Instructing certain committees to report legislation replacing the job-killing health care law.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 26 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, it is a great honor for me, for the first time in 4 years, to say, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my very good friend and Rules Committee colleague, the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter). During consideration of the 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.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 26 provides for a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 2 and self-executes an amendment by the majority leader, which is required under the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010. This is routinely required and is similar to many provisions that have been self-executed since the enactment of statutory PAYGO.

The resolution provides for 7 hours of debate on H.R. 2, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of six committees and the majority leader and minority leader.

It also provides the minority a motion to recommit H.R. 2 with or without instructions.

House Resolution 26 provides for consideration of H. Res. 9 under a structured rule that provides an hour of debate and makes in order an amendment, if offered by Representative Matheson of Utah. It also provides for one motion to recommit H. Res. 9 without instructions.

Lastly, the rule provides for the consideration of a resolution if offered by the majority leader or his designee relating to the status of certain actions taken by Members-elect under a closed rule.

Madam Speaker, it was just before midnight that my great new colleague

Mr. Webster and I were here in this Chamber, and we filed this rule following a lengthy 12-hour hearing upstairs in the Rules Committee, and I have to say that there were many, many discussions that took place on a wide range of issues, but I think it's very important for us to note that there are those who argue that we should not be taking up this issue because of the fact that we should be focusing on job creation and economic growth.

Well, Madam Speaker, we know that the overwhelming message that came from the American people is that we have to get our economy back on track, we have to create jobs, we have to make sure that those people who are struggling to get onto the first rung of the economic ladder are able to do just that. And that's why, when we look at a $2.7 trillion expansion of the Federal Government, $2.7 trillion in new spending, we recognize something that is common sense, and that is, if you're going to expand the size and scope and reach of the Federal Government by that magnitude, it clearly is going to kill the effort to create jobs and get our economy back on track.

And so that's why today, Madam Speaker, we are taking the first step in fulfilling a key promise that we have made to the American people. With this rule, we are setting in motion an effort to repeal President Obama's job-killing health care bill and replace it with real solutions, and I underscore that again because all the attention is focused on the fact that we are going to be trying to kill good provisions that are out there. Madam Speaker, we want to start with a clean slate. We are going to repeal President Obama's job-killing health care bill and replace it with real solutions.

This rule takes two important steps. The first is to allow for consideration of a bill to hit the reset button, so to speak, on the very damaging legislation that was passed last year under the guise of health care reform. The second is a resolution directing each of the committees of jurisdiction to craft responsible, effective, and economically viable health care solutions.

Madam Speaker, the resolution lays out very clearly what real reform looks like. Real reform will help, not hinder, in our goal towards creating jobs. Real reform will lower health care premiums by enhancing competition and patient choice. It will preserve the right of patients to keep their existing coverage if they so choose. It will ensure access to quality care for those suffering from preexisting conditions. It will implement meaningful lawsuit abuse reform so that resources can go to patients and doctors and not to trial lawyers. In short, it will increase access to health care for all Americans without compromising quality or hurting the very important small business sector of our Nation's economy.

Madam Speaker, the underlying replace resolution which I've offered will begin a robust committee process to tackle the difficult but essential work of achieving these goals and crafting true reform for the American people. This will be a process in which each and every Member, Democrat and Republican alike, will have an opportunity to participate.

Madam Speaker, as Speaker Boehner said the day before yesterday when he accepted the gavel, we are returning to regular order. Once again, our committees will be the laboratories, the centers of expertise that they were intended to be. Rank-and-file Members of both parties will play an active role in crafting legislation, scrutinizing proposals, offering amendments, participating in real debate. Critical legislation is not going to be written behind closed doors by a select few.

Today's rule sets in motion a process that will be both transparent and collaborative, but we cannot get to that very important step without clearing the first hurdle, which is to undo the damage that has already been done.

Now, we will hear people say why is it you're considering this under a closed rule. Madam Speaker, this was a clear promise that was made throughout last year leading up to the very important November 2 election. Everyone acknowledges that elections have consequences. The commitment was made that we would have an up-or-down vote on repeal, and that's exactly what we are doing. We must repeal last year's bill before we proceed with replacement.

