Government Neutrality in Contracting Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 366 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), the ranking member of the committee and my friend, 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.

House Resolution 366 provides for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 59, the Continuing Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2014, and a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 3210, the Pay Our Military Act of 2013.

Mr. Speaker, at midnight on Monday, just 2 days from now, the Federal Government will shut down if Congress does not act to provide the necessary appropriations. The legislation before us today will ensure that a shutdown does not happen; and, if adopted, the House amendments would make important steps to ensure that ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act that President Obama and every Democrat voted for, does not have the opportunity to hurt American jobs and drag down our economy.

The first of these three amendments would repeal the medical device tax included in ObamaCare. This medical device tax is also known as what might be the tax that will harm not only the creation of investment but also the products of medical devices, including pacemakers and other medical products that keep America's health care a leading edge. The medical device industry provides our Nation with innovative health care services as well as much-needed jobs for many, many hardworking Americans. ObamaCare's onerous medical device tax-- what we also call the pacemaker tax--is already causing job loss in this industry and negatively impacting innovation of new and other lifesaving devices.

I would like to insert into the Record a letter from a gentleman from Dallas, Texas, Mr. Walt Humann, CEO of OstoeMed, who came to my office over a year ago in June of 2012. He spoke with me about how innovative medical devices clearly help not only Americans, but doctors perform very difficult and leading-edge surgeries. And I will tell you that Mr. Humann spoke very clearly about how this onerous tax would literally tax the production, not the sale, but the production of medical devices to an industry that needs more and more innovation. That clearly explains the damaging effects that this has on American businesses. His letter, Mr. Speaker, clearly outlines how it harms not only his company, but the industry as a whole.

The second amendment would delay all aspects of ObamaCare for 1 year. This proposal is an important step to prevent the costly job-killing regulations contained in President Obama's health care plan from becoming an unfortunate reality. The President has already delayed several pieces of the law; and just as he begins to see how ill- conceived and unworkable his plan is, it's time for us to stop it dead in its tracks. So much for the hundreds of waivers that he has issued; so much for him delaying for his friends in business; so much for him delaying the pieces that he wants to, knowing that the harm will be on individuals all across America. It makes sense to delay the entire law for a year in an effort to protect American families from paying higher health care premiums and having fewer options.

This is important, and the Republican Party is on the floor of the House of Representatives today on behalf of taxpayers and what we believe is about 60 percent of Americans who are opposed to this bill starting to work October 1. So that's why we are here.

Finally, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3210, the Pay Our Military Act. This important piece of legislation is designed to ensure that our Nation's men and women in the military continue to receive their paychecks in the event that the Senate does not adopt a responsible CR and forces our government into a shutdown.

Our Nation's military puts their lives on the line, and they have throughout the history of our country. They remain engaged in combat operations as we go to sleep tonight. They are protecting this great Nation, and the services that the men and women of the military provide to the United States of America should be aided and helped, and we should make sure that we do not stop the pay to the men and women

of the United States military. In the event of a government shutdown, this body should take the necessary measures to ensure that our servicemen and -women continue to be compensated for their services.

So, Mr. Speaker, we have finished a Rules Committee meeting upstairs. We spoke about this, the impacts, at the committee hearing that allowed Mrs. Lowey, on behalf of the minority, and Mr. Hal Rogers, our Appropriations Committee chairman, to talk about the important part of what we're trying to do today.

So I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

OsteoMed,

June 5, 2012.

Hon. Pete Sessions,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Sessions: Thank you for taking time to

visit with me last week regarding OsteoMed and my concerns

about the significant ``headwinds'' we face, especially

related to the 2.3% medical device tax that is scheduled for

implementation in 2013. On behalf of OsteoMed's 400

employees, I thank you for your support of H.R. 436, which

would repeal this onerous provision that otherwise will

negatively impact innovation and job creation at a time when

we can least afford it.

As president & CEO of OsteoMed, a dynamic, 20 year old

surgical device manufacturing company based in your district,

I confront the challenges that America's innovators face

every day. In addition to challenges with the FDA and

reimbursement, this 2.3% excise tax--which is on gross sales,

whether or not a business has any profits--will directly

impact our ability to create new jobs, invest in research and

development and effectively compete in the global market.

