Religious Freedom Tax Repeal Act of 2012

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 724 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from Fairport, New York, and the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, Ms. Slaughter, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 724 provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 6079.

Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of this rule and the underlying bill. H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act of 2012, was introduced by the Republican majority leader, Eric Cantor, the gentleman from Virginia. The bill text has been online since last Thursday, giving Members more than the mandatory 3 days to read and to understand the language.

Madam Speaker, on June 28, just 12 days ago, the United States Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate provisions contained in ObamaCare, thereby forcing every American to purchase health insurance. While I may disagree with how they ruled, I respect their decision and there is nothing we can do to change that. ObamaCare is now the official law of the land.

However, there is something this body can do to reverse the course and to prevent the job-destroying aspects of this bill from taking effect: a complete repeal of the bill that the President asked this Congress to pass under Speaker Pelosi--and they did. We need to repeal ObamaCare today. In 2010, Republicans were elected all across this country because Americans understood the need to stop the tax-and-spend policies of the other party. H.R. 6079 will do exactly that.

Last night in the Rules Committee, my colleague and friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), urged us to ``dispassionately examine the facts.'' I agree with just that sentiment and would like to take a moment to do just that.

Earlier this year, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, reported that health insurance premiums are expected to rise by over 44 percent over the next 9 years as a result of ObamaCare. And since ObamaCare was signed into law, there has been a steady decline in the number of Americans on private health insurance.

A report from the McKinsey Group found that more than 50 percent of employers with a high awareness of the law say that they will stop offering health insurance, confirming what Republicans have been saying for 3 years, and that is, that ObamaCare is designed to force employers to drop coverage in an attempt to get Americans to enter the new health care exchanges.

A Kaiser Family Foundation report found that health insurance premiums have increased by 9 percent, or $1,200, for the average American family following passage of the President's health care bill.

According to the 2010 Medicare Trustees Report, as a direct result of ObamaCare, more than 90 percent of seniors will lose the retiree prescription drug coverage they have and will see nearly double-digit premium increases. Seniors will also see reduced access to doctors, as Medicare officials explained that physicians ``could find it difficult to remain profitable and might end their participation in the program, which possibly could jeopardize access to care for beneficiaries.''

According to the President's own budget, the cost of ObamaCare subsidies have jumped $111 billion in just 1 year. Earlier this year, during a Ways and Means Committee hearing on February 28, 2012, when asked why this happened, Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius said, ``I really don't know.''

Finally, earlier this year, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office adjusted their long-term outlook of the impact of ObamaCare on our national debt. The revised figures show ObamaCare will cost taxpayers $1.8 trillion--twice as much as the President promised in 2010 when the bill was passed.

These are just a few of the facts that I believe should be considered dispassionately as we debate whether to repeal ObamaCare. If you think that the facts I just listed are what the country needs, vote to keep it. However, if you, like me, find these facts unacceptable for our future, then I urge you to join me in repealing ObamaCare so that we can focus on patient-centered health care solutions which do not increase dramatically insurance premiums, do not restrict access to physicians, and do not mount unsustainable debt onto our children and grandchildren, as well as harming employers who wish to employ more Americans.

I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

[From the Wall Street Journal, June 8, 2011.

Study Sees Cuts to Health Plans

(By Janet Adamy)

A report by McKinsey & Co. has found that 30% of employers

are likely to stop offering workers health insurance after

the bulk of the Obama administration's health overhaul takes

effect in 2014.

The findings come as a growing number of employers are

seeking waivers from an early provision in the overhaul that

requires them to enrich their benefits this year. At the end

of April, the administration had granted 1,372 employers,

unions and insurance companies one-year exemptions from the

law's requirement that they not cap annual benefit payouts

below $750,000 per person a year.

But the law doesn't allow for such waivers starting in

2014, leaving all those entities--and other employers whose

plans don't meet a slate of new requirements--to change their

offerings or drop coverage.

Previous research has suggested the number of employers who

opt to drop coverage altogether in 2014 would be minimal.