Just as predicted, the so-called reform bill is having very real negative consequences for our economy and our job market. It is putting enormous burdens on job creators, particularly small businesses, at a time that is already one of the most difficult that we have faced, imposing significant new burdens and penalties while the unemployment rate remains above 9 percent. We got the news just a few minutes ago that it's at 9.3 percent. We're encouraged by that positive drop, but only 105,000 jobs were created, not the 150,000 jobs necessary to be created just to sustain the position that we are in right now. So we still are dealing with very, very serious economic challenges, and that's why we need to take a commonsense approach to, first, repeal this measure and then deal with solutions.

Above all, I will say that the onerous, unworkable mandates that have been imposed are adding greater uncertainty, which is job creation's biggest enemy. Anyone who has spent any time talking with small business owners knows this to be the case. While the economic impact is already quite apparent, the fiscal consequences are looming down the road.

While the bill's authors used a host of accounting gimmicks--and I'm going to get into those further, as I'm sure I'm going to be challenged on this, and I look forward to talking about the accounting gimmicks that have been utilized--while the authors used a host of accounting gimmicks, as I said, to mask the true costs of this measure, an honest and realistic assessment of the impact on the deficit shows a much clearer and, tragically, a far worse picture.

The Budget Committee has demonstrated the real cost of the health care bill, as I said when I opened, is a staggering $2.7 trillion once it is fully implemented. It will add over $700 billion to our deficit in the first 10 years. The words ``reckless'' and ``unsustainable'' hardly begin to cover it. This bill is an economic and fiscal disaster of unprecedented proportions. The time to undo it before any more damage is done is quickly running out. Republicans promised the American people we would act swiftly and decisively, and that's exactly what we're doing.

So my friends on the other side of the aisle have asked why there will be no amendments to the repeal bill. Frankly, there is nothing to amend. There is nothing to amend, Madam Speaker, to the repeal bill. Either we're going to wipe the slate clean and start fresh or we're not. Now, that's not to say there aren't some good provisions in this measure, but it is so onerous, nearly 3,000 pages, that we believe that the best way to do this is to wipe the slate clean, have an open and transparent process, and do everything we can to ensure that every single American has access to quality health care and health care insurance.

Now, once that slate is completely wiped clean, we will be ready for this open and collaborative process to develop the real solutions that we have talked about. That's what we promised the American people as we led up to last November 2, and that's exactly what we will deliver here today.

Madam Speaker, first, we undo the damage; then we work together to implement real reform and real solutions. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and then, after we've gone through the 3-day layover requirement next week, which is in compliance with another promise that we made to the American people, I urge my colleagues to support the underlying legislation, H.R. 2, which our colleague, the new majority leader, Mr. Cantor, has offered, and H. Res. 9, which I have introduced, that calls for our committees to work in a bipartisan way to develop solutions to the challenges that we have out there in ensuring that every American has access to quality health care.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to say that Thomas Jefferson said that two thinking people can be given the exact same set of facts and draw different conclusions. Well, I've just heard what my friend from Rochester has said. I will say that this is a great day for the people's House because we are going to, in fact, be implementing the commitment that was made to focus on getting our economy back on track.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our new colleague from North Charleston, South Carolina (Mr. Scott), a very hardworking and thoughtful member of the Rules Committee who was with us for 12 hours up until late last night.

Madam Speaker, I yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, we have 87 new Republicans in the House of Representatives. There's no more impressive group than the four who are serving with us on the House Rules Committee, among them former Sheriff Nugent. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Brooksville, Florida.

Madam Speaker, at this time I am very privileged to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished former chairman of the Republican conference, my friend from Columbus, Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I wonder if he might repeat that line. I think he said that only in Washington, D.C., can there be an interpretation that cutting $2.7 trillion in spending is actually going to end up costing the American people.

