Reclaiming Individual Liberty Act

There is nothing that one can do when you're debating this bill than to be civil and to respect the American people, who, many of them, are in the jaws of terrible disease, rehabilitation, or maybe some have already lost their lives. And the repeal of this health bill, just a couple of pages, would sentence people possibly to dying. H.R. 2 talks about jobs when we're talking about lives.

So I think it is important that we follow what the repeal of this patient protection and health care bill does--end consumer protection, patient protection. And I think it is important for us to be able to hold this Constitution and prove that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional.

Well, I could say that there are 1.1 million jobs already created, that the deficit will blow up $143 billion, a trillion over 20 years. But I really want to refer to the 14th Amendment that allows and guarantees you equal protection under the law.

If this bill is repealed, Ed Burke, a hemophiliac, will probably have serious health issues because he would have lifetime caps. Or Mr. Land, who was on my health care teleconference--where 18,000 people in Harris County were contacted--maybe he, who is from a family of schizophrenics and people who have children that have schizophrenia, maybe he would not be guaranteed the equal protection under the law.

Thank you so very much.

Maybe they would not be able to withstand this onslaught on their rights because the Constitution guarantees them equal protection. And some who have insurance and some who do not would not be treated equally.

And finally, let me say that in Texas, the Department of Insurance has said that this bill helps Texans.

I hope my colleague from Texas will vote not to repeal this bill. I will vote ``no'' on the repeal.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Chairman, you are absolutely right. This is a constitutional question that has been raised, and as I came to the floor earlier, I mentioned my predecessor, Congresswoman Jordan, who believed in this Constitution without question. I mentioned the 14th Amendment. I now mention the Fifth Amendment.

First of all the commerce clause covers this bill, but the Fifth Amendment speaks specifically to denying someone their life and liberty without due process. That is what H.R. 2 does, and I rise in opposition to it. And I rise in opposition because it is important that we preserve lives and we recognize that 40 million plus are uninsured.

In my own county, Harris County, this bill will allow some 800,000 uninsured members of Harris County, citizens of Harris County, to be insured in Texas. In addition, the Texas Department of Insurance, as many other States, have already begun implementing this bill, the patient protection bill, gladly so, and saying it will help save lives and provide for the families of their States.

Can you tell me what is more unconstitutional than taking away from the people of America their Fifth Amendment rights, their 14th Amendment rights, and the right to equal protection under the law? I know that Mr. Land, who suffers from schizophrenia with his family; Ms. Betty, who had to go to the ER room in Texas because of no insurance; Mrs. Smith who was on dialysis; or Mrs. Fields whose mother couldn't get dental care, I know they would question why we're taking away their rights.

Today we stand before this body, we beg of them to ask themselves whether this is all about politics or about the American people. I am prepared to extend a hand of friendship, standing on the Constitution, to enable us to provide for all of the citizens of this country.

This bill has been vetted, this bill is constitutional, and it protects the constitutional rights of those who ask the question: Must I die, must my child die because I am now disallowed from getting insurance? To our seniors, there are no death panels. This is about your primary care doctor. This is about closing the doughnut hole that will allow you to be able to get discounts on your prescription drugs that some of you have avoided because you have to pay your rent and you have to buy your food.

Texas, a big State, has already said through a governmental agency, we need this bill. And we hope that those who come from our State and many other States will not vote against the protection of patients. Vote against H.R. 2 and provide yourself with the protection of the Constitution.

Madam Speaker, I stand in strong opposition to the Patient's Rights Repeal Act. As a Member of Congress I take seriously my responsibility and sworn oath to serve my constituents and improve the lives of all citizens of this country for the better.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that, ``No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.''

The last portion of this amendment, commonly called the Equal Protection Clause, is one of the most important portions of the Constitution, which was added after the Civil War and was the basis for most of the civil rights decisions that transformed this country. Furthermore, many of the legal arguments for demanding medical treatment have also rested on this clause, which the U.S. Supreme Court relied on in its Roe v. Wade decision. Repealing the healthcare reform we enacted last year would be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution since it would be abridging the fundamental right of U.S. citizens to have health care and would be denying them the equal protection under the law guaranteed to them by the 14th Amendment.

Furthermore, even the Founding Fathers more than two centuries ago emphasized the fundamental importance of good health. Thomas Jefferson stated that, ``Without health there is no happiness. And attention to health, then, should take the place of every other object . . . The most uninformed mind, with a healthy body, is happier than the wisest valetudinarian.''

I urge President Obama that should any repeal of any beneficial portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act come to his desk, he should utilize his presidential prerogative to veto this legislation which would harm the fundamental rights of Americans.

As health care reform takes a particularly partisan tone, this Nation, as of January 2011, still has more than 20 million Americans according to the U.S. Census Bureau who live without health insurance.

To my colleagues across the aisle, have you truly considered what this repeal would mean and who this would affect? Sadly to say, in my district, the 18th Congressional District of Houston, Texas, the repeal would be devastating. To highlight a few major effects of the repeal for my district, please listen as I explain several devastating changes to health care coverage that a number of populations throughout the 18th Congressional District of Houston, Texas, will face.

The repeal would increase drug costs for seniors. There are 5,300 Medicare beneficiaries in my district who are expected to benefit from these provisions. Repeal would increase the average cost of prescription drugs for these Medicare beneficiaries by over $500 in 2011 and by over $3,000 in 2020.

The repeal would deny seniors new preventive and wellness care improving primary and coordinated care, and enhancing nursing home care.

The repeal would eliminate these benefits for 70,000 Medicare beneficiaries in the district and cause the Medicare trust fund to become insolvent in just six years.

The repeal would eliminate tax credits for small businesses. The health reform law provides tax credits to small businesses worth up to 35 percent of the cost of providing health insurance. There are up to 14,600 small businesses in my district, small businesses that are eligible for this tax credit. This repeal would force these small businesses to drop coverage or bear the full costs of coverage themselves.

The repeal would increase retiree health care costs for employers. The health reform law provides funding to encourage employers to continue to provide health insurance for their retirees. As many as 5,500 district residents who have retired but are not yet eligible for Medicare could ultimately benefit from this early retiree assistance.

The repeal would increase costs for employers and jeopardize the coverage their retirees are receiving. The repeal would increase the cost of uncompensated care born by hospitals. The Health Reform Law benefits hospitals by covering more Americans and thereby reducing the cost of providing care to the uninsured.

The repeal would undo this benefit, increasing the cost of uncompensated care by $27 million annually for hospitals in my district.

