To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt certain emergency medical devices from the excise tax on medical devices, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This bill is mainly a smoke screen. It is an effort to cover up the failure, indeed the refusal, of Republicans to act on the key issue facing our Nation: jobs and economic growth.

As ranking member, I sent a letter last Friday to Dave Camp, who chairs the committee with the jurisdiction over the bill before us today, urging action on six major jobs bills within the committee's jurisdiction: extension of the section 48(c) advanced energy manufacturing credit; extension of the production tax credit for wind power and other vital advanced-energy incentives; extension of the highly successful build America bonds program, which financed more than $180 billion in infrastructure investment; extension of the 100 percent bonus depreciation; creation of a 10 percent income tax credit for small businesses that do create new jobs or increase their payroll; an extension of a jobs-related expired provision, such as the R&D tax credit.

The answer: silence and continued inaction by Republicans in this House.

Another bill over which the committee has jurisdiction, the highway bill, remains unacted upon. That bill would mean millions of jobs. No action. The Republican House message on the highway bill is: our way or the highway. And that means no highways.

It is June. There is now the likelihood of no action or none before the construction season is over in numerous States. That inaction is not an accident. It is deliberate. It is implementing the goal stated 20 months ago by the Senate Republican leader:

``The single most important thing we want to achieve is for

President Obama to be a one-term President.''

It is reflected in the recent interview by the House Republican leader. Mr. Cantor said the rest of the year will likely be about ``sending signals, we have huge problems to deal with.''

Sending signals? The American people don't need and want signals. They need for us to take action to strengthen the economic recovery.

We will hear today Republican efforts to describe the bill before us to repeal the tax on medical devices as a jobs bill. What it really is is another Republican effort to repeal health care reform, step by step, costing, in this case, $29 billion.

We Democrats want more Americans to have access to medical devices. Health care reform helps do this by expanding insurance coverage to over 30 million individuals, which indeed will help the growth of and the innovation in the medical device industry. And as was true for other health groups benefiting from increases in health coverage, the medical device industry was asked to help to pay for health care reform so it would be fully paid for, not add to the deficit, as so many Republican measures, but it would be fully paid for.

They signed a letter with others pledging:

``We, as stakeholder representatives, are committed to

doing our part to make reform a reality in order to make the

system more affordable and effective for patients and

purchasers. We stand ready to work with you to accomplish

this goal.''

The first signature on that letter is from and by the President and CEO of the Advanced Medical Technology Association.

Now the Republicans are attempting to give that industry a free pass--a free pass--contrary to their stated commitment. The industry has not proposed any alternative whatsoever to meet that obligation reflected in the letter they signed. There is an effort here to cast repeal of the tax as a small business bill.

The 10 largest companies in this submarket would pay 86 percent of the taxes relating to nondiagnostic devices. According to CRS, the 10 largest companies that manufacture medical devices had total companywide profits on all their lines of businesses, both devices and other products, of $42 billion in 2010, including companies mentioned here, and $48 billion in 2011, and these companies had gross revenues from the sale of medical devices in 2010 of $133 billion.

There was an effort here also to cast the bill as an effort to stop offshoring, but this point needs to be made. It's a fact: The tax applies to all covered devices, including those that are imported. So if anybody thinks they can just move overseas and bring it back here and not pay a tax, they're simply incorrect.

The effort to cast this as a jobs bill involved allegations repeated here during the debate on the rule, which were analyzed by a neutral source and found to be simply erroneous. A Bloomberg group analysis made that clear: ``The study used by Republicans cites no evidence for the job loss claim.''

Further, the study's assumptions, ``conflict with economic research, overstate companies' incentives to move jobs offshore, and ignore the positive effect of new demand'' created by the health care reform law.

Before Rules yesterday, I asked that my substitute be placed in order to allow debate on two real jobs initiatives mentioned in my letter to you, Chairman Camp: a tax credit for employers that expand their payrolls, and an extension of bonus depreciation. Those two provisions would help create hundreds of thousands of jobs, not speculation, but real, including in small businesses. This has not been allowed.

