To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) for the purposes of inquiring of the schedule for the week to come. Mr. Brady, as I understand, is the designee of the majority leader, and I welcome and appreciate his participation.

I thank the gentleman for that information and, again, I want to thank him. I know that the majority leader could not be here and he's filling in, and I appreciate the fact that he is doing so.

Mr. Brady, I notice that there is not on the notice for the schedule for next week any reference about a motion to go to conference on the budget. As you know, the Senate has now passed a budget, which it had not done for some years. Your side, in particular, but all of us wanted the Senate to pass a budget. They have now passed a budget. We passed a budget. We would hope on this side of the aisle that we would now go to conference.

I'm wondering whether the gentleman can--in light of the fact that it is regular order that two sides pass, now try to compromise the differences that exist between the two Houses--can the gentleman tell me whether or not there is a plan to go to conference and, if so, what that schedule might be? And I yield to my friend.

I appreciate the fact that you're encouraged. Frankly, our side has not heard an encouraging word. In fact, we continue to hear discouraging words, as the song says.

I'm very hopeful we can bridge the gap that exists, which is about $100 billion, as the gentleman knows. The Senate marked $1.058 trillion, which of course was consistent with the Budget Control Act that we agreed upon, we voted on, and passed. The President signed the Budget Control Act, including that figure for the fiscal year '14 budget. The Ryan budget, as you know reflects a $966 billion 302 allocation; that is, general discretionary spending levels.

I'm wondering when you say you're encouraged, do you know whether there's been any progress toward trying to bridge that gap? Obviously, as a former appropriator, many times it's 50/50 you come to the middle, which would be about $1 trillion or a little more than that. I'm wondering whether or not the gentleman knows whether any progress has been made on that? And I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman.

Just let me observe that on our side we think it would be useful if the American public had the opportunity to, in effect, see the discussions in a conference. I've been here long enough to remember when we had conferences on the Appropriations Committee. They were open to the public. They were reported on. We had discussions about the differences that existed, as one would expect, from people elected from different parts of the country and with different views. But we think it would be very helpful if those discussions were held, because the differences are pretty profound and pretty significant, that it would help the public to have a better understanding of the process.

In addition, as the gentleman knows, of course, there was some discussion about the President's coming down late with his budget. We should have been through the budget process by now so that the Appropriations Committee could proceed with its allocations to its 12 subcommittees.

In that context, I would ask the gentleman, does the gentleman have any idea when the appropriations bills might be marked up and brought to the floor? As you know, under regular order, for the most part, we have brought appropriations bills to the floor starting in mid-May or the last week in May so that we could get through that process in June and July and send those bills to the Senate so that we might have conferences and complete our work by October 1.

And I yield to my friend.

Well, I appreciate that and I look forward to the consideration of the appropriations bills on the floor.

I want to say that for the most part you have followed open rules, which we did as well in 2007 until we just couldn't get the bills done in a timely fashion. Hopefully, we can do that, because I think that, again, it gives the public the opportunity to see the priorities of not only each Member but both sides moving forward. I think that's appropriate in a democracy. I appreciate the fact that the majority leader intends to bring those bills to the floor starting in June. I'm not sure whether we can finish all 12 in June, but perhaps finish those in July.

We did not bring, as the gentleman knows, the Labor and Health bill to the full committee in the last cycle, much less to the floor. That bill will be tough.

Chairman Rogers--I know the gentleman is on a committee that he believes is more important. He and I may differ in that perception. He's a member of the Ways and Means Committee, I was a former member of the Appropriations Committee. But, nonetheless, Mr. Rogers has made the observation, in terms of the dollars allocated in the Ryan budget for discretionary spending, both on the defense side and nondefense side:

I suspect there will be some who will be shocked. I don't

think people yet understand how severe the numbers will be.

Those numbers refer to the $966 billion in discretionary spending, which will require deep cuts in almost every program on the national defense side and on the discretionary side.

So, the sooner we get to that, because I think it's going to be a difficult process, the better. And I appreciate your information with reference to the majority leader's intent to bring them to the floor.