As evidenced in the recent elections, the public has indicated they want less spending and a balanced budget. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the budget will be negatively impacted to the tune of $230 billion dollars over a 10 year period if healthcare reform is repealed. Additionally, more than four million small businesses would lose health insurance tax credits as a result of repeal, and the cost of offering employer-based health insurance could increase by more than $3,000 annually, according to the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

As a Congress we have continued to debate this issue for decades without resolve. The uninsured, the underserved, vulnerable and minority communities are particularly at risk. Lest we forget--in 1999 we asked the Institute of Medicine--the independent organization whose reports are considered the gold standard for health care policymakers-- to investigate disparities in health and health care among racial and ethnic minorities. The results were damning: the ensuing study, Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care, found that minorities had poorer health and were consistently receiving lower-quality health care even when factors such as insurance status and income weren't involved.

As stated by Newsweek, minorities and the underserved were less likely to get lifesaving heart medications, bypass surgery, dialysis, or kidney transplants. They were more likely to get their feet and legs amputated as a treatment for late-stage diabetes.--Mary Carmichael, The Great Divide, Newsweek, February 15, 2010.

In our current system, most people do not choose to be uninsured but are priced out of insurance. These people cannot, as free market proponents often argue, ``pull themselves up by their bootstraps.'' Instead, they and their families are too often cyclically and systemically trapped in their economic situation. As a result, minority communities suffer grave health disparities that would otherwise be limited but for lack of access to affordable and quality care. What is the price for improving the life expectancy of millions of Americans of all ages?

In 2007, only 49 percent of African-Americans in comparison to 66 percent of non-Hispanic whites used employer-sponsored health insurance, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. During the same year, 19.5 percent of African-Americans in comparison to 10.4 percent of non-Hispanic whites were uninsured.

Hispanics have the highest uninsured rates of any racial or ethnic group within the United States. In 2004, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that private insurance coverage among Hispanic subgroups varied as follows: 39.1 percent of Mexicans, 47.3 percent of Puerto Ricans, 57.9 percent of Cubans, and 45.1 percent of other Hispanic and Latino groups.

Health care reform also is critical to ensure that women have access to affordable health care coverage. An estimated 64 million women do not have adequate health insurance coverage. About 1.7 million women have lost their health insurance coverage since the beginning of the economic downturn. Nearly two-thirds lost coverage because of their spouse's job loss. And nearly 39 percent of all low-income women lack health insurance coverage. Women also are more likely to deplete their savings accounts paying medical bills than men because they are more likely to be poor. This bill gives women access to the health care that they need and deserve.

Health care reform is a critical step in helping to reduce such health disparities. Are we now telling the American public we will not?

Lower costs for minority families and all Americans should forget about preventive care for better health.

Racial and ethnic minorities are often less likely to receive preventive care. Vietnamese women, for example, are half as likely to receive a pap smear, and twice as likely to die from cervical cancer as are whites. Obesity rates are also high among certain minority groups. By ensuring all Americans have access to preventive care and by investing in public health, health insurance reform will work to create a system that prevents illness and disease instead of just treating it when it's too late and costs more. Are we telling the citizens of this country that we will not?

Make health care accessible to everyone.

African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans are roughly twice as likely to be uninsured as the rest of the population. By providing health insurance choices to all Americans and providing premium assistance to make it affordable, health insurance reform significantly reduces disparities in accessing the best quality for health. We will you tell your constituents that you will not:

Control chronic disease and promote primary care.

Nearly half of African Americans suffer from a chronic disease, compared with 40 percent of the general population. Chronic illness is growing in other minority communities as well. Health insurance reform is slated to include a number of programs to prevent and control chronic disease, including incentives to provide medical homes and chronic disease management pilots in Medicare. By investing in the primary care workforce (including scholarships and grants to increase diversity in health professions), health reform will make sure that all Americans have access to a primary care doctor and strengthen the system of safety-net hospitals and community health centers to ensure accessible care.

The people of my home State of Texas, in particular, with 6 million uninsured persons, and 26 percent uninsured in my district, have been hit especially hard when it comes to lack of access to quality, affordable care. Many Americans continue to be forced from their health care plans due to decisions by insurance companies that consider profit over people.

So how do the million plus Houston residents without an insurance company get health care--the emergency room, ER! Emergency rooms have become the health care providers of last resort for well over 100 million Americans annually.

Will we allow this trend to continue? Over a 10 year period from 1994 to 2004, ER visits on a national level saw an 18 percent jump, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Emergency rooms in Houston hospitals are routinely overcrowded as overused as throngs flock seeking care for ailments that may range from a heart attack or gunshot wound to an ear infection or toothache. ER overcrowding is so bad in the Houston area, that patients have called 911 from one ER to get to another, according to one report. When the President signed the health care bill into law, he ensured that Americans who have been flocking to emergency rooms for primary care will have another option--affordable and accessible health care.

Repealing the health act is not in the best interest of Americans. Health is not partisan and we should not treat it as such. Will we tell the citizens of this great Nation, we will not?

Bar insurance companies from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions, health status, and gender; create health insurance exchanges--competitive marketplaces where individuals and small business can buy affordable health care coverage in a manner similar to that of big businesses today; offer premium tax credits and cost- sharing assistance to low and middle income Americans, providing families and small businesses with the largest tax cut for health care in history; insure access to immediate relief for uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions on the brink of medical bankruptcy; invest substantially in community health centers to expand access to health care in communities where it is needed most; empower the Department of Health and Human Services and State insurance commissioners to conduct annual reviews of new plans demanding unjustified, egregious premium increases; expand eligibility for Medicaid to include all non-elderly Americans with income below 133 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL); replace the so-called ``cornhusker'' deal with fair assistance for all States to help cover the costs of these new Medicaid populations; maintain current funding levels for the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for an additional two years, through fiscal year 2015; and increase payments to primary care doctors in Medicaid.

Increased costs for families and business in the current economy cannot be best for the Nation. Before we rush headlong toward repeal, we must consider the consequences and look for solutions that hold down costs, not increase them. In opposition to H.R. 2, I offered several amendments to protect the millions of Americans who are at risk of the legislation that is before the body of Congress today. Specifically, my amendments would amend the legislation to make no further reduction in Medicare and Medicaid fraud and would prevent the abuse of activities below the level that would be provided under Title VI and Subtitle F of Title X of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and Sections 1106 and Subtitle D of Title I of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-152.