So we have open rules, as we have seen the last few days on some bills, that often mainly result in numerous amendments, shifting some monies from one place to another in an agency, not often helping to create a single job, but a closed rule when it comes to

bringing up provisions helping to create American jobs and economic growth.

This is further evidence of what is really going on here in this Congress, a deliberate effort now increasingly undisguised to close the door on action to engender job creation and economic growth before the election.

November 6 is what is driving the Republican Congress. Politics, not people. That is only not cynical, it is, indeed, pernicious. We owe it to the American people to blow the whistle on this. Too much, indeed, is at stake.

National Women's Law Center,

Washington, DC, June 6, 2012.

Re Vote No on Protect Medical Innovation Act of 2011, H.R.

436.

Dear Representative: The National Women's Law Center writes

in strong opposition to H.R. 436, the Protect Medical

Innovation Act of 2011, because it would undermine a critical

protection in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and reduce

financial security for women and families. The bill would pay

for the elimination of the modest excise tax on medical

devices and other revenue provisions of the ACA by increasing

the tax liability of individuals and families receiving

premium tax credits through the new insurance exchanges.

The modest excise tax on medical devices is a fair way to

raise revenue to help finance affordable health care coverage

for millions of Americans. The expansion of health care

coverage will benefit a wide range of health-related

industries, including the medical device industry, by

increasing demand for their products. Other industries in the

health sector are contributing to financing an expansion from

which they will profit; it is entirely appropriate to require

the medical device industry to make a contribution as well.

The tax will have minimal impact on consumers, because it

does not apply to medical devices that consumers buy at

retail, such as eyeglasses or hearing aids, and spending on

taxable medical devices represents less than one percent of

total personal health expenditures. And the tax will not

encourage manufacturers to shift production overseas: it

applies equally to imported and domestically produced

devices, and devices produced in the United States for export

are not subject to the tax. Repealing this tax and forgoing

$29 billion in needed revenues would be irresponsible--even

without the outrageous step of imposing this cost directly on

Americans without access to affordable health care coverage.

Increasing the tax liability of individuals and families

receiving premium tax credits for health insurance coverage

is unfair and would reduce coverage for hundreds of thousands

of Americans. The ACA provides premium tax credits to

families with household income at or below 400 percent of

poverty who enroll in coverage through an exchange. An

advance payment of the premium tax credit will go directly to

insurance companies so that the monthly insurance premium

paid by families is reduced, thereby making health coverage

more affordable for millions of families. However, there is a

``reconciliation'' at the end of the year when a family files

taxes to ensure that the right amount of credit was paid to

the insurer on the family's behalf. The ``reconciliation'' is

based on actual household income for the year, while the

advance payment is based on a projection that could be based

on current income or past tax returns. The ACA included an

important protection by including a cap on the amount of

repayment penalty a family would have to pay based on

``reconciliation.''

The proposal expected this week would entirely eliminate

this protection, leaving families vulnerable to an

unaffordable tax bill. Many families will be discouraged from

enrolling in coverage because of the potential tax liability

at the end of the year. Much of the savings from the proposal

are achieved because hundreds of thousands of people are

expected to refuse coverage if the cap is eliminated. Women

will be particularly affected by the elimination of the cap.

Women have lower incomes than men and experience larger

income variability from one year to another. This suggests

women will be more at risk for repayment penalties. Women

also often make the health care decisions for the family and

will be faced with the difficult decision of enrolling in

affordable coverage or forgoing that coverage because of a

potential tax penalty.

The cap on the repayment penalty has already been

increased. Eliminating the cap would eliminate all

protections for families that are doing their best to provide

the right information to the exchange but face mid-year

changes in income or family size. A server in a restaurant

could gain new shifts or be promoted to manager. An employer

may give unexpected bonuses in December. A couple could get

married mid-year without fully understanding the impact on

household income and poverty level. The cap on the repayment

penalty needs to remain in place in order to protect families

and provide the stability promised in the ACA.

