SEAM Act of 2013

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

Well, I want to come to the floor to wish the Republicans a happy anniversary. I brought a gold ring. This is the 50th repeal of ObamaCare. I want to wish my colleagues a happy 50th anniversary for the appeal of ObamaCare.

Like any marriage that lasts 50 years, it takes a lot of work. The American people have shown that they want this marriage to last. They have shown that by reelecting Barack Obama as President. They have shown that by electing a Senate that won't even consider a repeal of the Affordable Care Act; but also like any marriage, it takes work along the way to improve it, to work at it, to make changes to it.

Democrats stand ready to work with President Obama, to fine-tune this wonderful marriage celebrating the 50th anniversary of its repeal here today, to make sure it endures for another 50 repeal votes by the House Republicans here in the coming months. We are ready to make the changes that we need to, to ensure that the Affordable Care Act works for every American.

There are issues in the implementation in my district. Two of my counties, Summit and Eagle County, have among the highest insurance rates in the exchange in the entire country, these two counties. That is due to a problem that the State had in implementing it, but we would love to work with Republicans on a Federal fix for Eagle and Summit County, and the other Colorado counties that are affected by it.

I would be proud to work with my colleagues to replace the revenue and the medical and device tax with other sources of revenue to ensure that the Affordable Care Act works.

There are a lot of great ideas, and perhaps it is time that, rather than continue to celebrate anniversaries of repeal, that we enter couples counseling sessions today, and we work together in trying to find common ground.

Rather than talking about repealing ObamaCare and going back to a system we know wasn't working, in which 40 million Americans didn't have health care insurance, in which Americans and my constituents and yours were frustrated that, year after year, rates were going up 10, 15, 20 percent--rather than going back to a formula we know didn't work, let's enter couples counseling and work together to make health care work in our country, to talk about a path forward, with the President, with Democrats, with Republicans, with Independents, to ensure that these cost increases that have been epidemic the last couple of decades come to an end, that we can extend coverage to more American families, that we can ensure that the quality of health care that is our Nation's pride can continue to be available to Americans, regardless of their economic background.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Isn't that wonderful? Isn't this great that the President has made 19 changes to improve the Affordable Care Act to make it work?

You know what? That is what a marriage takes. That is what has helped the Affordable Care Act withstand the 50th vote to repeal it here in the House. Had the President been inflexible--just like in a marriage, if one partner is inflexible, it would have been a lot harder to survive 50 votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Here, we are celebrating the golden anniversary of repeal votes, 50 votes.

But thanks to the President's flexibility with 19 changes, hopefully, there are more along the way to ensure that all Americans have access to affordable health care:

That no American faces pricing discrimination or is kept out of a plan because of a preexisting condition;

That people can move between employers;

That somebody can leave a large company to be an entrepreneur and have a startup without worrying about losing their health care if they have a preexisting condition;

Making sure that young Americans, as they are trying to find a job or working part time, can stay on their parents' plan;

Making sure that Americans have a real choice in the exchanges that choose between multiple providers.

These were some of the elements that I think the American people want to keep and one of the reasons that this health care act has not only withstood 50 votes to repeal and is celebrating its golden anniversary, but will survive the next 50 votes if the House Republicans choose to have them to try to appeal the Affordable Care Act.

The American people want to see changes to make it work. We applaud the President for the 19 changes he made. We encourage him to use the discretion that we rightly give him under the Affordable Care Act to help make it work.

We encourage the discretion at the State level that many Governors, like the Governor of Kentucky and others, have shown to make the Affordable Care Act work in their State.

We applaud the fact that there are over $200 billion of deficit reduction in the Affordable Care Act. If we can find additional savings and replace lost revenue, we are certainly open to that discussion. So I rise in celebration of having withstood 50 repeal votes. We are ready for the next 50.

We use these opportunities to highlight the American people on the benefits of the Affordable Care Act and to say that we are ready to have a real discussion with Republicans, to exert our legislative privilege, to make changes, and in the absence of that, we applaud the President in using the abilities that we give him under the act to help make sure the Affordable Care Act truly makes health care more affordable for American families.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

This bill--this 50th anniversary--golden anniversary of ObamaCare repeals here in the House--50th vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act, gutting mental parity, health parity, gutting protection for Americans with preexisting conditions, went through no hearings, no markups, no amendments that we are allowed to discuss or debate or vote on here on the floor of the House. This is not the process for improving the quality of health care for American families.

The American people have made it clear they want this marriage to last. They want to make it work. They know it requires hard work. The President has made 19 wonderful changes to the law.

I am not a constitutional lawyer. If there are folks on the other side who want to sue the President, who think that he did something contrary to the law we passed, they are certainly welcome to sue. I believe that the President was given broad discretion under the law to make it work.

I hope that this legislative body takes up the gauntlet and makes the changes we need to make the Affordable Care Act work. Any marriage takes effort. Here, we have a marriage between the Affordable Care Act and the American people, and 50 votes to repeal it are not going to break up that marriage.

It is a stronger marriage than that because the American people have voted on it. They didn't elect a Presidential candidate who wanted to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They didn't elect a Senate that wanted to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

So here we are, and we are welcome to have another 50, 100, 200 votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act; or we can get to work on an open process, letting Members of both parties offer floor amendments. This rule allows no floor amendments.

Having a markup in committee, having hearings in committee about how we can deliver better health care value to the American people will make sure

affordable care is available to every American family and affordable for small businesses, to make America more competitive.

But instead of going through an open process, encouraging ideas from Republicans and Democrats to make health care work in our country, we are presented with the 50th vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

In the absence of meaningful improvements and legislation, the President is using the authority that we gave him under this bill to make the changes that he needs to make, to make sure the Affordable Care Act works.