My amendment stated that this repeal shall not take effect unless and until the Director of Office of Management and Budget in collaboration with the Director of the Congressional Budget Office certifies to Congress that this repeal will not result in any decrease in Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse prevention activities below the level provided in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Health care fraud and abuse has been a national problem, prevalent in Federal, State and private insurance programs, costing this Nation billions of dollars each year. Fraud can result in improper payments, but it is not the only cause of wasteful spending in Federal health care programs. Payments for unnecessary medical services, for claims with insufficient documentation, for ineligible patients and to ineligible providers, are examples of improper expenditures that waste taxpayer dollars and drive up health care costs. Fraud and abuse account for one-fifth, an estimated $125 to $175 billion of that waste. This is staggering.

Continuing to uncover fraud and abuse will assist in covering the costs of health reform, allowing us to keep the services so many Americans rely upon, while reducing the deficit. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that every $1 invested to fight fraud yields approximately $1.75 in savings. Through FY 2009, the Department of Justice's civil division and U.S. Attorneys' Offices have recovered nearly $16 billion in matters alleging fraud against government health care programs.

As we look to make non-partisan decisions that will benefit the American people and guarantee fair and equitable health care coverage, the Obama administration has taken steps to significantly improve oversight of the Medicare Part C and Part D programs. These steps have sought to tailor interventions towards the areas where fraud and abuse are the greatest. Efforts have been implemented to invest in critical data infrastructure, enhanced field operations at Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services, the Office of Inspector General, and Department of Justice, and initiated new efforts to reduce improper payments.

On July 2010, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius and U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder launched a series of regional health care fraud prevention summits. These summits brought together a range of Federal, State and local partners, beneficiaries, providers, and other interested parties to discuss innovative ways to eliminate fraud within our U.S. health care system. Tools contained in the Affordable Care Act serve to safeguard taxpayer dollars and ensure health care coverage for seniors, families and children are secure.

The Nation's health care system has been victimized by health care fraud perpetrators whose objective is to line their pockets at the expense of the American taxpayer, patients, and private insurers. This not only drives up costs for everyone in the health care system, it cripples the long term solvency of Medicare and Medicaid, two programs upon which millions of Americans depend.

This particular amendment was essential to hold State and local partners, beneficiaries, providers, and others accountable to their patients and communities and ensure these new policies are used in an effective manner to yield the best possible outcome.

Regarding community health centers, I offered an amendment that would prevent Section 2 of House Bill H.R. 2 from taking effect unless and until the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, certifies to Congress that the repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) will not result in an elimination of any increased funding to community health centers provided under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 and will not result in any decrease in the number of community health centers, and will not otherwise disallow further expansions of community healthcare centers.

It is important to protect the historic healthcare legislation which we fought so hard to enact in order to provide the accessible, affordable and quality healthcare that all Americans deserve and so many Americans receive through community healthcare centers.

Community health centers are poised to play a vital role in the implementation of the Affordable Care Act and emphasize coordinated primary and preventive services. These centers also provide preventive services. Routine health care that includes screenings, check-ups, and patient counseling to prevent illnesses, disease, or other health problems.

Offer a medical home to the most vulnerable and medically underserved--low-income individuals, racial and ethnic minorities, rural communities and other underserved populations to address and reduce health disparities.

Community health centers continue to show their ability to manage patients with multiple health care needs, and implement key quality improvement practices, including health information technology.

For more than forty years, health centers have delivered quality, comprehensive preventive and primary care to patients regardless of their ability to pay. With a proven track record of success, and the advent of 350 new community health care centers being established in fiscal year 2011, a repeal of the Affordable Care Act will threaten the very fabric of this Nation's health care system. Currently, more than 1,100 community health centers operate 7,900 service delivery sites and provide care to nearly 19 million patients in every state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Pacific Basin.

The Affordable Healthcare Act included enhanced funding for operations and start-ups of federally qualified health centers in the Harris County Hospital district, which is in the 18th Congressional District of Texas, my home district, thereby increasing the availability of primary health care and preventive health care services. The Affordable Healthcare Act also provided funding for and policy direction to increase the number of primary care providers in the Harris County Hospital district and the state of Texas, inclusive of physicians and physician extenders (advanced nurse practitioners).

The Affordable Healthcare Act also directed states to increase provider payment rates to physicians in the Medicaid program. This is significant in that rates are so low in Texas many physicians are unwilling to take Medicaid patients.

According to the Texas Health and Human Services Commission Study, there are currently 1.1 million uninsured in Harris County, Texas. Full implementation of health care reform would reduce that number to a little over 390,000. That represents a 65 percent reduction in the number of uninsured residents. Diminished access to primary and preventive health care services that in turn will lead to a moreover use of acute care hospital inpatient services and emergency center encounters at much higher costs to county taxpayers and higher Medicaid per capita expenditures for the state and Federal government. Without reform, cuts to the Medicare and Medicaid program will put a greater strain on existing safety net providers and local tax payers. Without expanded care and insurance reforms, people will not have access to affordable, lower cost health care services.

Specifically, in my Congressional district, the South Central Houston Community Health Center has been serving the Houston community since 1994 and has locations in the Sunnyside and Third Wards areas of Houston. By being the oldest, Federally qualified health center in the city of Houston, the community health center has grown to receive over 1.2 million in annual Federal funds, which is instrumental in providing quality health care to the medically underserved, uninsured, and underinsured people of the greater Houston area. The South Central Houston Community Health Center has made tremendous progress towards eliminating healthcare disparities and increasing access to healthcare services to the Houston community.

The Legacy Community Health Center in my Congressional district has also benefitted greatly from the Affordable Healthcare Act. The Legacy Community Health Center is a full-service, community health center that provides comprehensive, primary healthcare services to all Houstonians in a culturally sensitive, judgment-free and confidential environment. Legacy has specialized in HIV/AIDS testing, education, treatment and social services since the early 1980's. They also provide care for other chronic health conditions like diabetes and high blood pressure disparately impacting minorities. Generous financial support from individuals, businesses and charitable foundations allows Legacy to provide no-cost or low-cost healthcare services to over 30,000 men, women and children each year.

The Good Neighbor Healthcare Center also in my Congressional district offers a wide array of services to families living in the greater Houston area. Services include primary health care, dental care, optometry, and behavioral health services. Good Neighbor Healthcare Center has a special mission to the community that goes right to the heart of providing quality, accessible primary health care and dental care to those in need. Good Neighbor Healthcare Center serves patients from virtually every zip code in Harris County, and the diverse staff is ready to assist patients with all of their health care needs. Good Neighbor Healthcare Center assists patients in Spanish or English as needed as well.