OsteoMed formed a new subsidiary company a couple of years

ago to develop an innovative spine product that greatly

simplifies spine fusion surgery and improves patient

outcomes. OsteoMed launched this product last year which

quickly grew to almost $5MM in sales in 2011 and currently

employs a number of highly skilled, high paid individuals.

Due to the significant upfront investment and on-going

development costs, this new company is not projected to make

a profit in the near future but is nevertheless subject to

the device tax which will further delay this subsidiary's

success. As a result, OsteoMed has now delayed additional new

product developments and personnel in order to make ``ends

meet'' and achieve the returns initially envisioned when this

company was created.

OsteoMed's core business manufactures surgical implant

systems for use in craniofacial, neurosurgical and small bone

orthopedic (upper and lower extremities) surgeries. These

systems require extensive, specialized instruments that are

typically not sold, but are used to implant the devices that

drive OsteoMed's revenue stream. The device tax will not only

tax gross product revenues, but my understanding is it will

also tax the instruments OsteoMed must invest in and place

into hospitals at no charge thereby further reducing my

company's profit opportunities and forcing expense reductions

in other areas in order to achieve our profit goals.

OsteoMed's products are sold through a variety of sales

channels and will require a new level of administrative

burden in order to track the ``gross'' revenues defined by

this tax. This requirement, along with the recent challenges

imposed by the Physician Payment Sunshine Act, force

additional levels of administration and non value added

expenses that male OsteoMed less competitive and viable.

The market in which OsteoMed competes is in turmoil and has

become increasingly competitive with many new offshore

competitors. As economics and recent government restrictions

have largely removed surgeons from the surgical device

purchase decision process, hospitals are now forcing

increasingly price concessions. Despite increased raw

material and labor costs, OsteoMed has been unable to raise

product prices over the past several years and is now equally

unlikely to simply pass along the device tax to our

customers.

Like any other responsible business, OsteoMed must

carefully manage expenses in order to make profit and

continue to grow and succeed. In order to cover the shortfall

the new device tax will create, OsteoMed has already started

to implement cut backs in its operations including the delay/

cancellation of new product development projects and the

hiring of additional personnel, including biomedical

engineering positions. It should be noted that OsteoMed is

also aggressively re-directing its business focus to

international markets that provide a less cumbersome and

lengthy regulatory pathway with revenue streams that are not

subject to the medical device tax . . . immediately

``saving'' 2.3% in the process. In the past month, OsteoMed

initiated the search for sales managers in China and the

Middle East to supplement recent managers hired in Korea and

Italy. Unfortunately, OsteoMed has already started to

effectively trade U.S. jobs for overseas positions as a

direct result of the medical device tax and other

governmental involvement.

The medical device industry not only provides numerous

highly skilled and attractive jobs across the U.S., but it

also pays its workers on average 40% more than the typical

job. We are a vibrant sector of the economy and one of the

few remaining industries that produces a healthy export of

products. Tragically, this industry has now become the focus

of misguided and short-term government intervention and the

growth and continued prosperity of this proud American

industry now faces great hurdles.

Again, I thank you for your service to our country and

specifically for your support of H.R. 436 to repeal this tax

and to help America's innovators continue to improve patient

care and drive job creation. I look forward to your ability

to visit OsteoMed when you are back in Dallas so you can see

firsthand our great employees and the innovative products

they produce to help people around the world. Please do not

hesitate to contact me to discuss this issue or any other

issues impacting the medical device industry.

Sincerely,

Walter J. Humann,

President & CEO, OsteoMed.

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

I am intrigued by the notion today that Republicans were meeting secretively. In fact, we have had several meetings over the past few days, and probably two or three today, and the nature of that is to make sure that our Members, some 233 Republican Members across this country, that Republican leadership like myself is hearing from them, that we are moving together and talking about the terrible and disastrous effects of ObamaCare and how we're going to work together.

Some of the common things that have been talked about in those meetings, as if we need to remind ourselves--but I will again--in that ObamaCare bill, $716 billion was cut and taken away from senior health care to go directly to ObamaCare. But we've also seen the real effects of ObamaCare, as we know that since ObamaCare has been passed, there have been 7 part-time jobs created for every one new full-time job.