This body can reassert itself and take back its prerogative whenever we want by passing commonsense bipartisan bills to improve the Affordable Care Act, but it truly is hypocritical to criticize the President out of one side of one's mouth for making changes that actually improve the law and make it work better, when here in this body we are refusing to make some of those same commonsense changes.

I hope that if people think that there was authority of the law that exceeded, they are welcome to work that out in the courts. That is what the court is for, to settle the differences of separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches; but I hope, more important, because the American people care about affordable health care, that this body is willing to take up some of those improvements that we can make, to make sure that this marriage can endure for the next 50 votes as well.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, make no bones about it. The individual mandate is a linchpin of RomneyCare--or whatever you would like to call it--modeled on, in fact, the insurance reforms in Massachusetts. This component is critical to ensuring that people with preexisting conditions are not discriminated against in pricing in the exchange. It is important to make sure that we have a younger, healthier risk pool in the exchange to bring down rates for all Americans.

If this bill were to become law, which it won't--it is simply the 50th repeal of the Affordable Care Act, the golden anniversary of repeals--the entire affordable care structure, including the pricing in the exchange, would go up for American families, and it would devastate health care reform. This is not a bill that has support from the President. It is not a bill that has support from the proponents of the Affordable Care Act. It doesn't make the Affordable Care Act better. It is, in fact, the 50th repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

I was on the Education and Labor Committee, as it was called at the time, two Congresses ago. My colleague from Texas talked about the process under which the health care bill was written. We did have a substantial markup. There were other committees: the Ways and Means Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee. My committee was one of the committees that it was reported out of, and there were other committees it was not reported out of.

This was an amazing process of writing this bill over the period of a year. In fact, in our Democratic Caucus meetings, we even, essentially, functioned as a committee of our entire Caucus, where we went through the bill page after page, and we made suggestions. There were a number of bills that were written by Republicans that were included in the Affordable Care Act, and there were amendments that I was involved with that were included. Like in any legislative process, some that I advocated for were not included in the final bill.

Unlike this bill, which had no hearing and no markup in any form-- because the gentleman from Texas is right. This bill number came from the Senate, and that is the normal process around here. We sometimes have bills from the Senate we approve, and sometimes they originate here and go over there. So this bill number and this title came from something else, and they approved it in reconciliation.

Yet the Affordable Care Act--the bill that led to it--went through my committee. I remember being up until, really, I think, 7 o'clock in the morning. We went straight through the night, under Chairman Miller, offering a number of amendments, some passing and some not. Sometimes I was on the prevailing side, sometimes not. We had a lively discussion over amendments from Democrats and Republicans, some of which made it into the final bill and some of which didn't. That is the legislative process.

To somehow compare that to the legislative process around this bill is like night and day. So, although the gentleman from Texas is technically correct--the bill number was a reconciliation from the Senate that the House concurred in and sent back with some changes--the work that went into forming that bill had countless hearings and had several markups, including one that I participated in and offered amendments in and voted for and against amendments from both sides of the aisle in.

We are where we are. We would love to see the Affordable Care Act go through a process now. Again, why not allow amendments under this rule? Why not allow Republicans or Democrats, who have ideas to make health care more affordable, to offer them now to the floor? If they would pass, then they would move on to the Senate.

Instead, we have a narrowly focused Affordable Care Act repeal that makes health care less affordable for American families by leading to a risk pool in the exchanges that is less healthy and older. We need to ensure that young people are part of the exchanges. Young people want to have insurance, and they want to have affordable insurance. Let's make sure they have a way to do that in the exchanges. This bill would repeal that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

To the gentleman from Texas, I say it is possible I will have one more speaker. If I see her arrive, I will yield to her. Otherwise, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this week, the number of people who lost their unemployment benefits as a result of Congress' failing to extend the Emergency Unemployment Compensation program has climbed to 2 million Americans. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that would restore unemployment insurance and provide much-needed relief to countless families across the country as well as to stimulate our economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question and to vote ``no'' on the underlying bills.

We could be doing a lot of important work here in the House rather than to have, I think, what both sides would agree is a purely symbolic 50th vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act, unless there are, perhaps, some who think ``50'' is the magic number. I think anybody who has a degree of political sense realizes, if the other 49 didn't go anywhere, this one is very unlikely to go anywhere. Rather than proceed with something that isn't going anywhere and that gives the Democrats once again the opportunity to talk about how important it is to make health care more affordable--and the American people overwhelmingly want health care to be fixed, not repealed--we could be doing a lot of important things that the American people actually want this body to do.

Let's talk about immigration reform.

There is a bill that passed the Senate with Democrats and Republicans--68 votes. It is rare for more than two-thirds of the United States Senate to come together around a commonsense solution. How did they do that? They did that because the American people want this problem solved. They are sick and tired--and they should be; I am, too--of having over 10 million people illegally in this country. In my district, there are tens of thousands of people who are there illegally. We don't even know because there is no way to even count. President Obama has deported over 2 million people at an enormous cost to taxpayers--$10,000 to $20,000 per deportation. That is how much it costs taxpayers--you and me, Mr. Speaker.

Guess what? There is a bipartisan solution supported by the law enforcement community, supported by the business community, supported by the technology industry, supported by both the agriculture industry--farmers and farmworkers--and supported by business and labor, supported by the faith-based community, supported by over 75 percent of Americans across the political spectrum, supported by a majority of Republicans and a majority of Democrats and a majority of Independents. That bill is ready.

There is a bipartisan House version, H.R. 15. Let's bring that forward under a rule. That bill would have the votes to pass tomorrow if we brought it forward. We could send it to the President. We could reduce the deficit by over $100 billion, increase our GDP, create hundreds of thousands of jobs for American citizens, as the bill has been scored. Finally, we could secure our borders so we could have control over who comes and goes, both people and illicit products. That is what the American people want. Let's get that bill through rather than celebrate yet another empty anniversary for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

I strongly suggest that my colleagues start bringing forward bills that the American people want to see pass. If we can bring forward immigration reform with bipartisan support and get it out of this body and to the President's desk, the American people will start to improve their opinions of this institution. When I see the polls and they say, oh, 15 percent approval is what Congress has--or 12 percent--it is really no wonder because it is a little bit like a broken record around here. They are, frankly, sick and tired of our every week, it seems like, repealing the Affordable Care Act and making health care more expensive for the American people. They don't want to see us talking about golden rings and 50th anniversaries of votes. They want to see us solving problems.

