Put America Back to Work Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 175 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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.

House Resolution 175 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 1549. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided by the chair and the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

The rule makes in order two amendments, one Republican, one Democratic, with 10 minutes of debate for each. Further, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying bill. The underlying legislation is a needed piece of relief for the hundreds of thousands of Americans who were promised by their President that they would be covered under the Affordable Care Act's Preexisting Condition Insurance Plan and then were told, as of February 1 of this year, Sorry, we're closed. This is one of the many promises the President made that he has failed to uphold.

In response to the President's failed promise, Chairman Joe Pitts introduced H.R. 1549, the Helping Sick Americans Act, to continue to provide insurance for those Americans who are most in need of immediate care. And to pay to give those most vulnerable patients insurance and care, we use the Prevention and Public Health Fund, an allocation of money that should be going to help patients, but it's instead being used for administrative costs to set up the exchanges that won't be online for some time now and for glossy brochures to extol their virtues. The money could be used to help people now, and that's why Republicans are here today.

The Affordable Care Act created the new Preexisting Condition Insurance Plan, which was, arguably, duplicative of actions taken by 35 States prior to 2010 that were operating risk pools, that were operating re-insurance programs and served over 200,000 Americans.

It has been shown that State-based programs play an important role in lowering costs across markets and then providing coverage options for those with preexisting conditions. In some States, those plans merged with the Federal plan into an existing high-risk pool. In other States, like Texas, the Federal plan operates in parallel to the State's pool.

But whether the States merged their pools, adopted a State- administered preexisting plan, or whether the Federal preexisting plan is the only option, this program is the only answer for those who have found themselves unable to purchase insurance on their own because of a medical condition.

Shortly after the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services estimated that the creation of this program would result in roughly 375,000 gaining coverage in 2010. However, to date, only 107,000 individuals were enrolled in the program as of January 1 of this year.

On February 15 of this year, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced to States that the agency was suspending enrollment in the Preexisting Condition Insurance Program. Very little was said of the fact that this program was intended to help individuals with preexisting conditions through the 1st of January of 2014.

Despite lower than expected enrollment, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced that it will no longer enroll new individuals in the program, and it will bar States from accepting new applications because of their financial constraints.

According to a report from The Washington Post:

Tens of thousands of Americans who cannot get health

insurance because of preexisting medical problems will be

blocked from the program that was actually designed to help

them.

On March 5, along with Republican leadership and the leadership from the Energy and Commerce Committee, we wrote to the President. We let him know that this was not right. We let him know that, while we may have designed the preexisting pool differently, Republicans have supported risk pools, and that he could easily use funds from other accounts in the Affordable Care Act like the Prevention and Public Health Fund. But so far, the response to our letter from the President is zero.

I support prevention activities. As a doctor, I know it's better to keep a person well than to treat an illness; and to anyone across the aisle, we've demonstrated this in the past. If we want to modernize government programs where they have fallen behind private insurers and employers in avoiding disease and getting people more involved in their health care, we're here to talk.

But the prevention fund has been used in a haphazard way, with no unified vision and in many ways that are quite questionable, with the mere hope, with the mere aspiration that 10 years from now we can look back and think that we've made a difference. But it's really something I cannot support when we are $17 trillion in debt and sick Americans are being turned away from an insurance coverage that they were promised by the President.

As a physician, ensuring those with preexisting conditions have access to quality and affordable health insurance is a priority. As much as I believe that the Affordable Care Act stretched the bounds of constitutionality--and I still do--I was concerned that if the Supreme Court had invalidated the law last summer, those who were in this new Federal preexisting pool would have had the rug pulled out from under them and they could have been barred from merging into their States' pool because of the previously provided coverage.

That's why, to ensure that that did not happen, I was prepared to answer that challenge, had it arisen, by introducing legislation prior to the Court's decision to provide States with the financial backing to decide how best to provide coverage for this population through some type of risk pool, reinsurance, or other innovative method.