Community health centers are an integral part of our communities providing a source of local employment and economic growth in many underserved and low-income communities. In 2009, community health centers across the Nation provided more than $11 billion in operating expenditures directly into their local economies. Community health centers employ more than 9,100 physicians and more than 5,700 nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and certified nurse midwives to treat patients through culturally competent, quality and integrated care.

And lastly, I offered an amendment that would be essential to an unprecedented opportunity to serve more patients, retain existing and support new jobs, meet the significant increase in demand for primary health care services among the nation's uninsured and underserved populations and address essential construction, renovation, and equipment and health information technology systems needs in community health centers. I cannot turn my back and shut the door on the constituents I represent in securing accessible, affordable and quality healthcare services in my Congressional district.

If the Healthcare Repeal Bill were to pass, this amendment would ensure that insurance rates do not increase from those rates that would have applied if the law is left intact.

Health care reform is something that people have fought for fervently for years, and it would be a great disservice to the American people if the health care law were repealed as a result of politics. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act insure access to quality, affordable healthcare for all Americans. It also makes necessary changes that will make our system of health care more efficient. Children are allowed to stay on their parents' health insurance until the age of twenty-six. Patients cannot be refused health insurance coverage because of pre- existing conditions. Insurance premiums were lowered and mechanisms are in place to avoid them getting any higher. Repealing health care reform would reverse all of this good that has been done.

However, if the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is repealed, it is important that certain provisions of the law remain intact. For aforementioned reasons, I urge my colleagues to reason with the American people and provide an opportunity for every American in every state to receive affordable and quality healthcare. If the Healthcare Law is repealed without the inclusion of my amendment, that would ensure that insurance rates do not increase from those rates that would have applied if the law is left intact, we are left great potential for health insurance rates to rise, much like they did in the past, to levels which make coverage inaccessible and unaffordable for many Americans.

Before the Healthcare Reform Bill was signed into law, increasing healthcare costs were crushing the budgets of families and American businesses, making us less competitive in the ever growing global market, placing Medicare and Medicaid in serious danger, damaging our long-term fiscal stability, and worse of all, causing Americans to continue to go without basic health care coverage. This broken health care system was driving up health care costs and weakening our economy. Minorities in general were more in danger of being uninsured and falling victim to frequent emergency visits, increasing debt that leads to bankruptcy, and premature death.

Without healthcare reform, a devastating number of citizens would have had to continue to live without healthcare. No American citizen should have to face a decision of whether to buy food or pay healthcare premiums. Putting a face to healthcare is recognizing Iris Williams from Houston, Texas.

For many mothers, finding a good doctor for their children can be quite difficult, especially if they don't have health insurance. When the child has fears of going to the doctor, the difficulty only worsens.

Iris Williams first brought her son, Simon, to Legacy Community Health Services in 2007. As a resident in the surrounding area, Iris liked the convenience of Legacy's Community Health Center on Lyons Avenue in the heart of her neighborhood. When she found out Legacy offered school physicals, even to those without health insurance, she was thrilled.

``My son had a bad experience with a doctor when he was younger and did not like going to the doctor,'' Iris sighed. ``But Legacy was able to schedule a physical for Simon within the week, and I was told it would only cost $45.''

Now that Iris had an appointment for her son at an affordable cost, she only had to worry about whether Simon would like the doctor.

``I just love Dr. Levine, he is so kind and wonderful,'' Iris continued, ``he not only made my son feel at ease but he also treated him like a young man. That made us both feel really good.''

This past summer Simon hurt his finger at a summer program. Iris had to take him to the emergency room to get his fingernail removed. For his follow-up care Iris sought out Legacy to clean the wound and make sure it was healing properly.

``Again the staff at Legacy was great and the finger is healing nicely,'' Iris glowed. ``I am so glad Legacy had a doctor to care for him after the visit to the ER.''

When people in Iris's neighborhood ask her where to go for quality and affordable healthcare, Iris doesn't hesitate to refer them to Legacy. She knows they will get great care. Iris stated, ``it gives me great satisfaction knowing that Legacy is here for all of us and will take care of our health care needs.'' Madam Speaker, what do you expect I say to constituents similar to Iris Williams?

Madam Speaker, before the Healthcare Reform Bill passed, the need for more efficient healthcare was dire, especially within my home State of Texas. One in four Texans, about 5.7 million people, or 24.5 percent of the State's population, had no health insurance coverage. An estimated 1,339,550 Texas children--20.2 percent of Texas children--were uninsured. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Texas had the Nation's highest percentage of uninsured residents. This posed consequences for every person, business, and local government in the State who were forced to bear extra costs to pay for uncompensated care. If the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is repealed, Texas, like many other States, runs the risk of a reoccurrence of statistics such as these.

Over the years, I have had the opportunity to meet with health care providers who have been on the front lines of health care debates from day one. It is no surprise that they enthusiastically endorsed healthcare reform, and many are still holding out hope for progressive changes to the current healthcare laws as we move forward in this new Congress. These

health professionals have seen the pain and frustration of hardworking Americans who faced financial collapse, physical suffering, and sometimes the loss of their life simply because they did not have decent health care coverage. The repeal of healthcare reform could lead our Nation back down a similar path, and I am confident that no health care professionals, nor I, or any of my colleagues would want to see situations like that reoccur.

The late Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, who once held the seat that I so proudly and humbly hold today said, ``What the people want is very simple. They want an America as good as its promise.'' These words resonate in our time and the American people only ask for simple things. Therefore, I and my fellow colleagues are striving to maintain something we fought for tirelessly for years and were finally able to secure in the last Congress--the ability to provide all Americans with affordable and accessible healthcare.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to allow their conscious to recognize the greater need to work across the aisles with one another and strengthen our healthcare system to one day provide universal healthcare for all Americans. Again, I am in opposition of H.R. 2.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I am very pleased to defend what has been not intended as a compliment, but to defend the so-called ObamaCare bill. President Obama is going to go down in history for having taken 54 million people, according to the CBO, off the rolls of the uninsured and given them insurance.

I've been looking over my congressional district over the King holiday and talking to a lot of people about health care. I haven't found one parent in the 14th Congressional District that didn't like the idea of having their children remain on their health care policy until age 26. Have you found anybody that would like not to have their children extended until 26? Please see me after this debate, because we've got so much to be proud of.

And what are we talking about? Preexisting illnesses not being a basis for being denied insurance or a reason to kick one out of a health insurance policy. These are good things.

