is
debating whether to take a giant step backward by repealing the
Affordable Care Act. If we are not going to debate how to improve the
health care bill, we should be working to strengthen our economy.
A good place to help Americans out of a bad economy is to look at the
number one cause of bankruptcies in the U.S.: medical bills.
Specifically, over 62 percent of all bankruptcies are from medical
bills. It is tempting to conclude from that statistic that most of
those bills are due to the uninsured not being able to pay their bills.
That would be wrong. In 78 percent of those medical bankruptcy cases,
the victims had health insurance. That means that about half of all
bankruptcies in the U.S. happen to people who have health insurance.
This is what happens when insurance companies make money by not
providing care. Their job is to make someone other than them pay the
bills--even if it is you or me, and even if we already have insurance.
They make us pay the bills by selling cheaper insurance policies that
do not actually cover us when we get sick.
We must eliminate the predatory for-profit health insurance industry
by enacting H.R. 676, Medicare for All. No copayments, no deductibles,
no premiums. For the same costs or less than we are paying now.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, many of us believe we should focus our
efforts and energy on measures to help put people back to work rather
than on a bill that takes away important patient and consumer
protections. And we don't think it makes much sense to debate a bill
that thankfully will go nowhere in the Senate and would certainly be
vetoed by the President. However, the new Republican majority is
certainly entitled to use its time here as it chooses. And while many
of us believe our time would be better spent focusing on jobs, I do
believe that this debate may help clear up many of the myths and
misinformation about the health care law signed by President Obama.
The issue of health care is personal to every American individual and
family. That is why this debate can become so emotional and heated. Let
us have a vigorous, spirited debate. But let us work to ensure the
debate generates more light than heat, and illuminates rather than
obscures the key issues.
The insurance reforms that have taken effect since last March are
already making a huge and positive difference in the lives of millions
of American families. We wish our Republican colleagues would have
taken a least a few days, a few hours to have Congressional hearings to
listen to those individuals and families. The new Republican majority
said it wanted to listen, but you have not invited a single American
outside of this Congress to a hearing to testify on the repeal bill we
are debating here today. As a result, those of us who oppose the
efforts to strip away important patient protections had to organize an
unofficial hearing to listen to testimony from our fellow Americans. We
heard stories from across America about why it is such a bad idea to
repeal, to take away the many protections patients and consumers
finally have to fight the abusive practices of some insurance
companies.
We heard the moms and dads of young people tell you how relieved they
are that their sons and daughters are no longer kicked off their health
insurance policies at age 19 or when they graduate from college, but
can now stay on their parents' plan until age 26. As a result, if their
22-year-old gets very sick or gets into a terrible accident, that 22-
year-old can get care they need without the family going bankrupt.
We heard from moms and dads with kids who have cancer, asthma, or
diabetes or other pre-existing conditions tell how relieved they are
that insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to those kids.
We heard senior citizens who were unable to pay huge bills for
essential prescription drugs tell you how relieved they are that--as of
January 1st--they are now paying less and can afford the medicines
their doctors say they need.
We heard from small businesses that are already using the tax credits
to be able to purchase affordable health care coverage for their
employees. And as a result of being able to purchase more affordable
health care, small businesses have been able to hire more employees.
Now the new Republican majority has used a lot of supercharged and
inaccurate rhetoric to support their claims. They even named their bill
the ``Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act''--as if putting
those words in the title and saying them over and over somehow makes it
true. It doesn't and they aren't.
Let me be clear--there is only one job that will no longer be
available as a result of the health reform bill, and that is the job of
the guy at the insurance company who was told to examine the fine print
in your insurance policy--the kind you can only read with a magnifying
glass--and come up with reasons why the insurance company will not pay
for the care you need when you need it, even though you had been
dutifully paying your premiums all along. The reform bill signed by the
president banned those abuses. With that solitary exception, the health
insurance reform law will create jobs. More people will be providing
more cost effective health care services to ensure that more Americans
are healthy and productive at work. And the health reform bill--when it
fully kicks-in in 2014--will finally give Americans the freedom to move
from job to job without fear of losing their coverage. That means more
Americans will be able to pursue their entrepreneurial dreams and start
their own businesses without fear of losing their health insurance.
Now, we all recognize that ever rising health insurance premiums are
making insurance less affordable for millions of Americans. Indeed,
between the years 2000 and 2006, health insurance premiums doubled--
went up 100 percent--and the profits of the major health insurance
companies quadrupled. The insurance industry loved that pattern. What
did the Congress do during those years to stop those skyrocketing
premiums? Nothing. By contrast, the health reform bill signed by
President Obama finally provides the chance to stop those skyrocketing
premiums. That's why it was so bitterly fought by the insurance
industry and why they would like to see it repealed.
Now some critics claim that the continued rise in health insurance
premiums this year is proof that the health care bill is not working.
But that claim exploits widespread confusion about how the bill works.
Anyone who has read the bill--and I do encourage all Members to read
the bill--knows that the key insurance market reforms in the bill don't
even take effect until the year 2014. That is because the market
reforms cannot be implemented overnight without disruption to the
system. But when those reforms are fully implemented in 2014, premiums
will no longer accelerate at warp speed.
Those reforms will change the very inefficient system that
contributes to rising premiums. As of today, all of us who have health
insurance coverage--we pick up the tab for those who don't. We pay
higher premiums because of those who pay none, but get their primary
care in the emergency room. That broken system results in less
preventive care and higher premiums. Those premiums will come down in
2014 once everyone takes personal responsibility for purchasing their
own coverage and the risks are pooled throughout the population.
Now, when market reforms kick-in fully in 2014, the non-partisan,
independent CBO has indicated that individuals and families will be
able to pay less for their health coverage. In their letter to Speaker
Boehner, CBO projects that premiums for employer based coverage will
rise if you repeal the bill. And CBO indicates that the majority of
people in the individual market will get fewer benefits and pay more
for coverage if you repeal the bill--because you eliminate the tax
credits.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office--the CBO--has also said
something else about the health care bill signed by President Obama.
They have calculated that it will reduce our national deficit by over
$1.4 trillion over the next twenty years. Now many people ask how that
can be possible. How can a health reform bill that provides more
affordable access to health care for millions of Americans reduce the
deficit? The answer is simple: those expansions were more than paid for
by eliminating huge taxpayer subsidies that were flowing to certain
health insurance companies, by incentivizing more efficient care, and
by having the top 2% income earners contribute more in payroll taxes.
That is the budget math of the health care reform bill. This means
that by repealing the bill signed by President Obama, Republicans would
add over $1.4 trillion to the deficit, adding to our debt to China and
others.
Now, because they don't like the CBO deficit numbers they have tried
to discredit them. But these criticisms are coming from the same people
who praised many of the CBO's earlier estimates during the debate on
the health care bill. In other words, when they like what the CBO has
to say, they endorse their numbers, but when the CBO presents an
inconvenient budget truth, they trash the numbers.
CBO is the independent budget referee for the Congress. Just as in
football, sometimes
[[Page H314]]
you agree with the referee; sometimes you don't. But you don't get to
kick the referee off the field and substitute your own call. Yet that
is exactly what our Republican colleagues seek to do. Only this is not
a sports game; they are playing these games with the federal budget. It
is unprecedented and fiscally reckless. It is Enron-style accounting
that will lead to budget anarchy and fiscal chaos.
So much for fiscal accountability.
Mr. Speaker, those of us who support the health care reform law know
that it is not perfect and certain adjustments should be made as we
implement the reforms. In fact, last year this House tried to remove
the burdensome 1099 provisions, and the Senate was unable to pass
similar legislation.
But making necessary adjustments is one thing. Completely eliminating
important patient and consumer protections that are currently
benefiting millions of American families would be a historic mistake.
The insurance industry would celebrate at the expense of the American
people. Let's put health care providers in charge of health care
decisions, not the insurance industry.
We have seen this narrative play out at other times in our history.
After the historic passage of Social Security in 1935, its Republican
opponents called it ``a cruel hoax'' and ``a fraud on the working
man.'' After the historic passage of Medicare in 1965, we heard the
same distortions.
Mr. Speaker, let us not make the mistake of repealing health care
reform. I urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided and mislabeled
bill.
Mr. Speaker, this House is a place to have great debates where we can
openly air differences of opinion. But we should try in the process to
separate differences of opinion from the facts of the case.