Is that what the gentleman was saying? I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to a hard-working member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which will be one of those committees, when we pass H. Res. 9, that will be dealing with ensuring that every single American has access to quality health insurance, our friend from Brentwood, Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to another hardworking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, our friend from Marietta, Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

Madam Speaker, at this point I am happy to yield 1 minute to another hardworking member of this freshman class, my new friend from San Antonio, Texas (Mr. Canseco).

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire of my friend on the other side of the aisle how many speakers she has remaining?

I am told there are 11 minutes remaining on your side.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side?

Madam Speaker, then, in light of that, I am very happy to yield 1 minute to a physician, another hardworking member of this freshman class, the gentlewoman from Mount Kisco, New York (Ms. Hayworth).

Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to another hardworking physician, a member of this new freshman class, the gentleman from south Pittsburgh, Tennessee, Dr. DesJarlais.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to another great new Member, the gentlewoman from Archie, Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), my home State.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, this is the first act of the 112th Congress, and I have to say that I am particularly gratified that we have had six new Members of this 87-Member Republican class participate in this debate because, Madam Speaker, they have come here with a very, very strong, powerful message from the American people.

That message is that we have to make sure that we create jobs and get our economy back on track.

Even though we have gotten this positive news of the reduction of the unemployment rate from 9.8 to 9.3 percent this morning, tragically last month only 105,000 new jobs were created. That is not enough to sustain our economy. You have to create at least 150,000 jobs just to be treading water.

We know that the American people are continuing to suffer, and the message that has come from the American people through these 87 new Members is that we have to have a laser-like focus on creating jobs, getting our economy back on track, and reducing the size and scope and reach of the Federal Government.

My friend Mr. Pence and I had an exchange in which we said only in Washington, D.C., can saying that cutting a $2.7 trillion increase-- eliminating that, scrapping that--will, in fact, cost money. It's absolutely crazy, but that is what they are arguing; and through their sleight of hand, with the Congressional Budget Office, they are going to continue to claim that it will somehow save money.

Madam Speaker, we are doing what we told the American people we would do. It is very simple. Beginning last year, we said we would have a very clean up-or-down vote:

Should we maintain this $2.7 trillion expansion with government mandates and increased taxes, or should we repeal it? That's what we are going to be voting on after the 3-day layover next week; and, Madam Speaker, are we, in fact, committing ourselves to doing everything that we possibly can to ensure that every single American has access to quality, affordable health care and health insurance?

That's what the resolution that I have introduced, H. Res. 9, will do. It will direct the six committees of jurisdiction to begin immediately working on ways in which we can drive the cost of health insurance down.

I personally believe that we need to allow for the purchase of insurance across State lines, which is now forbidden under the McCarran-Ferguson Act. I believe that it is very important for us to have associated health plans so that small businesses can come together and get lower rates. We need to have pooling to deal with preexisting conditions. We need to expand medical savings accounts. And yes, Madam Speaker, the fifth thing we need to do is we need to have meaningful lawsuit abuse reform so that resources can go towards doctors and not trial lawyers.

These are the kinds of things that these new Members are telling us need to be done, and that is exactly what passage of this rule will make happen.

Now, Madam Speaker, let me say I urge support of this rule, and I urge support of the underlying legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my gentleman friend, Mr. Dreier, yielding me time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

What a week it's been. Since being sworn in on Tuesday, the speed in which the Republican Party is working their promises has been dizzying. Speaking of the Republicans' first days

in office, tea party spokesman Mark Meckler summed the week up nicely when he said, ``I actually don't think it would be possible to fall from grace any faster than this.''

In November, the Republican leadership, led by Speaker Boehner, traveled to suburban Virginia and made a Pledge to America. Their constituents, including tea party patriots like Mr. Meckler, listened intently as the Republican Party pledged to be fiscally responsible and serve the will of the American people. On page 6 of the Republicans' Pledge to America, the party states: ``With commonsense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops, we will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone and putting us on a path to balance the budget and pay down the debt.''