I am amazed by the fact that people say this bill is going to cost jobs. Well, the CBO says it's going to cost us $230 billion to repeal the bill. Please, could we be a little more fiscally conservative in this body as we rush to repeal this bill?

The question of constitutionality is a very interesting one for the Judiciary Committee, a matter we are going to go into further. But we've found a very good set of arguments about the ability of this bill to be totally within the framework of our Constitution. Come on. We already have Medicare. Who do you think runs that? We already have Medicaid. What about Social Security?

Mr. Speaker, the issues here are simple.

The health care bill that Republicans attack today ensures that millions of Americans have access to essential medical care.

It enables businesses to provide health care to their employees-- which protects and creates the jobs we so desperately need.

It protects Americans from notorious insurance company practices like denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions and children with birth defects.

It stops insurance companies from dropping your coverage when you get sick.

And it takes critical first steps towards getting health care costs under control, cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from the deficit. Everyone in America who gets health insurance through their work has seen premiums and co-pays skyrocket year after year. Those increases afflict our entire health care economy. Before we passed the Affordable Care Act, they threatened to engulf the entire federal budget. Those who would repeal this law are simply not serious about our debt.

Costs of Repeal

Repealing this bill would undo all these profound public policy achievements. And towards what end?

Repeal would add 54 million people to the rolls of the uninsured. Is that what the new majority wants as their first legislative act?

Repeal would permit health insurers to resume discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions. Does the new majority want

to tell women who have survived breast cancer or children with birth defects that they are not allowed to buy health care?

Repeal would lead to millions of young people being dropped from their parents' insurance coverage. In this economy, with work and the health insurance that comes with it so hard to find, does the new majority really want to kick these children off the insurance rolls?

And finally, repeal would add more than $230 billion to the near term federal deficit. Is that what the new majority has in store for the American taxpayer?

The majority apparently feels that all these costs are acceptable, because they will ``replace'' the health care bill with something else. But that is simply not credible.

After all we went through to pass this bill, it obviously would be no simple thing to draft a replacement. So if the majority is serious about wanting to improve our health care system, at the least they should hold off on repealing the current law until their replacement actually exists. Voting now suggests the true motive here is the politics of health care, not the policy.

During the health care debate last year, we saw the Republican approach--and it simply does not improve our health care system. Indeed, in November of 2009, the Republicans put forward their own plan which the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office found would cover only 3 million people. That meant that for the 54 million people left without the ability to afford insurance, the Republicans' ``No Care'' plan provided exactly that--no care; no hope; no security.

Conclusion

There may be no issue that comes before the Congress that more clearly demonstrates the different priorities of the parties.

Based on today's proceedings, it is clear that the new Republican majority stands for protecting insurance companies, exploding the national debt, and playing to the extremes of their base.

The Democratic minority, on the other hand, stands for affordable health care for all, holding insurance companies accountable, and responsibly addressing our long term financial challenges.

I urge all Members to vote against repeal of the landmark health care reform law.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas.

I yield the gentlewoman 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a former subcommittee chairman of Judiciary, the gentleman from Georgia, Hank Johnson, to defend the ObamaCare legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to Dr. Judy Chu of California, a very valuable member of Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Lamar Smith on becoming the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee during the 112th session of Congress.

I turn now to the former chairman of the Constitutional Subcommittee, Jerry Nadler of New York, and I yield him 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute, and I congratulate the ranking member of Government Reform, to the gentleman from Maryland, Elijah Cummings.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Birmingham, Alabama, Terri Sewell.

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Braley).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri, Russ Carnahan.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Rob Andrews.

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

How much time have we remaining, Madam Speaker?

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Because this is the Judiciary Committee and so little has been said about the constitutionality, I am pleased to quote from the dean of the law school of the University of California, Erwin Chemerinsky, who said that opposing health care reform and relying on an argument that it is unconstitutional is an inadequate way to proceed.

Somebody here must remember that there is Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. Please, this is not new that the government would be intervening in this way. Maybe we need to revise and revisit the questions of constitutionality.

[From POLITICO, Oct. 23, 2009]

Health Care Reform Is Constitutional

(By Erwin Chemerinsky)

Those opposing health care reform are increasingly relying

on an argument that has no legal merit: that the health care

reform legislation would be unconstitutional. There is, of

course, much to debate about how to best reform America's

health care system. But there is no doubt that bills passed

by House and Senate committees are constitutional.

Some who object to the health care proposals claim that

they are beyond the scope of congressional powers.

Specifically, they argue that Congress lacks the authority to

compel people to purchase health insurance or pay a tax or a

fine.

Congress clearly could do this under its power pursuant to

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to regulate commerce

among the states. The Supreme Court has held that this

includes authority to regulate activities that have a

substantial effect on interstate commerce. In the area of

economic activities, ``substantial effect'' can be found

based on the cumulative impact of the activity across the

country. For example, a few years ago, the Supreme Court held

that Congress could use its commerce clause authority to

prohibit individuals from cultivating and possessing small

amounts of marijuana for personal medicinal use because

marijuana is bought and sold in interstate commerce.

The relationship between health care coverage and the

national economy is even stronger and more readily apparent.

In 2007, health care expenditures amounted to $2.2 trillion,

or $7,421 per person, and accounted for 16.2 percent of the

gross domestic product.

Ken Klukowski, writing in POLITICO, argued that ``people

who declined to purchase government-mandated insurance would

not be engaging in commercial activity, so there's no

interstate commerce.'' Klukowski's argument is flawed because

the Supreme Court never has said that the commerce power is

limited to regulating those who are engaged in commercial

activity.

Quite the contrary: The court has said that Congress can

use its commerce power to forbid hotels and restaurants from

discriminating based on race, even though their conduct was

refusing to engage in commercial activity. Likewise, the

court has said that Congress can regulate the growing of

marijuana for personal medicinal use, even if the person

being punished never engaged in any commercial activity.

Under an unbroken line of precedents stretching back 70

years, Congress has the power to regulate activities that,

taken cumulatively, have a substantial effect on interstate

commerce. People not purchasing health insurance

unquestionably has this effect.

There is a substantial likelihood that everyone will need

medical care at some point. A person with a communicable

disease will be treated whether or not he or she is insured.

A person in an automobile accident will be rushed to the

hospital for treatment, whether or not he or she is insured.

Congress would simply be requiring everyone to be insured to

cover their potential costs to the system.