We urge you to protect the security of families and the

revenue provisions of the Affordable Care Act so millions of

Americans can receive affordable health care by voting no on

H.R. 436 and any proposal to eliminate the cap on the

repayment penalty.

Very truly yours,

Judy Waxman,

Vice President, Health and Reproductive Rights.

Joan Entmacher,

Vice President, Family Economic Security.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California, a senior member of our committee, Mr. Stark.

(Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

It is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to another important member of our committee, the gentleman from Seattle, Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to another very distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

It's now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished Member from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. Speaker, I now have the privilege of yielding 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Critz).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Could you please indicate how much time there is on each side?

I yield myself 30 seconds.

It's the Republicans who've combined these three bills. The Republicans.

And the leader talks about jobs. I wish he would give instructions to the Ways and Means Committee to consider and bring up jobs bills that are just languishing from inaction. We need more than signals. We need action.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), a distinguished member of our committee.

It is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

I yield myself 30 seconds.

We very much favor the medical device industry. They agreed to pay for health insurance coverage. In 2011, Stryker had revenue of $8.37 billion on these products with a net income of $1.3 billion. Everybody is going to have to participate, as they promised, to make health care work. If everybody ducks out, people will go uninsured.

It is now my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

In a sense, there is much at stake in this debate. If this bill were to become law, it would unravel health care reform. What this industry seems to be asking is a reversal of their commitment to make health care reform work. If this Congress and the President were to say okay, every other industry that participated in saying they pay their share to make it viable, they'd come in line, and there would be no answer to them. In that sense, this debate, this issue is significant.

But in another sense it really isn't. This bill isn't going anywhere. The Senate leadership has already said it's not taking it up. There's been issued a Statement of Administration policy. The recommendation is the President would veto it. There's a certain emptiness to this debate because the bill isn't going anywhere.

The real significance is that it's being brought up despite that, raising the question, Does the majority in this House want a bill that goes somewhere relating to jobs?

The word ``jobs'' has been mentioned here more than any other word. As mentioned earlier, there is no evidence that jobs would be lost, as indicated by the majority.

The only study says that the 43,000 claim is wrong. So what's really at stake here, the significance of this debate is this: Will the majority do more than signal in this session, in its remaining months, or will it take up jobs legislation? I think there's an increasing indication that they, the majority, do not want a jobs bill that will go anywhere.

I mentioned earlier the letter I wrote to the chairman of our committee. I mentioned in there six provisions clearly relating to jobs in America, the 48C Advanced Energy Manufacturing Credit that once had bipartisan support.

The production tax credit for wind power, the Republicans came before the Ways and Means Committee and said, Extend it. But, silence. The Build America Bonds program. It helped to create hundreds and thousands of jobs--$180 billion in infrastructure investment. The 100 percent bonus depreciation that both sides say they support. But nothing but inaction. The proposal by the President for a 10 percent income tax credit for small businesses that could create jobs, not the illusory statements mentioned here. And then the R&D tax credit that the chairman of this committee and I have championed for years--and all we do is have a hearing.

And so this bill raises starkly this issue: Does this majority want bills going nowhere, or will they do more than signal and act to help create jobs that the people of this country badly need. That's the real issue before us today.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill on the merits. I urge the majority to start saying ``yes'' to jobs bills for the people of the United States of America.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 679, I call up the bill (H.R. 436) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on medical devices, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 436.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I come to the floor today in support of H.R. 436, the Health Care Cost Reduction Act of 2012.

This bill would repeal two of the harmful tax hikes contained in the Democrats' health care law: the medical device tax and restrictions on using health-related savings accounts for over-the-counter medication.