I will also note that unlike many of the complaints that the Preexisting Condition Insurance Program has faced, that bill, as well as the bill that we are considering today, did not require those with preexisting conditions to jump through hoops or to remain uninsured for 6 months before being eligible for coverage. On the other hand, instead of making sick Americans a priority, the administration is telling them to just give us 10 more months. Well, what a striking comparison.

There are always stories of those who have done the right thing and insured themselves and then, for whatever reason--falling on bad luck or hard times--have fallen out of the system, usually because of a job loss, they get a medical diagnosis, and when their employment status changes, they find themselves forever locked out of coverage. Those were the stories that people thought of when they did say they wanted something done about this issue.

I might add that when the Affordable Care Act was passed, the administration and congressional Democrats vastly oversold this concept. We were told time and again there were 8 to 12 to 15 million people wandering the country with some type of preexisting condition that were excluded from coverage. It's interesting that now, here we are 3 years later, spending $5 billion and they've enrolled a hundred thousand people in the program. But it's a hundred thousand people with a very compelling story.

We were told by the American people they wanted us to fix this problem, they didn't want us to screw up the rest of the country's health care, and they wanted some help on cost. But, unfortunately, we failed on every one of those counts.

Since the administration has cut off enrollment, how many people have signed into or aged into the 6-month exclusion that would otherwise be able to sign up? The fact is we don't know. But we had a hearing 4 weeks ago where we heard from some of these people. They do have compelling stories. How many were awaiting coverage but are now told, especially in States where the Federal preexisting program is the only option, you just wait until 2014. So do the best you can with what you've got between now and then.

I will admit that many of the current State-based programs are underfunded and lacking the ability to meet their needs. It is costly to deal with this population of patients. I was prepared in the bill that I offered last summer to authorize $30 billion to provide coverage. House Republicans supported $25 billion in our substitute to the Affordable Care Act back in November of 2009.

H.R. 1549 will redirect $3.5 billion from the Prevention and Public Health Fund and then eliminate the fund in 2016. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, unlike the authors of the Affordable Care Act, we have provided enough funding to meet the needs

of the program through the end of the year, while ultimately reducing the deficit. Furthermore, once the ``train wreck'' of failed implementation occurs, the amendment that Mr. Pitts plans to offer would provide an escape valve for Americans with a preexisting condition by providing States with a block grant to fund State high- risk pools.

The majority is serious about funding these programs and dealing with the issue, and those cost are a drop in the bucket as to what the Affordable Care Act will cost our country in the future. But those efforts recognize that for those who do need insurance and are truly uninsurable in the market, it will be costly but we will make the decisions that set our priorities straight.

Where the President's response was to tell the people tough luck, not to prepare for needing more money or transfer funds out of other parts of the Affordable Care Act or to look for efficiencies or mismanagement in the preexisting condition program or even approach Congress for funding, dead silence from the administration. Well, here Republicans will lead and ensure that we help sick Americans now.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I yield myself 1 minute.

You know, on the subject of wasting time, it was 6 or 7 weeks ago that Chairman Pitts sent a letter to the President saying: What are you proposing to do about this? This was not something that was in the plan. You promised something that was different. What are we to tell people who are now calling our committee and asking us how you're going to respond to this?

The President chose not to respond to that letter--it's been 6 or 7 weeks--but, boy, it didn't take him 24 hours to turn around a Statement of Administration Policy that said they would veto this bill should it pass the House. That's another reason for me to be for it.

But, look, in this Statement of Administration Policy, it says: The Affordable Care Act forces most insurance companies to play by the rules. Well, I think this House has an opportunity today to say to the administration: Play by the rules.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

It takes me back to when the Affordable Care Act passed this House and the tumultuous time in March of 2010. I had 18 amendments in the Rules Committee the night before that. The ranking member may remember that. None of those amendments were made in order. Look, if that's the yardstick by which we're going to measure, we've got a long way to go.

But I need to respond to something that was said by the minority whip. He referenced the Appalachian train wreck. These are not my words. These are words that were used by a senior Democratic committee chairman about this bill. And then just today, breaking news, I'm handed an article from Politico, another senior Democrat, chairman of the Health Committee over on the Senate side, is putting a hold on the administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services nomination.