But the McKinsey study predicts a more dramatic shift from

employer-sponsored health plans once the new marketplace

takes effect. Starting in 2014, all but the smallest

employers will be required to provide insurance or pay a

fine, while most Americans will have to carry coverage or pay

a different fine. Lower earners will get subsidies to help

them pay for plans.

In surveying 1,300 employers earlier this year, McKinsey

found that 30% said they would ``definitely or probably''

stop offering employer coverage in the years after 2014. That

figure increased to more than 50% among employers with a high

awareness of the overhaul law.

Behind the expected shift is the fact that the law will

give Americans new insurance options outside the workplace,

and carriers will no longer be allowed to deny people

coverage because they have been sick. McKinsey found that

reduced the moral obligation employers may feel to provide

coverage.

The Obama administration says it is working to encourage

employers to retain coverage. An administration official,

Nick Papas, described the McKinsey report as an outlier amid

other research suggesting that employers overwhelmingly would

keep coverage.

``History has shown that reform motivates more businesses

to offer insurance,'' he said. ``When Massachusetts enacted

health reform, the number of individuals with employer-

sponsored insurance increased.''

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, in a March

2010 report, found that by 2019, about six million to seven

million people who otherwise would have had access to

coverage through their job won't have it owing to the new

law. That estimate represents about 4% of the roughly 160

million people projected to have employment-based coverage in

2019.

However, the CBO estimated that the overall number of

Americans with coverage will rise by 32 million because of

new subsidies and other steps.

The law contains a disincentive for employers to drop

coverage. It requires all employers with more than 50

employees to offer health benefits to every full-time worker

or pay a penalty of $2,000 per worker, though it doesn't

apply to the first 30 workers. Health-policy experts have

questioned whether that is high enough to discourage

companies from health coverage.

McKinsey found at least 30% of employers would gain

economically from dropping coverage even if they completely

compensated employees through other benefits or higher

salaries. The study suggests the fallout would be minimal,

with more than 85% of employees remaining in their jobs even

if their employer stopped coverage.

Nearly half the employers said they would consider

alternatives to their current plan after 2014. Besides

dropping coverage, those included weighing a switch to a

defined-contribution model of insurance, in effect offering

coverage only to certain employees.

Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Spring Hill, Florida (Mr. Nugent), the gentleman from the Rules Committee.

I appreciate the gentleman asking the question.

The gentleman also understands that the Congressional Budget Office has not, as a result of the Supreme Court, been able to render that decision.

I appreciate the gentleman engaging me. This really is of substance to the American people.

The cost of the bill is twice now--we found out a year after it was passed--twice as expensive as it was originally started.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from San Antonio, Texas (Mr. Canseco), from the Financial Services Committee.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Dunn, North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers), a nurse, a health care professional prior to her service in the United States Congress.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Brigham City, Utah (Mr. Bishop), a member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Knoxville, Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

At this time, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Savannah, Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Laurens, South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), from the Foreign Affairs Committee, one of the most influential committees we have here in the House of Representatives.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman who, before he came to Congress, was on the front line of health care as an anesthesiologist on the eastern shore of Maryland, Congressman Harris.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the Rules Committee chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans today have brought forth the ideas about why we are repealing the ObamaCare health care bill. The process that was gone through has been under wide debate, but the results are factually known and understood.

Mr. Speaker, our economy is in shambles. Our economy is in shambles because of uncertainty, uncertainty in the marketplace about the rules and regulations, not just of health care, but about the impact of Big Government, and this is the big daddy of all of them. The health care bill is the big daddy that invades every single piece, part of not just this country and our society, but because of the way it reaches into individuals and to families, it is very disruptive.

The IRS will be empowered to hire up to 17,000 new IRS agents to make sure that not only are taxes being paid, but to make sure that the government has its way with people who, even though they may or may not choose to get health care, will be required to by this government. We well understand what the results are of this bill; and as a result of that, that's why Republicans are on the floor of the House of Representatives today.

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

At this time, I'd inquire of the Speaker how much time remains on both sides.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentlewoman from New York not only for her indulgence of this issue the past few days but also for her professional nature today.

