Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. This bill is redundant, and it's a waste of time. The Department of Health and Human Services already has a plan in place to review individual information submitted to health care exchanges and to ensure that no one is able to get health insurance tax credits that they aren't eligible for. So, instead of considering these redundant bills, let me talk about what we're not considering here today which would actually solve a problem the American people are demanding that this institution address.

The time to pass comprehensive immigration reform is now. We can do it now. Instead of debating something that's redundant here today, there is a bill that has received more than two-thirds support in the United States Senate. If this body can act on it and can send it to President Obama's desk, finally we will be able to do something to create jobs and increase our competitiveness in the global economy, lower our deficit, ensure our security, and reflect our values as Americans and prevent the undermining of the rule of law that occurs every day, for we have over 10 million people in this country who are undocumented and lack documentation. They're violating our laws. This institution can fix that now. The Senate has acted. Let the House act.

As economists across the political spectrum have found, the economic benefits of immigration reform are tremendous. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation, if we act now to pass the Senate comprehensive immigration reform bill, we would reduce the deficit by over $135 billion and, in the following decade, by over $600 billion. Why aren't we spending our time discussing that and passing that here on the floor of the House today? Further, the Senate bill is estimated to boost the output of the U.S. economy by 3.3 percent. It is a 3.3 percent increase to GDP and a reduction in the deficit. That's $700 billion in additional gross domestic product by 2023.

As a June Wall Street Journal article citing Stephen Goss, Social Security's chief actuary, pointed out:

The future fiscal immigration windfall is likely to exceed

$4 trillion.

We can shore up Social Security and protect our seniors, and we can prevent any cuts to Social Security by passing immigration reform now. That's what the country wants us to do. Why does it shore up Social Security? Because immigration occurs at a young age. Immigration reform ensures that there are people paying into Social Security--young, healthy workers--particularly as baby boomers retire. As for immigrants, we're talking about people who are already here. Let's make sure they pay their taxes. By not taking this bill up, we are preventing people from paying into Social Security like they should and from paying their taxes like they should. They live in this country. They should pay taxes. According to The Wall Street Journal, immigration reform will result in an extra $600 billion into the Social Security trust fund and will result in over $4 trillion over 75 years.

Another urgent reason that this body should be taking up immigration reform instead of redundant measures around health care reform is our national security. We currently have a porous border; and while progress has been made--in fact, in 2011, the number of illegal border crossings was the lowest since 1972--it was still 327,000. There were 327,000 people who illegally crossed our border. What does that say about our security as a country and about our ability to enforce our immigration laws when over 300,000 people have illegally crossed the border?

There is a solution. It's ready to pass. Let's talk about it, not about redundant bills that don't do anything and aren't going anywhere. The Senate comprehensive immigration bill, while, of course, not perfect, includes unprecedented border and interior enforcement measures.

The bill includes increasing the number of full-time Border Patrol agents from 21,000 to 38,405; mandating an electronic exit system at all ports where Customs and Border Protection agents are deployed; constructing at least 350 additional miles of fencing, bringing the miles of high-tech border fencing to 700; constructing additional Border Control stations and operating bases; mandating 24-hour surveillance of the border region; using mobile, video, portable systems as well as unmanned aircraft; and deploying 1,000 distress beacon stations in areas where migrant deaths occur.

Look, it takes getting serious to secure the border, and this costs money. We can do it in the context of reducing the deficit by over $100 billion, such as the windfall from immigration reform that we effectively get to secure our southern border for free and reduce the deficit by $100 billion and improve the Social Security trust fund to the tune of $4 trillion, giving American seniors the security that they need in their retirement. That's what we can do by bringing the Senate immigration reform bill to the floor of the House right now.

The Senate immigration reform bill also increases American competitiveness. Immigration is the economic engine that's grown our economy for generations. Unfortunately, under our current immigration system, it's not designed to foster job creation. All too often, it undermines American workers, takes jobs away from American workers, leads companies to offshore jobs, to outsource jobs overseas.

I represent a district that has two excellent universities: Colorado State University and the University of Colorado at Boulder. They have great graduate programs in math, engineering, and the sciences. We graduate students with advanced degrees from countries all over the world such as India, Mexico, and China that have the skills that we need to keep America competitive and create jobs. Yet, the day after they

graduate, without any access to a green card, many of these talented young Ph.D.s and master's degree students have to return to their home country. Guess what? The jobs follow them back home in the information economy. The employers don't care whether they're here or there, as long as they contribute to bits and bytes. We want those jobs here in America. We want that income here in America. The bipartisan Senate bill addresses that, as well.

Another component that we have for job creation in America is a start-up visa. This is a way that entrepreneurs with ideas can come to America to start their companies here and employ Americans. For goodness' sake, do we want the great companies of tomorrow employing tens of thousands of people to be overseas just because we don't let the founders come here to start their companies? That's common sense. It creates jobs for Americans. Let's do it.

We also have improvements to the EB-5 program to facilitate in foreign investment and raising capital for American companies to grow jobs here in America.

This body should take up the comprehensive immigration reform bill now--not tomorrow and not in 5 minutes. Now. Let's do it so that we can finally move forward on creating jobs, improving border security, reducing our deficit, and shoring up Social Security.

Another reason that we urgently need to bring up immigration reform now is because the current system is simply out of sync with our values as Americans, our faith values as Jews, Christians, Muslims, every other faith in our country, as well as our American values, the values of our Founding Fathers.

Faith leaders from across the spectrum have been among the most vocal supporters of the Senate comprehensive immigration bill. Over the August recess, the Evangelical Immigration Table, a coalition of faith groups, continued the drumbeat for a vote on the Senate bill and called for an end to the ``cruelty'' perpetuated by the current immigration deportation system. It's completely arbitrary.

Young American children--American citizens, kids, 8, 10, 12 years old in my State and across the country--to our great shame, come home from school to find that their parents are in detention, their parents are not there, their parents are facing deportation proceedings. Why? Perhaps a taillight was out on their car. This is all at a cost to taxpayers of tens of thousands of dollars. They now wait in line for a costly deportation while their American child returns to a home with no parent. How does that reflect our values? As Americans, what is the solution? Pass the Senate comprehensive immigration reform bill now.

The Senate comprehensive immigration reform bill will halt more than 400,000 costly deportations, each one costing taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars, tearing families apart. The bill removes the limitations to the number of visas that legal permanent residents can request for their minor children, for their spouses, ensuring that families aren't separated for years, for generations, while awaiting legal status. It creates a process to clear the estimated 4.4 million person backlog in the family- and employment-based visa system within a decade. It replaces our broken immigration system with one that works, one that reflects our values, and one that respects the rule of law in this country.

The Senate-passed bill would help people like Gabriela, a 20-year-old woman in Colorado, undocumented, recently graduated from high school. Gabriela and her younger sister were brought to the U.S. as young children by their mother. They didn't have a say in the matter. They were brought here. Their mother was deported several years ago, leaving her two children behind. Gabriela is now homeless but has, nevertheless, taken on the responsibility for caring for her younger sister. The Senate bipartisan bill would ensure that families like Gabriela's won't be torn apart. That's not American. That doesn't reflect our values as a country, as a people.