Earlier this month, with the passage of the Rules package, there was
an effort to provide a whole new approach to accounting when it comes
to the budget deficit. In essence, what the rules say is that we are
going to exempt the budgetary effects of certain measures, including
repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The majority
has written into the governing rules of the House a mechanism to
disguise the true budget deficit impact of repealing this legislation.
And as a result, today the Chairman of the House Budget Committee
inserted a statement into the Congressional Record which asserts that
H.R. 2, the bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act, will have no
budgetary effect at all. In fact, CBO' s preliminary estimate of the
bill is that it would increase the deficit by $230 billion over ten
years. What the majority is doing is rank budget gimmickry of the worst
kind.
It is the job of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to
inform us of the deficit impact of legislation we pass in this House.
Sometimes we agree with their estimates, sometimes we disagree. But the
whole budget process will collapse in chaos if we decide to write the
political budget estimates of individual Members of Congress into these
bills and ignore the estimates of the professionals. It is like being
at a football game and when the referee makes a call, and you don't
like the call, you throw the referee off of the field and think that
your team gets to make the call instead.
We should all recognize, as Republicans and Democrats, that we will
have budget anarchy if we think that we can have Members of Congress in
a politically charged environment substitute their own judgment for
that of CBO. With this action, the majority is committing budget
malpractice. It is a sure-fire way to run up the red ink in this
country over a period of time.
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Budget,
Washington, DC, January 19, 2011.
Budgetary Effects of Legislation
Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Public Law 111-139, I hereby
submit prior to the vote on passage, the attached estimate of
the budgetary effects of H.R. 2, ``Repealing the Job-Killing
Health Care Law Act,'' for printing in the Congressional
Record.
Rep. Paul Ryan,
Chairman.
ESTIMATE OF THE STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR H.R. 2--REPEALING
THE JOB-KILLING HEALTH CARE LAW ACT--(AS INTRODUCED IN THE HOUSE ON
JANUARY 5, 2011)
[Billions of dollars, by fiscal year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statutory
Pay-As-You-
Go-Impact
------------
2012-2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Increase or Decrease (-) in the On-Budget Deficit a.... +230
Less:
Adjustments Pursuant to Sec. 4 (d)(6) of P.L. 111-139 b N/A
(Community Living Assistance Services and Supports
Act)..................................................
Adjustments Pursuant to H. Res. 5, 112th Congress c.... -230
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Impact............................. 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: House Budget Committee Estimates.
Memorandum:
a As of January 18, 2011 the Congressional Budget Office could not
produce a detailed year-by-year estimate of the statutory paygo
effects of enacting H.R. 2--Repealing the Job-Killing Healthcare Law
Act. The estimate above was provided in a CBO letter dated January 6,
2011 to Speaker of the House, John Boehner.
b P.L 111-139 (the Statutory Pay-as-you-go Act of 2010) requires that
the budgetary effects of enactment of the Community Living Assistance
Services and Supports Act (CLASS) not be counted on OMB's statutory
paygo scorecard. CBO initially estimated the CLASS Act would reduce
the deficit by $70 billion; therefore, repeal of the CLASS Act, which
would become effective upon enactment of H.R. 2, would not be counted
as increasing the deficit under statutory paygo. CBO was unable to
produce an updated estimate of the deficit impact of repealing the
CLASS Act as of January 18, 2011.
c Sec. 3 (h)(1)(C) of H. Res. 5 provides authority for the Chairman of
the Committee on the Budget to exempt the budgetary effects of any
measure that repeals the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act and
subtitle B of title II of the Health Care and Education Affordability
Reconciliation Act of 2010.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the progress
we've made towards meaningful health care reform, and I stand in strong
opposition to the Majority's efforts to retract much needed provisions
that have since gone into effect for millions of Americans.
Our economy's slow recovery from what's been the deepest recession in
modern history has highlighted the wide and growing gaps in our health
care system. We've seen too many families who've lost their insurance
coverage when a provider in the household becomes unemployed, leaving
the whole family unprotected and at risk to fall through those widening
cracks--unable to afford COBRA, ineligible for public coverage, and
precluded by high and growing premiums or pre-existing conditions from
obtaining private insurance.
In California, we've been aggressive in moving forward with
implementation, and will continue to lead the way in improving our
ability to provide access to quality, affordable care, instead of
retreating into the broken status quo of the past. We recognize what a
vote for repealing the Affordable Care Act means to the uninsured and
underinsured: increasing health care costs for millions of Americans,
causing many families to lose coverage, and increasing the national
debt by over $1 trillion.
This is a repeal vote that has real implications, and will mean a
great deal in the day-to-day lives of the people I have the privilege
of representing. If you're a senior who fell into the ``donut hole'' of
prescription drug coverage and needed help covering that cost, this is
a vote to take that assistance away. If you're a young adult who can
benefit from staying on your parents' insurance until age 26, this is a
vote to take you off that coverage. If you've ever worried about your
insurer dropping your coverage unexpectedly if you or someone on your
policy gets sick, this is a vote to bring back those worries. If you're
a small-business owner trying to compete with large employers while
doing right by providing insurance to your employees, this is a vote to
make that nearly impossible for you. And, if you're a taxpayer worried
about the national deficit, this is a vote telling you that your
Representatives are not serious about our nation's budget woes.
A report released just this week brought to light the pressing need
for the kind of protections the Affordable Care Act brings about.
According to the report, an analysis by HHS, 50 to 129 million
Americans under the age of 65 have some type of pre-existing health
condition. And one in five of those--25 million individuals--is
uninsured. As the number of uninsured who are denied coverage has grown
considerably over the last few years, thanks to the ACA, starting in
2014, these Americans cannot be denied coverage, be charged
significantly higher premiums, be subjected to an extended waiting
period, or have their benefits curtailed by insurance companies.
At a time when this country is looking for those willing to make the
tough decisions that lead us into a more prosperous, future, a vote for
repeal is a vote to take a step, not forward, but backward. I urge my
colleagues to vote no on this bill.
Mr. POSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for the bill
before us, H.R. 2, which would repeal the health care reform law that
was enacted last year. While we need to address shortcomings in our
Nation's health care system, this law is the wrong prescription and
that is why I am a cosponsor of H.R. 2.
Prior to the passage of this new law, the American people were told
that if they liked their current health care plan, they could keep it.
However, shortly after its passage, the Administration issued
regulations finding that nearly half of all workers would lose their
current health care plan and be required to sign up for one of the new
plans authorized by the government.
It's a system that mandates that every American buy government
approved health insurance or pay a fine, which a Virginia Court ruled
recently as unconstitutional. The approach outlined by the new health
care law limits choices and phases-out other options to health coverage
such as health savings accounts, which are enjoyed by some 8 million
Americans.
The American people were told that passage of this legislation would
lower health insurance premiums by $2,500 for the average family.
However, health insurance premiums have continued to rise, and studies
indicate that the new health care law is contributing to these
increases. This bill also fails to guarantee that Federal tax dollars
will not be used to pay for elective abortions.
The American people were told this new health care law would
stimulate job growth. But this 2,000-page bill has created more
uncertainty and raised the cost of doing business
[[Page H315]]
in America. Imposing new mandates and higher taxes on small businesses
continues to hamper our economic recovery and slows job-creation.
Repealing this law will provide greater certainty.
Finally, in my view this bill is fiscally irresponsible. The cost of
this law continues to climb. During the House floor debate on this bill
last year I stated that the overall costs of the legislation were being
underestimated by more than $500 billion. That is proving to be the
case as the hidden costs of the bill continue to be uncovered.
Mr. Speaker, we have a national debt of $14 trillion and rising. Our
Federal budget situation is fiscally unsustainable, and if we don't
make tough choices now, we will saddle future generations with a
mountain of debt that can never be repaid. It is time to face the
reality of our budget situation and that includes recognizing that the
real cost of this health care law will far exceed our ability to pay
for it.
While everyone can point to various aspects of the new law that they
support--including me--I believe that the best way to move forward is
to start anew and replace the current law with one that preserves
individual choice and economic freedom, directly tackles increasing
costs and allows Americans to keep their current health care plan if
they like it. And let's do so in a fiscally responsible manner.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in fervent opposition to this
reckless effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act and put insurance
companies back in charge of our healthcare system, rather than patients
and their doctors. The Affordable Care Act, landmark healthcare reform
legislation enacted just last year, makes health care more affordable
by immediately providing small businesses with a tax credit to provide
insurance coverage, and in 2014, by providing tax credits to those who
need help buying insurance--representing the largest middle class tax
cut for health care in history. Once the Affordable Care Act is fully
implemented, Americans will have access to affordable health coverage
in a new competitive private health insurance market through state
exchanges.