The legislation also includes a provision that will increase flexibility for health care consumers who use flexible spending arrangements. All are fully paid for by recouping overpayments of taxpayer-funded subsidies used to purchase health care in the government-run exchanges. Notably, every one of these provisions has bipartisan support.

As a result of ObamaCare, beginning in 2013, a 2.3 percent tax will be imposed on the sale of medical devices by manufacturers or importers. This tax will increase the effective tax rate for many medical technology companies, threatening higher costs, job loss, and reduced investment here at home. One study predicts that as many as 43,000 American jobs are at risk if this goes into place.

A recent Washington Post piece by George Will reinforced the threat to job creation and investment, noting that Zimmer--based in Indiana-- is laying off 450 workers and taking a $50 million charge against earnings; Medtronic expects an annual charge against earnings of $175 million; and ZOLL Medical Corporation's CEO, Rich Packer, says the tax will impact the company's investment in research and development, stating that means fewer jobs for engineers. Plain and simple, this tax hike is a job killer, and it must be repealed. I commend committee member Erik Paulsen for introducing this legislation.

Another ObamaCare tax increase, the medicine-cabinet tax, imposes new restrictions on the purchase of over-the-counter medications through tax-advantaged accounts used to pay for health care-related needs. Because of the Democrats' health care law, patients must now get a prescription from a physician if they want to use these accounts to pay for over-the-counter medications. The ban affects everyday lives. It prevents a mom from using her FSA in the middle of the night to buy cough medicine for her sick child without a prescription. It also leaves doctors saddled with unnecessary appointments to get a prescription so that a parent can use their FSA to buy Claritin for their son's allergies.

One study estimates that even eliminating half of these unnecessary appointments could save patients time and the health care system more than 20 million visits each year, reaping a savings of more than $5 billion. These new restrictions must be repealed, and I'm happy that the provision introduced by committee member Lynn Jenkins is being considered today.

The last provision is a new approach that allows consumers the freedom and flexibility to keep more of their money. Under current law, employees' FSA balances must be spent by the end of the year or they will forfeit any unused balance back to their employers under the use- it-or-lose-it rule. Such a rule encourages wasteful and needless spending at the end of the year. This legislation would allow participants to cash out up to $500 in FSA balances, and those funds would be treated as regular taxable wages.

Allowing Americans to keep more of their hard-earned dollars in these difficult times is a commonsense goal that should be widely supported. This provision, championed by Dr. Boustany, is a commonsense one; and I urge its passage.

Finally, I would like to take just a moment to talk about the offset for this legislation, asking those who receive higher tax payer-funded premium subsidies than they are eligible to receive to repay all of the overpayment. Let me be clear: this is a bipartisan offset. Increasing the amount of overpayments to be repaid was a proposal first put forward by congressional Democrats in the 2010 Medicare doc-fix legislation which passed the Democrat-controlled House 409 2. Such an offset was used again when the House passed and the President signed the 1099 repeal last year and more than 70 Democrats supported that bill. In fact, Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius said:

Paying back subsidy overpayments makes it fairer for all

taxpayers.

This legislation, and the provisions included here, are supported by job creators big and small, patient advocates, senior organizations, and physician groups. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these groups by voting for the Health Care Cost Reduction Act.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Paulsen of Minnesota.

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

At this time I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Reichert).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach), a distinguished member of Ways and Means Committee.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock).

I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schilling).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).

At this time we have no further speakers and are prepared to close, if the gentleman is prepared to close.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just say to my friend from Michigan that we in the committee are in the process of reviewing all of the tax extenders. There's going to be about a hundred of them that expire at the end of the year, research and development being one of them--one I, obviously, have supported over the past.

Given our budget situation and given the record deficits run up by this administration, we're taking a close look at all of these provisions to make sure that they're justified, to make sure that they really bring economic benefits and jobs to this country, not just pass them along because that's what's been done in the past, but to really take our oversight responsibilities, review responsibilities seriously to make sure the things that we're doing are efficient, are effective, and really get to the core of how do we get this economy moving again.