Now, I also did not see on the schedule, Mr. Brady, anything that deals with the sequester. I do see the Affordable Care Act repeal on the floor next week, which has been, of course, on this floor some 33, 34, 35 times before, to repeal it. We're having another repeal vote coming up. I think honestly you believe, as I believe, that that bill is not going to go anywhere, other than perhaps through the House of Representatives, but, beyond that, it won't go anywhere.

However, the sequester continues to be an ongoing challenge to our country, to our government, and to our people. We dealt with it in a sort of surgical fashion dealing with the FAA, but we have not dealt with any of the other concerns. As the gentleman knows, I have concerns about the fact the sequester may result in 70,000 children not being on Head Start. They are only 3 or 4 years of age once.

The Social Security Administration may have to furlough payments, which will slow down payments of Social Security. There are 4 million fewer Meals on Wheels for seniors. There are 600,000 people who have been dropped off the Women, Infants, and Children program. There are 125,000 fewer HUD rental assistance vouchers for people who are homeless or who are struggling to keep a home. Unemployment insurance has been cut 11 percent for 2 million out-of-work Americans. We now have no safety net for them. The FDA will have 2,100 fewer food safety inspectors--that's down 18 percent--obviously, putting at risk our food safety; and we will furlough an equivalent to 1,000 fewer Federal agents, FBI--we know from the Boston Marathon bombings how critical the FBI was--and border security. One-third of combat air units have been grounded.

I mention all of those simply in the context of those consequences of the sequester. I see it's not on next week, and we have a week after that that we'll be in session. Does the gentleman have any information with reference to whether or not we will deal with trying to ameliorate these adverse consequences of sequester before we leave here for the Memorial Day break?

And I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his comments; but I do want to observe that the President of the United States has offered a budget which eliminates the sequester and gets to a budget deficit reduction and fiscal sustainability in an alternative way which we think is much more positive.

I would also remind the gentleman that Chris Van Hollen, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, offered an alternative which gets rid of the sequester, which all sides agree is an irrational process in that it cuts the highest priority and lowest priority the same. The sequester, as the gentleman knows, was put in a bill to force action with the specific belief and premise that the sequester was so bad, so irrational, so lacking in common sense, so negative in its impact that it would never be adopted. Sadly, it was adopted.

I want to say also that the gentleman and a lot of his colleagues like to mention that this is the President's suggestion. With all due respect, Jack Lew brought it up with Mr. Reid, and everybody has read about that in Mr. Woodward's book. He brought it up, however--and the gentleman probably recalls this--days after sequester, as a policy, was included in the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill for which 229 Republicans voted for as a policy. I want to

tell the gentleman just for his future information, on our side, we are opposed to the sequester. We want to see the sequester changed.

Mr. Van Hollen not only offered a budget, but he offered four amendments. Each time we considered the CR and other legislation, four times he offered an amendment to substitute the same savings so we would get to those budget deficit reductions to which the gentleman spoke, but would not do so in the irrational, across-the-board fashion that sequester requires.

So I want to make it clear, if there was any confusion on your side of the aisle, we are not for the sequester. I voted for the CR to keep the government open, but I voted against the CR, when it left this House, which had sequester in there. I, frankly, thought shutting down the government was even worse than the sequester, but I think the sequester is having a harmful effect, not only on government, but a harmful effect on our economy. I think it's a drip, drip, drip. It wasn't a ``shut the door.'' It wasn't black and white. It wasn't overnight, but it is a drip, drip, drip that is harming our economy.

I understand what the gentleman has told us, but I would hope that we would seriously consider trying to see if we could reach agreement either outside the context of the budget conference or inside the context of the budget conference that would give us an alternative which would be more rational, more positive, and more helpful to our economy.

The next subject is simply the debt ceiling. We just passed a bill on the prioritization. We unanimously opposed that on our side. We think that is not a good policy. Obviously, there is a disagreement on that. May 19 is the date that the debt ceiling extension expires.

Can the gentleman tell me whether there is any proposal to act in the near future other than on debt prioritization, which will have no chance in the Senate and is roundly opposed by many Republican economists, as the gentleman knows, and by the former economic adviser to the Bush administration, who said that it would not work, should not work? Can the gentleman tell me whether there is any alternative plan, before we leave here for the Memorial Day break, to give confidence to the economy and to creditors and to the American people that we will deal responsibly with the debt limit extension?