Many critical benefits have already gone into effect, including bans
on the worst insurance company abuses and coverage options for many
Americans who have previously been locked out of the insurance market
because of a preexisting condition. Indeed, millions of American
families and businesses are already feeling the positive effects of the
Affordable Care Act, and many more will benefit as the final provisions
are phased in over the next few years.
The bill under consideration today, the Patients' Rights Repeal Act
(H.R. 2), would completely eliminate the Affordable Care Act with no
consideration for the wellbeing of the millions of Americans for whom
it will improve healthcare. H.R. 2 was expedited for a vote without
taking the testimony from a single witness or holding a single hearing
on the issue, and there was no committee consideration of the bill, in
direct contrast to the campaign rhetoric espoused by the new Republican
majority.
Opponents of the Affordable Care Act have used questionable arguments
to validate their repeal efforts, including claims that it would
inflate the national debt. In truth, the Affordable Care Act helps to
reduce the national debt by minimizing waste, fraud, and abuse in the
health care system and preventing the rampant growth of health care
costs. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office,
repealing the law would increase the deficit by $230 billion over the
next decade and over $1 trillion in the following decade. Now, that is
a difficult pill to swallow, with long-lasting effects on our nation's
fiscal health.
Repeal of the Affordable Care Act has direct consequences to the
diverse congressional district that I am proud to represent,
California's 15th district. The Patients' Rights Repeal Act would:
Increase the number of my constituents without health insurance by
17,000 individuals;
Allow insurance companies to deny coverage to as many as 307,000
individuals, including up to 40,000 children, with pre-existing
conditions;
Rescind consumer protections for 484,000 individuals who have health
insurance through their employer or the market for private insurance;
Eliminate health care tax credits for up to 14,900 small businesses
and 86,000 families;
Increase prescription drug costs for 8,000 seniors who hit the Part D
drug ``donut hole'' and deny new preventive care benefits to 76,000
seniors;
Increase the costs of early retiree coverage for up to 7,600 early
retirees;
Eliminate new health care coverage options for 2,900 uninsured young
adults; and Increase the costs to hospitals of providing uncompensated
care by $113 million annually.
Furthermore, as Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American
Caucus (CAPAC), I am proud of CAPAC's partnership efforts through the
Tri-Caucus and with community advocacy groups to ensure that the
Affordable Care Act benefits all of our communities, including the
Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) community--roughly one in
five of whom are uninsured. For instance, the Affordable Care Act helps
to address traditional AAPI health disparities in vaccinations, cancer
screenings, and infant mortality rates through increased access to
preventative care services. Further, new federal regulations on data
collection, disaggregation, and oversampling on certain minority
populations will help to identify and ensure comprehensive coverage of
all AAPI health disparities. These hard-fought benefits for our
communities would be completely eliminated if Republicans were to
succeed in enacting H.R. 2.
Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I continue to support the Affordable
Care Act, as it is vital to the wellbeing of every community in our
nation. I urge my colleagues to stand against this reckless repeal of
critical healthcare reform and vote against the Patients' Rights Repeal
Act.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2,
the Patient's Rights Repeal Act. In the 112th Congress, the American
people were promised a focus on our economy. Today however, rather than
discussing legislation that would strengthen our economy, legislation
that would create jobs, or even legislation that would reduce our
nation's deficit, we are discussing the repeal of legislation that
protects more than 500 families in my district from bankruptcy due to
the costs of healthcare. We are discussing the repeal of legislation
that would give tax credits to 117,000 families in my district and a
35% tax credit to the 11,400 small businesses in my district who choose
to offer coverage. If our intent here is truly to create jobs, why
would we repeal legislation that since its enactment, has contributed
to the creation of more than one million private sector jobs, including
more than 200,000 jobs in the healthcare industry?
Mr. Speaker, I am not here to represent the insurance industry or the
pharmaceutical industry. I am here to represent the interests of the
ordinary Americans that reform will protect. Repealing the Affordable
Care Act would be in direct opposition to those interests by increasing
our national deficit by one trillion dollars over the next two decades
and preventing tens of millions of uninsured Americans from gaining
coverage. In my district alone, 37,500 people will receive coverage
under this law, and 75,000 seniors on Medicare will receive improved
care, giving them full access to our healthcare system, which is the
``best in the world.''
Mr. Speaker, I ask you, what is the point in having the ``best
healthcare system in the world'' if more than thirty million Americans,
including the 37,500 in my district, do not have full access to its
benefits? What is the point of having the ``best healthcare system in
the world'' if insurance companies are allowed to deny people coverage
when they need it the most, based on ``pre-existing conditions.'' It is
wrong. You know it's wrong. This law has corrected it and we should not
mess with it.
There may be weaknesses in the health reform law, but based on an
average of 117,000 private sector jobs created per month since its
passage, I strongly believe that it is a good starting point for
efforts to make our nation stronger. The Affordable Care Act is good
for not only our seniors and the uninsured, but all Americans who not
only deserve, but need access to quality, affordable healthcare. In the
name of the hundreds of thousands of constituents in my district, in
the name of the Bedford Stuyvesant Family Health Center and 30 other
community health centers that will receive increased funding to provide
my district with better care, and in the name of the tens of millions
of Americans that we fought so hard for in passing reform, I will vote
no on this bill, and any other efforts to undermine the legislation
passed last year. Instead I hope we can begin a meaningful conversation
about moving forward, using this established framework to continue to
strengthen our nation.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the budget
busting legislation that fails to create one new job and returns our
health decisions to insurance companies rather than doctors.
Repealing health reform would be a mistake. Instead of focusing on
job creation or retirement security or tax relief, we are debating
repealing a law that protects Americans from insurance company abuses
and provides fairer and more accessible health care for children,
veterans, seniors, employees, and employers.
On Monday, we celebrated Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s life of
service. Dr. King fought for an America where everyone, regardless of
their racial, ethnic, or class background, would have access to
opportunity. Access to health care was important to Dr. King who said,
``Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most
shocking and inhumane''.
Today, the new majority is trying to repeal the health reform
legislation that we enacted just one year ago. That historic law
provides secure health insurance coverage to almost all
[[Page H316]]
Americans and lowers the deficit by $143 billion in the first ten
years. Today, the majority is trying to repeal these patient
protections and return them to insurance company bean counters.
A new analysis by the Department of Health and Human Services that
was released this week reported that as many as 129 million non-elderly
Americans have some type of pre-existing health conditions. In my
district alone, there are as many as 310,000 individuals with a pre-
existing condition, including 39,000 children. Due to health reform,
those children can no longer be denied coverage and starting in 2014,
adults with pre-existing conditions will no longer be denied health
coverage. If health reform is repealed, these individuals will again be
denied insurance and lose health coverage, which will lead to higher
health costs for all Americans.
To understand how important health reform is, here is a picture of
what my district would look like if health reform was repealed. Over
2,000 young adults would become uninsured after losing coverage through
their parents' insurance; over 17,000 small businesses would lose tax
credits that help provide health insurance to their employees; over
9,000 early retirees might lose benefits through the early retiree
reinsurance program; over 100,000 seniors would have to pay for
wellness visits and preventive services, like mammograms and
colonoscopies; and over 8,000 seniors in the Medicare donut hole would
see significantly higher prescription drugs.
Just saying that health reform ``kills jobs'' does not make it so. In
fact, health reform not only provides benefits to Americans, it creates
jobs. Since health reform was passed, an additional 207,000 jobs have
been created in the health care sector. Over the next 10 years, health
reform will create up to 4 million jobs by investing in the health care
workforce and lowering costs for businesses.
Further, Americans do not support repealing health reform. In fact,
according to the latest AP poll, only 26 percent of Americans think
health reform should be repealed. Instead, 43 percent of Americans want
more reforms to health care.
Passing health reform last year began the process of ending the
injustice in health care access that Dr. King thought was shocking and
inhumane. We owe all Americans access to affordable, comprehensive
health coverage. We cannot let them down. As the late, great Senator
Ted Kennedy often said, ``decent, quality health care is a fundamental
right and not a privilege.'' I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no
on repealing health reform.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to
speak in support of the repeal of the job-killing health care law.
Today's vote is part of what will be an ongoing effort by House
Republicans to repeal President Obama's health care law and replace it
with solutions that protect jobs and preserve health care choices--
without driving our nation deeper into debt.