We offer the Speaker and the majority leader the opportunity to do that. We welcome the Republican immigration principles. There are ample grounds to work on a bipartisan solution based on H.R. 15 or on another bill that encapsulates those principles that the Republicans laid down on which we can find common ground so as to solve a very real problem, to grow our economy, to reduce our deficit, to secure our borders, and to ensure that America remains competitive in the global economy. I challenge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reach a solution on that issue and to really move forward with regard to making health care more affordable.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this closed process--this closed rule--that allows no Republican ideas and no Democratic ideas to come forward, to enter this discussion. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so the Democrats can bring forward the unemployment insurance bill, and I also encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 497 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 497.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 497 provides for consideration of two bills, one of which addresses the country's worsening health insurance situation due to the Affordable Care Act; the other addresses the Environmental Protection Agency's attempts to cripple our economy with costly regulations which have dubious health benefits.

The rule before us today provides for 1 hour of debate for each bill, controlled by the primary committee of jurisdiction. The committee made in order every amendment submitted for consideration to H.R. 3826, the Electricity Security and Affordability Act, including three amendments offered by Democrats and five amendments offered by Republicans. Finally, the minority is afforded the customary motion to recommit on each bill, allowing for yet another opportunity to amend the legislation. This is a straightforward rule for consideration of two very important bills.

H.R. 3826, the Electricity Security and Affordability Act is a bipartisan response to the Environmental Protection Agency's wrongheaded approach to our energy future. It was carefully crafted by Democratic Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia and the Republican chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, Ed Whitfield from Kentucky. The bill requires the Environmental Protection Agency to acknowledge within its greenhouse gas regulations that different sources of fuel--such as natural gas, such as

coal--require different approaches to the regulatory sphere. Further, it prevents the Environmental Protection Agency from unilaterally imposing new regulations on existing power plants--those power plants that are already up and running, providing heat to our Nation, which is currently under the throes of a significant cold snap. This limitation exists until Congress has weighed in and passed a law specifying an effective date for the regulations to begin.

Finally, as is just good government, the bill requires strengthened reporting requirements from the Environmental Protection Agency.

One of the most frustrating parts of the EPA's new venture in regulating our existing energy infrastructure is that the EPA has actively blocked proper congressional oversight from receiving the science and calculations used in crafting these new costly regulations. That simply must end. If the Environmental Protection Agency is proposing new regulations because they believe they will truly make Americans healthier, let them share the data. Let them share the data with the United States Congress so it can be peer reviewed. Both the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Science Committee have continually been ignored when requesting such data. That is unacceptable. That must end. This legislation is a step toward bringing accountability to an agency that for too long has run roughshod over our economy.

The second bill contained in this rule, H.R. 4118, Suspending the Individual Mandate Penalty Law Equals Fairness Act, addresses the disparity that President Obama and Secretary Sebelius have created between big businesses, which have been given a reprieve from having to comply with the mandates in the Affordable Care Act, and individual Americans, who have been given no such help by this President. Just this week, the press reported that the administration will delay yet another provision of the Affordable Care Act by allowing insurers to continue offering health plans that do not meet the Affordable Care Act's minimum coverage requirements. It is becoming so commonplace for this administration to waive or ignore provisions--by their own admission, this is their signature law, and they continue to waive provisions. The American people cannot seem to get an even break, and no one even seems to notice anymore. There is little doubt that this is exactly what the President is hoping for.

In the last 8 months, the President has delayed or modified overly 22 provisions in his signature health care law. We are all familiar--we have all seen the headlines: delays in the preexisting program; delays in the employer mandate; delays in the reporting requirement; changing the rules under which Congress has to buy insurance; delay, delay, delay, in his own law. The President has been quick to fix parts of the law that have political consequences for his allies and to protect his own talking points.

Yet, where is the President's protection for the American people?

Under the health care law, Americans who don't have health insurance and refuse to purchase a government-approved insurance policy will face an annual fine--an annual fine--that increases every year.

However, purchasing a government-approved plan also means you have to pay big premiums. You are forced to navigate a dysfunctional Web site. You may lose the doctor you like and place your personal information in jeopardy on an unsecure Web site.

Today, Republicans are offering a legislative solution to help Americans get out from under the crushing weight of the so-called Affordable Care Act. H.R. 4118, also known as the Simple Fairness Act, will give hardworking Americans the same relief that the President has already given to big businesses across the country.

The administration has no problem delaying the employer mandate, not just once for 2014, but a second time for another full year for employers with 51-100 employees. Shouldn't that same relief be provided to rank-and-file Americans?

The President has refused to work with Congress to change the law so today, we are moving ahead and doing what is right for the American people. The Simple Fairness Act will eliminate the penalty for 2014 for those individuals who chose not to purchase a government-approved health care plan.

It is clear that H.R. 4118 offers the only feasible lifeline to millions of Americans who are faced with purchasing an expensive health care plan that does not meet their needs. It is Congress' job to protect the American people. I urge my colleagues to pass this rule so Washington can stop making decisions about American's health care and instead individuals can be free to decide for themselves. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bills.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes for a response.

Mr. Speaker, there have been 36 changes to the Affordable Care Act since it was signed into law. It has been a little over 3 years since the bill was signed into law. Thirty-six changes means one a month.