Mr. Speaker, we're here on the floor of the House of Representatives because our country is in trouble. This is a continually difficult time for Americans back home not just to find work, but to keep work.

We find that large companies, these large corporations that are talked about from time to time on this floor, especially by our friends, are moving people off the health care that they're on because it makes sense to do it, but also because of the expense.

We saw just in the last few weeks large companies like UPS and Walgreens move their employees and make very, very difficult decisions. Just like Delta Air Lines had to make a decision. They announced that ObamaCare alone would cost Delta Air Lines over $100 million next year alone.

These are destructive and devastating consequences of ObamaCare. The Republican Party is on the floor because this law is going to start very quickly: October 1 and January 1. People begin signing up October 1.

Of course, what we've seen is the President very clearly over the last few years has given waivers to the people that he chose to give waivers to. He turned around and let business off the hook. But he keeps the law on individuals. He keeps this onerous law on individuals--and it's causing chaos and panic.

It's causing chaos for people like my family and others who have children that they have to take care of that are sometimes disabled. And we are seeing problems because now we're not sure in this mix who will be the doctor. Will that be a doctor we've gone to in the past? Will that be a doctor that one time we may see and another time we may not see?

There is uncertainty. And this uncertainty has been driven to what I believe has become reality. And the reality is, if you look, there is a CBS and New York Times poll showing that a majority of Americans disapprove of ObamaCare. And when a majority of Americans say this to CBS News and The New York Times, I think even our colleagues, the Democrats, should listen.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for his time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Patients' Rights Repeal Act.

I simply want to say thanks. My good friend Mr. Crowley indicated that there is no plan on the other side, but look at the list that I can give, and let me just emphasize Texas:

For the gentleman from the business community, 360,000 small businesses

are using the health care tax credit for their workers that is provided by the health insurance under the Affordable Care Act;

There are 17 million children with preexisting conditions in the country who no longer can be denied coverage by insurers;

Then, of course, what we are finding out is those who treat those with cancer are suffering because there are cuts in Medicare and those cuts in Medicare are coming because of my friends on the other side. The Affordable Care Act will provide an umbrella for those who are in need;

Then we find out that Texas, itself, has 3.4 million women and over 1.8 million seniors and people with disabilities who are benefiting from the Affordable Care Act.

More importantly, we have articles that suggest that the poverty in Texas is going up and that Texas has the highest uninsured people in the Nation. How can people from Texas vote against this? How can they vote against this?

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 45, the 37th attempt by House Republicans to repeal the Affordable Care Act. This bill is as bad as the previous 36 and has no chance of becoming law. And that is a good thing because the Affordable Care Act has and continues to be a life saver for millions of Americans.

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 causing anxiety in people who know that without the Affordable Care Act they have no other option for healthcare.

I believe 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.

Many of those most in need of the healthcare coverage provided by the Affordable Care Act live in the Districts of many of the new members of Congress. Texas, my own state, leads the list of states with the highest percentages of uninsured residents.

Those states with the highest percentage of uninsured are:

Texas with 28.8 percent; Louisiana with 24 percent; Nevada with 23.3 percent; California with 23.2 percent; Florida with 22.8 percent; Georgia with 22.5 percent; Arkansas with 21.9 percent; Mississippi with 21.7 percent, and Oklahoma with 21.4 percent.

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.

This option would help states in three ways--reduce the cost to states for those insured through Medicaid, reduce the numbers of poor persons without healthcare insurance and address the problem associated with the high cost of persons who arrive at local emergency rooms in need of very expensive critical care. Health care costs that result from emergency room ad hoc primary healthcare are unpaid medical expenses passed on to everyone.

The idea of everyone paying something towards their healthcare was a Republican idea that was put into practice in the State of Massachusetts by then Governor Mitt Romney six years ago. Today, Massachusetts has the lowest percentage of uninsured residents' and a model for where every state could be in six years or less.

Just taking advantage of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid option would help reduce the numbers of uninsured persons living in the United States.