The Senate bill would also assist the young, courageous DREAMers, individuals who were brought to this country as children, completed high school, some college, even military service, grew up in this country, know no other country, and have no pathway to legal status, young people like Javier in my district that I represent who graduated from high school in Summit County. He was the president of the student body. Javier grew up in this country, was brought here when he was young, doesn't have documentation. Javier is an Eagle Scout. Javier is the first in his family to get into a good college, a 4-year university, but his lack of status has made it difficult not only to pursue his dreams of a higher education, but to figure out how he can live his life in a way that contributes to his country, the United States of America. If only we allow him to fully contribute, he will. Young DREAMers across this country will contribute great things to our Nation and make us proud if only we let them.

It's time to stop talking about these redundant, senseless bills and bring up comprehensive immigration reform now. It's a big part of the solution to our fiscal problems: reducing the deficit, shoring up Social Security, and finally getting serious about enforcing our border and enforcing employment verification to prevent companies from hiring people illegally. It improves American competitiveness, creates jobs, and ensures that the great companies of tomorrow will be here in this country instead of overseas; that the people we need to make our economy grow, create jobs for Americans, are here and doing it legally; and to respect the rule of law in this country, rather than undermine the rule of law every day as our current travesty and broken immigration system does.

Finally, we know, Mr. Speaker, that as a people we are better than this. We need an immigration system that reflects our values, our faith values, our American values, our founding principles as a Nation of immigrants and a Nation of laws.

Mr. Speaker, today's debate is really not about the Affordable Care Act or even health care in general. It's politics. It's redundant. I would ask my friends on the other side of the aisle: Why are we not focused on fixing our broken immigration system when we have a bipartisan bill that two-thirds of the Senate has supported, that 75 percent of the American people support, that the President has expressed a willingness to sign? Let's bring that bill up, debate that bill, pass that bill, and solve a problem that the American people are crying out for a solution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Are we serious about border security? Is the border going to secure itself? There were 300,000 illegal crossings last year. That's almost 1,000 a day. That's 1,000 tomorrow. While Congress is sitting around discussing this stuff, that's 1,000 the next day. It's 1,000 the next day. Every day there will be 1,000 people illegally entering this country. Who knows who they are. Who knows if they represent a security risk.

There's a solution. Let's get serious. Let's increase the number of Border Patrol agents. Let's implement high-tech measures at the border. It's not rocket science.

Guess what? Our friends in the Senate have figured it out. They passed an immigration reform bill that includes provisions that get serious about enforcing our southern border that will substantially reduce--not eliminate--illegal crossings. It won't happen by itself. We have to pass it. We have to bring up that bill and pass it, rather than redundant measures that don't do anything.

Mr. Speaker, the Coalition of Evangelicals have put together an excellent statement of principles on immigration reform. The evangelical Christian leaders have called for a bipartisan solution that respects the God-given dignity of every person, protects the unity of the immediate family, and respects the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, I submit this policy statement to the Record.

Evangelical Statement of Principles for Immigration Reform

Our national immigration laws have created a moral,

economic and political crisis in America. Initiatives to

remedy this crisis have led to polarization and name calling

in which opponents have misrepresented each other's positions

as open borders and amnesty versus deportations of millions.

This false choice has led to an unacceptable political

stalemate at the federal level at a tragic human cost.

As evangelical Christian leaders, we call for a bipartisan

solution on immigration that:

Respects the God-given dignity of every person

Protects the unity of the immediate family

Respects the rule of law

Guarantees secure national borders

Ensures fairness to taxpayers

Establishes a path toward legal status and/or citizenship

for those who qualify and who wish to become permanent

residents

We urge our nation's leaders to work together with the

American people to pass immigration reform that embodies

these key principles and that will make our nation proud.

For signatories, go to evangelicalimmigrationtable.com.

It's not only people of faith. It's every American who, as we stare in the mirror at night, a vast majority of whom know that our grandparents, our great-grandparents, perhaps great-great-great- grandparents from the Mayflower, somewhere along the line, Mr. Speaker, our predecessors, our parents and our grandparents, came to these shores seeking opportunity, hope, and freedom, just as so many immigrants do today.

We can create a pathway to citizenship for people who are already here and who already contribute to our country to ensure that they do so legally instead of extralegally. Of course, getting behind those who are already in line in our current legal system. There is no citizenship that becomes anybody's right through this Senate immigration reform bill. It simply creates a line, a line behind those who are already in line, but a light at the end of the tunnel to show that some day those who aspire to give back to this country, to make this country wealthier and more prosperous, those who aspire to pay taxes, those who aspire to contribute to Social Security, those who aspire to live within the rule of law, are able to do so someday.

That families are reunited now, not in 10 years, not in 20 years, and we don't have to ever again tell a young girl coming home from school, sorry, your parents have been removed over a taillight or because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time or because their workplace was raided because of an unscrupulous employer.

We can and we must do better. The urgency is now. Not only are families torn apart every day, not only are there close to a thousand people a day crossing that border illegally, which will continue until we act, but we're costing Americans jobs and opportunities every day as well. Entrepreneurs and founders and folks that are looking at where to start their great next company that will employ thousands or tens of thousands of people are turning away from our shores. We're turning them away from our shores.

Mr. Speaker, I call upon my colleagues to take up comprehensive immigration reform and pass the Senate bill now.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague says we are discussing some bill related to the Affordable Care Act or health care. It's simply not true that this House is working on health care. The Affordable Care Act is being implemented. It wasn't repealed. I know there was a candidate that ran for President against Mr. Obama that wanted to repeal it. Had he been elected, it still would have had to pass these Chambers. It didn't happen. Elections happened. The health care reforms are being implemented. I just met with some of the folks in the exchanges from my State of Colorado in my office earlier this morning. I realize the House of Representatives has voted 40 times--41 times--to repeal ObamaCare. It's just talk.

The shopping period in the exchanges begins on October 1. Coloradans, like many across the country, are rolling up their sleeves, going to work and figuring out what the Affordable Care Act means. We even had bipartisan support in my State for our law that created the exchange as well. When Connect for Colorado goes online next month, more than 817,000 Coloradans will have access to choosing a health care insurance product through the exchange, more than 80,000 people in my district.

Again, these things are just happening. I mean, this is information that I'm sharing here with the public. This has nothing to do with these bills that we're talking about, 40 repeals of ObamaCare, this redundant bill here today, where they like or don't like what the President is doing, they want to do it themselves they like what President Obama is doing so much.

I mean, these things are nothing. These things aren't going to the Senate. These things aren't being signed. They are absolutely symbolic and a complete waste of time, while this body hasn't spent 1 minute on the floor in consideration of an immigration reform bill; not 1 minute, which is why I'm taking this time, instead of talking about nothing-- nothing, nothing, nothing--41 repeals of Affordable Care Act when it ain't going to happen because elections matter and have consequences-- nothing--not 1 minute on something, something big: securing our border, restoring the rule of law, reducing our deficit, shoring up Social Security, improving our national security, making sure that our system is aligned with our values.