Mr. Speaker, we're on the floor because the health care bill that the President and House Democrats and Senate Democrats supported costs twice as much 1 year later as was guesstimated the year before.

The United States is suffering economically, people are suffering economically, and we are losing our competitiveness with the world. We are here because the biggest driver of what I would consider to be not just lack of jobs in this country but also continued uncertainty for the business community. Someone called them corporations. They're really employers. Employers across this country are saying to Members of Congress not just in sworn testimony but in media after media, newspaper after newspaper, that it is uncertainty related to the health care bill that is causing them not to move forward on their plans to grow their business.

We are here today because we need to make sure that we also understand the cost--the cost that is twice as much in 1 year as was guesstimated to be in the year before. This cost in doubling, this would mean that this body either needs to come up with a way to pay for it, which would mean, following the Democrats' proposal, instead of taking $500 billion out of Medicare, we would take $1 trillion out of Medicare. Instead of raising taxes $570 billion, we would have to raise taxes $1 trillion. Instead of all these things that the bill does that taxes people, instead of it being exactly the way they said it would be, including $70 billion for a plan for long-term care that now they cannot sustain, it would have to be $140 billion.

Mr. Speaker, the American people do understand that health care is important, and Republicans would insist upon us following, just as we have in the past, health care bills which would better the marketplace, and people would have the ability to purchase health care at an affordable amount and to make sure that we have physicians and patients that have a close relationship. Please make no mistake: tort reform would be at the top of our order.

Secondly, buying insurance across State lines would include a healthy marketplace. Third, 26-year-olds being on their parents' insurance, that's a bipartisan idea. High-risk pools to help spread out the cost would become available. We're for those, too. And certainly associated health care plans that are able to pool their resources so that they can have a bigger team size in which to purchase health care would be important. But more importantly, we need to make sure that every single American gets health care on a pretax basis.

We've made our case today, Mr. Speaker. I am very proud of what we're doing. I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I guess I'd better start by saying that one man's facts are another woman's folly. I want everybody who is listening today to clear their minds of what they just heard and also to remind them that when Medicare and Social Security were also before the Congress of the United States, Republicans didn't like them either, and almost all of them voted against it. So to hear people whose plan for Medicare is to simply do away with it and give vouchers to the Medicare recipients no matter what their physical condition or their mental condition to go into the private market and try to buy insurance if they can with the amount of money that may not even cover it, this crying about Medicare in this bill, which really strengthens it, is hard to take.

This is an incredible milestone today, and those of you in the gallery are here on a very important day. Over the last 2 years, over 30 votes have been taken on this health care bill alone. Today is the 31st. They want to defund or dismantle or do whatever to it. Never in the history of this Congress, and I feel perfectly secure in saying this, has anybody voted this many times on a single issue. Why? Because we don't have anything else to do.

We are here simply killing time because everybody knows the Senate has already done away with this bill, so we know it's never going to become law. What it's going to do is, as I said yesterday at the Rules Committee, we're not trying to make law here, we're making political points. And that is a shame, because it's not that the country doesn't need our attention. It isn't as though the unemployment rate isn't so high and that people's futures are not so grim that they are crying out for us to get something done, but it has been said that this is the least productive Congress since the beginning of Congresses, apart from the Continental Congress.

So here today, no jobs bill has been passed here, and over that time while everybody is clamoring for it, we do the 31st vote on this measure which, again, everybody knows is going nowhere. So we have just months left in the 112th Congress, and yet we vote again on this. We voted at least nine times on women's reproductive health, which shows you what are the real issues here that people care about.

Sadly, we're not going to be able to vote this year, the rest of this term, on creating jobs or rebuilding the infrastructure or even ending the war in Afghanistan, but we vote for the 31st time on dismantling historic health care concerns.

I am sure that while time runs out on this Congress to tackle the major issues that face us, to create jobs and to rebuild our country, we have failed to answer the call. I shouldn't say ``we'' because that's the polite way to do it on the floor of the House. But everybody knows who is wasting time.