How does the breakdown of those 36 changes occur? According to the Galen Institute published this morning, 15 times, Congress has passed and the President signed legislation changing the Affordable Care Act. Twice, the Supreme Court modified the Affordable Care Act, but 19 times, President Obama made a change unilaterally.

We are here today debating a delay on the penalties under the individual mandate, but it might interest the Congress to know that the President himself delayed the individual mandate. The administration changed the deadline for the individual mandate by declaring that customers who had purchased insurance by March 31 will avoid the tax penalty.

Previously and by law, they were required to purchase that insurance by Valentine's Day, February 14, so there has already been a 6-week delay. We are simply trying to place in code what the President is doing unilaterally.

You want to talk about a closed process where people don't have an opportunity to participate? That is governing by executive fiat. That is what we are trying to stop today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I would just emphasize there have been changes by administrative action, some 19 that President Obama has done all on his own, without any influence from Congress.

Now, if the gentleman were truly interested about an offset for repealing the medical device tax, perhaps he might look more favorably on the bill before us today, H.R. 4118. The Congressional Budget Office scores a significant savings by passing H.R. 4118.

Perhaps there are some other things that could be done with that money as well; but nevertheless, the President has, on his own, delayed employee reporting, delayed subsidies through the Federal exchange. He closed the high-risk pool.

He has doubled the allowable deductibles. He has required self- attestation and eliminated the reporting requirements under the law that he signed in March of 2010.

He last fall said: Okay. I give up. Insurance can offer plans that we just told you were illegal, that they were crummy insurance, and now, we are going to allow them to be offered again.

All of these were actions taken by the executive under a closed process. With no input or oversight by the people's House--by the United States House of Representatives.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, here is the Affordable Care Act. The President says it is the law of the land. How does it describe the effective date for the individual mandate? Under section 1501, subparagraph D, effective date:

The amendments made by this section shall apply to the

taxable years ending after December 31, 2013.

Pretty unambiguous, pretty easy to understand. It doesn't seem to have a lot of flexibility or wiggle room written into it.

How does the language read that describes the effective date for the employer mandate? Well, that reads under section 1513, subparagraph D, effective date:

The amendments made by this section shall apply to the

months beginning after December 31, 2013.

It doesn't sound as if there is a lot of flexibility; yet the President, on his own, found the flexibility only within the executive branch to say that effective date is no longer valid.

We are simply saying for Mr. and Mrs. American--for the average American, we should be able to delay the effective date of the penalty because this law has been a disaster from start to finish. Stories about the Web site are now legion.

We should give the same relief to the average American that the President gave to his friends in Big Business.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

It sounds as if the gentleman is going to vote for the bill under consideration today because, after all, it is an opportunity to give long-suffering Americans an opportunity to be out of the penalty part of the Affordable Care Act.

Let's be honest, I mean this thing is one of the most coercive pieces of legislation that has ever been passed by the United States Congress. I might just remind people here in the House of Representatives that this law, which was H.R. 3590, was actually not subject to any hearings or any markups in the United States House of Representatives. Maybe it was when H.R. 3590 first passed the House when it was a housing bill in July of 2009.

But remember, what became the health care bill was a housing bill that was amended. The amendment read over in the Senate: ``strike all after the enacting clause and insert.''

And what was inserted was language written by special interests over in the Cloakroom of the Senate Finance Committee, was passed by the Senate on Christmas Eve, and then thrown back over here to the House.

Since the House had passed H.R. 3590 as a housing bill, not as a tax bill like the Affordable Care Act was but as a housing bill, the question before the House then became: Will the House now concur in the amendments to H.R. 3590? It took 3 months for the Speaker to cobble together the 217 votes that she needed to pass this thing, but H.R. 3590 was never heard as a health care bill in my committee, the Committee on Energy and Commerce. It was never heard in the Ways and Means Committee. It was never heard in the Education and Labor Committee. That was H.R. 3200. H.R. 3200 is long gone--no one has seen it for years--but H.R. 3590 is what is embodied in the President's health care law.

So, really, to say that everyone had a chance to participate in this and to debate it, that is, in fact, hypocritical. What is really hypocritical is that H.R. 3590, when it came back to the House, was presented to this House under a closed rule. That is a fact, and that is a fact that should be recognized by the minority. This bill was the product of a closed rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, seeing no other speakers on my side, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Talk about doing the will of the people. There was an election in Texas yesterday. There was a question on the ballot--to support or oppose the President's takeover of the health care industry in this country. Ninety-two percent of the people were recorded as being in opposition to the President's takeover of health care. So, in fact, in the district I represent, that is a significant amount.

Today's rule provides for the consideration of two bills to provide relief for hardworking Americans who are faced with the administration's expensive and restrictive mandates both in the health insurance and energy sectors.

I want to thank my colleagues Lynn Jenkins from Kansas, the Republican Conference vice chair, as well as the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, Mr. Whitfield from Kentucky, for their thoughtful pieces of legislation.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bills.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, before I discuss the value of the Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as ObamaCare, I must acknowledge the sad fact that this will be the 37th time in 29 months that the majority has voted to repeal or defund the law, and they know it will not happen. Recent estimates are that each vote to repeal or to defund the Affordable Care Act has cost $1.45 million in taxpayer money. So today's debate will bring the total cost of repeal votes to--wake up there--$53 million and counting.

Now, while the majority wastes our tax dollars, think what we could do with $53 million. The agriculture bill we were all talking about this morning is ready to take $20 billion out of food stamps, feeding poor people, while we waste that kind of money here doing a bill month after month after month that we know is not going anywhere. Yet we don't have any positive agenda to put forward here. For the last 2 or 3 months, all we've done are one-House bills that everybody knows are not going to get passed, and it really is a tragedy because a CBS study says it costs $25 million a week just to run the Congress--and how deplorable that kind of waste is with all the problems we have in the country.