Today we put the focus back where it belongs--jobs, affordable health
care, and smaller government.
Mr. Speaker, last year, the Democrat controlled Congress pushed
through a government takeover of health care using a closed approach
that blocked any input from our side of the aisle. Almost as soon as
the bill was signed into law, the extensive reach of the strong arm of
government was felt by the American people.
Many were forced out of their existing health plans--even if they
liked it--including many of our nation's seniors who will be pushed out
of their current Medicare Advantage plans.
Our nation's businesses were hit with a costly job-killing paperwork
requirement--and they still face other new mandates, fines and taxes.
All Americans have been hit by a mandate requiring individuals,
regardless of their personal circumstances, to purchase government-
approved insurance or pay a penalty. The constitutionality of this
mandate is currently being challenged by a number of states including
my home state of Washington.
And, hospitals like the Wenatchee Valley Medical Center in a rural,
medically underserved part of my district face new restrictions simply
because they are owned by doctors.
The American people spoke in volumes in November and it is time to
respond to their message.
The time has come to fulfill our promise to the American people and
take steps to repeal this law that is bad for families, seniors and
employers. I look forward to getting down to work on real solutions
that will preserve the patient-doctor relationship, increase choices
and reduce health costs.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the
rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2, the ``Patient Rights Repeal
Act of 2011.'' This bill is a giant step backwards for our country. By
repealing the landmark achievement of the Affordable Care Act we would
be taking away affordable coverage and financial security from
thousands of my constituents and millions more across the country.
A vote in support of this bill is a vote for insurance companies over
everyday Americans; it is a vote to return us to the days when fine
print was used to cancel coverage for hard-working people; and it is a
vote to take away parents' peace of mind, who will no longer know if
their children will be able see a doctor when they get sick.
Mr. Speaker, at a time when Americans will soon finally be free from
the fear that affordable coverage will not be available to them and
their families when they need it the most, repealing the Affordable
Care Act would be devastating. Without the Affordable Care Act:
196,000 young adults would lose their insurance coverage through
their parents' health plans;
Insurance companies would once again be allowed to cut off someone's
coverage unexpectedly when they are in an accident or become sick
because of a simple mistake on an application;
New insurance plans would no longer be required to cover recommended
preventive services, like mammograms and flu shots, without cost
sharing; and
269,623 on Medicare would see significantly higher prescription drug
costs
Mr. Speaker, every time that I go home to my district, I meet with
constituents who thank me for voting for the Affordable Care Act. They
explain to me the peace of mind that they feel knowing that they will
be able to afford the prescription drugs that they need; that their
children can see a doctor when they get sick or break a bone; that
their breast cancer treatment will be covered on their policy, rather
than being written off as a preexisting condition. Health care reform
provided the following benefits for the residents of my district:
Gave tax credits and other assistance to up to 146,000 families
15,100 small businesses have seen 50% tax credits to provide health
care for employees.
Over 16,000 additional small businesses have been made eligible for
health care exchanges that make insurance more affordable.
Help for small businesses are help for working families. Small
businesses are the engine of the economy of my district and of our
nation.
Improved Medicare for 63,000 beneficiaries, including closing the
donut hole
Extended coverage to 88,000 uninsured residents
Guaranteed that 17,500 residents with pre-existing conditions can
obtain coverage
Protected 1,100 families from bankruptcy due to unaffordable health
care costs
I refuse to vote for a piece of legislation that will reverse these
benefits and harm so many of the people that I represent. Health care
reform is a moral obligation to the American people and a critical part
of our long-term economic recovery. It represents the largest middle-
class tax cut in history and is projected to cut the deficit by $138
trillion over 20 years.
Mr. Speaker, anyone who is serious about deficit reduction cannot in
good conscience vote for this legislation. In addition to being the
wrong thing to do to hard-working families, single-mothers, and senior
citizens across the country, it is fiscally irresponsible. In fact, I
would call this bill fiscally irrational--H.R. 2 would cost $1.3
trillion to repeal a piece of legislation that promises to cut the
budget deficit by $138 trillion in the long-term. This does not make
any fiscal sense; it is the exact opposite of what we should be doing
and it is an unfair burden to place on future generations.
I oppose this bill because it threatens the peace of mind, financial
security, and physical wellbeing of seniors, parents, and children
across the country. I oppose this bill because I would rather side with
everyday Americans than insurance company executives. I stand with the
single moms, who no longer have to stay up all night worrying about how
to pay the premiums to cover their child's illness. I stand with the
senior citizens who built our roads and bridges and fought our wars and
now can finally afford the prescriptions drugs that they need.
For all of these hard-working, middle class people, I strongly urge
my colleagues to join me in opposing the rule providing for the
consideration of H.R. 2.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition of the
Republican Health Reform Repeal Bill.
The reason is simple.
The bill before us is not about creating jobs.
It's not about strengthening our middle class.
And it's not about reducing our national deficit.
It is however, about denying coverage for up to 284,000 individuals
with pre-existing conditions in my district.
It is about increasing prescription drug costs for 6,400 seniors on
California's Central Coast.
And it is about increasing the number of uninsured individuals by
80,000 and increasing
[[Page H317]]
the costs to our local hospitals for providing uncompensated care.
Open your eyes, and welcome to reality.
American families are struggling to make ends meet.
They are struggling to stay in their homes.
They are living without proper health care.
And are they going broke paying for medical bills.
So why is this chamber spending their time debating health care
reform that has extended coverage and increased protections to millions
of Americans, and created 207,000 jobs in the Health Care Industry.
Truth of the matter is--while we run circles around this issue,
millions of Americans walk out their front door every morning to look
for work, only to return with less hope and more worries.
Everyday Americans across the country are worried sick about losing
their homes.
About not being able to adequately provide for their families.
And now Republicans want them to worry about losing their health care
coverage.
Please open your eyes, and take a deep look at Americans' dire
reality.
I urge all Members to oppose the Patients' Rights Repeal Act.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
speak in strong opposition to H.R. 2, the ``Patient's Rights Repeal
Act''.
Repealing the law would take us back to the days when big insurance
companies had the power to decide what patients can receive--allowing
them to once again deny coverage to children with pre-existing
conditions, cancel coverage when people get sick, place limits on the
amount of care people can get, or overcharge for insurance just to
boost their profits.
The Texas Department of Insurance issued a recent report that noted
nearly 26.1 percent of Texans are without health coverage--compared to
the national average of 16.7 percent, who are uninsured.
Without the Affordable Care Act, Texans stand to lose:
Critical Consumer Protections that ban health insurance plans from
denying coverage based on an individual's health status would be lost;
Young adults under the age of 26 would lose their coverage through
their parents' health plans;
Patients with private insurance coverage would suddenly find
themselves vulnerable to annual and lifetime limits;
New insurance plans would no longer be required to cover recommended
preventive services, like flu shots;
Seniors who have Medicare coverage would be forced to pay a co-
payment to receive important preventive services, like mammograms and
colonoscopies; and
Small businesses would lose tax credit assistance to help families
purchase affordable health insurance.
Early retirees between the ages of 55 and 64 would lose health
coverage through their employers for them and their families.
I am confident that if we repeal Affordable Care Act, we present a
grave, unhealthy danger to the lives of all Americans by playing
politics.
I urge my Republican colleagues to revisit the thought of repealing
the Affordable Care Act by working with eager Democrats to continue
building a bridge to a healthier America.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I, along with so many of my colleagues,
support H.R. 2, the repeal of President Obama's healthcare law. This
legislation will further harm our economy at a time when we desperately
need a robust recovery.
The healthcare law is a prime example of how the tax hikes, spending
sprees, and government mandates are hurting our economy and making it
harder for small businesses to create jobs. That's one reason why we
must repeal and replace the law with a common-sense, responsible
solution that tries to address the cost of healthcare and provide more
coverage to Americans without killing jobs. Removing these barriers
will provide the businesses that create new jobs with the certainty
they need to hire new employees and get our economy back on track.
Instead of encouraging America's leading job creators, last year's
Democrat government takeover of healthcare has and will continue to
hurt small businesses with more mandates, new taxes and administrative
burdens, as well as higher healthcare costs. For example, the
healthcare law requires businesses with more than 50 employees to
provide government-approved health care. Businesses that fail to do so
will be forced to pay a $2,000 penalty per employee (after the first 30
employees). For a small business employing 50 workers without providing
government-approved health insurance, adding one additional worker to
the payroll will result in $42,000 in new government penalties.