And why is that hold being placed? An aide said that the Senator objected because CMS was using Prevention and Public Health Funds to pay for the health law implementation; the very reason we're here today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

There's nothing that has been more damaging to job creation in this country than the first 2 years of the first Obama term. During that time, with vast majorities in both the House and the Senate, the anti- employment, the outright hostility to the productive sector of American society, was palpable. People responded to that in very predictable ways, so they hunkered down.

And then you come throw the wet blanket of the Affordable Care Act. What did that do to job creation? It killed it in this country, and it is killing it today.

If you want job creation in this country, you will provide some stability, some sanity, to allow those people who are still in that hunkered-down modality that they've been in since the first Obama administration was sworn in, allow them a chance for real economic recovery. That's why it's important to divert those funds from the Prevention and Public Health Fund, help those people with preexisting conditions, and, yes, we may get some sanity out of the administration on the implementation of the health care law if we do that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

The last Congress we had this debate over and over again, which obviously culminated with the significant findings in our Committee on Energy and Commerce on what happened with the energy company called Solyndra. The moneys that were pushed out the door by the Department of Energy in the first 4 years of the Obama administration, those moneys were poorly spent and unwisely invested. And what did we get for that investment? More debt.

Here we are faced with a condition in the Prevention Fund where these dollars are going to be pushed out the door hiring navigators. Remember, part of the Affordable Care Act was to absolutely remove insurance agents and brokers from the environment, and now we're going to populate the environment with these navigators that are going to help sell people health insurance, and they're going to be paid for out of the Department of Health and Human Services with the prevention fund. It doesn't sound like prevention to me. I think we ought to prevent that from happening.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 1 minute.

Since the gentleman wasn't here in the spring of 2010 when the Affordable Care Act passed, he probably didn't hear the utterance of the then-Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who famously, from that chair, stood up and said, ``We've got to pass this law to find out what's in it.''

Here we are a little over 3 years later, and we're still finding out what's in it. Yes, the law is the law--the law has passed; the law is signed--but what has happened since that time is this torrent of regulations that has come out of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of the Treasury, the Office of Personnel Management--all of those Federal agencies charged with implementing this failed product. Now, we can argue all we want about settled law being settled law, but rulemaking is going on even as we speak. New rules are coming out. New rules are being promulgated.

Look at the Essential Health Benefit Rule. Why did the administration hide the ball on that one until 2 days after election day? Because they were afraid of what the public's response would be when they saw what that rule actually said. It turns out that most of the Nation's Governors said, We don't want any part of this.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 1 minute.

I think it's important for Members of this body to understand one of the things we're talking about today. It's section 4002 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In my copy, it's found on page 466. This delineates the outline of the Prevention and Public Health Fund.

Section A: The purpose is to establish a Prevention and Public Health Fund.

That all sounds good. It's to be administered through the Office of the Secretary to provide for the expanded and sustained national investment in the maintaining of public health. All good as it sounds.

Then the funding section. The funding section is important because it's unlike other sections of law. Yes, it started small with literally a half billion dollars in fiscal year 2010. It escalated from there, and by next year, this fund will be up to $2 billion a year. That's self-replenishing in perpetuity. That's until the Earth cools another time or the Second Coming. It's $2 billion a year forever.

Now, the use of the fund is the next section. That is telling because there is broad authority for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to transfer these dollars to other areas she wants. That is what leads to the problem. That is what leads to the difficulty with this section.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I will go as long as the gentlelady wants, but I guess I have no more speakers other than myself.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, as the gentlelady mentioned, we've heard a lot today.

I think I've said over and over again how I, unequivocally, oppose the Affordable Care Act and would like to see it forever dismantled and thrown on the dustbin of history. Guilty as charged. That is what I would like to see, but that's actually not what we're talking about today.