We are told that the freshman Republicans would like, once again, to have an opportunity to vote to kill health care. I wonder if the freshman Republicans, as I know the freshman Democrats do, wouldn't like to vote to repeal the sequester or to maybe do a jobs bill, which we haven't had in 2\1/2\ years. We are not going to do anything about the budget either when we've heard all the time, Why doesn't the Senate do a budget? The Senate has done a budget. The Senate has asked over and over again for the House to appoint conferees so that we can get the budget put together and pass it into law. No action there either. Then, because of the sequester cuts, at least 70,000 children have been denied access to early education, and thousands of cancer patients have been denied their regular cancer treatments.

The majority says it is holding today's vote, as I said, so that the freshmen can repeal the Affordable Care Act. I wish to goodness that they would give them something that would really pass and something good to vote on.

Instead of voting to repeal the sequester, the majority is voting for the 37th time to repeal a law--and this is very important--that has already done so much already. It has given 100 million Americans access to free preventative health care, procedures such as mammograms and colonoscopies. That's 100 million already. They are voting for the 37th time to repeal a law that saves seniors $6.1 billion in prescription drug costs already. They are voting for the 37th time to repeal a law that has provided 3.1 million young adults with health insurance already that they otherwise could not afford.

The Affordable Care Act has been particularly beneficial for America's women. Did you know that prior to the passage of this law in eight States and in the District of Columbia, domestic violence was classified as a preexisting condition and you could be denied insurance? They were denied insurance because they had been abused and because, perhaps, they would be again.

Did you know that thanks to a practice called ``gender rating,'' women were charged as much as 46 percent more in premiums for the same level of insurance as a man? Maybe you didn't know that. But lots of women in the country are getting rebates for that very reason.

Because of the Affordable Care Act, both of these discriminatory practices have been outlawed. In addition, the Affordable Care Act has already returned money to the pockets of millions of women thanks to the rebates required by insurance companies under the health care law.

Finally, the Affordable Care Act outlawed lifetime and yearly limits, insidious insurance practices that capped the amount of health care an insurance company would provide. But because of health care reform, Americans no longer have to worry that they will be denied health care that they need simply because insurance companies refuse to pay for their continued care.

And did you know that 85 percent of your premium dollar will go to health care and not to other things that the insurance company wants to spend it on?

The majority has claimed that the Affordable Care Act is bad for America's small businesses. The truth is that for any small business that has less than 50 employees, it requires them to do nothing different, nothing at all from what they're doing today. But small businesses with less than 25 employees are eligible for a tax credit of 35 percent right now. And on January 1, that tax credit will increase to 50 percent. You will get a tax credit on half of the health insurance you pay when you have under 25 employees.

The majority has also claimed and will continue to claim that the Affordable Care Act was passed in the dark of night through a closed- door process that denied their side of the aisle the opportunity to participate in the legislative process. This charge is categorically untrue. The Affordable Care Act was the product of nearly 100 hearings and 83 hours of committee markups, including both Republicans and Democrats making amendments. The House heard from 181 witnesses, both Democrat and Republican. There were 239 amendments considered in House committees and 121 that were adopted.

And while some on the other side of the aisle charge that the final version of the law was rushed through the House, the final bill was available for 72 hours before any Members were asked to vote on it.

In contrast, the Patients' Rights Repeal Act, which we're doing again today as I said for the 37th time, is being considered after no committee hearings, no committee markups, and under a closed rule. That means there will be no amendments on this bill. Even if one were sympathetic toward the majority's goal, the complete abuse of the legislative process should give every Member of this Chamber pause.

Mr. Speaker, today's vote is just the latest in the majority's all- out effort to undermine the process of implementing the health care law. Their efforts have taken many forms, but central to it all is their refusal to provide the necessary funding to fully implement the law and a gleeful willingness to criticize an implementation process that is underfunded and undermined at every single turn.

Despite their best efforts, I believe that in the years to come, the majority will find that they stood on the wrong side of history, just as they stood on the wrong side of history when Social Security was passed and when Medicare came into being.

Indeed, the opponents of the Affordable Care Act have already had their day in court. Last summer, the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, putting to rest any false legal concerns that opponents had.

With the constitutionality of the law no longer in question, one might expect opponents to criticize the law's impact on our Nation's finances. But here again, the facts will stand in the way. Over the last 3 years, U.S. health care spending grew at 3.9 percent. That, Mr. Speaker, is the lowest growth rate in 50 years. And according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, repealing the Affordable Care Act would actually increase our Nation's deficit by more than $100 billion over the next 10 years. Please think of that and understand what they are trying to do away with today--the things that help you.

Mr. Speaker, providing safe, secure, and affordable health care for our citizens has been the goal of both Republican and Democrat lawmakers for generations. As far back as Theodore Roosevelt, we have acknowledged the need to provide our citizens with a health care system that puts their health before industry profits, that has as good outcomes as other parts of the world provide for their citizens. We need to treat health care as a right for all, not a privilege for the lucky few.

Under the leadership of a Democratic Congress, we managed to realize at long last this long-awaited goal by passing the Affordable Care Act through an open, deliberative, and thorough legislative process. And from reducing our Nation's health care spending to expanding health care to millions of Americans who could not afford it, the Affordable Care Act is succeeding.

It is in this light that the majority's 37th vote in 29 months to repeal health care should be judged. And it's hard to judge their politically driven vote as anything other than a disservice to the American people, a waste of taxpayer money and a way to spread misinformation.

I urge my colleagues to reject today's rule and the underlying legislation. And I reaffirm my pride in supporting the law that is already helping to save lives and already providing American people with secure and affordable health care. And after it is fully implemented next year, all Americans will benefit.

I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the previous speaker.

I feel very badly about his constituent whose health care price has gone up, but I want to say that that's because the insurance companies raise those prices. ObamaCare is not yet in effect for small businesses.

I'm sorry, I haven't got the time. It's all allocated. But I will talk to you later about it.