This year, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, already more than 360,000 small businesses are expected to receive tax credits that reduce the cost of health care for their employees. And meanwhile, the new guarantees, one that ensures that the insurance companies will spend 85 percent of the cost on health care, of your premium dollar for the first time in history, 85 cents of that dollar is going to go to health care, not administrative costs, not being put away to something or building buildings or whatever else. It will go to health care. That in itself is going to reduce the cost. This increased efficiency is very good news not only for small business owners but all the rest of us who bear the burden of inefficient care.

In addition, more than 3 million young adults are already insured on their parents' health care, and more than 5 million seniors have cheaper prescription drugs simply thanks to this health care reform, and we have not even started. It is not going to go into full effect until 2014, which I deplore, but nonetheless that's where we are.

Despite these benefits for millions of Americans, the majority wants to take it all away. Now they talk about repeal and replace. With what? We've had no plan of replacement. There is no answer to what's going to happen to the seniors and others who are already benefiting from this plan. They have offered no solution of their own; and 537 days ago, the majority passed legislation requiring this Congress to craft a proposal that would keep popular provisions of the Affordable Care Act, such as health care for people with preexisting conditions.

I hope everybody understands that your health care, as it is written now, has a yearly limit and a lifetime limit. If you exceed the lifetime limit, you are not insurable again in the United States. And you can do that very easily with, let's say, a serious head wound or other trauma. But we have waited for a year for this bill that was promised 537 days ago. I really believe, and I don't want to be cynical, but I certainly do believe, because I must, that no such bill will ever come.

So what's going to happen if this bill passes and the Affordable Care Act is

repealed? What's going to happen to the millions of women who will, once again, be charged more money than men for the same health insurance coverage? Do you know women pay 40 percent more? What will happen to the millions of seniors who will, once again, face the financial threat of the doughnut hole? What's going to happen to the thousands of children who will, once again, be denied health insurance coverage because they were born with a preexisting condition? And what will happen to the young people on their parents' health care unable to find work because Congress is not involved with that--or at least the majority is not? What will happen to them?

Today's vote will take away health care from women like Nancy O'Donnell, who is 60 years old and lives in my district in Rochester, New York. She works four jobs to make ends meet, and not a single one of them offers health care. Her life changed when she was diagnosed with cancer and told she would need a mastectomy. With no insurance to help cover the cost of major surgery, she faced the very real prospect of suffering with cancer and having no hope of being cured. And if anybody out there believes that you can be diagnosed with cancer and not be able to get treatment for it because you have no insurance, you've got another think coming.

Prior to the Affordable Care Act, there would have been no recourse for a woman like Nancy. For years, millions of women and men in America were denied health insurance because cancer was a ``preexisting condition'' or if they had ever had it and they changed jobs and they had to get new health care, they probably would not be able to because they had had cancer. Even patients like Nancy who had insurance--and she did not, remember--would face lifetime and yearly limits on their health care, meaning that they would stop providing treatment because they didn't want her high-cost disease affliction.

Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, these tragic stories are no more. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, Nancy was able to access health insurance at a price she could afford. And with that health insurance in hand, she was able to access treatment and found out that a mastectomy was no longer needed. She has now had four clean CAT scans and no sign of cancer, and we are all delighted for her.

Women like Nancy are the reason I brought the Affordable Care Act through the Rules Committee to the House floor. Women like Nancy are the reason I stood up to those who threw a brick through one of my district office windows and who threatened my family because I wanted to provide affordable, lifesaving health care to Americans in need. Health care was costing us 17, going on 18, percent of GDP, and we could not afford it unless we wanted to become the one industrial Nation on Earth that was only able to provide health care and do war.

Surely to goodness, we would like to join the community of other nations. And in addition to that, we have put the burden on our employers to provide the health care for their employees that none of their competitors from overseas or Canada have to put up with. This has been really sad and really the start of the debate for Clinton health care which came from Lee Iacocca, who said that the cost of health care forced him to put about $2,000 more for the cost of each automobile he sold. It was unsupportable. But we're still at it here.