These are big deals. Not 1 minute. Not 1 minute. A lot of time on nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing. That's what we're doing today; it's what we did yesterday. I sure hope it's not what we're doing tomorrow, but, sadly, I'm not optimistic.

We need to act, Mr. Speaker, on so many pressing national issues. Surely we can spare 1 minute or 10 minutes or 15 minutes to discuss and pass the Senate immigration reform bill instead of this nothing. This nothing going nowhere, just like yesterday, just like tomorrow.

We can do better, Mr. Speaker. This Nation deserves an institution in the House of Representatives that serves the people of this country, serves the people in addressing real issues that they face; people that are tired of the undermining of our law by people working illegally, people that are tired of families being torn apart, and people that are tired of a thousand people a day illegally crossing our southern border today, and yes, tomorrow because of the refusal of this body to allow even 1 minute to discuss or debate a bill on immigration reform.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would inquire if the gentleman has any remaining speakers?

Okay. The hordes of people coming to speak on this bill were not apparent to me here, but I'm prepared to close, Mr. Speaker, seeing no speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, despite spending hours and days of debate here on the Affordable Care Act, repealing it, defunding it, it's being implemented. That's happening. Elections have consequences. As the Speaker of this esteemed body himself has said, to paraphrase, it is unlikely we'll repeal ObamaCare with a fellow named Obama in the White House. That's simply a truism. Yet here we are today discussing something that will go nowhere and does nothing, instead of something that goes somewhere and does something.

This bill before us fails to replace our broken immigration system with one that works. If this bill before us today passes, I guarantee you that a thousand people will continue to cross illegally into the country tomorrow, the next day, and the next day. This bill does not secure our border at all. This bill does not reduce our deficit by over $100 billion. This bill does not reflect our values in our immigration system. This bill does not allow us to look in the mirror at night knowing that we are a Nation of immigrants and a Nation of laws, and we must reconcile those two.

The Senate passed a bipartisan comprehensive immigration bill last June, a bill that holds true to these principles, these principles of fiscal responsibility, reducing our deficit, shoring up Social Security, the principle of national security, of finally getting serious about securing our southern border, implementing mandatory workplace authentication to ensure that employers are following the law, the principle of job creation and competitiveness, ensuring that the great companies of tomorrow are based here and that we have access to the talent we need to be great and grow our economy as a country. The Senate comprehensive immigration reform bill would grow our GDP by over 3.3 percent. This bill will not. This bill will not.

And finally, this bill does nothing to address the concerns that have been raised by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, by the Evangelical Immigration Table, by faith-based groups in a broad coalition across this country, and by those who value our traditions and our values as Americans.

This bill does nothing to reconcile our immigration system with our values; and the Senate immigration bill does. We can take it up now. We can pass it now. The President has expressed a willingness to sign it now. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, to vote ``no'' on this restrictive rule and unnecessary bill so that finally we can bring forward the Senate immigration reform bill, pass it, and send it to the President of the United States to get serious about addressing problems the American people by an overwhelming majority actually want us to solve.

The Senate bipartisan bill would bring people like Javier out of the shadows, reunite Gabriella and her sister with her parents, and provide them with an accelerated 5-year path to earn permanent residence so that they can contribute to making our country even greater.

Mr. Speaker, today's debate isn't really about the Affordable Care Act, or even health care in general. What's happening is happening. Some people like it; some people don't. It's happening.

This debate is purely politics. I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, Why are we not focused on replacing our broken immigration system with one that works?

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, join me in voting ``no,'' defeating this rule, and defeating the previous question. Perhaps we can finally get to work on the people's business here in the House of Representatives and finally fix our broken immigration system and replace it with one that works for our prosperity, our security, and for job creation for Americans.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 339 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 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.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 339 provides for the consideration of H.R. 2775, the No Subsidies Without Verification Act of 2013. This is a critical bill as the Obama administration begins to implement and sign up people for the insurance exchanges in literally less than 3 weeks' time.

I am a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you that the Secretary of Health and Human Services appears ill prepared to verify that the people qualifying for the numerous government handouts and subsidies included in the Affordable Care Act actually meet the income requirements for those subsidies. Because fraud and abuse have been rampant in just about every program that is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services, including Medicare and Medicaid, a certified verification system being in place prior to the implementation of the Affordable Care Act is critical. This bill addresses this extreme deficiency in the inappropriately named Affordable Care Act.

The rule before us today provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the majority and the minority. Further, the rule makes a correction to the underlying bill, clarifying that the Inspector General for Health and Human Services, rather than the Secretary, which is a partisan position, is better equipped to oversee the verification process for the eligibility of subsidies. Finally, the minority is afforded the customary motion to recommit, allowing for yet another opportunity to amend the legislation.

H.R. 2775, the No Subsidies Without Verification Act, introduced by Mrs. Black from Tennessee, is an important piece of legislation to protect taxpayer dollars from inappropriate expenditure. With less than 3 weeks until enrollment in the health insurance exchanges and they go live, the Obama administration continues to tinker and twist the dials on the Affordable Care Act, exposing the executive branch's lack of readiness for such a massive and fundamental change of the way health care is delivered and administered in this country. In an effort to save their misguided health care takeover, the administration has significantly scaled back the original scope of the Affordable Care Act--cutting corners and delaying any piece of the legislation which becomes inconvenient or, perhaps, embarrassing to the President.

The President has chosen to delay the employer mandate included in the Affordable Care Act; yet has not given that same reprieve to everyday Americans. Why? Why should that be? Because enforcing the employer mandate was inconvenient. The President announced that he could not implement the CLASS Act portion of the Affordable Care Act. Why? Because it was inconvenient. Now the President simply will not enforce the verification requirements to prevent the fraudulent acceptance of subsidies. Why? Because, again, it is inconvenient.

Just 3 months before the exchanges are supposed to go live, on January 1, Health and Human Services decided that on July 5 of this year it would simply accept an applicant's attestation of household income without any certifiable verification. The President's strategy on the health care law is now ``trust; don't verify.''

The Secretary of Health and Human Services has made the opening of the exchanges on October 1 her central priority. However, in facing tight deadlines and daunting workloads, the administration has instead drastically lowered their standards. It's clear from the final rule issued late in the day on July 5, 2013, that the administration will allow any type of flexibility necessary to ensure that their law appears that it is being implemented as planned. Regardless of what you may believe, the administration has been very clear.

The rule states explicitly:

The exchange may accept the attestation of projected annual

household income without further verification for the

purposes of the exchange's eligibility determination.

The administration is more than comfortable with letting

over $1 trillion go out the door without verifying that it's

going to the correct individuals.

They even state in the final rule:

It is an ideal approach to provide flexibility in the case

of many verifications.

Since it's apparently too much work to verify everyone's income, the administration has determined that it is okay with spending over $1 trillion just based on what individuals think they may make in the next year. Instead of admitting that they won't be ready on time, the administration decided that it will just spend the money anyway.

While the constant delaying and changing of the law is worrisome, what should concern all of us the most is what this new change in regulation will do. By eliminating the verification requirement, the only way the government will determine who gets Federal subsidies now is by whoever claims that they, themselves, need the subsidies. Quite frankly, with premiums rising at the rate they are across the country-- and they're set to rise even more for calendar year 2015--it seems like everyone will be telling the Department of Health and Human Services that they need subsidies because, quite frankly, no one will be able to afford the President's health insurance. Maybe then it will be good that no one in the administration is checking to see who might be lying about their household income.