No, it's not. It's the insurance coverage.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

To respond to what we just heard--and none of us are exempt; I don't know what in the world that's all about--I would like to 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 the gentleman 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to this rule that will allow the House to vote on what the country really needs right now: a bill to create more American jobs. The SEAM Act would help to not only create more jobs, but more American-made products, by creating tax credits for productive American manufacturers in the energy innovation industry.

I ask the majority to stop these political games--this bill has had no committee action and no discussion; it is simply brought back over and over--and work with us for a change to put some smart policies forward.

To discuss our proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Sinema).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if my colleague has any more speakers? If not, I am prepared to close.

Then I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want to be very succinct. What you have heard today is probably the same kind of debate that took place in this Chamber on both Social Security and Medicare. Those two programs, Medicare operates with a 2 percent overhead. Most private insurance operates between 20 and 25 percent. It is a bargain, and it has lifted millions of seniors in this country out of poverty.

This bill will provide for us the type of health care that we deserve and that we need based on outcomes and not on a plethora of tests each doctor gives.

I am absolutely astonished on what we have heard today, but there are a couple of things I really want you to remember. One, today we have spent $53 million on this debate on just to repeal this law--$53 million. If you are frugal at all--and I am--believe me, that burns me up. I can think of many, many things we can use that for.

Almost 7 million jobs have been created in health care since this bill passed--7 million. Four million more are to come. The two things that we really want to do is provide good health care and good jobs in this economy.

For heaven's sake, let's not see this bill up again. Take a good, hard look at it. See all the benefits in it for all of your constituents. You don't want to go home and tell the women and tell the seniors and tell the people with preexisting conditions that you don't care about them.

Vote ``no.''

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

I thank the gentlelady for her leadership.

I rise today in opposition to the Patients' Rights Repeal Act. I want you to see the face of those who have been served across America. They are, yes, low-income, some are impoverished, but many are middle income. In fact, there was an article in the Texas newspaper that said, part of what drives the need for health care are Medicaid, expanded Medicaid, which is part of this great bill, the Affordable Care Act, is the fact that people are impoverished.

And so here is what my friends want to do today for the 37th time. They want to take away from 13 million Americans the health insurance that they need, that they were able to secure with rebates from the health insurance companies. They want to take away from 105 million Americans, 71 million Americans in private plans, who have received free preventative services. They want to be able to tell the women who needed mammograms and additional tests for breast cancer that you can't go in and get the preventative care that you need to save lives. Oh, yes. They want to tell 17 million children with preexisting disease you cannot go in anymore and be covered.

The conversation over here is plain foolish. They're only talking about their economics--their economics of wealth. Yes, maybe their districts have not felt the pain of racial disparities which they're going to eliminate if they get rid of this bill. Maybe they are not in one of these States, 10 States like Texas that has 28.4 percent uninsured, along with the Louisiana, Arkansas, Georgia and many others, Florida, that have uninsured people who need this. Maybe they'll tell the 6.6 million children that have taken advantage of the law today to obtain health insurance for preexisting disease that they cannot do that, or maybe they'll tell the seniors that you can go back into the doughnut hole again.

I don't know why we're doing this, but I will tell you that I see that lives are saved.

I introduced an amendment to make sure that we didn't lose the federally qualified health clinics. When you repeal this bill, you will dash the hopes of those who have been walking into their neighborhoods, going into federally qualified health clinics and getting the good care that they need.

All this is is spoiled grapes. That's what this is. Drink the wine and leave us alone, and make sure that we keep the Patients' Bill of Rights and Affordable Care Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rule and the underlying legislation because this bill would repeal the Affordable Care Act. The American people have been engaged in a debate over universal healthcare for six generations.

In 1949, Harry Truman became the first sitting President to propose universal healthcare for all Americans as part of the ``Fair Deal.''

On March 23, 2010, with the stroke of President Obama's pen, the American people received this part of the ``Fair Deal.'' This bill did not become law in the dead of night, but in the full process this body affords serious consideration of legislation. There were committee hearings, staff and member meetings, amendments and a final vote in both the House and the Senate before it was sent to the President's desk.

The Affordable Care Act has been affirmed to be law by every means provided by our nation's constitution:

On March 21, 2010, the House passed the Affordable Care Act following Senate Consideration of the bill.

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law.

On June 28, 2012, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, affirming the constitutionality of the law--leaving intact the majority of the incentives to expand healthcare coverage to millions of Americans.

The Affordable Care Act was a central issue in the Presidential election of 2012. The candidate who signed the Affordable Care Act into law won the election by 51.1 percent of the popular vote and 62 percent of the electoral vote.

Why are we here for the 37th time in three years to again vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act?

It is difficult to recall any series of actions within a short time period that have overcome every hurdle that our system of government has to establish and affirm that a law--is the law of this nation.

I believe Mr. Speaker it is important to remind new members of this body and those who are closely watching this debate that the Affordable Care Act is law. People living in each of the Congressional Districts represented in this body are benefiting from the Affordable Care Act.

The leadership of this Congress may want to give new members of Congress the opportunity to tell the people back home that they voted to repeal ``Obamacare.'' Unfortunately, they are also toying with the emotions of people who know that without the Affordable Care Act they have no other option for healthcare.

Because of the Affordable Care Act, Americans are already seeing lower costs, better coverage, and patient protections that Republicans want to repeal:

13 million Americans benefited from $1.1 billion in rebates sent to them from their health insurance companies last year.

105 million Americans have access to free preventive services, including 71 million Americans in private plans and 34 million seniors on Medicare.

Millions of women began receiving free coverage for comprehensive women's preventive services in August 2012.

100 million Americans no longer have a life-time limit on healthcare coverage.

Nearly 17 million children with pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied coverage by insurers.

6.6 million young adults up to age 26 have health insurance through their parents' plan, half of whom would be uninsured without this coverage.