The United States, as I said, is the only one that does not provide its citizens with safe, secure, and affordable health care. They do it much cheaper than we do with much better outcomes. Instead, we put the burden back on the employers. That puts us at a disadvantage with competitors all around the world. Despite not providing reliable health care to millions of our citizens, the cost of health care rises. Prior to the Affordable Care Act, we were on a trajectory to soon be bankrupt simply through the skyrocketing cost of care.

Since the Presidency of President Roosevelt--and I'm talking about Teddy here, we're going way back beyond, ahead of Franklin--numerous Presidents have tried to provide health care--President Nixon, President Truman, President Clinton--to the millions of the uninsured to lower the cost of care.

We, each of us, when we talk about having other people buy health insurance if they can afford it, and if they can't, we help them, each family is expected, and has been for some time, paying what is estimated to be between $1,000 and $1,500 more on your own health care to cover for the uncompensated cost of people who don't have it.

So why don't we deal with this in a mature and grown-up way? Because somehow or other we can't. But the reason could be this: yesterday morning, Politico, one of the newspapers that we have here on the Hill, reported on the plans of the majority over the next 4 weeks. They had been talking to members of the majority. In part, they wrote: ``House Republicans have planned a series of hot-button votes over the next 4 weeks to contrast the party's agenda with that of Democrats and put President Barack Obama and Democratic candidates on the defensive,'' as though we are not capable of standing up and defending the votes that we take. ``The main goal is to boost the party's prospects on Election Day.''

Madam Speaker, the record is clear: today's vote is nothing more than a show. It is political theater. It puts political games ahead of the health of the Nation's citizens.

So, on behalf of the millions of Americans who are already benefiting from affordable care, I urge my colleagues to change course and reconsider the legislation before us today. Frankly, we should drop it. There's no point in taking this vote at all. Too much needs to be done, from creating jobs to investing in schools, rebuilding our broken highways and bridges. And we have only been able, in the United States, to build one airport from the ground up since 1972, in Denver. That tells you how modernized we are. But we are playing politics with health care reform instead, and health care is already saving lives.

So I urge my colleagues to oppose today's rule, the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Health.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, who knows health care, the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources, Mr. Markey.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. Doggett, who also served on the Subcommittee on Health during the health care debate.

I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

I yield an additional 10 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire of my colleague if he has further speakers?

Mr. Speaker, Presidents from both sides of the aisle have tried to do health care in the United States for a hundred years. Finally, 2 years ago, we were able to achieve the goal. Today, we vote on a bill that would dismantle that achievement for political points only, because the 31st time is not going to be the charm here.

We have heard, again, the dire straits of this country. Please ask your Member of Congress why it is that we're voting on this for the 31st time instead of doing something about jobs, for heaven's sake.

I've not heard anything in that bill or anyplace else that 17,000 IRS agents are going to be hired. I think that's, again, something that we really don't know about.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment Mr. Pascrell talked about, along with the extraneous material, in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my appreciation to the distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on Rules, our friend from Dallas, Mr. Sessions, for his superb management of this rule.

I would like to say that as we look at where we're going, contrary to arguments that have been propounded here on the floor, it's important to note that everybody wants to do everything we possibly can to ensure that our fellow Americans have access to the best quality, affordable health care in the world. We have the best health care system in the world; we all know that. We want to make sure that we continue to see that health care system improve, and we have just come to the conclusion that the massive expansion of government is not the answer to the goal of ensuring that people have access to quality health care.

The Supreme Court made their decision. We know what the Supreme Court's decision was. I think that that decision pointed out a few things. It's a tax. We were told consistently it wasn't a tax, and, frankly, if we had known what the Supreme Court told us about it being a tax, I don't believe that we would have had the passage of that measure from the House.

That decision has been made, and also the Supreme Court, by virtue of determining what is constitutional, does not mean that it's good public policy. In fact, the Chief Justice has made it clear that they are not casting an opinion as to whether or not this is a right measure.

I think that most of us have come down on the side of saying that we should have taken an incremental approach in dealing with this. There are a number of things that if we had done that would have, I believe, immediately reduced the cost of health insurance and direct health care costs, Mr. Speaker.