The pledge was solemnly made by the Republican leadership despite being largely panned as a political stunt. Despite their promise to follow through on their pledge, on Tuesday, aides to the Republican majority said that the pledge to cut $100 billion was ``hypothetical.''

Now today they are moving forward to do the exact opposite of the actions they pledged, as they introduce legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act. If successful, the Republican legislation will add $230 billion to the deficit by 2021. This extra $230 billion won't be spent rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, teaching our children, or providing for the millions without jobs. Instead, the $230 billion will be added to our deficit in order to take health care benefits and protections from those who need them the most.

For example, starting this year, the Affordable Health Care Act will begin to close the doughnut hole for seniors. Under the law, Medicare beneficiaries who fall in the doughnut hole will be eligible for 50 percent discounts on covered brand-name prescription drugs. Repeal this law, and seniors receive no help and will be forced to pay their rising drug costs alone. Those are the types of protections that I fight for today.

Fiscally, Members of Congress face a $300 billion choice. According to the Congressional Budget Office, we have two options: one, do we keep the Affordable Health Care Act and save $130 billion by 2021? Or, two, do we repeal the Affordable Health Care Act and add $230 billion to our deficit by 2021? That may be trouble for some; but for most of us, it is easy. For me, the answer is clear; and I assume to most Americans, it's clear as well.

Because they can't win by simply judging apples to apples, the Republican leadership has taken to discrediting the Congressional Budget Office. Yet a quick bit of research will reveal that Republicans have long valued the nonpartisan and reliable work of the Congressional Budget Office and have publicly supported the agency before. In fact, in 2009 Speaker Boehner repeatedly referred to the CBO as a nonpartisan institution and relied on their estimates to argue against the Affordable Care Act at the time. But now that the CBO's estimates are detrimental to their political goals, they have taken to questioning the work.

Republican Senator John Cornyn warned against dismissing the work of CBO just because it's inconvenient. Two years ago he said, ``I believe the professionals at the Congressional Budget Office are doing a difficult but unpopular work. They are speaking the truth to power here in Washington and making the folks who would pass these enormous unfunded bills that impose this huge debt on generations hereafter somewhat unhappy.

``But I think they are doing an important service by telling us the facts. Last week, I commended the director of the CBO, Dr. Doug Elmendorf, for saying that the CBO will 'never adjust our views to make people happy.' God bless Dr. Elmendorf for his integrity and commitment to telling the truth. We need to learn how to deal with the truth, not try to remake it or cover it up.''

Now, I couldn't agree more with that. The deficit estimates provided by the CBO are the singular authoritative figures upon which we make all of our decisions and have for decades. Even if some don't like what the numbers tell us, we know that numbers don't lie.

I will remind my colleagues that today's actions are not ``hypothetical.'' We truly face a $300 billion choice. We can choose to provide invaluable benefits to millions of Americans while paying down our national deficit--remember that it will save $143 billion over 10 years--or we can choose to end valuable health care protections for millions of Americans and add $230 billion to the Nation's deficit.

Madam Speaker, today we are considering the first measure from the Rules Committee of this new Congress, and my Republican friends have already produced one for the record books. Let me give you some of the highlights. First of all, the resolution includes a completely closed process for two separate pieces of legislation. That means we get two closed rules in one. Maybe my Republican friends think they can save taxpayers money by rolling all the closed rules into a single resolution. I think that's what they meant by bringing efficiency to government.

The first closed rule on the health care repeal bill does most of the heavy lifting. It blocks every single germane amendment submitted to the Rules Committee. Well, that's not exactly right, though. It actually slips in one change without allowing the House to vote on it. This special amendment, slipped in with the famous deem-and-pass maneuver, is very interesting. It allows the House to pretend that the repeal bill is free, even though the Budget Office says it will raise the deficit by over $1 trillion. That's a neat trick; and now we know the secret weapon for reducing the deficit: a blindfold.