We had the jobs numbers last Friday. They were abysmal. Clearly, the economic policies of this administration have been a failure. We're, obviously, trying to address some of the other policies of this administration that aren't going to work. And clearly, there are flaws in the health care bill. We've had bipartisan support to fix some of them, like repealing that onerous 1099 provision that would have put a wet blanket over all small businesses as they try to file paperwork on every expenditure over $600. It was a ridiculous provision. We had strong bipartisan support to repeal it. The President signed it. That is law.

We're now looking at today what we can do to improve other problems in this health care bill. One of them, clearly, is we need to help people save and allow them to afford the kinds of medications they need. For example, they tax over-the-counter medications by saying you can't use your tax-free savings account to buy cough syrup for your sick child.

So what's happening is many people are going to doctors. They're actually having to get a prescription so they can use their flexible spending account, the account that they have set aside to save for their medical needs. And don't we want parents to be able to try to find a least-cost alternative? If cough syrup will fix the problem that their child is having and meet their medical need, shouldn't we do that first, before going to the ER or before going to get a prescription? Again, what we want to do is keep parents in the driver's seat. Let them make the medical decisions that effect them and their children.

So we believe that it's so important that we allow over-the-counter medicines to be purchased out of an FSA. That is just a critical thing. And that has had strong bipartisan support.

The other issue is regarding medical devices. Clearly, taxing the medical devices is going to do one of two things. It's going to cost jobs. As Stryker Corporation in my home State of Michigan says, it's responsible for about a thousand layoffs as they try to plan for the future. Or, it's going to raise costs. Either one is a bad choice for those people who have medical needs that they need to meet.

And the last provision in this is, can people keep some of the money in their health care or flexible spending account if they don't have all their medical needs requiring the use of money out of that account? Can they save

some of it, or do they have to use it or lose it and buy extraneous things or things they don't really need. What this bill would do is say you can keep some of those dollars--up to $500. You would pay tax on it. And that means that if you've overestimated what your medical needs are, you can get some of those dollars back and use those. Again, it's your wages. You've put it in there. It's yours. You should be able to get it back.

I think these are all strong provisions. They've all had good bipartisan support, both for the substance of them as well as for the pay-for in the bill. That has had strong bipartisan support as well.

So I would urge support for this legislation. I do think it has a lot of support in the Senate as well, and I think we're going to see this legislation move forward. So I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Today reminds me of the movie ``Groundhog Day.'' For those of you who aren't familiar with the movie, it's about a TV weatherman who finds himself repeating the same day over and over again. No matter what he does, he's stuck on the same day. Does that sound familiar? I think it does.

Today, we will take yet another show vote on repealing the Affordable Care Act which will never become law. In fact, we're wasting 2 days debating its repeal when Congress should be focusing on jobs and reducing the deficit. This exercise in futility does nothing but attempt to turn the clock back on all the many benefits already in place for Americans across this country. Meanwhile, it increases the deficit, puts insurance companies back in charge of America's health care, increases costs, cuts benefits for Medicare seniors, and eliminates $40 billion in tax credits to help make insurance more affordable for small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, the Affordable Care Act ensures that hardworking middle class families will get the security they deserve and protects every American from the worst insurance company abuses. The law includes numerous provisions to keep health care costs low, promote prevention, and hold insurance companies accountable.

For those Americans who already have health care, whether through private insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act is already making your coverage more secure. For example, insurance companies no longer have unchecked power to cancel your policy, deny your child coverage due to a preexisting condition, or charge women more than men.

Over 80 million Americans have gained coverage of preventive care free of charge, like mammograms for women and wellness visits for seniors. Nearly 13 million Americans will receive a rebate this summer because their insurance company spent too much of their premium dollars on administrative costs or CEO bonuses, and 5.3 million seniors and people with disabilities have saved an average of over $600 on prescription drugs and the doughnut hole in Medicaid coverage, Medicare coverage. Also, 6.6 million young adults have been able to stay on their parents' plans until the age of 26, including 3.1 million young people who were newly insured--and I hear about this all the time when I am home in my district.