They include things like allowing for the purchase of insurance across State lines, things like saying that there should be association health plans, which interestingly enough passed the House and died because of Democrats blocking it in the Senate when my party was last in the majority here. Also, things like allowing for real meaningful lawsuit abuse reform, which the President of the United States said he advocated when he was here, and I acknowledge pooling to deal with pre- existing conditions is something that needs to be done.

The fifth point is expanded medical savings accounts, which encourage people to put some dollars aside with a tax incentive plan for their health care needs.

If we had done these five things, Mr. Speaker, and these are things that we as Republicans have put forward and again--as I said when we were last in the majority, when people on the other side often said that we did nothing--we passed association health plans, which, again, allow small business to pool together, come together and work to get lower rates as large corporations do.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that as we look at the challenges that we have, we can make this happen. The reason that we are casting the vote, as we will today to repeal, is that we need to do that so that we can do this in an open way.

Now, I have got to say some would say this is a closed rule. This is simply an up-or-down vote on whether or not we should repeal this. When we last considered this measure that we are voting to repeal today, Mr. Speaker, I have got to tell you it was done under the most closed process we have ever had.

Let me just say that when we did this, when we did this here, it was done under a process that was unprecedented for an issue of this magnitude.

That closed process, Mr. Speaker, is one of the things that I believe played a role in seeing the Speaker of the House of Representatives, then Nancy Pelosi, have to hand the gavel to John Boehner.

The American people understood the fact that things were so closed around here, and I am very proud and happy that since we have been in the majority our Rules Committee has reported out bills that have allowed for a structure that has made more amendments considered in the first several months of this Congress than have been considered in the entire last Congress.

So we have tried to work for more openness and, again, a real example of that closed process was what took place in the last Congress.

Well, we need to take this measure, we need to repeal it. I hope very much that some of our colleagues in the other body will agree to that. People always say it's a foregone conclusion what's going to happen. Well, you know what? I never come to an absolute foregone conclusion.

We have our responsibility, as Members of the House of Representatives, to step up to the plate and do what we as a body think is the right thing for us to do, and that's exactly what is going to take place today.

So if it doesn't happen, I think that there might be a chance for us next year to do this. Again, Republicans, contrary to what is often said, do want to take steps to ensure that all of our fellow Americans--and we listen to these horror stories, and they are terrible stories of the way people have been treated.

That's why I am a proponent of a structure that will allow for ways to deal with pre-existing conditions. I believe that we can in a bipartisan way, since the President advocated it, deal with meaningful lawsuit abuse reform.

Again, we need to remember that if we want to keep our Nation on the cutting edge of technological development to find a cure for cancer, Alzheimer's and these other ailments, we need to make sure that there's still an incentive for that to take place.

Mr. Speaker, I support the rule, and I support our underlying measure.

Madam Speaker, there are five quick reasons why I think this bill should be repealed:

Number one, it does not decrease the cost of health care. In fact, it is estimated that it will increase costs by 13 percent per family and is already moving toward a $2,100 increase.

Number two, the loss of health care. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that 20 million people will lose their employer-based health insurance because of the mandates in ObamaCare.

Number three, it interferes with the patient-doctor relationship. The law creates 159 new boards, offices, and panels within the Federal Government to be in charge of people's health care decisions.

Number four, increased government spending at a time where we borrow 40 cents on every dollar we spend and our national debt is 100 percent of the GDP. ObamaCare is expected to cost over $1.8 trillion over the next decade. We don't have the money.

Number five, loss of jobs. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that nearly 800,000 jobs will be lost because of ObamaCare.

Madam Speaker, we need to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with the best ideas of Republicans and Democrats, which should include expanded health savings accounts, ending frivolous lawsuits, association health plans, across-State-line health care purchases, and State-run high-risk pools. These ideas will bring America together rather than divide us as a country over this very important issue.

Madam Speaker, following are my remarks in their entirety:

Rising Health Care Costs--Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), CBO projects health insurance premiums will increase by $2,100 per family.