Over the last 15 years roughly 65 percent of new private-sector jobs
have been created by small businesses. A study by the nation's largest
small business association, NFIB, estimates that the employer mandate
in the healthcare law will destroy 1.6 million jobs. This healthcare
law is not the way to help our small business job creators.
In addition, rather than adopting commonsense policies to lower the
cost of healthcare, last year's law, will increase costs. The chief
actuary for Medicare estimates total healthcare spending will increase
by $311 billion over the next decade, more than it would have been
without the healthcare law.
With federal spending at the highest level in American history, the
economy in a severe recession, and unemployment remaining stubbornly
high--another massive government program with more spending, more
borrowing and higher taxes will only hurt already struggling American
families--not help them. The American people deserve a better plan.
Also, this law doesn't protect the unborn because it doesn't include
clear and direct provisions that would prohibit federal funding of
abortions. We need statutory language in the law, not an easily changed
Executive Order, to prevent abortions. We have already learned that the
law will allow $11 billion in taxpayer funds to be used for abortions
at Community Health Centers. We must repeal and replace this law so we
can end government-funded elective abortion coverage under this massive
new government funding stream.
Congress should start over and consider the common-sense bipartisan
solutions that Republicans have to offer. It's time to repeal the
health care law and it's time for a patient-focused health bill that
will help the economy and get us back to smaller government.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I cannot in good conscience
support today's misguided efforts to repeal the new health reform law.
It would be a significant step backwards both for the citizens of
Southwest Georgia whom I represent as well as the entire nation.
Repealing the law will mean that insurance companies will continue to
place lifetime limits on the coverage they provide, drop people from
coverage when they get sick, and refuse children affordable health care
because of a pre-existing condition.
Repealing the law also will increase prescription drug costs for
seniors. It will deny Medicare enrollees free preventive services like
colorectal cancer screenings, mammograms, and an annual wellness visit
without copayments, co-insurance, or deductibles.
In addition, repealing the law will mean that children under age 26
will no longer be covered under their parents' plan; new small business
tax credits that make it easier for businesses to provide coverage to
their workers and make premiums more affordable will disappear; and
there will be no further expansion of community health centers which
are vital to the health care needs of rural Southwest Georgia.
A recent report by the Center for American Progress also found that
repealing the law would add up to $2,000 annually to family premiums
and prevent 250,000 to 400,000 jobs from being created annually over
the next decade. Furthermore, according to the non-partisan
Congressional Budget Office, a repeal of the law will add $230 billion
to the federal debt by 2021.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot let this happen. We cannot and we must not
turn back the clock.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act passed in 2010 is the law of the land. It extends historic
protections to millions of Americans, ensuring access to quality health
care. I voted for this law and I am grateful for the support I received
from my constituents in Minnesota's Fourth District for my work on
reforming our nation's broken health care system.
Access to quality health care is essential for all Americans. I
firmly believe health care should be a right for our citizens, not a
privilege or a luxury only for the most fortunate who can afford it. I
am committed to working to ensure all Americans have the health
protections they need and access to the quality health care they
deserve. The health reform law we have in place does this.
Today the U.S. House is debating the repeal of the Affordable Care
Act. The Republican-Tea Party majority officially titled the bill
before us, H.R. 2, the ``Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law
Act.'' They use the word ``killing'' five times in a bill that isn't
even two pages long. Not only is the bill's title offensive and
disrespectful, it is untrue. The fact is the health reform law does not
kill jobs, its patient protections saves lives and creates jobs. More
than 200,000 health care related jobs have been created since the law
passed in March of last year.
This Tea Party Republican bill strips away patient protections for
children, seniors, and adults with pre-existing medical conditions. It
replaces tough legal protections for patients with a uniquely
Republican solution--nothing. Republicans strip away protections for
millions of Americans, add $230 billion to the federal budget deficit
according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, and restore
a
[[Page H318]]
broken health care system that empowers insurance companies to make
heath care decisions, not patients.
I want Minnesotans to know exactly what repealing the existing health
reform law would do. If this Republican bill were to become law it
would mean:
Stripping 32 millions of Americans of health insurance and new
consumer protections;
Allowing insurers to deny coverage to children with pre-existing
conditions, apply restrictive lifetime coverage limits, impose cost
sharing on preventative care, and retroactively cancel policies when an
individual gets sick;
Eliminating tax credits for as many as 99,000 Minnesota small
businesses providing their employees health insurance;
Refusing 11,400 young adults in Minnesota the option to remain on
their parents' health insurance until they turn 26;
Maintaining a perverse payment system that rewards providers for the
volume of services delivered, rather than the quality of those
services;
Jeopardizing the early retiree health coverage provided by 210
Minnesota employers and unions currently receiving financial assistance
through the `The Early Retiree Reinsurance Program'; and
Risking the Medicare benefits and prescription drug coverage seniors
and people with disabilities depend on to meet their health needs.
H.R. 2 is more than political posturing. It is legislation that sends
a clear message to the American people--Republicans care more about
protecting insurance company profits than protecting the rights of
patients. I will oppose this bill and I will oppose and battle against
every effort made in the 112th Congress to defund, sidetrack, or stall
the full implementation of the Affordable Care Act.
I am not alone is opposing H.R. 2. Hundreds of national organizations
and dozens of Minnesota groups oppose this blatantly partisan effort to
repeal health reform. Here are a few excerpts from a letter I received
over the past few days.
The Minnesota Medical Association: ``the MMA opposes efforts to
repeal the ACA (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) and urges
you to vote against it.''
Catholic Hospital Association of Minnesota: ``I strongly urge you to
maintain support for efforts to improve and strengthen our nation's
health care system by opposing the legislation before the House to
repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA).''
Epilepsy Foundation of Minnesota: ``We strongly encourage you to vote
against repeal of the ACA (Affordable Care Act) and work toward
ensuring that implementation includes the needs of people with epilepsy
and other chronic health conditions.''
Minnesota Hospital Association: ``On behalf of the 148 hospital and
17 health system members of the Minnesota Hospital Association, I am
writing to express our opposition to legislation that would repeal the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).''
Today, as the debate on this ill conceived and mean-spirited bill is
taking place, I received the following message from a consortium of
small business leaders from across the country:
``The House of Representative's introduction of a bill to repeal the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is an affront to our
nation's small business community.
``The country's 28 million small businesses stand to benefit greatly
from many provisions of the new healthcare law, particularly the tax
credits and health insurance exchanges. These two provisions will help
drive down costs and offer small business owners more choices when
purchasing insurance. These critical provisions and many others would
be abolished if the Affordable Care Act is repealed.
``This would be a huge setback to entrepreneurs who need solutions to
the broken healthcare system, not a continuation of it. America's 22
million self-employed would also suffer, as a repeal of the ACA would
deny them the opportunity to pool together and purchase insurance at an
affordable price through state exchanges.''
It is important to remember that the Republican's dangerous and
destructive health repeal agenda can only work if Americans are silent
and passive, allowing live-saving rights and protections to be stripped
away. Repeal will not happen today, even if this bill is passed, but
over the course of the next two years Republicans and their corporate
benefactors will use every legal and political channel available to
deny citizens their health care rights. They will not stop.
But I will not stop either. I will not stop fighting for the health
care rights for all Americans.
I urge all Minnesotans and all Americans to stand up and join me in
the fight to protect the historic patient rights all citizens have
gained through the Affordable Care Act and that starts with a vote
against H.R. 2.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following:
[From The Baytown Sun, Jan. 4, 2011]
Prepare To Die for Lack of Money
(By Gene Lyons of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette)
As polemics on the Obama administration's health care
reforms re-emerge, I often ruminate about a horse.
Lucky was an American Standard Bred gelding I owned.
Compared to his quarter horse stable-mate, Lucky was
unathletic and halfway clumsy. But he was also a sweetheart.
As long as he could follow his buddy, anybody could ride him.
Regardless of age or experience, Lucky would carry them
carefully and bring them home safe. It's hard not to love
such an animal.
By the time I found him colicked in the barn, it was
probably already too late. He'd been down for some time. I
gave him an injection for the pain and walked him, but
nothing worked. After a while, he lay down and refused to
move. By the time the vet arrived, I'd been sitting wedged
against his back for hours to prevent him from rolling and
twisting his gut.
After Lucky proved unresponsive to treatment, the vet asked
me a hard question: ``Is this a $6,000 horse?''