For those Americans who yet don't have health insurance, help is really on the way. Starting in 2014, the Affordable Care Act will offer an array of quality, affordable, private health insurance plans to choose from. If someone can't afford insurance, or for a small business that wants to provide affordable insurance to their employees, tax credits are available that make coverage affordable.

The result of this repeal, which the Republicans are putting forth today, is to basically say that millions of middle class Americans will lose out on new health freedoms and new health coverage that make a positive difference in their lives. Rather than refight these old partisan battles by starting over on health care and repealing basic protections that provide security for the middle class, Congress needs to work together to focus on the economy and create jobs.

The House Republican leadership would do well to seek bipartisan solutions to jobs and the economy instead of seeking this repeal.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire about how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan).

(Mr. LUJAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire again about the time on both sides that remains?

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers at this time, so I'll reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 1 minute, Mr. Speaker.

I am amazed by the comments that the previous speaker made on the Republican side. The fact of the matter is that the Affordable Care Act amounts to a tax cut.

Right now, in the State of New Jersey, for people who are paying for their health insurance, we estimate that about $1,000 or $1,500 annually from their premiums is actually going to pay for those who are uninsured, for people who don't have insurance and have to go to the emergency rooms and then don't pay their bills.

Once the Affordable Care Act fully kicks in, because of the fact that everyone will be insured and all those people who now go to the emergency rooms and have no insurance will, in fact, have coverage, for the people who are paying their premiums right now, they're actually going to be paying less--it will be a tax cut--because they won't be paying for those people who now are uninsured.

I think it's really incredible because, if you think about it, the Republicans always talk about personal responsibility. How is it fair that people don't have themselves covered? How is it that they don't carry health insurance and then make other people pay for it?

I reserve the balance of my time.

I will ask if the gentleman has any additional speakers.

How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Speaker?

I will close at this time, and yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me say over again--and I know we've had this debate so many times that it really sounds like we just keep repeating the same thing--that this is a very important day at some level because the fact of the matter is the Republicans continue with this effort to try to repeal what is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation that has ever passed in the last few years in the Congress and has been signed by the President.

The reason is that, for the first time, when the Affordable Care Act fully kicks in, most Americans--probably 98.99 percent of Americans-- will have health insurance. We estimate maybe 30, 40--perhaps more-- million Americans right now do not have health insurance.

There are probably as many who are what we call ``underinsured.'' In other words, they can't really buy a good benefit package.

The fact of the matter is, by 2014, when the Affordable Care Act fully kicks in, you'll be able to go on an exchange either in your State or anywhere in the country and find a good benefit package, one that's as good probably as what you would get now under Blue Cross or Blue Shield, good benefits at a good price. That is an amazing thing. We've been here for 200 years in this country and were never able to say that that would actually happen.

I heard my colleagues on the Republican side in the Rules Committee say last night, We'll just repeal this and we'll come up with a better plan.

But they haven't come up with a better plan. They talk about health savings accounts and malpractice and all these different things that are basically around the edges. They would pretty much not guarantee most Americans, as they do under the Affordable Care Act, that they would be able to access health insurance, the peace of mind that goes with that and all the benefits that have already kicked in that would be repealed under this bill:

The fact that seniors eventually won't have to worry about the doughnut hole and will have their prescription drug coverage no matter how much they actually spend, that they'll only have to pay a co-pay; the fact that so many seniors now have preventive care; the fact that kids up to 26 years old can go on their parents' health insurance policy. So many people talk to me about that.

There's also the fact that preexisting conditions for women and others is no

longer a factor in terms of your ability to buy health insurance; the fact that there are no more lifetime caps, recisions, all these discriminatory practices that we've had in the past when you are trying to buy health insurance.