6.3 million Seniors in the `donut hole' have already saved $6.1 billion on their prescription drugs.

3.2 million Seniors have access to free annual wellness visits under Medicare, and

360,000 small employers have already taken advantage of the Small Business Health Care Tax Credit to provide health insurance to 2 million workers.

Because of the Affordable Care Act 3.8 million people in Texas-- including 2.2 million seniors on Medicare now receive preventative care services. Over 7 million Texans no longer have to fear lifetime limits on their healthcare insurance. Texas parents of 300,731 young adults can sleep easier at night knowing that their children can remain on their health insurance until age 26.

The protection provided by this law is a guarantee to 5 million Texas residents that their insurance companies will spend 80 percent of their premium dollars on healthcare, or customers will get a rebate from their insurance company.

In my state, there are 4,029 people who had no insurance because of pre-existing conditions, but today the Affordable Care Act has provided them with access to coverage. The Affordable Care Act means that many Texans are free of worry about having access to healthcare insurance.

However, the list of benefits from the Affordable Care Act is not completed. In 2014, the Affordable Care Act's final provisions will become available to our citizens. Insurance companies will be banned from:

discriminating against anyone with a preexisting condition

charging higher rates based on gender or health status

enforcing lifetime dollar limits

enforcing annual dollar limits on health benefits

In 2014, access to affordable healthcare for the self employed or those who decide to purchase their own coverage will be easier because of Affordable Insurance Exchanges. There will be a one stop marketplace where consumers can do what Federal employees have done for decades-- purchase insurance at reasonable rates from an insurer of their choice. This will assure that health care consumers can get the care that they need from the medical professionals they trust.

I do not believe that the healthcare law is perfect--but what is worse--is the imperfection of the House Leadership in allowing this continued rehashing of a debate over a law that is not going away.

Congress should be working to mend the Affordable Care Act where we believe it can be improved, and not end healthcare security for millions of our constituents. Healthcare is the difference between life and death for too many of our constituents. The bill that needs to be amended or rejected is the one before us: H.R. 45.

For this reason, I offered amendments before the Rules Committee to address minority health disparities, medical payments to small physician owned hospitals, and a plan to study the impact of the healthcare law.

Jackson Lee Amendment Number 1 would have removed all of the bill text following the enacting clause of the legislation, which would have ended this exercise to repeal the Affordable Care Act. This legislation is so bad it cannot be salvaged and the United States would be better off without it.

Jackson Lee Amendment Number 2 would have ensured full Medicare reimbursement to all hospitals including physician owned hospitals with at least 100 beds, provided they could produce reliable records to document their claims for reimbursement.

Jackson Lee Amendment Number 3 would have authorized additional funding to establish Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs). These centers are the last line of defense provided in the bill to make sure those living on the margins of society--the poorest of the poor had access to reliable healthcare. FQHC programs would be based in clinics, community based health care centers and pro-active outreach programs that target the homeless or marginally housed with information on how to get access to good healthcare.

Jackson Lee Amendment Number 4 would have expanded state use of the Medicaid option of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care law when the uninsured rate of qualifying residents of a state exceeds 20 percent. States wishing to opt-out of Medicaid would have the option of submitting a plan to reduce the rate of uninsured to 20 percent or less to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. This amendment would have benefited Texas enormously since it leads the nation in uninsured residents at 28.8 percent. In fact Texas has held this number 1 ranking, of the state with the highest number of uninsured residents, for the last five consecutive years.

Jackson Lee Amendment Number 5 would have established a program to conduct studies of minority health disparities. The Amendment directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to submit an annual report of findings regarding minority health disparities and make recommendations on how disparities may be reduced.

Jackson Lee Amendment Number 6 expressed the Sense of the Congress that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is law in the United States of America. The amendment enumerated each step that made it the law including a decision by the United States Supreme Court. The amendment then directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to report to Congress on the impact of the law on those it is intended to help. The Amendment would have not allowed this Congress to revisit repeal until it had research on the impact of the law to guide its further deliberation of repeal.

This Congress has work that needs to be done, and it has work that should be taken up to restore workers, their families and communities to sound economic health.

The healthcare law has many benefits--but I will redouble my efforts to mend the parts that need additional work and educate my constituents so that they can take advantage of the benefits of having access to healthcare.

For all of these reasons, I urge my Colleagues to join me in voting no on the Rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 215 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (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

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

House Resolution 215 provides for a rule to consider the full repeal of the flawed, ill-conceived and inappropriately named Affordable Care Act, a bill whose final language was written by staff on the Senate Finance Committee and the actual legislative text of which received not a single committee hearing or markup in this body. While many hearings and markups were held on other iterations of other health care bills, the legislation that was signed by the President received not a single moment of scrutiny in this House and contained none of the bipartisan amendments that were accepted during the markups of other health care bills, including H.R. 3200, which passed the House but was never considered by the Senate. As such, only a full repeal is acceptable, and that is what this rule provides for.

The rule provides for 2 hours of debate, controlled by the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and the Workforce. Further, the rule self-executes the Bachmann amendment, which provides for a clean repeal of the entire ACA, consistent with the provisions of the opening day rules package of this Congress. The rule further provides the minority one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

This approach, a full repeal, will give the House, particularly Members who were not here in the past two Congresses, an opportunity to have an up-or-down vote, an affirmation or a denial, of the Affordable Care Act.

Americans should have the freedom to make their own health care decisions. In March of 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was signed into law. It was drafted quickly and behind closed doors at the end of 2009--behind closed doors in the other body, in fact. It included secret deals, loopholes, drafting errors, and allowed entirely new Federal agencies to be created without congressional knowledge or oversight.

The bottom line: it was not the way to achieve meaningful reform. In addition, the Supreme Court ruled last June that the law is, in fact, a tax. This is after President Obama continually told the American people that it was not a tax.