We're here today to talk about the President's promise to help people with preexisting conditions obtain health insurance, and it has been one of the few areas of agreement between Republicans and Democrats over the last several years. House Republicans have urged the President to work with us on a solution to this issue, but all we've heard from the White House has been silence. So, today, we are offering a solution:

The bill transfers funds from an unnecessary slush fund and, instead, prioritizes the Nation's most sick and vulnerable who have been denied coverage and who have been the victims of the Affordable Care Act's broken promises. This bill does not provide more money to government health care programs, but instead it helps those who are in desperate need have access to privately run health insurance. Instead of continuing to use the Prevention and Public Health Fund to prop up the Affordable Care Act's flailing exchanges, we would use the money allocated for public health to actually help sick Americans.

If we do not act, the administration will continue to spend this money on heaven knows what: neutering programs, pickle ball--whatever the heck that is--and programs that are rife with potential for fraud and abuse to support their own failing implementation plans. Instead of further increasing this Nation's $17 trillion deficit, we can pass this bill that will provide health care to the sick and will reduce the deficit at the same time.

In the end, it's not about the money. It's about America's patients. The President should be embarrassed. His political bait-and-switch is not working. Instead of putting the care of the sick first, you tell them, Sorry, Sister, we're closed. Come back in 10 months.

Ten months, a week, a day may be the amount of time some of these patients have to get treatment or else face the consequences of the progression of their illnesses.

America's doctors and hospitals will be there, and they'll always be there. But why deny them the means to get their services paid for with insurance coverage?

Mr. President, your health bill fails this country, and, most importantly, you have failed the thousands of sick Americans who can't get health coverage because you think implementing the health care law is more important than taking care of the people who you promised to take care of.

So today we can end the use of the slush fund and use it to actually help people. A vote for this bill is a vote to help sick Americans now.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and support the passage of H.R. 1549.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

That people can move between employers;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

Let's talk about immigration reform.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

General Leave

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The amendments made by this section shall apply to the

taxable years ending after December 31, 2013.

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

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

The amendments made by this section shall apply to the

months beginning after December 31, 2013.

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We begin this week the way we've begun every week since January: spinning our wheels.

As we speak, sequestration is hitting communities across our country. Flight delays have started, Head Start programs are turning away children, and unemployment benefits are being curtailed. Despite the calls from me and all my Democratic colleagues to stop the sequestration, the majority refuses to act. In fact, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Representative Van Hollen, has come four times to the Rules Committee with an amendment that would repeal sequestration, but the majority has rejected it every single time.

The majority has also left the job of passing a budget unfinished. With budgets passed by both the Senate and the House, it is now time to finish the job, and for the majority that constantly calls for regular order and concerns itself with no Senate budget, they now refuse to appoint the conferees. And they must, if we're going to get the budget.

Instead of taking meaningful action on these two important issues, the majority is proposing a bill that is nothing more than a political gimmick. As everyone knows, there's no chance that the Senate will consider this bill. Even if it did, the President's senior advisers have stated that they will recommend the President veto the bill.

In the short history of the 113th Congress, I have been repeatedly dismayed that the leadership of this Chamber has refused to bring forth meaningful legislation that has any chance of becoming law; and today is a telling example of the majority's failure to lead.

In news reports earlier this morning, we were told that today's bill, dubbed by reporters as ``CantorCare,'' may even be pulled before it gets a vote. One Member of the majority was purported to say that today's bill does nothing but shift money from a program he doesn't support to another program he doesn't support. And, indeed, given the fact that not a single Republican voted for the Affordable Care Act, it seems incongruous to me that they are now here today with great bleeding-heart concerns about the people with previous conditions that keep them from being insured.

So given the multiple reports of dissent within the majority, I have to ask, If no one supports this bill, then what are we doing this afternoon except, as I pointed out earlier, what we do every week? Even if we continue to move forward on the bill, it is already clear the legislation is solely designed for political gain. For while the majority claims that they want to strengthen the Affordable Care Act, their intent is clear: they want to repeal the law.

Last week, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius testified before the Senate Finance Committee where she was criticized by GOP Senators for using her legal authority to fund the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. As Secretary Sebelius replied in her testimony, Congress' failure to pass a budget has forced her to take the independent action, which she's allowed to do, in order to fund the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. It's as simple as that. In the face of an unproductive Congress, Secretary Sebelius has done everything she can to provide the lifesaving health care to the American people.