While the constant delaying and changing of the law is worrisome, another concern is what this new change in regulation will do. By eliminating the verification requirement, the only way the government will determine who gets Federal subsidies now is by who says they need them. This will open the exchanges to a staggering amount of potential fraud. It's also blatantly political. By doing this, the Obama administration has made it clear they want as many people to sign up for the exchanges as possible no matter their eligibility status. Taxpayers, unfortunately, will be charged with over $1 trillion over the next decade to pay for the exchange subsidies. With over $1 trillion going out the door, shouldn't the American people have the assurance that the government is sending the money to the people who actually need it?

All of this is so the President can reap the public relations benefit of talking about the popularity of exchanges, and so he can salvage his failed signature policy initiative.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill. Stand up to this health insurance subsidy fraud.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The Senate-passed bill, in my understanding from recent discussion with the House Parliamentarian, has not arrived in the House. The reason it has not arrived in the House is because it has an origination problem. The Senate, in its haste to rush a bill through, didn't get it right. As a consequence, that bill cannot come in the House.

We're here today to debate the rule for H.R. 2775. One of the things that I do feel obligated to point out--whether it's comprehensive immigration reform, whether it's any of the other things that people talk about--if you have an executive branch that only selectively enforces parts of laws that it wants to, why wouldn't the American people fear what might come out of the selective enforcement of a comprehensive immigration law?

Let me quote to you from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act signed into law by President Obama on March 21, 2010. This is section 1513, section (d). This is a section that deals with the employer mandate. Section (d):

Effective date--The amendments made by this section shall

apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.

That doesn't sound ambiguous. That doesn't sound difficult to comprehend, yet we are told that selectively the President has decided he doesn't want to enforce this, that it is inconvenient for him to enforce this, it runs counter to what some of his friends in some of the largest corporations in this country are telling him that they want--not what the American people want, but what they want--and the President simply suspends this part of the law in a blog post on July 2 of this year.

This is a fear that people have in my district: How do we trust that this President is going to enforce the laws that, under the Constitution, he is told that he must enforce? How do we trust

the Attorney General, who has sort of selectively decided what laws suit his purpose and what laws don't and selectively enforces those laws?

Why we are here today is because of the administration's selective enforcement of their law. I wasn't in favor of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I voted against it. I voted against it in committee. I voted against it in the House version. I voted against it after it came back from the Senate. I'll vote against it every chance I get.

The fact of the matter is the President signed it into law and then decided it's inconvenient. So when the effective date reads, ``The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013,'' the President decides that's inconvenient and he doesn't want to do that anymore. He just suspends it, even though the law is the law. We never took a vote on that. We never said, Mr. President, we're with you or against you on this. He simply decided.

That's not the way this country is to run. That's not our constitutional Republic that our Founders envisioned for us. This is unilateral government by a ruler, which, by definition, is not allowed under our Constitution.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me just remind my colleagues here on the floor of the House that we are considering House Resolution 339 that provides for consideration of H.R. 2775, the No Subsidies Without Verification Act of 2013. And despite all of the tactics to distract from that debate, that is what the debate centers on today.

I would like to point out to my colleagues an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal from today called ``Stopping ObamaCare Fraud.'' I'm going to read a little bit of the opinion piece:

Every politician claims to hate fraud in government, and

the House of Representatives will have a chance to prove it

Wednesday when it votes to close a gigantic hole for

potential abuse in the Affordable Care Act. The Health and

Human Services Department announced in July that it won't

verify individual eligibility for the tens of billion in

insurance subsidies that the law will dole out. Americans are

supposed to receive those subsidies based on income and only

if their employer doesn't provide federally approved health

benefits. But until 2015 the rule will be: come on in, the

subsidy is fine.

Health and Human Services will let applicants ``self

attest'' that they are legally eligible. No further questions

asked. The new ObamaCare exchanges will also be taking the

applicant's word on their projected household income. It

seems that what it calls ``operational barriers'' continue to

prevent Health and Human Services from checking applications

against Internal Revenue Service income data.

The administration argues that the fear of later HHS audits

will keep applicants honest, though the threat of such checks

has hardly prevented other fraud. The Treasury Inspector

General estimates that 21 to 25 percent of earned income tax

credits go to people who aren't eligible. An equivalent rate

of fraud in the Affordable Care Act could mean $250 billion

in bad payments in a decade. And does Health and Human

Services really plan to claw back overpayments from

individual exchange participants?

House Republicans by contrast will offer a vote that

matters on Tennessee Representative Diane Black's bill to

require the administration to have a verification system in

place before it hands out subsidies. Democrats have been

unusually quiet in their opposition, perhaps because it is

hard to justify voting in effect to give Americans subsidies

to which they have no legal entitlement. Savings for

taxpayers aside, the political merit of the House bill is

that it puts a spotlight on a major ObamaCare failure and

makes Democrats vote either to fix it or to simply go along

with the failure. It also highlights another case in which

with the Obama administration is refusing to enforce black-

letter law. Republicans are asking that a vast new

entitlement be held to the most basic due diligence, or be

prudently delayed until it can. If Democrats can't support

that vote, voters should know.

Again, that was from today's Wall Street Journal Review & Outlook.

Mr. Speaker, it's pretty apparent that the administration is only enforcing those parts of the law that it finds in its own best interest, and if something is inconvenient or embarrassing, it suspends the enforcement.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind everyone in the House Chamber that seven times the House has voted to restrict, delay, defund a portion of the Affordable Care Act; seven times those have passed into law and been signed by the President.

This is an important effort. This was a massive overtaking of the country's health care system that was passed in not a bipartisan fashion but a single-party vote in March of 2010. The President has decided now even with his own law, he got everything he wanted in the law, he's going to selectively enforce. If we're going to talk about the rule of law, let's talk about the rule of law.

The bill rule before us today is a good rule. It ensures that those taxpayer subsidies are going to individuals who are deserving of those subsidies. And for crying out loud, let's stop the crooks.

I reserve the balance of my time.

The gentleman from Texas has unlimited speakers in himself; but beyond me, no.

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

Again, let me remind you why we are here today. We are here today because the President, who signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law in March of 2010, on July 2 of this year decided he was not going to enforce a portion of the law. Unilaterally, the President made the decision, didn't consult with Congress, put it out in a blog post on one of their White House Web sites on July 2.

Then 3 days later, on the Friday before the Fourth of July weekend, they came out with a raft of regulations; and buried within that raft of regulations was the fact that, oh, by the way, we're not checking anybody who comes in. We'll rely on self-attestation.

They were required to do that because, by not enforcing the employer mandate that was in their law that they signed, by not enforcing the employer mandate, the data would not be collected and, in fact, there was no way to enforce that data.

So we simply don't need the data. We'll trust; people are going to be honest. If they come in and say they need a subsidy, of course they need a subsidy. We'll give it to them. And, yeah, at some point, it might even be checked against their IRS records.