Medicaid would provide the much needed support to our nation's most vulnerable by providing early diagnosis and treatment for chronic conditions. In many cases conditions could be caught prior to the onset of disease and allow medical professionals the opportunity to work with patients to avoid the major drivers of health care cost: diabetes, high blood pressure and obesity, which can lead to heart and arterial disease as well as kidney disease.

Many watching today's debate may wonder why this is an issue--money from the federal government that would reduce their state tax burden associated with Medicaid. The issue is governors who reject extending Medicaid coverage to their state's poor. The Governors in the States of Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Maine, Wisconsin, Iowa, Idaho, and South Dakota need to hear from residents who want healthcare cost to be lower and more people covered.

As a resident of Texas and a Member of Congress representing a Congressional District in the state, I sent a letter to Governor Rick Perry in response to his letter of March 14, 2013, in which he re- affirmed his opposition to expanding the Medicaid program in Texas.

For all of the pro-business talk by the Governor over the last few months--his position on this issue will lead to higher local and state sales taxes; unduly burden local governments, and needlessly place the health and safety of millions of Texas children and adults at risk.

The infusion of federal funds associated with the state accessing the Affordable Care Act Medicaid option would increase economic out of Texas by $67.9 billion.

A May 13, 2013, editorial in the Houston Chronicle titled ``Medicaid costs driven by poverty,'' outlined why the Congress should be focused on ending the sequester and creating jobs if we are serious about reducing taxpayer dollars going to Medicaid.

Poverty is the reason for higher Medicaid costs--if we work to reduce poverty then Medicaid costs would decline.

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; 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 assure that health care consumers can get the care that they need from the medical professionals they trust.

Another reason why I oppose this bill--I offered six amendments, but none of them were accepted by the Rules Committee. I will explain what my amendments would have done to improve this bill.

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.

I urge my Colleagues to join me in voting no on the passage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

I rise today in opposition to the Patients' Rights Repeal Act. Mr. Speaker, we meet today for the 37th attempt to take away the basic health care rights from millions of Americans. Yet, despite all of these votes, the Affordable Care Act remains the law of the land. And it will remain the law of the land even after today's vote. That's a fact.

So why are we here for the 37th time? Are Republicans afraid that Americans are now able to get basic preventive health care screening with no copay? Are they afraid that Americans will now no longer be gouged or denied coverage because of preexisting conditions? Are Republicans fearful that the insurance companies can't cut off lifesaving care just because somebody got sick? Because they can't do that now with the Affordable Care Act.

Why on Earth would anyone fear American families being put back in charge of their health care? But we're here, yet again, to satisfy the majority's needs to have another meaningless vote. This obsession with repeal by the majority is bordering on the absurd. It's time to move on, for goodness' sake. Open season is set to begin in 5 months. Americans without affordable insurance will be able to shop for plans in an open and transparent marketplace with the help of tax credits for those who qualify. Employers of small businesses will be able to shop for appropriate health care for their employees and for their businesses with the help of tax credits.

It's our duty as public servants to help our constituents navigate this new law, not spend our time obstructing it. That's how California has approached the reform. We've worked in a collaborative way with all of the stakeholders. And that's how the government should work, because they know that it will help families struggling to afford health insurance.

Take, for instance, a family of four making $60,000 in California who buys their own insurance. Today, they pay some $12,500 on average for insurance. That's more than $1,000 a month. But starting in January, this family will save almost $5,000 a year because of the Affordable Care Act. Think about what this family can do with that extra $400 a month. It means paying your bills, it means saving money for your kids' education, it means repairing your car. This is what the Affordable Care Act can do. This is what ObamaCare does. This is what the Republicans are trying to hide from the American people.

Our country has been debating health care for more than a century. They keep saying there's other alternative solutions. It's funny that none of them came forward. None of them came forward during this debate with those alternative solutions, and health premiums were skyrocketing in double-digits year after year after year. For decades, we debated how to make sure all Americans have access to health care that won't bankrupt them if they get sick. For decades, we debated control of the national health spending by ensuring that everyone is covered. For decades, we debated how to control uncompensated care that cost families dearly. And it took the leadership of Speaker Pelosi and President Obama to bring positive change for families and businesses struggling under the weight of health care costs.