While reporting on Secretary Sebelius' testimony, Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein explained the majority's approach towards the Affordable Health Care Act. In part, Mr. Klein wrote:

``Insofar as the Republican Party has a strategy on ObamaCare, it goes like this: The law needs to be implemented. The GOP can try and keep the implementation from being done effectively, in part, by refusing to authorize the needed funds,'' as they did in this case. I think it was $1.5 billion.

``Then they can capitalize on the problems they create to weaken the law, or at least weaken Democrats up for reelection in 2014. In other words, step one: create problems for ObamaCare. Step two: blame ObamaCare care for the problems. Step three: political profit.''

The legislation before us is little more than a continuation of these games.

If the majority were making a serious attempt to expand health care coverage, they wouldn't be funding their proposal with money from a different program in the Affordable Care Act. Specifically, the majority wouldn't be removing $4 billion from the Prevention and Public Health Fund. This is a fund that is already helping States research ways to reduce instances of cancer, obesity, and heart disease.

Preventive health measures are vital to reducing the cost of health care in the United States because we know it is always cheaper to prevent disease than to treat it. In an age where more than 33 percent of our population is overweight or obese, when heart disease is the number one cause of death and the number of diabetes cases continue to grow, including children, gutting our Nation's only Federal preventive health program is not a responsible budget decision; it is simply an underhanded attack to dismantle the Affordable Care Act one program at a time.

Finally, the majority's newfound concern for people who are uninsured because of preexisting conditions might be more believable if they had allowed one of the numerous commonsense amendments presented to the Rules Committee to come to the floor. Among the amendments were responsible proposals to cover Americans with preexisting conditions by ending tax breaks for Big Oil, ending subsidies for owners of corporate jets, increasing taxes on cigarettes--a preventive health measure in its own right. Proposals like these would expand health care to those who need it while protecting the preventive health measures included in the Affordable Care Act. It is truly unfortunate that, in yet another restrictive process executed by the majority, these amendments were denied a vote on the House floor.

The majority and the press have made it clear that today's bill is not a serious effort, but a political gimmick that has no chance of becoming law. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we will be doing, as I said, a previous question amendment to this rule to hold a vote on the Put America Back to Work Act, and I would like to yield now 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

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

I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Maryland.

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford), a member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Matsui).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as it takes me to read this message. It needs to be answered, and I want everybody in America to listen up. You've been told it's a job-killing bill and that it has caused all this grief. Let me say:

Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the United

States has added more than 6 million private sector jobs. The

health care industry alone, which many opponents of the law

predicted would face job-killing new regulation, has added

more than 750,000 jobs.

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

Madam Speaker, may I inquire if my colleague has more requests for time? I have none, and I am prepared to close.

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

First, at the end of my remarks I will insert in the Record the Democratic amendments that were disallowed last night from the Rules Committee.

In closing, Madam Speaker, we've heard a lot today, but I think probably one of the most important things for America to know--because you hear constantly how many jobs this bill is going to be killing--is the fact that we have produced 6 million new jobs, 750,000 in health care alone.

So the most important thing we can do for Americans with preexisting conditions, which is the subject today, and for every American seeking quality and affordable health care is to support the full implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Unfortunately, the proposal put forward by the majority today is an attempt to dismantle a crucial part of that important law.

Summary of Democratic Amendments Not Made In Order by the Rules

Committee for H.R. 1549--Helping Sick Americans Now Act

(Summaries derived from information provided by sponsors)

Listed in Alphabetical Order--Prepared April 24, 2013

Amendment #4

Sponsor: Capps (CA)

Description: Removes the public health and prevention trust

fund as a pay-for and instead pays for the bill by ending the

section 199 domestic manufacturing deduction for oil and gas

production.