Congress also could justify this as an exercise of its

taxing and spending power. Congress can require the purchase

of health insurance and then tax those who do not do so in

order to pay their costs to the system. This is similar to

Social Security taxes, which everyone pays to cover the costs

of the Social Security system. Since the 1930s, the Supreme

Court has accorded Congress broad powers to tax and spend for

the general welfare and has left it to Congress to determine

this.

Nor is there any basis for arguing that an insurance

requirement violates individual liberties. No

constitutionally protected freedom is infringed. There is no

right to not have insurance. Most states now require

automobile insurance as a condition for driving.

Since the 19th century, the Supreme Court has consistently

held that a tax cannot be challenged as an impermissible take

of private property for public use without just compensation.

All taxes are a taking of private property for public use,

but no tax has ever been invalidated on that basis.

Since the late 1930s, the Supreme Court has ruled that

government economic regulations, including taxes, are to be

upheld as long as they are reasonable. Virtually all economic

regulations and taxes have been found to meet this standard

for more than 70 years. There is thus no realistic chance

that the mandate for health insurance would be invalidated

for denying due process or equal protection.

Those who object to the health care proposals on

constitutional grounds are making an argument that has no

basis in the law. They are invoking the rhetorical power of

the Constitution to support their opposition to health care

reform, but the law is clear that Congress constitutionally

has the power to do so. There is much to argue about in the

debate over health care reform, but constitutionality is not

among the hard questions to consider.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee, a senior member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 26, I call up the bill (H.R. 2) to repeal the job-killing health care law and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to begin by saying why we're doing this, and I want to get into the accounting of all this at a later time in this debate. But let me just simply say why we are here.

We are here because we heard the American people in the last election. We are here because we believe it's really important to do in office what you said you would do. We said we would have a straight up- or-down vote to repeal this health care law, and that's precisely what we are doing here today.

Now, Mr. Speaker, why do we believe this? Because this health care law, if left in place, will accelerate our country's path toward bankruptcy. This health care law, if left in place, will do as the President's own chief actuary says it will do: It will increase health care costs. We are already seeing premiums go up across the board. We are already hearing from thousands of employers across the country who are talking about dropping their employer-sponsored health insurance, and we are already hearing about the lack of choices that consumers will get as this new law is put into place. This new law is a fiscal house of cards, and it is a health care house of cards. It does not make our health care system better. I would argue it makes it weaker.

There are two ways to attack this problem, and I want to say in the outset to my friends on the other side of the aisle we agree that health care needs fixing. We agree that there are so many serious, legitimate problems in the health care system that need fixing. Affordable insurance, the uninsured, people with high health care costs and high health care risks, those need to be addressed. But we can fix what's not working in health care without breaking what's working in health care.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would simply say this: We believe we can get to the moment of having affordable health care for every American, regardless of preexisting conditions, without having the government take it over, without $1 trillion of a combination of Medicare benefit cuts and tax increases. We believe in this: Let's have health care reform put the patient in charge, not the government in charge.

I yield myself an additional 20 seconds to simply say we believe that health care ought to be individually based, and it ought to be patient centered.

There are two ways to go: Put the government in charge and have the government put in place rationing mechanisms to tighten the screws and ration health care; or put the consumer in charge and have providers compete for our business as patients, hospitals, doctors, and insurers. That's the system we want.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a new member of the committee but a senior Member of Congress, the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes to address some of the charges we've heard.

Number one, they're saying this is a jobs bill. Half a trillion dollars in tax increases creates jobs? That mandates the taxes, that creates jobs?

Others have been saying, well, this isn't going to pass the Senate and the President's not going to sign it, so why bother doing that. If that's the logic we take on every bill we bring to the floor, then we ought to just go home. We think it's important to define ourselves with our actions, and that's why we're acting. We think this law should be totally repealed, and that's why we're doing this.

Let me speak to the fiscal house of cards as represented by this law. The minority is saying, This reduces the deficit. Just look at the letter from CBO to Speaker Boehner. It reduces the deficit by $143 billion over 8 years; $230 billion over 10 years.

It does that if you manipulate the CBO. I've heard charges of Enron accounting. The only Enron accounting that's been employed here is the previous majority gave the CBO a bill full of smoke and mirrors and made them score that.

Well, here's what the CBO says, if you take away the smoke and mirrors. If you take away the fact that there's $70 billion in CLASS Act premiums that are being double-counted; $53 billion in Social Security taxes that are being double-counted; $115 billion in new appropriations required to hire the bureaucracy that wasn't counted; $398 billion in Medicare cuts that are being double-counted; and oh, let's not forget the fact that we're going to do the doctor fix, $208 billion, that we just discounted and ignored.

When you take away the smoke and the mirrors, this thing has a $701 billion deficit. If you don't believe me when I say it that way, how about this way: The CBO says this raises the debt.

Now, how is that different where they say on one hand the bill lowers the deficit but on the other hand it raises the debt? Because when the CBO looks at whether or not a measure raises the debt, they can look at everything. They look at the interplay of all fiscal policies to determine its effects on the debt. When they score a particular bill and its effects on the deficit, they look at what you put in front of them, all the smoke, all the mirrors, the double-counting, the noncounting, the discounting, and they give you that answer.

So if this bill actually lowers the deficit, how on Earth can it then increase the debt? You know why? Because you have to play a phony trick with all this double-counting to do that. What does this bill ultimately do when you really look at it all? This bill blows a hole through the deficit. When you look at the first 10 years, this bill is a $1.4 trillion increase. That's because you have 10 years of tax increases and Medicare cuts to pay for 6 years of spending. But when you actually look at the full 10 years of implementation of this law, $2.6 trillion in spending. $2.6 trillion.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say this as far as jobs and the effects of this health care bill. I had a very alarming conversation with a very large employer in Wisconsin not too long ago, a privately held company with thousands of employees. She takes good care of her employees.

I yield myself an additional 20 seconds to say this.

She said to me, I believe it's my obligation to offer health insurance to my employees, but my two competitors, my publicly traded competitors, have already said they're dumping their employees. Instead of paying $17,000 a year for employee health care, they're going to pay a $2,000 fine. That's a $15,000 difference that her competitor will have as a competitive advantage against you.

So what did she say? ``I have no choice. I'm dumping my employees into this exchange.'' And thousands of employers are making the same decision. This should be repealed.

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

I yield myself 10 seconds simply to say that if the doc fix should be considered outside, then why did the Democrats have it in their bill in the beginning?