How are you going to call that back from someone who doesn't have the money anymore because, after all, the dollars and the subsidy don't go to the individual; they go to the insurance company. It's not like that individual went and deposited that in a bank account. It went to their insurance company to buy their health insurance.

The money's been spent, the policy has been utilized or not, but that water is under the bridge.

I didn't ask for this debate. I didn't ask for the President to sign the health care bill into law, but he did. But then I sure didn't ask him to just delay parts of it.

If anything is inconvenient to you, Mr. President, just kind of put it away, put it to the side.

All kinds of things have fallen off the Affordable Care Act as it's bucked and burped down the road towards implementation. You may remember the debate about preexisting conditions. What about the Federal preexisting condition program?

Anyone who showed up after February 1 of this year to be covered under the Federal preexisting condition program was told, sorry, the window is closed; we're not signing up any more individuals because we're out of money. So they had to wait 11 months until the Elysian Fields of the Affordable Care Act spread out before them.

But what are they to do for that 11 months if they've got a diagnosis which is incompatible with life unless they get treatment?

But the administration didn't care about that. They simply suspended enrollment to the preexisting condition program.

Well, what about the caps on out-of-pocket expenses that an individual could incur during a year?

Under the Affordable Care Act there were caps signed in law by the President. Well, the caps were excluded because it's kind of inconvenient, and we don't want to do that anymore.

The small business health exchanges are delayed for a year. What else is going to fall off this thing as it lurches towards implementation on January 1?

I don't know. But I do know this: we have an opportunity today to vote on a rule that allows the bill to come to the floor that will require that the Department of Health and Human Services, the Inspector General, ensure that those individuals who come and say, hey, I'm eligible for a subsidy, to ensure that they are, in fact, eligible for that subsidy.

We fight all the time in committee with money going out the door at the Department of Health and Human Services, the pay-and-chase model. It clearly doesn't work.

Medicare and Medicaid, inappropriate payments, inefficient expenditures happen all the time. Let's not make that worse. Let's stop paying the crooks. We have an opportunity today to stop paying the crooks.

Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of a critical bill to protect taxpayer dollars from the rampant fraud inevitable in an undertaking as massive as the health insurance overhaul that is known as ObamaCare.

I congratulate my colleague from Tennessee (Mrs. Black) for her thoughtful piece of legislation. And for that reason, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey.

I rise today to ask an incredulous question of how many times do we have to say, ``No,'' and how many times do the American people have to say, ``Take your hands off my good Affordable Care Act'' that has allowed millions of Americans to have preventible care that is being poised to attack the scandalous high percentage of uninsured in the State of Texas, being the number one State with uninsured persons? How many times?

First of all, this bill is frivolous. The reason is because there is a construct in the Affordable Care Act to deal with all of the questions that they've asked. First of all, it will require that individuals will have to submit their projected annual household income. All income data submitted through the marketplace will then be checked against IRS data, Social Security data, current wage information. If there is inconsistency, the marketplace will require additional documentation. In addition, marketplaces will check employer coverage information from the applicant and their employer against data, OPM, and the SHOP Marketplaces, as well as other data sources.

It is absolutely absurd for this bill to place more responsibilities on an already sequestered government. If my colleagues want to do anything to provide any substance to what they're talking about, let's put a bill on the floor to end sequestration. There's no resources that would add to the inspector general's ability to do all that they said.

Let me add further insult to injury, and I want my constituents to listen closely. $67 million was given to navigators to provide the kind of oversight and construction that these individuals on this bill have suggested they need. What I find appalling and what I've not seen in my tenure in Congress is the number of Members on the Energy and Commerce Committee that have sent a letter to the 51 navigators governed by Health and Human Services to require them to send information.

I want my navigator that received a grant from HHS to refuse to do anything with that letter, and I'm going to ask the Secretary of HHS to reject this letter that has no authority in law. Again, it is trying to abuse and reject the idea of the Affordable Care Act.

This bill should go down, and don't answer the letter. This is a bad way to deal with health care in America.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2775, the so- called ``No Subsidies Without Verification Act.'' I oppose this unnecessary and dilatory legislation which imposes unnecessary and burdensome conditions on the ability of Americans to utilize the tax credits provided by the Affordable Care Act which will enable them to purchase affordable health insurance for themselves and their families.

This is the 41st attempt by House Republicans to repeal, delay, or undermine effective implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

Even though the Affordable Care Act, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court and is here to stay, House Republicans refuse to abandon their quixotic quest to derail a law that will bring peace of mind to millions of Americans and reduce the deficit by $1 trillion.

Their latest attempt is the bill before us which prohibits any health insurance premium tax credits from being provided until the HHS Inspector General Office certifies there is a program in place that ``successfully and consistently verifies'' household income and coverage requirements for those applying for these credits.

This bill, H.R. 2775, is unnecessary because HHS already has a strong income verification system in place, as confirmed by CBO. The only purpose of this legislation is to hinder the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

The impact of the enactment of this GOP bill would be an unconscionable delay in obtaining health insurance for more than 25.7 million Americans, 22.7 million of whom are members of working class families.

The new requirement imposed by the irresponsible bill before us would delay millions of

our hard-working constituents from getting the premium tax credits they are clearly eligible for beginning on January 1, 2014.

Madam Speaker, Americans do not have to be told that justice delayed is justice denied!

Under current law, to receive the premium tax credits to make their health insurance affordable, individuals will have to submit their projected annual household income. All income data submitted through the Marketplaces will then be checked against IRS data, Social Security data, and current wage information. If there is an inconsistency, the Marketplaces will require additional documentation from applicants.

In addition, Marketplaces will check employer coverage information from the applicant and their employer against data from OPM and the SHOP Marketplaces as well as other data sources approved by HHS to verify eligibility for the tax credits. If applicant information and other data do not match, the Marketplaces will ask for further supporting documentation.

Further, all payments of premium tax credits are reconciled by IRS the following year. The income data submitted is reconciled against the actual wages and health coverage information on the individual's income tax return. If there is an inconsistency, the applicant pays back the excess, subject to statutory limit and there is 100 percent income verification and reconciliation on this back-end.

In sum, there are ample existing safeguards to ensure that premium tax credits are available only to those eligible to receive them.

Madam Speaker, after the sobering events of the last week, regarding war and peace, I would hope all my colleagues would take into consideration the importance of using our limited legislative time more wisely.

We should be addressing the need to eliminate sequestration, raising the debt ceiling and passing the jobs bill in order to repair infrastructure. But instead House Republicans continue to repeal, delay, or undermine the Affordable Care Act. Instead of wasting time on these time-consuming but futile efforts, our friends across the aisle should join with their Democratic colleagues to work together to create jobs and educational opportunities for our people.

Moreover, the Affordable Care Act is working and my constituents--and those of my colleagues--are benefiting from this landmark legislation.