Amendment #5

Sponsor: Green, Gene (TX)

Description: Makes the same changes to the PCIP program

that the underlying bill does, but is paid for by requiring a

minimum term and a remainder interest greater than zero for

new Grantor Retained Annuity Trusts (GRATs)

Amendment #10

Sponsor: Horsford, Steven (NV)

Description: Requires the HHS Secretary to transfer all of

the monies in the Fund for the next four fiscal years to the

PCIP program except those monies from the fund that are used

for reducing health disparities among minority populations.

Amendment #1

Sponsor: Pallone (NJ)

Description: Makes the same changes to the PCIP program

that the underlying bill does, but is paid for through a 4

cent per pack increase in the tax on cigarettes.

Amendment #2

Sponsor: Pallone (NJ)

Description: Makes the same changes to the PCIP program

that the underlying bill does, but is paid for by continuing

the solvency of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund by

increasing the per-barrel amount that oil companies are

required to pay into the fund by four cents.

Amendment #3

Sponsor: Schakowsky (IL)

Description: Extends funding for reopening enrollment under

the Preexisting Condition Insurance Program (PCIP)

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

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is just not an ordinary day, this is a very important thing that is happening here, particularly for those of you who watch Congress a lot and want to know what it is we are about. This is a very special occasion here. As you can see by this poster on my right, we are celebrating a double golden anniversary. Today, the majority is holding the 50th vote to repeal or to otherwise undermine the Affordable Care Act under the 50th closed rule.

Now, to people who don't understand what a closed rule is, that means this rule is coming to the floor to debate these bills, and it will not allow them to be amended. That is not exactly an open Congress in a great democracy.

The majority has defied all expectations in reaching those milestones today, and as one often does when celebrating a colleague's 50th birthday or acknowledging a friend's 50th wedding anniversary, I want to take a moment to reflect on all that the majority has done to achieve this great honor.

Indeed, many Americans, including myself, were doubtful we would ever see the majority hold their 50th vote to repeal a good health care law that is already benefiting more than 9 million Americans because, why would Congress want to take health care away from people?

I remember back in 2012, when CBS News reported that the majority had spent 80 legislative hours--costing approximately $48 million--to hold 33 votes to repeal the ACA. That is just the amount of money spent on floor time and committee time. They had held 33 votes at that time to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Given the incredible waste of time and taxpayer money, I was hopeful that the 33rd vote might be the last. But the majority has persevered, and continued to ignore the Nation's pressing priorities to make it to today's 50th vote.

Of course, getting this far wouldn't have been possible without the help of a closed legislative process--a process that has allowed the majority to pursue a 50th vote without pause.

Last year, the majority presided over the most closed session in history, and repeatedly passed closed rules that shut out the voices of the nearly 200 duly elected Members of Congress who sit on my side of the aisle. Now today, the majority is presenting their 50th closed rule in order to hold a 50th go-nowhere vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

It is truly amazing that the majority has managed to hold the same vote 50 times while so many Americans and so much of the world cries out for help. As we know, there are global crises from Ukraine to Afghanistan. At home, there are millions still looking for work; millions more are working for a minimum wage upon which they cannot survive.

In fact, just this week the number of Americans whose emergency unemployment insurance has expired will surpass 2 million individuals, including almost 200,000 veterans. We could have averted the crisis weeks ago, and we have tried numerous times to do that, but the majority has repeatedly said ``no.'' Indeed, some of our colleagues have said it would be immoral to help out those who have no money coming into their home.

Meanwhile, the Center for American Progress released a report today that found that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would reduce Federal spending on food stamps by $4.6 billion a year. Despite a similar estimate from the Congressional Budget Office declaring that raising the minimum wage

would lift 900,000 people out of poverty, the majority refuses to join my Democratic colleagues and me to give America a raise.

Mr. Speaker, there are dozens, if not hundreds of bills that deserve our consideration, but today's attempt to repeal a good health care law is not one of them. In fact, I have a list of 50 votes that we could be taking today instead of another vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act--everything from rebuilding our crumbling bridges and roads to creating American manufacturing jobs.

Of particular importance is a bill that I authored called the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act that will address the immediate crisis of antibiotic-resistant diseases and help to save lives. Despite the urgent need to protect public health, we have been unable to even get a hearing on this important legislation.