The fact of the matter is this plan currently today is working for millions of Americans, for millions of seniors, for millions of young Americans and for millions of young people born with preexisting conditions. That's what this legislation is about, lowering the cost of prescription drugs for senior citizens and making sure that people can get preventive care without copays. The Republicans want to yank that all away, and they don't have a plan to provide that health care security.

Interestingly enough, the other day in The Wall Street Journal was a full discussion about how this health care package is entrepreneurial because people who feel that they're job-locked will now be able to go out and start businesses because they know they'll have health care insurance for themselves or for their spouses or for the kids, and they'll be able to become the entrepreneurs they want to be. There's a discussion among large employers because people will leave and take their ideas and start their own businesses. That's what this health care enables Americans to do for the first time, not be locked into a job because of the fear of the insecurity of not having health care for your family and what that means.

This is an entrepreneurial act. This is liberating people. This is freeing people from the financial fear of the loss of health care. Never again, with the passage of this legislation, will an American lose health care because they lost their job, because somebody died in their family or because a child was born with a preexisting condition. Never again. The Republicans don't have an alternative. They only have obstruction and repeal as part of their program.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 4 minutes 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.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

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

May I inquire of the Chair how much time is available on both sides.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 2 minutes.

The previous speaker just said that we should listen to the American people. When the American people listen to the Congress of the United States, they assume that all of the Republicans in the country are against this health care bill and that all of the Democrats are for this health care bill.

Yet, if you look at the Kaiser Family Foundation's most recent poll on this, you'll find out that 96 percent of the Democrats and 83 percent of the Republicans support the tax credits for small business, which are now the law of the land, and 360,000 small businesses are getting those tax credits.

Ninety percent of the Democrats and 74 percent of the Republicans support closing the doughnut hole, and the doughnut hole is in the process of being closed. Democrats and Republicans agree in the country that this is a good deal.

Eighty-seven percent of the Democrats and 72 percent of the Republicans are excited about the creation of health care exchanges where they can go and shop for health care just as the Members of this Congress do in open season when they can pick and choose from different plans. In California, there will be 33 plans offered by private health insurance companies that they can pick and choose from. They think that's a good idea. They think it's a great idea.

Eighty-four percent of the Democrats and 68 percent of the Republicans think it's a great idea that children will not be thrown off their parents' policy, as is the law today.

That's why you've only voted to repeal. On the first day you took the majority in this Congress, you voted to repeal and you instructed the committees to come up with an alternative. You've had 37 votes on repeal, and you've had no action by the committees on the alternative.

So you have a plan that is meeting the needs of American families, millions of Americans of all walks of life, small businesses, big businesses, employees at both, children, seniors, people with preexisting conditions, and your answer is to repeal, like that's progress.

No, that's not progress. That's the failure to have an alternative and creative thinking about how to deal with the health care problems of the American people. ObamaCare does that, the Affordable Care Act does that, and that's what this Congress did.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the minority leader.

I yield the balance of my time, 1\1/ 2\ minutes, to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) to close.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership and that of Mr. Levin and Mr. Waxman as the chairs of the three committees when this legislation, so transformative in the lives of the American people, was passed by the House of Representatives and now for coming to the floor today--I don't know what the word is--to even counter some of the ridiculousness that is being said on the other side of the aisle in relationship to the Affordable Care Act. The fact is that what's happening today is the Patients' Rights Repeal Act. That's what they want to do is repeal patients' rights.

Why are they doing this? Do you think it's a good idea to do this on Women's Health Week, to repeal legislation that gives a wide range of free

preventive services to women, protection being dropped for women when they are pregnant or when they are sick and they no longer will be charged higher premiums than men? Of course the Republicans want to repeal that today on Women's Health Week. But knowing soon that a woman will no longer be a preexisting medical condition is just one piece of it.

The fact is this is not a serious effort to repeal the act. That's not going to happen. What this is is another example of jobs evasion in several ways.

First of all, it is our job to come here and act for the good of the American people. Right now, the American people see that good as the creation of jobs. What is it, 134 days into this Congress and the Republican majority has yet to vote one bill out to create jobs? That's job evasion.