And I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman. Of course, we did have a balanced budget, as you'll remember, for the last 4 years of the Clinton administration. Now, there was a Republican-controlled Congress; but in the next 4 years, there was a Republican-controlled Congress, a Republican-controlled Senate, and a Republican President, and we went deeply into debt.

We escalated the debt during the Bush administration by 87 percent of GDP more than this President has escalated the deficit. In nominal terms, as Mr. Camp observed before, the dollars are higher. That's true. It's because we are bigger, spending more money, making more money as a country. GDP is up.

During the Reagan administration, we increased the debt as a percentage of the national GDP by 186 percent; 55 percent under George Bush; 37 percent under Mr. Clinton; and some 40-plus percent under this President today.

So I think the gentleman and I agree that we need to get a handle on the debt and the deficit, but we disagree on how this happened. It happened because we didn't pay our bills, and we jettisoned PAYGO in 2003. As a practical matter, we jettisoned it in 2001.

Not paying for things is what creates debt, not buying. If I buy things and I pay for them, I don't have a debt. If I buy things and don't pay for them, I have a debt.

So it's not a question of what I buy, although clearly we need to restrain buying and we need to constrain spending, as I've said, all across the board--the gentleman has heard me--including entitlements, including discretionary defense and nondefense spending. But what we ought to do is manage our finances in a way that does not give pause to the American people or to the economy.

I want to just read for you a quote. Keith Hennessy was George Bush's National Economic Council director who disagrees with your proposition that this prioritization will in any way stabilize--I don't think the gentleman disagrees with me that that bill is not going to pass the Senate. Here's what Keith Hennessy said:

Payment prioritization doesn't stop payments; it just

delays them. Then the aggrieved party sues the government and

probably wins, and it turns into a bloody mess.

Tony Fratto, who was the spokesman on economic policy in the Bush administration said this:

Prioritization is impossible. Is the government really

going to be in the position of withholding benefits,

salaries, rent, contract payments, et cetera, in order to pay

off Treasury bondholders?

We refer to this, of course, as the Pay China First bill. And China ought to be paid. We borrowed money from them; we ought to pay them.

Here's what he concludes of the prioritization bill:

That would be a political catastrophe.

I suggest it would be an economic catastrophe, as well, to say to our armed services personnel, We're not going to pay you, but we are going to pay China for our debts.

The fact of the matter is the United States is the most creditworthy Nation on Earth. We ought to pay all of our debts and not on a priority status. If we owe you as the United States of America, we're going to pay you. That's our proposition. We should not prioritize paying simply bondholders, but paying smaller contractors we are doing business with who offer us services and products and we don't pay them until after we pay our bondholders. We ought to pay everybody. That's what America is about.

So I would hope that we could revisit this because your debt prioritization is not going to pass. You know it's not going to pass. We need to get to a responsible way of dealing with the debt-limit extension.

Both parties, I will tell my friend, have demagogued on this issue. We demagogued on it when we had a Republican President; you've demagogued on it--not you personally. I cast no aspersions. But both sides have demagogued on it when the President was of the other party. It's a shame. It's not been good for our country.

Ronald Reagan said that Congress continues to run us up. And we ran us up so close last time that for the first time in history, the United States of America was downgraded by one of our

rating agencies. I would hope the gentleman who serves on the Ways and Means Committee and I and others could work together so this doesn't happen again, that we make sure that the American people and that all of our creditors and people around the world know that the United States of America can and will handle its finances in a responsible fashion.

If the gentleman wants to say anything further, I'll yield back to him; if not, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To respond to what we just heard--and none of us are exempt; I don't know what in the world that's all about--I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

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

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

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

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

Then I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vote ``no.''

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

I thank the gentlelady for her leadership.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

discriminating against anyone with a preexisting condition

charging higher rates based on gender or health status

enforcing lifetime dollar limits

enforcing annual dollar limits on health benefits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have an additional speaker, and then my close.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.