The majority's refusal to take action on any of these pressing issues is truly an achievement, not one to be proud of. I hope I have made it clear that we cannot celebrate that achievement.

Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere hope that the milestone the majority is reaching today will be the end of the line for their tired political game. We have far too many issues that need our attention, and it is well past time that we got to work. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

50 Things the House Could be Doing Instead of Undermining the

Affordable Care Act

1. Comprehensive Immigration Reform

2. Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of

2013 (H.R. 3546)

3. Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013 (H.R. 1010)

4. Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of

2013 (H.R. 1150)

5. Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 377)

6. Make It in America Manufacturing Act of 2013 (H.R. 375)

7. Advancing Innovative Manufacturing Act of 2013 (H.R.

1421)

8. American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2013 (H.R.

2447)

9. Economy, Energy and Environment Initiative to Support

Sustainable Manufacturing (E3) Act (H.R. 2873)

10. Multimodal Opportunities Via Enhanced Freight Act of

2013 or the ``MOVE Freight Act of 2013'' (H.R. 974)

11. American Textile Technology Innovation and Research for

Exportation (ATTIRE) Act (H.R. 937)

12. Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export

Assistance Act of 2013 (H.R. 400)

13. Put America Back to Work Now Act (H.R. 535)

14. Build America Bonds Act of 2013 (H.R. 789)

15. The Customs Training Enhancement Act (H.R. 1322)

16. American Export Promotion Act of 2013 (H.R.1420)

17. Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act (H.R. 1276)

18. Global Free Internet Act of 2013 (H.R. 889)

19. New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans

Solutions (NAT GAS) Act (H.R. 1364)

20. Invest in American Jobs Act of 2013 (H.R. 949)

21. Enforcing Orders and Reducing Customs Evasion (ENFORCE)

Act (H.R. 1440)

22. Export Promotion Reform Act (H.R. 1409)

23. Bridge to Jobs Act (H.R. 1419)

24. Reducing Waste and Increasing Efficiency in Trade Act

(H.R. 3004)

25. Research and Development Tax Credit Extension Act of

2013 (H.R. 905)

26. The Bring Jobs Home Act of 2013 (H.R. 851)

27. Patriot Corporations of America Act of 2013 (H.R. 929)

28. Market Based Manufacturing Incentives Act of 2013 (H.R.

615)

29. Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2013 (H.R. 1027)

30. American Jobs Matter Act (H.R. 1332)

31. Small Business Start-up Savings Accounts (H.R. 1323)

32. Securing Energy Critical Elements and American Jobs Act

of 2013 (H.R.1022)

33. Resource Assessment of Rare Earths (RARE) Act of 2013

(H.R. 981)

34. Congressional Made in America Promise Act (H.R. 194)

35. Security in Energy and Manufacturing (SEAM) Act (H.R.

1424)

36. SelectUSA Authorization Act of 2013 (H.R. 1413)

37. Partnering with American Manufacturers for Efficiency

and Competitiveness Act (H.R. 1418)

38. The Innovative Technologies Investment Incentives Act

(H.R.1415)

39. Cooperative Research and Development Fund Authorization

Act of 2013 (H.R. 1711)

40. Advanced Composites Development Act of 2013 (H.R. 2034)

41. All-American Flag Act (H.R. 2355)

42. GREEN Act of 2013 (H.R. 2863)

43. Workforce Investment Act (H.R. 798)

44. American Manufacturing Efficiency & Retraining

Investment Collaboration (AMERICA Works) Act (H.R. 497)

45. Strengthening Employment Clusters to Organize Regional

Success (SECTORS) Act (H.R. 919)

46. Job Skills for America's Students Act of 2013 (H.R.

1271)

47. National Fab Lab Network Act (H.R.1289)

48. Workforce Development Tax Credit Act of 2013 (H.R.

1324)

49. Job Opportunities Between our Shores (JOBS) Act (H.R.

1436)

50. Broadband Adoption Act of 2013 (H.R. 1685)