This closed process is especially troubling on the health care repeal because this Republican bill has had no public hearings, no committee consideration, and is not paid for. The second closed rule in this two- for-one package blocks all amendments to another resolution to correct a flaw in the swearing-in process. Apparently the vice chairman of the Rules Committee was conducting legislative business before he was actually a Member of Congress. Maybe amendments are not important here because no Member in the House has seen this resolution, since the rule allows the majority leader to make changes until the moment it is introduced.

But if any of my colleagues are concerned about not having enough time to read this surprise resolution, don't worry: the rule allows the House to debate it for 4 full minutes, 4 minutes. Have you ever heard of a bill debated for 4 minutes? Fortunately, the rule generously gives the minority 2 of those 4 minutes, and I guess that qualifies as both efficiency and bipartisanship.

Finally, the rule allows the House to consider a sweeping press release from the Republican leadership, a resolution to replace real patient protections with vague rhetoric.

Madam Speaker, this is a very disappointing day for the House Rules Committee. Our first action of the new Congress violates the promises that we heard from our Republican friends: no public hearings, no committee consideration, a completely closed process, legislative text no Member has read, 4 minutes of debate on an important constitutional issue, and so on.

For all those Members who were sent to Washington, like I was, to repair our Nation's finances, create jobs for millions of the unemployed, help the millions of Americans in need, the decision should be simple. I encourage my colleagues to reject the efforts of Republican leadership, keep our promises to our constituents, and vote to keep the affordable health care law.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, this is not a dispute between Republicans and Democrats about the $1.3 trillion. CBO, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, is saying that.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan, our ranking member of Ways and Means, Mr. Levin.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Madam Speaker, we have got every minute taken. I am not sure everybody is going to show up.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House and our leader on health care.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont, former member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Welch.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Madam Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record the figures from today's jobs report showing that since the enactment of health reform in March 2010, the economy has created 1.1 million private sector jobs.

Update on Job Growth Under Health Reform

Today's jobs report exposes the fatal flaw in the

Republicans' argument that health reform is ``job killing.''

Since the enactment of health reform in March 2010, the

economy has created more than 1.1 million private-sector

jobs.

That's an average of 123,000 jobs created per month in the

private sector since the enactment of health reform, compared

to an average of 7,000 jobs lost per month in the private

sector during the Bush Administration, when our health care

system was in a downward spiral and insurers had free rein to

raise premiums on families and small businesses by double

digits and deny or limit coverage with no accountability or

recourse.

12 Straight Months of Job Growth in the Private Sector More

Than 1.3 Million Private-Sector Jobs Created in 2010

Unemployment Rate Drops From 9.8% to 9.4%

113,000 private-sector jobs were created in December, the

12th straight month of private-sector job growth.

In all, more than 1.3 million private-sector jobs were

created in 2010. That's a dramatic

turnaround from the situation President Obama inherited in

early 2009, when we were losing 750,000 jobs a month.

The November private-sector jobs number was revised up

29,000 to 79,000 private-sector jobs created, and the October

number was revised up 33,000 to 193,000 private-sector jobs

created.

Government employment declined slightly in November; as a

result, net payroll growth for the public and private sector

combined was 103,000 in December.

The unemployment rate fell to 9.4% in December.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the ranking member of Government Oversight and Reform.

I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

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

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

I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Eliot Engel.

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

Madam Speaker, if we are able to defeat the previous question, I will move to amend the rule to make in order a bill (H.R. 2378) from the last Congress, the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act, which invokes our anti-dumping laws and provides relief for American workers and companies injured by unfair exchange rate policies.

I yield to the gentleman from New York for a parliamentary inquiry.

Parliamentary Inquiry

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Virginia on his election as majority leader of his party. He and I have had the opportunity to work together over the recent years. It's been a positive relationship, and I look forward to continuing that positive relationship, albeit in my diminished status.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for outlining the schedule. There was an interesting article in The Washington Post today about your job- killing comments always being attached to the health care bill. There are obviously some of us who know full well that was not part of the title, as I'm sure the gentleman would admit, and that in fact it does not do that at all. In fact, we think it creates jobs. But, in any event, I thank the gentleman for announcing the schedule.