By 2016, health insurance premiums for individuals and families will increase by 13%.

Loss of Health Care Coverage--CBO estimates 20 million people could lose their employer-based health insurance because of the mandates imposed by PPACA.

According to HHS's own assumptions, as high as 80% of small businesses and 64% of large businesses will discontinue offering health insurance to its employees.

According to a survey by House Ways and Means, 71 of the nation's largest employers could save more than $28 billion in 2014 alone and $422.4 billion over a decade, by deciding to drop health insurance coverage for their 10.2 million employees and dependents and paying the $2,000 per-employee penalty instead.

Some colleges have already begun dropping student health insurance plans for the coming academic year and others are warning students of premium increases because of a provision in the Obamacare requiring plans to expand their coverage benefits.

For example, Bethany College in Kansas is cancelling its health insurance plan for students rather than face a premium increase of over 350 percent, causing the plans to increase from $445 per year to more than $2,000 per year.

A mandate in Obamacare requires all child-only health insurance carriers to guaranty issue plans, which allows individuals to purchase health insurance on the way to the emergency room. As a result, 17 states including Georgia no longer offer new child-only health insurance policies.

Interference with Patient-Doctor Relationship--PPACA creates the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) consisting of 15 bureaucrats responsible for making spending and coverage decisions for Medicare.

CBO projects IPAB will have a marginal effect on reducing Medicare spending.

The law does create 159 new boards, offices and panels within the federal government in charge of making decisions for people's health care.

Increased Government Spending--PPACA is expected to cost $1.8 trillion over the next decade, which is nearly double the original estimate.

Total federal spending on health care will increase from 5.4 percent of GDP this year to 10.7 percent of GDP in 2037 and 18.3% by 2087.

Loss of Jobs--The CBO estimates nearly 800,000 jobs will be lost because of passages of PPACA. This is because of the law's misguided incentives that increase the marginal tax rates discouraging work and labor supply.

According to a survey by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 74 percent of small businesses stated PPACA makes it harder for firms to hire new workers.

The same survey found 30% of the businesses surveyed are not hiring at all thanks to PPACA.

I thank my friend from New York. It's great to be with her on the floor today, and my colleagues on the Republican side as well.

Today we could be voting on a bill where we work together to cut taxes for small businesses that put Americans back to work, but we are not. Today we could be voting on a bill that would help cities and counties and States around the country rehire police officers and firefighters and teachers they've had to lay off--over 600,000 of them the last few years--but we are not. Today we could be voting on a bill that would say that, if an American company brings jobs back from overseas, we'll cut their taxes and we'll pay for it by eliminating tax giveaways and loopholes for companies that outsource their jobs outside of the United States and take them overseas, but we're not voting on that. For the 31st time in the last 18 months, we're voting on a bill to repeal the health care law.

Now, I know there are Americans who feel strongly for and against the health care law, but almost every person I listen to feels very strongly we should be working together to help create an environment where businesses can create jobs for the American people, not voting for the 31st time on essentially a political argument.

Now, I do agree with my friend from Texas--and I thank him for mentioning my name; I respect him very much--about the need for facts in this debate. There is one fact that I think we've got to get to right away, which is whether or not the law that they are trying to repeal for the 31st time increases or decreases the Federal deficit.

The Congressional Budget Office, which is our neutral, nonpartisan auditor, said in January 2011--the first time of the 31 when the other side tried to repeal this law--that repeal of the law would add $220 billion to the deficit. In other words, if you write the law off the books, the deficit goes up because of the spending restraints and the new revenues that are in the bill.

I would want to ask my friend from Texas if he can tell us what the effect of the repeal of this bill--in other words, if this bill passes, what will this bill do to the deficit, according to the Congressional Budget Office?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Reclaiming my time, I would then respectfully ask my friend: Why don't we wait and see what the auditor says the bill will cost before we vote on it? My understanding is that they're going to do that probably by the end of this month. Why don't we wait and see what the auditor says it's going to cost before we vote on this bill?

And I would yield to the gentleman.