He explained that there was an equine hospital over in
Oklahoma that could perform potentially life-saving surgery.
It cost $6,000 cash, up front. He warned that survival was
chancy, and might leave my horse an invalid.
I'd paid $1,000 dollars for Lucky; he was 25 years old,
almost elderly. After a long night of IV fluids and pain
meds, there was no avoiding the inevitable. Because there are
some things a man must do for himself, I administered a
lethal injection and ended up having to put a bullet into his
brain.
We buried him in his pasture.
It was a hard, hard thing to do. This was two years ago,
and it's a rare day I don't think about Lucky and his stable
mate Rusty, who also died that year. I pray that I never
outlive another horse.
Long introduction, brief polemical point: Observing
Republicans gear up to try to undo ``Obamacare,'' I suspect
the only thing that will satisfy some is to make medical care
in the United States work like veterinary care. You get what
you can pay for. Otherwise, tough luck.
Who would have thought that after Sarah Palin's imaginary
``death panels''--chosen by Politifacts.com, the fact-
checking website, as its 2009 ``Lie of the Year''--Arizona
Republicans would be denying heart, lung and liver
transplants to Medicaid patients because Gov. Jan Brewer says
the State can't afford them?
To save a lousy $1.4 million (out of a $9 billion budget),
Arizona's Health Care Cost Containment System has decreed an
end to organ transplants. Maybe the bitterest irony is that
the inhumane policy won't actually save any money. One of the
roughly 100 citizens affected explained to Arizona Republic
columnist E.J. Montini:
``I can't work anymore, and we ran out of (insurance)
coverage a while back,'' he said. ``It's terrible needing
help. It's not what I wanted. But when you run out of money,
what can you do? If I don't get a transplant, I guess the
state won't have to pay for me or worry about me until I walk
into an emergency room close to dying. They can't turn me
away then.''
No, they can't. Human hospitals can't refuse patients for
lack of cash. Meanwhile, not a peep of protest from Palin,
Rep. John Boehner or any of the Republicans who waxed
hysterical over the absurd allegation that ``Obamacare''
would lead to government-sponsored euthanasia.
But if people die for lack of money, that's the GOP way.
Too bitter? Maybe so. Nevertheless, avoiding medical and
economic reality has been the party's response ever since
Obama adopted much of the conservative Heritage Foundation's
health care proposals as his own. It's all to do with
partisanship, nothing else. Consider the legalistic, angels-
on-the-head-of-a-pin arguments GOP savants have made against
the bill's unpopular health insurance mandate.
Precisely because hospitals can't turn patients away, it's
impossible to make private insurance companies cover pre-
existing conditions (i.e. sick people) without encouraging
deadbeats to game the system by not buying insurance until
they need it. This defeats the whole purpose of a risk pool.
Somebody's got to pay, and absent an insurance mandate,
that somebody's you--one reason the United States has long
had the most expensive, least efficient health care system in
the world.
Ah, but in GOP Dreamworld, everybody's Huck Finn, an
independent actor in a 19th- century free-enterprise
paradise. They claim the Constitution forbids government from
making citizens buy something they don't want.
Alas, in the real world, people can't not participate in
the health care system.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the Republican House Majority's
effort to repeal the historic health care reform law that Democrats
passed last year is merely a charade. And thanks to Democratic control
of the Senate, the Republican bill will never cross the President's
desk. Indeed, a vote for repeal will only scare those who have come to
rely on the law's benefits.
I was first elected to Congress in 1992, and in all my years of
service, I have worked to make affordable, quality health care
available
[[Page H319]]
for all Americans. Indeed, for nearly a century, leaders from all over
the political spectrum, beginning with President Franklin Delano
Roosevelt, have fought for health care and health insurance reform. In
the words of the great former President Roosevelt, `the health of the
people is a public concern; ill health is a major cause of suffering,
economic loss, and dependency; good health is essential to the security
and progress of the Nation.' In 1935, President Roosevelt signed the
Social Security Act into law, which made him the first President ever
to advocate on behalf of federal assistance for the elderly.
Yet it wasn't until 75 years later that our nation finally came
together and passed the ``Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,''
which provides health care access for all Americans. Prior to this,
nearly one in five citizens in the wealthiest country in the world were
uninsured. I applaud President Obama for his persistent, hard work on
this issue, and I was a proud cosponsor of the original Health Care
legislation when it was first introduced in the House of
Representatives. And although there is no such thing as a perfect bill,
this law is a great start, and it needs to be left up to the medical
specialists to make slight changes to make it better, not politicians
in the Republican Party who want to repeal the law entirely. Yet today,
even though it would be nearly impossible to accomplish, the Republican
Party wants to take our country in the opposite direction and
eviscerate this law. If this were ever accomplished, it would have
drastic effects on the constituents in Florida's third congressional
district, as well as for Americans across the country. In fact, the
Republican bill would take our Nation back to a system in which:
Children with pre-existing conditions, including 8,000-40,000 in my
congressional district, were denied coverage;
Young people age 26 cannot stay on their parents' plans (for district
3 in Florida, their plan would eliminate health care coverage for
nearly 4,000 young adults);
A system where Seniors pay more for prescription drugs, including
6,600 senior citizens who hit the Part D drug ``donut hole'' in my
district, and would be forced to pay out of pocket costs, as well as
93,000 more Florida district 3 seniors who would be denied new
preventive care benefits;
It also would force small businesses to pay higher taxes;
And increase the deficit by $230 billion, according to the
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
The cost of returning to the prior system is too great. For too long,
health care has been a privilege, not a right in America. To return to
a system in which nearly 20 percent of Americans do not have access to
the greatest health care available in the world would not only be a
tremendous step backwards, but outright insensitive to the needs of
millions of Americans.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker now is the time to protect
American families--uphold the Affordable Care Act and oppose H.R. 2,
the Republican repeal of health care. A vote to repeal the Affordable
Care Act will leave millions of Americans at risk of losing their
health coverage; children will face discrimination because of pre-
existing conditions and seniors will be left scrambling to pay full
price for prescription drugs.
In fact, there is a deep concern about the practicality of repealing
the Affordable Care Act and the detrimental impact repeal will have on
women, children and older Americans. When Republicans wrote a Medicare
prescription plan that created a ``gap'' in their coverage, seniors
across the country were forced to pay full price for their prescription
drugs. The Affordable Care Act eliminated the ``donut hole'', allowing
millions of seniors to buy life saving medications.
Prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act, many Americans
families were uninsured and underinsured. Families were forced to
choose between paying for coverage for children with pre-existing
conditions or feeding them. Passage of the Affordable Care Act gave
them back their dignity. Today, those children are guaranteed coverage
regardless of pre-existing conditions and are allowed to remain covered
under their parent's insurance plans until the age of 26.
All 23 counties in the 2nd District are medically underserved and
many of my constituents are unable to afford health coverage. Under the
Affordable Care Act, 315,000, resident's health insurance coverage will
improve; 95,000 uninsured residents in my district will be extended
coverage; and 16,500 residents with pre-existing conditions can obtain
coverage. We cannot and should not be considering repeal of a sound
policy that millions of Americans are currently benefiting from and
countless more stand to benefit when fully implemented.
A vote in favor of this appeal would strip American families of their
dignity and force them to go back to choosing between paying for health
coverage or putting food on their tables. We must continue to build on
our efforts to expand accessible and affordable health coverage for all
Americans. Today, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2, a
bill to repeal patients' rights and empower health insurance companies
at the expense of consumers.
I am proud to have voted for the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act, landmark legislation to reform our country's health insurance
system and expand opportunities for quality, affordable health care to
millions of people who otherwise go without.
In my district, in the heart of California's San Fernando Valley,
rolling back reforms would have devastating consequences for my
constituents. This repeal would leave an additional 116,000 of my
constituents without health insurance. It would increase prescription
drug costs for 5,600 seniors in the Medicare D ``doughnut hole'' and
deny new preventive care benefits to 64,000 seniors. It would expose
over 100,000 of my constituents--and perhaps as many as 290,000 people
in my district--to the possibility of being denied coverage because
they have pre-existing conditions.
I have heard from thousands of my constituents who support the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, many of whom feel strongly
enough to share their stories with me. Some are thankful that their
child's pre-existing condition is no longer a barrier to getting
coverage. Others are relieved that treatment of their chronic illness
is no longer subject to a lifetime spending cap. But some are simply
the parents of uninsured young adults who live with the day-to-day
worry that their kids are one accident away from financial ruin or that
they won't be able to access the care they need. I'd like to share one
of these stories with you.