The fact of the matter is that already, over the last few years, most of these discriminatory practices have been eliminated. Many people may not even realize it's a result of the Affordable Care Act, but the fact is that it is. That's why these discriminatory practices are going away.

Last night, the chairman of the Rules Committee said, We'll repeal this and we will do something and be different, and the insurance companies will continue not to have these discriminatory practices. That's simply not true. The insurance companies will go back to the discriminatory practices if you repeal this bill. They'll almost be forced to. Because of the way this is set up, when everybody has health insurance, then the insurance companies can make enough money, if you will, so they don't have to discriminate. But they'll go back to it if this is repealed.

I ask my colleagues to stop bringing this up. This is a bad bill. Let's defeat it now, and let's continue the way we should with the Affordable Care Act in light of the Supreme Court's decision.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

After seven decades of frustrated efforts, the Congress and the President acted on health reform. It was seven decades that this institution wrestled with health reform. Finally, it happened.

The Republican answer: Repeal. First, it was repeal Social Security, then repeal Medicare, then repeal Medicaid by block-granting it to the States. Now it's the same old song: Repeal health care reform.

This Republican Party, the party of repeal, captured by the radical right, would now put insurance companies back in charge of health care and repeal coverage for 17 million children with preexisting conditions, repeal coverage for 6.6 million adults now covered under their parents' insurance plan, repeal tax credits for 360,000 small employers covering 2 million workers, repeal ending lifetime caps on insurance for 105 million, and repeal closing of the burdensome doughnut hole for seniors' prescription medicines.

The Republican Party of Repeal says: Repeal and replace. Yet there has not been a single comprehensive bill proposed by the Republicans at any point in this session or before. Indeed, the only comprehensive health plan presented by the Republicans was put forward by Mitt Romney when he was Governor of Massachusetts. This is how he described his plan as recently as 2010:

Right now, in lots of parts of the country, if individuals

do not have insurance, they can arrive at the hospital and be

given free care paid for by government. Our current system is

a Big Government system. A conservative approach is one that

relies on individual responsibility. But in my view, and

others are free to disagree, expecting people who can afford

to buy insurance to do so is consistent with personal

responsibility, and that's a cornerstone of conservatism.

Well, the ones who are free to disagree are his fellow Republicans. The Massachusetts plan, with an individual mandate, reflected an original conservative Heritage Foundation proposal. Indeed, bills with an individual responsibility provision have been cosponsored by Republicans for two decades.

Now, however, Republicans have been captured by the radical right and taken a 180-degree turn. This repeal bill only deepens and widens the gulf handcuffing this Congress. You know, it's as if we live in two different universes. Let me tell you about the universe that is lived in by people who have sent letters to me.

I quote one, for example, from Warren:

I am 41 years old, and I was diagnosed with a form of

arthritis about 3 years ago. Because the Supreme Court upheld

ObamaCare, I don't have to worry anymore. I know that I can't

be dropped from my insurance carrier.

A letter from Pamela of Madison Heights, talking about the premiums that she has seen. She is a nurse. She has seen how many people have been hurt by these costly premiums. She says:

I have watched those who have to undergo painful

procedures, or those who have been given a poor prognosis,

because they have not had access to preventive or even

standard medical treatment due to the cost. She says the

Affordable Care Act is right and just.

From David in Saint Clair Shores who says:

Honestly, I am a Republican, but I don't believe the health

insurance bill should be repealed. I would like to see

compromise towards improving the legislation, rather than

destroying it entirely.

From Nancy of Clinton Township, who writes this:

The part of the CARE Act that is most important to my

family, even my Republican husband, is the provision for our

college-age daughter. Our insurance dropped her at the age of

19, and we had to buy a separate policy

that was very expensive and had poor coverage. Now we can

save several thousands of dollars a year, which helps with

her education. And it makes me sad that more people don't

understand how wonderful this is. I would like the message to

get out to more people.

It makes me sad, she says, that more people don't understand how wonderful this is.