I want to say we're disappointed, however, as he was when he was in my position, that we don't have a committee process for this very important piece of legislation. I think it's important from your perspective and it's important from our perspective, although we may have different perspectives on whether it should pass or fail. But it is an important piece of legislation. There was no committee process and no hearings; no opportunity for the public to be heard on the bill; no opportunity for the Members to testify with respect to that bill; no witnesses were heard. Furthermore, under the rule, of course we have been given no opportunity to amend.

The gentleman, when he was in my position, repeatedly indicated how disappointed he was that there were no amendments allowed on certain bills. I want to reiterate that concern. And given the lack of amendments, I want to clarify when he believes will be the finishing of votes on Wednesday. I understand debate will begin on Tuesday and it will conclude on Wednesday.

What time do you expect to conclude business on Wednesday?

I thank the gentleman for that response.

In light of the fact that your side has made a pledge to allow ample time for Members to read and consider it, and notwithstanding that they have already not pursued that as vigorously as I think you would have hoped and perhaps we would have hoped as well in the 112th Congress, I was wondering if the gentleman can enlighten us on what he expects to consider the rest of January, after next week, so that

Members might have opportunities to anticipate issues that you're going to be bringing forward.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Obviously, the health care bill that he and his party seek to repeal had probably more consideration, more open debate, more transparency, more amendments, and more hearings than almost any bill that I have considered as a Member of this Congress over the last three decades-- full and open consideration, amendments offered from both sides in committee on a very ample basis; but I am glad to hear that you agree that there has been ample debate time for that. There has not been any debate time in committees--or amendments--on the repeal of that law.

I am certainly hopeful that the gentleman does not mean to say that if the majority party concludes that the American people have already decided on the issue that that will be the exception to the rule that you have put forth in terms of full and ample notice, debate, the amendment process, and transparency. I would certainly hope that that would not be the case. I don't expect it will be the case, and I hope it won't be.

Let me say in addition that I am very pleased that the majority party allowed in order the amendment by Mr. Matheson. As you know, we tried to have a permanent fix to the reimbursement of doctors who took Medicare patients. Unfortunately, the minority party in the Senate, which had the opportunity to do that, precluded us from accomplishing that objective. So I am pleased. That needs to be done. We need to have a stable funding expectation by doctors when they provide services to Medicare patients--to seniors--as we want them to do and as we want them to continue to do. So I am pleased that you allowed that amendment, and I would hope Members on your side will be supporting that amendment as we will on this side.

Let me ask you now, Mr. Majority Leader, as I am very concerned, and I expressed this on the floor. Your rules, in my view, provide for some $5 trillion to be incurred in additional deficits. They allow that because you have exempted almost all of the possible reductions in revenues--tax cuts, reductions in revenues--notwithstanding no reduction in spending. Well, if you reduce revenues and you don't reduce spending commensurately, inevitably, you will create large deficits, which inevitably will be paid by future generations.

That has been the experience that, again, I have had when we had significant tax cuts in the 1980s and in the last decade of 2000--2001 to 2003--when we created very large deficits.

My presumption is that you will be finding commensurate reductions in spending to your tax cuts that you will want to continue. If you don't do that, deficits will inevitably follow. The majority party has not done that in years past. Is it your expectation that that will occur in the future?

The question I want to ask you as well is that you have provided in your rules for essentially ignoring CBO scores--the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which has issued a preliminary score for the Republican Patients' Bill of Rights. They believe it will increase the deficit by $230 billion in the first 10 years by repeal and $1.2 trillion in the second 10 years.

My question is: Having deemed in the rule today a provision allowing the chair of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan, to ignore the CBO score, will the majority continue to ignore CBO scores on legislation for the rest of Congress or will we be fiscally responsible, in my view, and adhere to the advice and counsel we receive from CBO?

I yield to my friend.

I want to say to my friend, the continuing rhetoric is Washington doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. Americans in every family that I know understand that their revenues directly impact on their spending and vice versa, and if they don't, they have a real problem. If they don't have enough revenue to meet their expenditures, they've got a problem, and if their spending exceeds their revenue, they have a problem.