Diane, a constituent in Valley Village, wrote me last October to tell
me about her daughter's experience with the health insurance reform
bill. Her daughter graduated from a prestigious university in 2008 and
got a job but still couldn't afford health insurance. She left her job
after two years. Two weeks later, she was in a serious car accident.
Her car was totaled but she, luckily, was not hurt. At age 24, this
young woman found herself unemployed and without health insurance,
having narrowly escaped every parent's nightmare. Diane writes, ``And
then, two weeks ago . . . she was able to be covered under the plan of
her father and stepmother. I wanted to share this story because we want
you [to know] that this change has already had a huge impact on our
lives. As a mother, I now have one less major issue to worry about.''
On behalf of Diane and her family, and on behalf of children, young
adults, parents, seniors, small business owners, small business
employees, people with pre-existing conditions, hospitals that provide
uncompensated care, and everyone else who benefits from the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act, I stand strongly against H.R. 2 and
urge my colleagues to join me in voting against repeal.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2, the
Patients Rights Repeal Act of 2011.
Less than one year ago, the 111th Congress achieved a major milestone
in the decades-long effort to ensure access to quality health care for
all Americans by passing the Affordable Care Act and reforming our
broken health care system. Since the Affordable Care Act was signed
into law, I have seen its benefits first hand in the district I am
privileged to represent. Over 9,800 seniors in Southwestern and
Southern Illinois will see a 50 percent discount on their medications
when they enter the Medicare Part D coverage gap, saving them $5.1
million. An additional 112,000 seniors will receive free preventive
care, including cancer and diabetes screenings. As of September 2010,
up to 37,000 children in my district with pre-existing conditions are
no longer denied coverage by insurance companies and in 2014 up to
238,000 adults will have the same protection. In the St. Louis Metro
area, 13,600 young adults will remain on their parents' health
insurance plans up to age 26 and maintain their access to affordable
care, and the 2.4 million individuals with private health insurance are
protected from predatory practices of insurance companies and arbitrary
premium rate increases.
Despite this significant progress, today we are considering the
Patients' Rights Repeal Act, which will strip my constituents of these
new benefits and return us to the broken, expensive health care system
that left 47 million Americans uninsured.
Just as our constituents cannot afford to lose these benefits, we
cannot afford the Patients' Rights Repeal Act. According to the
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, CBO, passing this legislation
will increase the deficit by $230 billion over 10 years and by more
than $1.2 trillion over 20 years. The CBO also estimates that this bill
will increase premiums and out-of-pocket expenses for everyone enrolled
in private insurance plans.
[[Page H320]]
Further, despite the claims of my Republican colleagues, there is no
evidence that repealing health care reform will create new jobs or spur
economic growth. Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, we have
added 1.1 million new private sector jobs to the economy. Further, a
study by the Kaiser Family Foundation indicates the Affordable Care Act
will create 4 million additional new jobs in the next 10 years by
lowering costs and investing in the health care workforce. These new,
good-paying jobs will disappear with the passage of repeal.
The Affordable Care Act is not a perfect bill. Provisions, including
the unworkable 1099 reporting requirements for small businesses, will
be adjusted or replaced as we move forward to implement the bill. Just
as we have changed Medicare and Social Security over the last several
decades to ensure those programs achieve their goals, we will work
together to adapt the Affordable Care Act and keep health care
affordable and accessible for millions of Americans. I will work with
my colleagues on both sides of the aisles to adopt strong alternatives.
However, just as we have never repealed Medicare or Social Security,
I will not vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act and return to a
health care system that is unsustainable, inefficient, and massively
expensive. We must continue to move forward and ensure that our health
care system works for all Americans.
Mr. Speaker, passing the Patients'' Rights Repeal Act will
dramatically expand the deficit, slow job creation, increase the cost
of health care, and deny millions of Americans access to health
coverage. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Patients' Rights Repeal
Act.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2, a bill
to repeal the Affordable Care Act. In March of last year I was honored
to cast a vote in favor of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act. This law ensures that my constituents, and all Americans, have
access to the medical care they need. The measure we consider on this
House floor today is not an effort to improve upon that law. It is not
an alternative strategy to protect patients' access to care. It is
simply an effort to undo the admirable work undertaken over many years
and months by the Members and staff of this body, committed patient
advocates, uninsured Americans and hard-working medical professionals.
I find it unfortunate that, as our Nation faces many deep and
intransigent challenges, the House is debating a proposal which is
premised on misinformation and disingenuous posturing. I am hopeful
that we will now return to the real work of the people.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of rhetoric from my
colleagues across the aisle opposing this legislation because of a
select number of insurance market provisions included in the massive,
overreaching health care law. As a two-time cancer survivor and the
father of a daughter living with cystic fibrosis, what is rhetorical
for many of my colleagues is a reality for my family. There is no doubt
that reforms are needed to ensure that individuals with pre-existing
conditions have access to affordable insurance. In fact, we can
probably all agree that there are many aspects of the health care
system that were and are in desperate need of reform.
However, the law enacted nearly a year ago is the wrong solution to
our health care system's numerous problems. The law will raise taxes by
over $500 billion. It includes an unconstitutional individual mandate
on all Americans requiring the purchase of health insurance coverage.
The law will cost millions of American jobs and hits small businesses
with more paperwork, more bureaucratic red tape, and less opportunity
for growth. Finally, the law cuts Medicare by about half a trillion
dollars which, even the President's own actuaries have said, could
jeopardize access for seniors.
America has sent a clear message to Washington, and today we will
show that we have heard that message. We must repeal the detrimental
health care law and focus on the real problem facing our nation's
health care system, the issue of cost. We can reduce health care costs
by enacting meaningful medical liability reform, allowing people to
purchase insurance across state lines, and giving individuals the same
tax relief as corporations for the purchase of health insurance. Once
the health care law is repealed, I look forward to moving forward with
alternative health care reform legislation that will achieve these
goals. If we focus our efforts on reforms, such as these, that lower
costs, we will expand access to affordable care without jeopardizing
the system which has allowed our nation to have the best health care in
the entire world. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2 and H. Res. 9
and begin the process of enacting true health care reform.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to
the H.R. 2 legislation that will repeal health care for nearly 32
million Americans. I have listened to my colleagues from the other side
of the aisle in press conferences and throughout this debate state that
the Affordable Care Act is ``job destroying'' and ``budget busting.''
We know from numerous reports that these statements are blatantly
untrue.
Since President Obama signed this legislation into law in March, the
Department of Labor reports nearly 1 million new jobs were created in
the private sector, including over 200,000 in health care related
fields. Furthermore the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, CBO,
said that the Affordable Care Act will reduce the deficit over the next
10 years. In fact, on January 6 the CBO stated that the repeal would
increase the deficit by $230 billion over the next 10 years.
As we prepare to vote on this legislation, I'd like to inform my
constituents as I did for them at countless town hall presentations I
hosted on the Affordable Care Act, what repeal means for the people of
Illinois' Second District.
Health Care Repeal will rescind the vital Patient's Bill of Rights
consumer protections provided under the Affordable Care Act for the
336,000 individuals in the Second Congressional District who have
health insurance through their employer or the market for private
insurance. Passage of repeal will lift the limitations placed on
insurance companies for rate increases and out of pocket expenses.
Repealing health care reform would eliminate the requirement that
insurance companies limit administrative costs by spending a minimum of
80 percent of the premiums they collect on actual healthcare. Repealing
the Affordable Care Act will allow insurance companies to drop or
rescind coverage when people get sick, place annual and lifetime limits
on coverage and charge you for cost-saving preventative services and
screenings.
According to a report released by the Department of Health and Human
Services, up to 129 million Americans under the age of 65 have some
type of pre-existing condition and could be excluded from insurance
plans if this health care repeal were signed into law. This would
affect 263,000 individuals, including up to 40,000 children in the
Second Congressional District who have a pre-existing condition.
Repeal would eliminate the requirement that health insurance plans
allow young adults to remain on their parents' insurance policies up to
the age of 26, cutting coverage to the estimated 2,000 young adults
that are expected to take advantage of this benefit in the Second
District.
Through the Affordable Care Act, middle class families with incomes
up to $88,000 for a family of four and small businesses would be
eligible for affordability tax credits. Repeal would cut access for
157,000 families and 14,200 small businesses in my district.