You know, middle class families have had lots to worry about since trying to recover from the worst recession in decades. So instead of making it harder for them, putting insurance companies back in the driver's seat, we should let reform proceed.

I'm the ranking member on the Ways and Means Committee. The chairman is here, too. We've had jobs bills thrown into the hopper that never come forth. Today we're going through the motions of repealing health reform for the 31st time this Congress.

What we need instead is to get the bills that are lodged in Ways and Means on jobs out on the floor and work together, instead of against each other and against the interests of the American people.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 15 seconds.

If repeal occurred in California, it would mean the loss of coverage for 435,000 young adults. It also would mean over 12 million Californians would lose the ability to be sure that their lifetime limits would not kick in.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a very distinguished member of our committee, Mr. Rangel.

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member from Washington, a member of our committee, Mr. McDermott.

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield myself 10 seconds.

The gentleman from Louisiana voted for the $500 billion in Medicare savings twice. You come here and criticize, I guess, yourself.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, a distinguished member of our committee, Mr. Lewis.

Mr. Speaker, in March, to mark the 2-year anniversary of the signing of ObamaCare, I invited local doctors, business owners, and elected officials to talk about how the law will change the practice of health care on every level.

We heard from Dr. Gerald Rothacker about the law's failure to reform medical liability and how young doctors don't even realize they're practicing defensive medicine, ordering unnecessary tests, and driving up costs. We heard from Gary Alexander, Pennsylvania's secretary for the Department of Public Welfare, about how the law will cause State spending to explode in the coming years.

While Medicaid consumes 30 percent of the State budget now, if the law is fully implemented, it will consume over 60 percent. Pennsylvania won't be a State government. It will be a health plan that paves roads and funds schools on the side.

We also heard from Kirby Sensenig, the owner of a local roofing company. He spoke about the difficult choice he will have to make in coming years about whether to keep providing insurance for his workers, or to pay the penalty and cast them into the health care exchanges.

We all know how much health care reform was needed. We've all heard the stories about individuals denied care that they desperately needed. We've heard about the families who struggled to pay the bills when a child got sick. We all know someone who went without insurance because of the high cost

of premiums. But this law did not fix what was broken. It didn't deliver the reform the American people really wanted.

The savings, both for the government and for families, are an illusion. Don't pat yourselves on the back for gaming the CBO. There won't be a single dime saved by the law. Indeed, government spending will explode because of the law. ObamaCare's new entitlement program and massive Medicaid expansion is estimated to cost taxpayers $1.8 trillion over the next decade.

Things aren't much better for families under ObamaCare. In 2011 alone, the annual premium for an employer-sponsored family plan soared past $15,000. That's a sharp 9 percent increase from 2010. Twenty new taxes impose additional costs on everything from flexible spending accounts to pacemakers. That's 20 new taxes in ObamaCare not yet implemented. It will be taxing medical devices, drug manufacturers, and insurers. It drives up the cost of care. It is a farce to think that government subsidies will balance out the increased costs imposed by all the new taxes and regulations.

Finally, the reach of the Federal Government has extended even to the conscience of religious charities and educational institutions. When the government takes over health care, it takes over basic decisions of morality that should be left up to individuals. It's far past time we ended the destruction of our health care system by a poorly designed and administered law. Full repeal is the only way to get to real reform. I urge support for the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to another member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, today I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of the Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Harper).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to another valued member of the Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Cassidy.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger), another member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished Member from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished Member from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Buerkle).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

No. We are prepared to close.

If this new law is so outstanding, I wonder why the administration has granted over 1,000 waivers to their friends so they don't have to meet the requirements of the law.

The President promised not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000. He has broken that pledge 20 times with this new law. Many of them are impacting the middle class that he promised not to raise taxes on. That's $800 billion in new taxes.

My friends, the American people have a clear choice: Keep this law and pay the new taxes or take the law off the books and let's start over again with some real free-market reforms.

I urge support for the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.