Here we are today with yet another one of their subterfuges. Let's not talk about jobs; let's use up time. What does it add up to? Up until now, it has been $54 million and 43-some days spent on this, the 37th effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

What we should be doing is what the Republicans have asked for, regular order, to go to the budget table, to reconcile the differences between the House and the Senate so that we can put forth a budget that creates jobs, that reduces the deficit, that strengthens the middle class. Instead, we're wasting the taxpayers' dollars and time on legislation that is going to undermine protections for the American people when it comes to their health and well-being.

This bill today just gives us another opportunity for our side to talk about the transformative nature of the Affordable Care Act.

If there were no reason to pass such a bill, if everyone loved his or her own health care and health insurance premiums, if that were the case, we would still have had to pass the legislation because the status quo in health care in our country was unsustainable from a financial standpoint. It was unsustainable for families, for individuals, for small businesses, and for corporate America.

The cost of health care was a competitiveness issue. As we try to retain our position as number one in the world--a competitive issue-- the cost of health care was rising. It certainly was unsustainable for cities, States, and the Federal Government. Our budget could not sustain the rapid increase of health care to our budget.

That is why, when the Speaker asked, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office responded by informing House Republicans in a letter sent yesterday reiterating that repealing the Affordable Care Act would increase the deficit by $109 billion over the next 10 years. They said that this is a figure that they had given the Speaker last July. There may be some little changes in it between now and then, but that was approximately where the figures were.

So if you want to reduce the deficit, you don't repeal the Affordable Care Act because you will increase the deficit by $109 billion over the next 10 years. The purpose of the bill was not only to improve the quality of health care, increase accessibility to many more people and to lower the cost, but that in lowering the cost, it would reduce the deficit.

So it's a bill, and pretty soon many more Americans will be taking advantage of it. So far, over 100 million Americans have taken advantage of the preventive services and over 100 million Americans are no longer subjected to lifetime limits on their insurance coverage. That's a remarkable thing. Seniors who are in the doughnut hole have seen their prescription drug costs reduced by around $6 billion. Right now young people can stay on their parents' insurance policy until they're 26 years old.

The list goes on and on about the preventive exams that are free to seniors. The list goes on and on about what benefits the action that the Republicans are taking today would repeal that are good for the health and well-being of the American people. This bill is not just about health care; it's about the good health of the American people.

It's about prevention. It's about wellness. It's about electronic medical records that will change everything in terms of access to care and the quality of your care because your records are wherever you are. It's entrepreneurial.

Our Founders, in their dedication, in their sacrifice, in their courage called for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as goals of our new Republic, of our democracy; and this bill honors the vows of our Founders in just that way--a healthier life, the liberty to pursue your happiness. If you're an artist or if you're a photographer or a writer, if you want to be self-employed, if you want to start a business, if you want to change jobs, whatever it is, you are no longer job-locked because you can only go as fast in reaching your passion and your aspirations as your health insurance program will take you.

If you have a child with a preexisting medical condition, or if you're concerned with being sick yourself, you no longer are confined in your pursuit of happiness by the cost of a health care premium or the ability to even get one. It is entrepreneurial.

We even see articles now, and, Mr. Chairman, you have pointed them out in the public media about young people, or not even young people, but people who want to leave companies and start their own businesses. They're waiting for this bill to be fully implemented so they have that freedom to go forth.

So while I think it is a waste of the public's time to take this bill up on the floor of the House, to hear my colleagues talk on the floor, you think either they don't know what they're talking about, or they do. But in either case, they're not presenting the facts about what this legislation does.

It is going to be right up there with Social Security and Medicare as pillars of economic and health security for the American people. It is going to make us more competitive internationally because our businesses will not have an anvil of the rising cost of health care. It reduces the deficit, improves the health and well-being of the American people. It's about the entrepreneurial spirit of America. It honors the vows of our Founders of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

This legislation should be rejected; and pretty soon more people, as they take advantage of the legislation, will see just how important it is to them individually and how important it is to the health and well- being of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

I rise today in opposition to the Patients' Rights Repeal Act. I greatly respect my colleagues on the other side from Tennessee and from Pennsylvania, but I have to say they are simply obstructionists.