Many of those most in need of the healthcare coverage provided by the Affordable Care Act live in the districts of many members on both sides of this argument. My home state of Texas leads the list of states with the highest percentages of uninsured residents. The states with the highest percentage of uninsured are:

1. Texas: 28.8%.

2. Louisiana: 24%.

3. Nevada: 23.3%.

4. California: 23.2%.

5. Florida: 22.8%.

6. Georgia: 22.5%.

7. Arkansas: 21.9%.

8. Mississippi: 21.7%.

9. Oklahoma: 21.4%.

The highest concentration of the uninsured is the poor. The Affordable Care Act provides at no or nearly no cost to states an option to enroll those living in or near poverty into their Medicaid program, which would benefit my state of Texas tremendously if the Governor can be persuaded to follow the example of his Republican counterparts and accept a deal of a lifetime.

I cannot understand the continued refusal by House Republicans to accept the Affordable Care Act, which is now the law of the land and is modeled after the plan put in place in Massachusetts by the nominee of their party in the last presidential election.

Instead of focusing on the issues that the American people want addressed, we are having the same discussion to repeal the Affordable Care Act in efforts of my colleagues to repeal, obstruct and undermine this law.

What is even more frustrating is that while there is so much energy in trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act, there has been no plan or suggestions posed on how to replace it.

Additionally, I oppose this misguided legislation because the Affordable Care Act is working for America and for my constituents in the 18th Congressional District of Texas. Let me count the ways:

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 8o 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.

The Affordable Care Act has helped my constituents in the 18th Congressional District of Texas tremendously. Because of the Affordable Care Act:

11,400 young adults in the district now have health insurance through their parents' plan;

Over 4,100 seniors in the district received prescription drug discounts worth $5.4 million, an average discount of $600 per person in 2011, $650 in 2012, and $1,040 thus far in 2013;

71,000 seniors in the district are now eligible for Medicare preventive services without paying any co-pays, coinsurance, or deductible;

121,000 individuals in the district--including 23,000 children and 50,000 women--now have health insurance that covers preventive services without any co-pays, coinsurance, or deductible;

113,000 individuals in the district are saving money due to ACA provisions that prevent insurance companies from spending more than 20 percent of their premiums on profits and administrative overhead. Because of these protections;

Over 31,100 consumers in the district received approximately $4.4 million in insurance company rebates in 2012 and 2011--an average rebate of $95 per family in 2012 and $187 per family in 2011;

Up to 46,000 children in the district with preexisting health conditions can no longer be denied coverage by health insurers;

153,000 individuals in the district now have insurance that cannot place lifetime limits on their coverage and will not face annual limits on coverage starting in 2014;

Up to 193,000 individuals in the district who lack health insurance will have access to quality, affordable coverage without fear of discrimination or higher rates because of a preexisting health condition; and

The 17,000 individuals who currently purchase private health insurance on the individual or small group market will have access to more secure, higher quality coverage and many will be eligible for financial assistance.

However, the list of benefits from the Affordable Care Act is not complete. In 2014, when the Affordable Care Act's final provisions will become effective, insurance companies will be banned from: discriminating against anyone with a pre-existing condition; charging higher rates based on gender or health status; enforcing lifetime dollar limits; and 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 ensure that health care consumers get the care that they need from the medical professionals they trust most at a price they can afford.

This Congress has work that needs to be done, and it is work that should be taken up to restore workers, their families, and communities to sound economic health. We do not have time time for partisan political games that do not advance the interests of the American people.

With less than 20 days before enrollment in the Marketplaces begins, the last thing we should be doing is considering legislation that serves no purpose other than to delay affordable health care coverage to millions of Americans who need and deserve the security and peace of mind such coverage brings.

I urge my Colleagues to put partisan politics aside and join me in voting no on the passage of this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

House of Representatives

Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC, August 29, 2013.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his voice throughout this debate. He and I and a number of other colleagues realized early on this self-inflicted crisis of putting our workforce in jeopardy was bad policy, bad politics, and bad for our country. I am very glad that the resolution it looks like we are approaching is going to make sure our Federal workforce gets back to work and to the job of helping America, and they are going to get compensated for it. But I would add that it is not going to make everybody whole.

I agree with the Senator from Maryland.

I was in the private sector longer than the public sector, and I have run companies. I have never seen a management style which would say to the workforce, ``We are going to ask you to do more with less money'' and then treat them as poorly as they have been treated repeatedly by some of the attacks the Senator from Maryland has laid out.

I wish to take a moment, as a number of my colleagues have, to state that it looks as if this self-inflicted political crisis may be finally coming to an end.

To paraphrase Charles Dickens, in a way, it may be the best of times and the worst of times.

In a certain sense, it may be the best of times because over the last couple of days we have seen the leaders of the Senate, Leader Reid and Leader McConnell, basically say: Let's put away some of the disputes and end this crisis. So I compliment their work and all the bipartisan efforts that have been going on to put this to an end. So in a certain sense perhaps it is the best of times. Yes, we are about to finally do our job. We are about to actually reopen the government and put our workforce back to work, and by a whisker we are avoiding default and the financial calamity which would ensue if we continued down that path.

But it is also the worst of times in that once again we took this conversation to the eleventh hour. We have inflicted damage on our economy and our reputation. And due not to a Republican or Democratic skirmish but really due to a small group of ``our way or the highway'' crowd, we have violated the first principle of governing or medicine, which says: First, do no harm.

Unfortunately, the actions of this self-inflicted crisis have done harm even if we reopen the government and avoid default. Economist Mark Zandi has estimated that the cost to our economy is at least $20 billion. Reopening the government and avoiding default isn't going to erase the $20 billion hit to an economy that has been struggling.

I wish those who advocated for this shutdown, who advocated for this brinkmanship would be willing to come down and explain to folks in my State or, for that matter, in their States--if you happen to be a government contractor and if some of your workforce was deemed essential, they may actually get paid, but for the portion of your workforce deemed nonessential, chances are they won't be paid. One company in Virginia with 5,500 people--30 percent of its workforce was deemed nonessential. The company has tried to pay those people through this period. Some will be paid, some will not. Those individuals, those families will not recover. I would like to have somebody come down and explain what all this was for in terms of the hurt in their personal lives.

I would like for some of the folks who advocated these tactics to come and explain to a restaurant owner in Hampton, VA--where the workforce at NASA Langley, which was 3,500 strong, was reduced through this furlough to 7 people--with the lost receipts for the restaurant over the last 2 weeks, how their tactics somehow improved the fortunes of that private sector business.

I would like for those who advocated that it was smart politics to shut down the government and take us to the verge of default to explain to the motel owner on Skyline Drive in Virginia who lost a couple of weekends of the peak fall foliage season and won't see any of those dollars come back, how it was in their best interest to shut down.

It is not just in Virginia. It is Yosemite in California and national parks in Texas. I would be anxious for some of those who advocated these tactics to explain to those private sector business owners who won't see those dollars come back. They are not going to get recouped.

I would like those who come to this floor and talk about trying to get rid of our debt and deficit and the burdens on the taxpayer to explain how these tactics of shutting down the government and bringing our Nation to the verge of default helps the American taxpayer. The American taxpayer comes out a giant loser from these tactics.

The Federal Government workforce rightfully is going to be repaid, so there is no savings there. As a matter of fact, the cost of starting and stopping any enterprise is enormous. Anyone who has run any kind of business understands that.

So I hope those who have advocated these tactics will come down and explain to the American taxpayers how this created a bigger deficit and explain why this made sense.