The health care system in America needs reform, and it needs improvement; but the law that was passed will cost American taxpayers and patients millions of dollars. It will not improve care, and it will not make care more affordable. We need to start fresh and address the issues with commonsense improvements that will focus on the real issues at hand--creating a health care system that is focused on patients instead of payment, quality instead of quantity, affordability instead of cheapness, and innovation instead of stagnation. The first step is eliminating bad legislation that simply does not work and that today stands in the way of any real improvement. That is why, today, I strongly support the repeal of the President's health care law.

The President did repeatedly tell us that the penalty associated with the individual mandate was not a tax. It was repeated several times in the run-up to this bill's being signed. In June, the Supreme Court affirmed that the only way that this bill could remain law was that it was, indeed, a tax, and Congress has the infinite power to tax. In fact, Congress can tax morning, noon, and night. It can tax the American people back to the stone age if that's what it wishes, and that's what the Affordable Care Act does. When millions are unemployed, this is, indeed, the last thing we need.

It's not just the tax. It's the effect on premiums. Up on the Energy and Commerce Web site this week is a study showing how the Affordable Care Act is going to affect premiums in the individual market, in the small-group market, and in the large-group market; and almost uniformly those premiums are going up, and in some cases they are going up a staggering amount.

Last summer, the Supreme Court's decision leaves in place a costly and unworkable health care scheme that is hurting America's families, that is hurting America's workers, that is hurting America's job creators, and that is damaging America's patients. We will all have to live with that ruling. If we do not repeal, then we will have to live with the law as written. The time has come to step up and do the right thing. I urge support of the rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, now I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Budget Committee, Roger Williams.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. Speaker, I now am pleased to yield such time as she may consume to the author of the bill and a true leader in this effort, in this fight, the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

Mr. Speaker, may I ask as to the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).

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

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Paul Broun.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa, Steve King.

Mr. Speaker, I'd now like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the status of time for both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), for his consideration.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Rice).

I have an additional speaker, and then my close.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. LaMALFA Mr. Speaker, I'm from northern California, which is the land of the original 49ers. That was based on the Gold Rush of about 160 years ago.

Now I see we are creating a new group of 49ers, and it is certainly not heading towards a gold rush for the country. These new 49ers are the people that have to limit the jobs of their small business to 49 or less in order to stay out of the clutches of ObamaCare.

We also are creating a group called 29ers, who have to see their hours cut to less than 30 hours because their employer is out of options; again, because of ObamaCare.

As a farmer, I know that when things aren't going right with the farm you have to learn to cut your losses. In this situation here, we need to have the good sense to not spend good money after bad. It is time that we take a good, hard look at this Obama health care takeover and decide to repeal it.

In California, we seem to have a lot of boondoggles, to include the high-speed rail project, which prices could quadruple over its original cost. We are seeing the same type of boondoggle with this Obama health care takeover.

Let's do the right thing to preserve jobs and preserve people's health care plans as they are and not have this boondoggle upon our entire country.

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

It was, indeed, a very dark day 3 years ago in March when this bill was brought to the House floor, 11 o'clock at night, 11:30 at night, and passed this House of Representatives after members of the Democratic conference, the majority Democratic conference, were lied to by the administration about an executive order to prevent the funding for abortion. That is what tipped the balance. That is what brought those last few wavering votes.

How did we get to that point? Well, throughout 2009, throughout the year, the House had, indeed, considered the health care question. My Committee on Energy and Commerce did have a markup on H.R. 3200. They took a lot of amendments. Some amendments I offered; some amendments were bipartisan. All of those amendments that were accepted by the committee at some point evaporated at the opening of day, whatever happened over in the Speaker's Office, and they were gone. The health care bill which the Energy and Commerce Committee passed out at 1,000 pages grew to 2,000 pages in the Speaker's Office, and all the Republican amendments were stripped out.

And then what happened? Well, H.R. 3200 died. It is gone. Nobody has ever seen or heard of it since. That was the House health care product.

What, in fact, happened was, down at the White House in July of 2009, there were secret meetings that took place. There were six special interest groups that met with the President's folks down at the White House--Nancy-Ann DeParle, Rahm Emanuel's brother. These are the folks that constructed the basis of what has now become known as ObamaCare.

The insurance companies don't hate this law. They like this law. Look what has happened to their insurance stock since the law has passed. They have doubled or tripled in value. That is because they had a seat at the table when this thing was crafted, and it was crafted according to their liking. But who really wrote the nuts and bolts of the bill was the staff on the Senate Finance Committee between Thanksgiving and Christmas.

H.R. 3590, which passed the floor of this House 3 years ago, was a bill that had never had a single hearing in the House of Representatives. It had never had a markup in a single House committee. H.R. 3590 had passed under suspension in the House of Representatives in July of 2009 as a housing bill. It went over to the Senate to await further action. The further action was an amendment offered by Harry Reid to ``strike all after the enacting clause and insert,'' and the health care language was inserted. It came back over here and languished for 3 months. Nobody read it. Then the Speaker forced it through the House of Representatives a few minutes before midnight on March 18 of 2010.

That's why we're having this debate today. Sure, there have been other efforts to repeal this. There was a full repeal in January of 2011, remember? Republicans won 84 House seats, so it was natural to have a repeal vote. After the Supreme Court had their ruling, it was important to reiterate that position. Now we're doing it again.

The other repeal votes that have happened, many of them have been bipartisan. The 1099--you guys liked that? Do you want that paperwork requirement to come back? The President signed the 1099 repeal. What about the CLASS Act? You all voted for that. I didn't. The CLASS Act was repealed on the fiscal cliff vote. The President signed it. The repeal votes that have happened in between have been relatively minor in scope, perfecting amendments, if you will.

The fact of the matter is you can't perfect this thing. It was a dog at the beginning, and it's a dog at the end. We ought to do the right thing. Let's bring up the bill. Let's pass it. Let's send it over to the Senate.

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