Secondly, either we are financing this entitlement or raiding the Social Security and Medicare funds--you can't do both. If you are going to fund the entitlement with these revenues, then you are consigning to raid Social Security and Medicare.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Amash), a new member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney), a new member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a new member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 90 seconds to a member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have already fairly well established the fact that when you strip out all the budget gimmicks and all the double accounting, ObamaCare is a budget buster. But let's take a look at where we are as a country.

We have a debt crisis coming in America, Mr. Speaker, and the primary reason why we have this mountain of debt is because of our already existing health care entitlements which have a massive unfunded liability. So what did the previous majority do? They just put two new unfunded, open-ended entitlements on top.

Now, a lot of people on the other side of the aisle said health care is a right and we are giving it to the people. Well, if we declare such things as a right to be given to us by government, then it's government's right to ration these things; it's government's right to regulate these things; it's government's right to pick and choose winners and losers. Health care is too important for that. I want to be in control of my and my family's health care. I want individuals to be in control of their health care and their destiny.

We have to ask ourselves when we create these new programs how much of our children's future and our grandchildren's future are we willing to sacrifice to give them this mountain of debt that is getting worse by the passage and creation of this law. This, of all reasons, is why we should vote to repeal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, one of the deep concerns that we have is the investigation of Fast and Furious. We have to remember that unfortunately we lost one of our Border Patrol agents who was out on patrol serving this Nation. He was killed with weapons that were distributed under a program called Fast and Furious.

This is a sad case of government gone amok, making terrible, awful, deadly decisions; the administration knowingly and willingly allowing guns to walk from gun shops--contrary to what U.S. law is--allowing nearly 2,000 weapons to be released out, knowing that these weapons would be given to the drug cartels, knowing that giving these guns to these very nefarious characters with the hope that maybe they would pop up and we would find out who's using these guns. Well, there are tragic, desperate consequences to what happened.

What should be totally unacceptable on both sides of the aisle is the idea and the notion that the Department of Justice would knowingly and willfully lie to Congress. Senator Grassley had presented the Department of Justice a letter directly to Attorney General Holder. Senator Grassley directly gave to Attorney General Holder a concern expressed in a letter that there were guns walking. It's a term, it's an expression that says we allow people to come in under straw purchasing--which is illegal--to buy guns and weapons for somebody else, and that despite what the ATF and the Department of Justice were doing, they weren't tracking these. They allowed these gun purchases to happen in these gun shops, and then they were let out in the greater Arizona area and allowed these guns to walk.

The consequences have been absolutely tragic. We have a dead Border Patrol agent, and the Mexican Government estimates nearly 300 people have died within Mexico. Very few of these weapons have been recovered. In fact, the Attorney General has testified that there will be crimes committed with these weapons in all likelihood for years to come.

What is totally and wholly unacceptable, I think, to this body and the integrity, despite Republicans and Democrats, is that the Department of Justice would knowingly and willfully present a letter back to Congress on February 4 that was so inaccurate, it was so wrong, and essentially they lied to Congress. It took months and months and months and months to get to the point where they finally had to rescind that letter, where they had to admit that this was a fundamentally flawed program at its very core.

Now, we've been seeking documents. We've been seeking information. We have issued subpoenas. We've been patient beyond belief, but we've mostly been stonewalled. That information has not been forthcoming. What this amendment simply says is that they will not be allowed to be able to use Federal funds--taxpayer dollars--to knowingly, willfully skirt the law and lie to Congress.

Now, on February 4, 2011, I want to remind Members, the Department of Justice lied to Congress about the taxes used in Fast and Furious by claiming Federal authorities make ``every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to Mexico.'' They denied the allegations that the Department facilitated in the illegal sale of guns to Mexican drug cartels. But on December 2, 2011, the Department of Justice formally withdrew the February letter because it was filled with misleading, fictitious, and false statements. The December letter later went on to admit that Fast and Furious was ``a fundamentally flawed operation.''

What we're saying is you should not be able to use taxpayer funds to knowingly and willfully subvert Congress. You can't lie to Congress and use taxpayer dollars to do it. Surely that can be bipartisan in its approach.

All we ask is for the truth. In fact, there were more than a dozen-- in fact,

more than two dozen Members of the Democratic Party serving in Congress who sent a letter to the White House expressing the idea and the notion that the administration should be open and forthright in providing this information to Congress, but it has not been forthcoming. It has not been accurate. In fact, it was a lie.

As we look to Brian Terry, who served this country, we owe it to him and to his family to get to the truth of what happened in Fast and Furious. And no taxpayer dollars should ever be used to knowingly and willfully lie to Congress.

We as a body, as an institution, deserve to get to the bottom of this. We have not had all these answers. On March 25, 2011, President Obama stood in an interview and told the world that they would hold somebody responsible, that Eric Holder wasn't responsible for this and that they would hold somebody responsible and make sure that it doesn't happen again. To date, Madam Chair, that has not happened. In fact, the senior management there at the Department of Justice got promotions; some of them got bonuses. Nobody's been fired at the senior levels over there. We're not just looking for somebody to get fired; we've got to make sure that it never, ever happens again.

So I would encourage Members to support this amendment. We should do so in a bipartisan way.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I want to quote President Obama in his first remarks as President of the United States:

Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of

this Presidency . . . I will also hold myself as President to

a new standard of openness . . . But the mere fact that you

have the legal power to keep something secret does not mean

you should always use it. The Freedom of Information Act is

perhaps the most powerful instrument we have for making our

government honest and transparent and of holding it

accountable; and I expect members of my administration not

simply to live up to the letter but also the spirit of this

law . . . The government should not keep information

confidential merely because public officials might be

embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might

be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears.

This country should be embarrassed by what is happening in Fast and Furious. My challenge to Members on both sides of the aisle is to stand up and have the integrity to say that we have a dead U.S. agent and that we have a Department of Justice that lied to Congress. Where are the guts in this body to stand up and say we're not going to put up with that, that we're going to demand that these documents be provided to Congress? We know, because the inspector general within the Department of Justice has said, they have 80,000 documents. They've given Congress about 7,000 of those documents. This is the test of principle. This is the test of integrity. When you can't stand up and take on your own party, that's a lack of guts. This Congress has got to stand up for itself and demand that these documents be released.

I would encourage Members on both sides of the aisle, at the very least, to vote for this amendment. I can't imagine any reason why anybody would deny the passage of this amendment. We're not going to allow taxpayer dollars to be used to lie to Congress. Unfortunately, we have been lied to. That is the reason we have to offer this amendment. It's embarrassing that we have to even get to this point.