I would like for those who advocated these tactics to come down and not just talk to the American people but talk to the world and say how this helped America's national reputation.

America has been ranked by the credit agencies as the most secure credit in the world. That is why, when there are crises around the world, investors buy dollars. It gets into sophisticated finance, but it means everything we do in America is a little bit cheaper because we are viewed--to paraphrase a company term--like the rock.

We have gone through two of these self-inflicted crises. The last two or three of these crises brought us close to the fiscal cliff or close to default, and the last time cost us a downgrade from one of the rating agencies. We saw yesterday the second rating agency, Fitch, put us on negative outlook. As a former Governor of the State of Virginia, where we kept our triple-A bond rating, you don't get back your reputation overnight by saying: Oops. Never mind.

We will be paying the price for these kinds of tactics for months or maybe years to come.

I would like those who advocated these tactics to come down and answer the kinds of headlines we saw in the Financial Times and Wall Street Journal where countries that may or may not be that friendly to us--China and Russia and others around the world--were saying: We need to move away from an American-centered economy around the world, a dollar-centered economy around the world--how this hit to our reputation was somehow in the best interest of our country.

I am glad Leader Reid and Leader McConnell worked out what appears to be at least a short-term solution. I am glad many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle tried to find common ground. It appears we will reopen the government. It appears we will avoid defaulting and going into uncharted territory where we, candidly, don't really know how bad it could have been.

But before we celebrate too much, let's recognize that the reports are true as far as what the avoidance of this catastrophe will mean. It means we have 90 days before the government runs out of money again. We have 113 days until the debt ceiling might have to be raised again.

So my first hope as we move forward is that those who practiced the tactics of shutdown and threatening default will say: Never again will we put the full faith and credit of the United States of America at risk. Never again will we shut down our government, hurt our Federal workforce, hurt taxpayers, and hurt private businesses simply because we didn't get what we wanted in a political dispute.

I hope as well in the coming weeks we will recognize that the people who work for the United States of America, our Federal workers, deserve better; that when we come on the floor of this Senate or the other body and have our policy debates, we don't criticize the workforce the way it was repeatedly criticized; that we recognize that when we want to take a pound of flesh out of some program, we don't start with the Federal workforce because in the tight budget times we will face for the foreseeable future, we are going to have to ask that workforce to do more with less resources. Again, as somebody who has been in business longer than I have been in government, management 101 says that if you want your workforce to do better and do more with less, you start by acknowledging their challenges and rewarding them, not simply bashing them, not simply leaving this overhang of future furloughs or the kind of uncertainty that still seems to be around this place.

The second thing I hope we will go forward on is recognizing that sequestration was set up to be so stupid that no rational group of people would ever let it happen. Well, we have let it happen now for about 8 months so far. As challenging as it has been over the last 8 months, in this next fiscal year, which started on October 1, it is going to get exponentially worse.

I understand the concerns of my colleagues on the other side and my concern as well that we have to find a way to cut back on some of our spending. But there are smarter ways to do it than sequestration. So in this ensuing period, I hope we are able to work through that.

I do believe we need to take these next 90 days--or an even shorter period if we need a report back from the Budget Committee by mid- December--and recognize that this constant--every 3 months, every 6 months--manufactured budget crisis does our country no good.

If both sides will enter this next phase of negotiations with a little more sobriety, a little less willingness to call out each other by name, and actually recognize that we do have to get our balance sheet in order--if we want to avoid a repeat in January and February of these last couple of weeks--we have seen the damage we have done to our country--we are going to have to roll up our sleeves and recognize that we are going to have to deal with our entitlements. That means folks on my side of the aisle are going to have to think about how we preserve Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid in a way that is affordable over the long haul. My friends on the other side of the aisle will have to realize what kind of government we want and what kind of government we are going to be willing to pay for.

As somebody who has spent the last 4 years combing through these numbers repeatedly, I don't think we can pay for the level of government the American people have expected with our existing Tax Code, so we are going to have to find ways to close down some of these loopholes, make our Tax Code more progrowth, but at the same time generate more revenue than we currently have.

It is never over until it is over, as I have found in the Senate, but my hope and prayer is that we will not do any more damage; that we will put a halt to this hemorrhaging of the $20 billion we have already inflicted on our economy; that we will say to that motel owner that we are not going to be willing to shut down a national park again come January; that we will say to that restaurant worker outside the Federal facility: You are going to be able to predict that the Federal Government isn't going to be laid off willy-nilly; that we will say to our Federal workforce we are going to ask you to do more with less, but we are going to support you in a way we have not done to date; that we will say to the American taxpayer we are not going to deepen the deficit by taking irrational actions by shutting down government; and we will say to the world that once again you can count on the United States of America to pay its bills in an orderly and regular fashion, and never again will we put the full faith and credit of America in jeopardy.

I hope and pray we will use this period to actually put a fix in place. The incremental amount of additional revenues needed to be changed or the incremental amount of changes that need to be made to our entitlement programs are relatively small and can be phased in over a period of a decade or more. I agree with the Senator from Maryland that we also have to invest. But I cannot help but think the best jobs program we can have for an economy that is anxious and ready to recover is to make sure that we in Washington do not create and manufacture another political crisis that puts that recovery in jeopardy.

It is the best of times and the worst of times. I hope we celebrate that we have done our job and avoided this calamity, but let's make sure we never do this again. Let's make sure we take the 90 days before the next CR expires and the 113 days before the debt ceiling comes and really get our fiscal House in order and make sure we give the American public the confidence they need to move forward.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, there has been a lot of debate on the floor of the Senate about ObamaCare, which is also called the Affordable Care Act. It passed about 3\1/2\ years ago. Why did we do this? Why did we enact this law? It wasn't easy and it took months to achieve. The goal was quite simple: We wanted to make sure 40 to 50 million uninsured Americans would have a chance to have health insurance.

That is a worthy goal because even uninsured people get sick. If you don't have health insurance and get sick and show up at the hospital, they will take care of you, but then when you can't pay the bill, they transfer that obligation to everyone else. It is estimated we spend about $1,000 a year in health insurance premiums to cover the care of uninsured people. Not only do these people without insurance live without the peace of mind of having protection when they get sick, the rest of us with health insurance pay for it. That is not right. In a society such as ours, we should accept responsibility to not only have health insurance but to make it available for everyone.

When we took a look at the health insurance market, here is what we found. There were parts of health insurance that were just plain wrong.

Imagine someone in your family has a preexisting condition. It is not uncommon. Think of the possibilities. There are only a few that come to mind: asthma, diabetes, cancer survivor, women. It turned out that if you had issues such as those in your background, you could be discriminated against and people would not sell you health insurance. ObamaCare eliminated discrimination based on preexisting conditions. When the Republicans come to the floor and say they want to repeal ObamaCare, they are repealing that protection for families who have a child or a member of the family with a preexisting condition. That is what they are saying.

ObamaCare also said that if you have a limit on your policy of how much it will pay in any given year, that is stricken. Why would we do that? Because you never know what could happen. Tomorrow morning a doctor's diagnosis or an accident could result in hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical bills that you could pay because there was a limit on your protection. That limitation was stricken by ObamaCare. Those who want to eliminate ObamaCare would allow the insurance companies to put those restrictions in again.