For Second District seniors, repeal will increase drug costs for the
6,700 seniors who fall into the Part D prescription drug ``donut hole''
this year and will deny access to free preventive services and health
screenings to the 93,000 seniors on Medicare in the Second District.
Finally, under the Affordable Care Act, an estimated 94 percent of
Americans would be provided access to health care through their
employer, the Health Care Exchange or through Medicaid. With repeal,
61,000 of my constituents would lose this new coverage. Hospitals in my
district spend nearly $40 million each year providing coverage to the
uninsured which gets passed on to the consumer, and the average
American family pays an additional $1,100 per year for covering the
cost of uncompensated care for the unemployed.
Before the Affordable Care Act, skyrocketing health care costs were
hurting families, forcing businesses to cut or drop health benefits,
and straining state budgets. The people of Illinois' Second District
and all Americans need and deserve better.
While some of my colleagues may be willing to pass legislation that
(1) rescinds important consumer health care protections, (2) cuts tax
credits for middle class families and small businesses, (3) forces our
nation's seniors to pay more for prescription drugs and cost-saving
preventative care and (4) passes the problem of steadily rising health
care costs onto the next generation--I plan to vote for making health
care affordable and accessible for up to 94 percent of Americans, not
against it.
That's why I will vote no on Repeal.
Mr. GRIMM. Mr. Speaker, healthcare reform is a real issue facing many
Americans. In spite of protests heard around the country, last spring
the Democrats pushed through a 2,000 page bill full of mandates, and
taxes that do not address the growing expense of health care, and
continues a reckless spending habit that has resulted in a $14 trillion
deficit.
The 2010 Midterm elections has allowed the 112th Congress to fulfill
a promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and replace it with common
sense solutions that address the rising cost, and the importance of
providing affordable, accessible, quality care. In light of repealing
this massive government takeover of the healthcare industry, it is our
responsibility
[[Page H321]]
to replace it with thoughtful reforms that help insure the uninsured,
protect those with pre-existing conditions, lower the growing cost of
health coverage, and preserve the doctor-patient relationship.
Instead of encouraging America's small business to grow and create
jobs, the current healthcare plan will hurt small business by imposing
burdensome regulations that will lead to lower wages, fewer workers, or
both.
The Affordable Care Act is projected to add $701 billion to the
deficit over the next ten years, and is likely to pass on a $2.6
trillion price tag to our children and grandchildren. While forcing
young Americans into a government run health care exchange, we are
requiring them to pay for minimal services for an unlimited amount of
time, with no promise of a sustainable program that will be available
to them as they age. The bottom line is the American people deserve
better than this budget-busting, job killing legislation, and most
importantly they deserve open and honest legislation not the gimmicks
used to cover up the cost and damage of ``Obamacare.''
Mr. CANTOR. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 26, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. ANDREWS. I am.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Andrews moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2 to the
Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and
Education and the Workforce with instructions to report the
same to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
Add at the end the following new section:
SEC. 3. HEALTH CARE REPEAL SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNLESS A
MAJORITY OF MEMBERS OF U.S. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES AND A MAJORITY OF U.S. SENATORS
WAIVE FEHBP BENEFITS.
Section 2 (including the repeal of the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148)) shall not take
effect unless and until the Director of the Office of
Personnel Management certifies to the Congress that a
majority of the Members of the House of Representatives and a
majority of Members of the Senate have, as of the date that
is 30 days after the date of initial passage of this Act in
the respective House, voluntarily and permanently withdrawn
from any participation, and waived all rights to participate,
as such a Member in the federally funded Federal employees
health benefits program (FEHBP) under chapter 89 of title 5,
United States Code, effective with the first month after the
date of execution of such a withdrawal and waiver.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey for 5 minutes in
support of his motion.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I think we should begin by thanking Speaker
Boehner and Leader Pelosi for leading us through such a civil debate at
such an important hour of our country's history; a moment of
consequence. Unfortunately, one of the consequences of this debate is
that we did not debate the issue that is most on the minds of the
American people, which is unemployment and 15 million of our neighbors
being unemployed.
Having said that, there are lots of consequences to this repeal bill,
and Members should be aware of each one of them.
If a woman with breast cancer or a man with diabetes loses his or her
job and tries to get another job, under the law that is in effect, the
insurance company can't deny them coverage or charge them more for it
because of their preexisting condition. This bill repeals that
protection. It makes it legal for the insurance company to say, We're
sorry, we are not going to sell you health insurance because you have
breast cancer. We're sorry, we are going to raise your premiums
fivefold because you have diabetes. These are serious, unwelcomed
consequences.
Another consequence of serving in this institution is that we are the
people's House. We are the elected people who are closest to the
people; and, therefore, we are expected to most understand the shoes in
which they walk every day. Many of us say these things at our town
meetings. I have heard this from Republicans, from Democrats, from tea
party members, from Independents: Congress should live by the same
rules it imposes on everyone else. I don't think you can go to a
district in this country that people wouldn't embrace that idea.
Indeed, on the Web site of our Speaker from the last term in the
Congress, in his biography you can read the following. It refers to the
Congressional Accountability Act which requires Congress to ``live
under the same rules and regulations as the rest of the Nation.'' It
bears the unmistakable imprint of Speaker Boehner's drive to reform the
House: live under the same rules and regulations as the rest of the
Nation.
So this motion to recommit says the following: In the spirit of that
principle, Members who support the repeal should live with its
consequences. This repeal will become effective when a majority of this
House and a majority of the other body are dismissed from membership in
the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program that the taxpayers fund
for the Members of the House.
There are serious consequences of this bill. We believe that
repealing it is unfair and wrong, just plain wrong. But it would be
even more plain wrong for those who support repeal to live by a
different standard.
{time} 1720
So I would say to the Members the next time you are in a town
meeting, the next time you encounter your constituents in your district
and they say, ``Don't you agree that if you agree to impose a certain
set of rules on me that those same set of rules should apply to you?,''
this will be the answer to their question:
If you vote ``no,'' you are saying that the repeal that denies
coverage for preexisting conditions to others doesn't apply to you.
If you vote ``no,'' you are saying that the repeal that lets
insurance companies impose lifetime caps on your constituents' benefits
imposes no caps on your benefits.
If you believe that the consequences of our actions should be visited
upon those we represent equally and on ourselves as well, then your
vote should be ``yes.''
In the spirit of the people's House, in the spirit of walking in the
shoes of those we are here to represent, the right vote on this motion
to recommit is ``yes.''
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation, and I rise in
opposition to the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CANTOR. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in beginning to respond to the minority's motion to
recommit, all I can say is this is an attempt to derail the repeal of
the ObamaCare bill--without question.
The positing of this motion to recommit and the substance of that
recommit is also inexplicable if one could be deemed to be offering a
legitimate policy proposal. The notion that somehow the repeal position
that the majority has taken and that, frankly, the majority of the
American people desire is somehow connected with denying a better way
forward, again, is inexplicable. I think, again, Mr. Speaker, I would
say it is not a serious attempt to add towards how we get to a better
way in health care.
Now, the question before this body is simple: Do you support the new
health care law? Yes or no.
The motion to recommit is simply an effort to protect ObamaCare from
being repealed, period.
If you think the new health care law will improve how health care is
delivered in the U.S., then support the motion to recommit.
But if you believe, as most Americans do, that the new health care
law will put America on the wrong path--that the open-ended entitlement
design of the new law will contribute to putting us on a path to
bankruptcy, that the policies in the law will deny patients access to
the care that they want and need, if you believe that the new law will
increase health care costs, not lower them, and that the new law is
generating great uncertainty for our businesses, is hurting our economy
and
[[Page H322]]
that the new law is unconstitutional--then vote against the motion to
recommit.
Voting against the motion to recommit is a vote to repeal the health
care law, and I urge its defeat.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 185,
nays 245, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 13]
YEAS--185
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--245
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--4
Garrett
Giffords
Hirono
Wilson (FL)
{time} 1746
Messrs. NEUGEBAUER and SHULER changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. WELCH, Ms. CLARKE of New York, Ms. SPEIER, and Mr. AL GREEN of
Texas changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 13, had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''
Stated against:
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 13, had I been present, I
would have voted ``nay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 245,
noes 189, not voting 1, as follows:
[Roll No. 14]
AYES--245
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
[[Page H323]]
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--189
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--1
Giffords
{time} 1753
Ms. WATERS and Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________