Madam Chair, Brian Terry's family expects it, and the integrity of this body demands it. Regardless of whether it's Republican or Democrat, we cannot rest until we get to the bottom of that.

You can make the case that part of this started with President Bush. We don't know what's in these documents; but with the separation of powers, it's imperative that we get to the bottom of this and that we hold people accountable--and not just the lowest level of people down at the ATF. They've been dismissed. They've been harassed. Thank goodness for those whistleblowers who stood up and did the right thing. But at the senior level, the senior people at the Department of Justice, they have not been held accountable. President Obama said in these remarks that he would. On March 25, he went on Univision and promised that they would. It has not happened.

If we get stonewalling on the other side of the aisle--without your support--we will do a disservice to this country; we will do a disservice to this body, and we will not get to the truth. I promise you, when there is a Republican President, I will stand with you

and will demand the openness and transparency that this body deserves. I've done it. I've challenged my own party. Have the guts, have the fortitude, to do the right thing.

I appreciate Chairman Issa, Representative Gowdy, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Farenthold--there are so many people in this body--and I appreciate my colleague from South Carolina, who are passionate about this issue. I urge all Members to vote in favor of this amendment.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the tenor and substance of the debate we have in this House over the next few days will be worthy of the American people and reflect well on this Congress.

Many of us believe we should focus our efforts here today on measures to help put people back to work, rather than on a bill that takes away important patient and consumer protections. And we don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to debate a bill that, thankfully, will go nowhere in the Senate and would certainly be vetoed by the President. However, the Republican majority is entitled to use its time here as it chooses. And while we believe we should be doing that focused on jobs, perhaps this debate will clear up many of the myths and misinformation about the health care law that was signed by President Obama.

I'm interested to hear my colleagues say that they can identify with all the problems in the health care system. Between the year 2000 and year 2006, premiums in this country doubled, health insurance company profits quadrupled, and this Congress did nothing. Why not put your plan on the table first so everybody can see it before you begin taking away the important patient protections in this bill taking effect just since last March? And within that 9-month period, that law has made an important and positive difference to millions of Americans.

In fact, we wish our Republican colleagues would take a few days, maybe even just a few hours, to have congressional hearings to listen to those individuals and families. The new Republican majority said it wanted to listen to the American people, but it has not invited a single American outside this Congress to a hearing to testify on the repeal bill we are debating today.

As a result, we on the other side of the aisle have had to schedule an unofficial hearing. It's going on right now, not 100 yards from where we debate, in the Capitol Visitor Center. And I encourage all of you to drop by, because if you do, you're going to hear some stories. You're going to hear the stories from moms and dads of young people who will tell you how they are relieved that their sons and daughters are no longer kicked off their insurance policies when they turn age 22 or graduate from college and cannot now stay on their parents' insurance plan until the age of 26. As a result, if their 20-year-old child gets sick or hit by an automobile or another terrible accident, they can get care without the family going bankrupt.

You will hear from moms and dads with kids who have cancer, asthma, diabetes or other preexisting conditions telling you they're relieved that finally insurance companies can't deny their children coverage because of preexisting conditions. And you will hear from senior citizens who are unable to pay for the huge prescription costs of their bills, and then as of January 1 of this year, they are getting a 50 percent discount and they can afford to pay for the medicines their doctors say they need.

You will hear from small businesses. The number of small businesses using the tax credit has exceeded everyone's expectation. You will hear from those small businesses saying they can now afford to purchase affordable coverage for their employees and, as a result, hire more people. You would hear all that and more.

That is why it is such a mistake, it's an historic mistake, to take away these patient protections and throw these individuals back over to the whims and the many abuses of the insurance industry. There's no doubt that the insurance industry will be popping champagne bottles if the health care law was ever to be repealed. Let's put the interests of our constituents, patients and consumers first in this debate.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

And let's make sure that as we do this, we tackle the deficit and the debt. I listened to my colleague talk about the debt, but we all know that the independent, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office in a letter to Speaker Boehner dated January 6, 2011, indicated that repealing this bill will increase the deficit by over $200 billion over the first 10 years and by another $1.2 trillion over the second 10 years.

Our colleagues have criticized those findings, but they're the same people who they applauded when the numbers came back their way.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear this attack on the CBO numbers that came out when many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle just 9

months ago, when the CBO was reporting deficit numbers and the cost of the bill, were singing CBO's high praises. Now let's look at some of the items that were just mentioned. Let's look at the doctor fix payment. Let us look at the SGR. We know that has been an issue that has been with this House for years and years. It has nothing to do with the health insurance reform bill that was signed by the President. We are going to have to deal with that issue whether we had health insurance reform or didn't have health insurance reform. And, Mr. Speaker, they know that.

We also heard that we front-loaded the revenue in this bill and disguised the out-year costs. If that were the case, how is it possible that CBO would say that it actually reduces the deficit by more in the second 10 years than in the first 10 years?

The fact of the matter is this bill will increase Social Security revenue as employers provide more of their compensation in the form of wages that are subject to payroll taxes. Double counting is not the issue. The fact is it reduces the deficit, and CBO says that.

Now, CBO is the independent referee that we use in this body. They are like the guy on the football field, the referee, who calls the plays, calls when there are penalties and no penalties. Sometimes we like the call and sometimes we don't. But it is an unprecedented step to say that we are going to totally ignore the decisions and judgment of the independent CBO and we are going to replace that with our judgment for the purposes of deficit reduction calculations in legislation that goes to reducing our debt. That is a recipe for budget anarchy. It is a recipe for fiscal chaos. We should not go down that road.

The CBO has been very clear that the fiscally responsible thing to do is to move forward with the law in its place. We obviously can fix things as they come up that need to be addressed, specific items. But to repeal this wholesale will--the folks that we rely on as the independent, nonpartisan judges here say that repealing this bill as our colleagues are proposing to do will add $1.4 trillion to the deficit over 20 years.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman that this body voted on a majority basis to repeal the 1099 provision.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, if I could inquire as to how much time remains.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

Mr. Speaker, I notice the gentleman mentioned CBO. What CBO said in that regard was that, because of the exchanges, there would be some people who would not seek their health care through employment. They would be liberated to be able to get it through the exchange. I'm glad the gentleman confirmed the importance of CBO numbers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

May I inquire, Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, all the charts in the world can't wish away the CBO letter of January 6 of this year which says that the premiums will go down in the employer market, that people, on average, will pay less in the individual market, and that this legislation will reduce the deficit and the debt over the next 20 years. Again, that is the call from the nonpartisan experts we have. We shouldn't be substituting our judgment for theirs.