What about parents who have children fresh out of college and looking for a job? Some of them will be lucky and will get a job with health care benefits. Some won't be so lucky. They may get a job without any benefits or they may not get a job. With ObamaCare, we kept those kids--your sons and daughters--on your family health insurance plan up to age 26. Those who want to eliminate ObamaCare want to eliminate that opportunity for American families to give their kids health care protection while they are looking for a job.

We also basically said that senior citizens under Medicare should not pay out of pocket over $1,000 a year for their prescription drugs. We closed the so-called doughnut hole. Eventually they will not be paying out-of-pocket. We are reducing the financial obligation of seniors to reach into savings accounts for the medicine they need to stay strong, healthy, and independent.

Those who want to abolish ObamaCare--and we heard it a minute or two ago from the Senator from Florida on the Republican side of the aisle, as well as the junior Senator from Texas--are basically saying to seniors: Pay more out of pocket for prescription drugs.

I don't think that is right.

What we are offering with insurance exchanges across America now in 50 States is the same opportunity for uninsured people that Members of Congress have today. Members of Congress are under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which covers 8 million Federal employees and their families. That means we have an open enrollment period every year, and we can choose--my wife and I--from nine different policies in the State of Illinois. We take the one we want, and we have good coverage. It is not the most expensive or the best, but it is good coverage. We get to shop. It is hard for many Members of Congress to remember or believe that most Americans never have that luxury. They can't shop for health insurance. Some of them are denied any health insurance. Some work for an employer who says ``take it or leave it,'' and some just can't afford to buy anything. The insurance exchanges offer the opportunity for the 40 to 50 million uninsured and those buying in the private insurance market to go shopping for the best policy for themselves and their families.

Competition and shopping in a marketplace is what Americans are looking for, and that is what the Republicans want to close down. They want to close that down. Some would say: Obviously, there is a Republican plan for health insurance. The Republican plan for health insurance--this blank piece of paper. They have no plan. They have no ideas. They are just opposed to ObamaCare, and that is why they initially shut down this government. They wanted to defund ObamaCare.

Two interesting things happened after they made that announcement:

The marketplaces came online and ran into serious problems. They are currently restructuring them because they were not prepared for the overwhelming response to these insurance marketplaces. I am sorry they weren't. I don't know who is responsible for it, but we need to know. In the meantime, we have the insurance marketplaces up and running.

The second thing that happened as the marketplaces went online--after the Republicans announced they wanted to defund ObamaCare and therefore

shut down the government--was the popularity of ObamaCare increased. People across America said: Finally. This is a good idea. Those of us who have access to the marketplace can finally go shopping for health insurance.

Exactly the opposite of what the Republicans thought would happen happened. The American people are open and more receptive to the idea of going to these marketplaces if they don't have health insurance or if they have health insurance they can't afford. The health insurance marketplace is open for business, and people across the Nation have started shopping for it. Many people have waited for years, even decades.

I came to the floor when the junior Senator from Texas was holding the floor for 21 hours and asked him to consider the case of a young--I call her young--lady I met in Illinois named Judy. She is a housekeeper in a motel that I stay in in southern Illinois. She is in her early sixties, worked every day of her life, never had health insurance not even for one day of her life, and she now has diabetes and she is worried. We got some local doctors to see her and give her some recommendations and try to help her, but she has never had health insurance.

I asked Senator Cruz from Texas: What are we going to do with Judy? If she doesn't have this marketplace where she can go for health insurance for the first time in her life, what is going to happen to her?

He said to me: She needs to get a better job.

Well, it is easy for us to say that, but this poor woman has worked hard all of her life. There is not a lazy bone in her body. She is doing the very best she can. Senators ought to realize that some people--even working as hard as they can--cannot get health insurance unless ObamaCare goes through.

Sixteen States and the District of Columbia have created their own exchanges. Those State-operated exchanges have opened fairly smoothly.

California had 7,700 applications for health insurance on the first day.

Kentucky is a great success story for ObamaCare. More than 5,000 people or families enrolled for health care and there were 10,000 completed applications on the first day. I understand that the number of people who have now enrolled for health care is closer to 10,000. Think about that. There are 10,000 families in the State of Kentucky who now have a chance to get health care. Those who want to defund it and close it down are closing down their opportunity to have protection for their families.

New Mexico is partnering with the Federal Government for individual and family coverage, but it is operating the shop exchange, which allows small businesses to find group coverage for their employees. In the first couple of days, 428 different employers in New Mexico signed up for coverage. They got a better deal in the competitive marketplace than they could find in the private sector beforehand. Republicans want to shut down that opportunity for these businesses. It doesn't make sense.

The Federal Government is managing the marketplace in 34 States, including my home State of Illinois. By Friday of last week there had been 8.6 million unique visitors to the Federal exchange Web sites.

What we are finding across America is that people have been waiting for this chance. I met a lawyer who contacted the insurance exchanges and found that for his business--a small business--it cut the premiums they are going to pay annually by one-third. Six out of every ten people who sign up for health insurance under the ObamaCare insurance exchanges will pay less than $100 a month in premiums. For less than what many of them are paying for cable TV, they will have health insurance coverage they can afford.

When the other side starts talking about closing down ObamaCare and can't come up with any replacement whatsoever, I think we ought to stop and ask whether that is in the best interest of a better America. If you or someone in your family has ever lived with a serious illness and no health insurance, you will never, ever forget it. I have been there. You will never, ever forget it. We ought to offer every American family a chance to get affordable, quality health insurance for the first time in their lives.

The second issue, which relates to this and which I find hard to believe, after trying to defund ObamaCare by closing down the government, they started on a new approach. Senator Vitter of Louisiana had an amendment that would restrict--at least in terms of costs--the availability of health insurance for some Federal employees who work here on Capitol Hill and Members of Congress. I think that is totally unfair, and it troubles me that the Republicans have gone from defunding ObamaCare to defunding the health insurance of their own staff employees. These are hard-working people in my office, and I bet they are hard-working in every Senate and House office. They stay late, answer the phones, and try to help people who are struggling with redtape. When a family is facing difficulties and can't afford a lawyer, our people try to help them out with government agencies as best they can. They answer the mail, they answer the phones, and they answer emails. The notion that we are going to limit or restrict their health insurance is absolutely unacceptable and unfair. These people deserve good health insurance just as every American does.

When Senator Vitter comes to the floor with his amendment which would dramatically increase the cost of their health insurance, it is fundamentally unfair. It is mean. It is small. It is beneath our dignity. We ought to stand behind our employees whom we hire to represent us across the United States of America. If we do, we will defeat this Vitter amendment if it ever comes back for consideration.

ObamaCare has started--and there have been some bumps in the road, that is for sure--and now that we have these marketplaces open, people are going to see what opportunities are available to them. As most people know, Members of Congress and many of their staff members are going to be covered with the same insurance, as everyone is buying in the insurance marketplace. Not all congressional staff members are involved, but many will be. Members of Congress will all be directed to the insurance exchange if that is what they choose to buy for their families. I am prepared to do just that. I think it will be quality health insurance, which is what every American deserves.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.