This is what we get from the GOP on a daily basis. Nothing happens here in the House of Representatives. We know there is a problem. Historically, there has been a problem with health care and a lot of people not having insurance or having discriminatory practices or not being able to get on their parents' insurance policy. So we as Democrats came up with a solution, and that solution is working.

We have kids now--almost 6 million or 7 million kids--that are now on their parents' policies. We have a situation where we are plugging up the doughnut hole in Medicare for part D prescription drugs for seniors. We have all kinds of preventive care that is out there relative to women's health. And the list goes on and on. These things are happening. Beginning next year, most Americans will have health insurance.

What do I hear from the other side? They don't want solutions. I'll be honest with my colleagues: if you really care, why don't you make some suggestions, and maybe we can work together. Anything can be improved. I don't say that anything can't be improved.

But, no, they come on the floor, and what do they want to do? Just repeal it, which is not a solution. It basically would eliminate all the progress that we have made in terms of health care.

Yes, costs are not going up as much. And, yes, people are getting rebates if their insurance companies charge them too much. All these things are happening because of the Affordable Care Act.

All I hear from you is: no, obstructionism. No, we have to repeal this because this is such a terrible thing. Bringing in all these distractions about what the Secretary of Health and Human Services is doing.

This is not what you are elected to do. You are not elected to come here and just repeal things and say how bad everything is. You are supposed to come up with solutions. I never hear it from the other side of the aisle. I simply do not hear it, which is why I get very upset the 37th time, the 38th time we are going to vote on the same thing, which is repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our chairman emeritus from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to set the record straight that there is no government takeover in the ACA, which is contrary to what my Republican colleagues are saying.

The ACA is built on expanding private sector coverage by improving options in the individual market and by encouraging employers to provide coverage. The claim that the ACA is a government takeover is totally unfounded. A system built on private insurance, private doctors and private hospitals is not a government takeover.

I yield now 1 minute to my colleague from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to our Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer from Maryland.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask how much time remains on each side.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. Speaker, I believe the other side has more time, and so at this time I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Arizona keeps talking about the terrible things in the health care reform bill. But let me just say, in his State, if the ACA was repealed, that would mean in Arizona, drug costs for over 65,000 seniors would have been $102 million higher; 69,000 young adults would not have had coverage through their parents' plans; 917,000 women and 434,000 seniors and people with disabilities would not have had access to free preventive care; 414,000 people would not have received $28 million in rebates from their insurance companies; and next year, 948,000 people will not have access to quality, dependable health insurance coverage.

And so these are the facts, the real problem that happens in the State of Arizona, if this bill were to pass and the health care reform were to be repealed.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the

gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the ranking member of our Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

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

Mr. Speaker, I just heard the gentleman from Indiana say, We can't do this; we can't do that. I mean, this is the problem with the other side of the aisle, with the Republican side of the aisle: they always believe that we can't do anything here in the House of Representatives.

The fact of the matter is that Democrats saw the problem. The problem was discriminatory health insurance practices. The problem was young people not being able to get on their parents' insurance policies. The problem was women not being able to access health care and so many Americans, 40, 50 million Americans, that did not have health insurance.

And what did we do as Democrats?

We found a solution to the problem, which was the Affordable Care Act, and it was working. The discriminatory practices are going away. More and more people are going to have health insurance. Most Americans will have health insurance by the beginning of 2014. And the doughnut hole for prescriptions drugs for seniors is being closed. All these things are answers that the Democrats have brought through the Affordable Care Act for the problems that existed with our health care system.

And all I hear from the other side of the aisle is, We can't do this; we can't do that.

Well, we've done something. Don't just come here and tell us we have to repeal it. As I said before, if you have a solution, you want to work with us to improve things, that's fine; but don't come here for the 37th and 38th time and say, We're just going to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

You never come up with a positive solution to the problem. In this Congress, all we hear from the Republican side of the aisle is, We want to repeal everything; we want to waste time.

Don't continue to do this. This bill is a complete waste of time. It passes here, it goes to the Senate, and nothing happens.

Let's keep this bill, the Affordable Care Act, in place. It's doing wonderful things for the American people.

I yield back the balance of my time.