I tell my friend, I understand what you're saying, and I've heard this rhetoric all of my career here in the Congress. When President Reagan was President, we never overrode a Presidential veto of an appropriation bill because it spent too much. If he vetoed it, it spent too much, he never had a veto overridden. Nevertheless, we incurred an additional $1.5 trillion in deficits. Under President George H.W. Bush, we didn't override any veto of his, and we incurred an additional $1 trillion. That was $2.5 trillion plus.

Under the Clinton administration, of course, in the economic program as you and I both know that your party universally opposed, we had a surplus, the only President in your lifetime and I think in mine, which is substantially longer, that's had 4 years of surplus. Now, I know you say, the response that Mr. Dreier gave to me, is that, well, yes, we took over the Congress in 1995. That's correct. And of course not only did you take over the Congress in 1995, but in 2000, you took over the Presidency as well and controlled the House and the Senate and the Presidency.

And during that period of time, we didn't pass any appropriation bills on our side. You were in full charge during the Bush administration's first six years, and $3.5 trillion of deficit spending was incurred, making a total of over $5 trillion of deficit spending during the time that your party took the position that we didn't have a revenue problem, we had a spending problem.

Well, it ended up being a $5 trillion deficit problem, adding to the deficit for our children and for my grandchildren and for my great- granddaughter, and I'm concerned about that. And that is why I'm so concerned about statutory PAYGO, sticking with CBO scores, and accommodating our spending and revenue. They are both related, obviously, and to ignore that eliminating revenue without eliminating spending does cause deficits I think is to ignore reality.

So I would hope my friend would talk to Mr. Ryan of the Budget Committee and bring us legislation which would, in fact, do what you and I want to do; that is, eliminate the deficit. If we've got two messages during this past election, in my view, it was, A, focus on creating jobs. We've got to get to work. Americans are hurting. We had some good job numbers this month. We've created over 1.3 million jobs this past year as opposed to losing almost 4 million jobs in the last year of the Bush administration. That's progress. But as I've said so often, it's not success. Success will be when every American who wants a job, willing to work, can find a job, and they can support him or her and their families.

But we need to not pretend that revenues and spending are not inextricably related, and that if we give up revenues before we do the difficult thing, the tough thing, the adult thing, as Mr. Boehner said, and cut the spending, then cut the revenues if Americans are buying it, then we ought to be paying for it and not passing along the bill to our grandchildren, and I would hope the gentleman would pursue that.

If the gentleman wants to respond to that, I want to say something about health care briefly.

I appreciate the gentleman's comment, and briefly in closing, Madam Speaker, let me say this. I hope we can cooperate, but we do have a divergence, as my friend pointed out, and that's of course the nature of what the House of Representatives does, debates different points of view. Frankly, my experience, as I have said, is that when we diverged in a point of view in 1993, when my Republican friends took the position that accommodating revenues to spending would, in fact, from their perspective, be a job killer--they talk a lot about job- killing legislation. They all voted against that legislation in 1993, and in fact, some of my colleagues on my side of the aisle lost their election because of voting for that piece of legislation. In fact, however, it helped create the most robust economy anybody in this Chamber has experienced in their lifetime. It created over 22 million jobs, as opposed to losing 8 million jobs in the last administration under President Bush, so that there was a substantial difference which you can see, touch, and feel and read about and know about.

So I tell my friend, yes, there's a difference of opinion, but there's no difference of opinion on what happened, and when Winston Churchill, who you quoted before and of whom I'm a great fan, one of the things that Winston Churchill was most known for was trying to remind his British friends: don't forget what dictators and despots do--and I make no aspersions, I want to make that clear. I'm simply saying he believed strongly in learning from the past and not continuing to make mistakes and not continue to do what failed in years before.

So I agree with the gentleman in looking at the past for instruction on how to make the future better and to create those jobs that both he and I want to create and that America certainly is looking for us to create.

I thank the gentleman for this colloquy.

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.

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.