Rota Cultural and Natural Resources Study Act

I want to commend the chairman for his work on this and in so many vital areas of the issue of health care on our committee, and I want to thank him for the time and the opportunity to bring this bill forward.

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans' goal in health care is to make certain that we have the highest quality health care in the world. That's our desire. We simply want it to be patient-centered health care, not government-centered health care. We believe that patients and families and doctors ought to be making medical decisions, not Washington, D.C. So this bill, H.R. 2009, grows out of the IRS's activities that have come to light in this country over the past number of months. As the chairman mentioned, we've been doing a lot of oversight hearings in our committee.

The American people have drawn a conclusion about the IRS at this point, and that conclusion is that it cannot be trusted now. The chairman mentioned that the IRS has targeted groups that have come to the IRS asking for a tax-exempt status. It has targeted groups for their political ideology. The IRS has leaked donor information to those groups, and many of us believe--and I think it will come out--that the IRS has, in fact, targeted donors to those groups for audits to those individual Americans.

Mr. Speaker, this is chilling activity from the Internal Revenue Service, so the American people have lost their faith and trust in the Internal Revenue Service. That's why this bill is so important.

This is a very simple piece of legislation--two pages, in fact. All it says, simply, is what the American people believe, and that is that the IRS should not be charged and have the authority to either implement or enforce the Affordable Care Act. I want to commend over 140 Members from this House of Representatives for being cosponsors, and we have hundreds of citizen cosponsors from across the country.

Some say that this isn't necessary, that it is not going to accomplish anything, that there is no reason the IRS would want that information anyway. The fact of the matter is that that's exactly what they said about what they did for the tax-exempt groups. They said, Well, it wasn't necessary for them to get that information about political ideology or beliefs or prayers that prayer groups were offering. That wasn't necessary either.

So, if that were not necessary, Mr. Speaker, how can the American people have faith and confidence that the IRS won't do something that also is unnecessary, and that is to engage in implementing themselves into that trusted relationship between patients and physicians?

Then another piece of evidence, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest is the individual who's running the IRS division that is charged with the enforcement of the Affordable Care Act. Mr. Speaker, that individual is Sarah Hall Ingram. You don't have to look too far back in her biography to recognize that she was the individual who was, in fact, in charge of the tax exempt group in the IRS at the time when the challenges to the IRS had been focused.

Mr. Speaker, the overwhelming percent of the American people understand and appreciate that the IRS should not be involved in the health care of this Nation. We believe patients and families and doctors ought to be making medical decisions, not Washington, D.C., and certainly not the Internal Revenue Service.

I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Record a letter from The Seniors Coalition in support of H.R. 2009.

The Seniors Coalition,

Washington, DC, July 30, 2013.

Hon. Dr. Tom Price,

Cannon House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Price: I am writing to you today on behalf

of the over four million members and supporters of The

Seniors Coalition in support of your bill H.R. 2009, ``The

Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act.'' The Seniors

Coalition was originally founded as a public advocacy group

fighting to repeal the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act.

Since 1990, TSC has grown rapidly and expanded its advocacy

to include any issue that concerns America's senior citizens.

Today the Coalition is one of the largest grassroots advocacy

organizations in Washington, D.C. in terms of number of

supporters nationwide. TSC currently has over four million

supporters representing every state in the union.

The Obama Administration, including the IRS, has betrayed

the trust of the American people. Allowing the IRS to enforce

ObamaCare is opening up the door to more abuse, more

targeting and more harassment of American citizens. The vast

majority of the American people do not support ObamaCare, and

President Obama is ignoring the will of the people.

That is why The Seniors Coalition is writing today to fully

support H.R. 2009. Clearly, the IRS has proven itself either

unwilling or unable to prudently and impartially enforce the

law, and we certainly cannot trust them with our health care.

Thank you for all your hard work Dr. Price, and please

don't hesitate to contact me directly if there is anything

that The Seniors Coalition and its over four million members

and supporters in all 50 states can do to assist you in your

effort to de-fund/repeal ObamaCare.

Sincerely,

Sean Ferritor,

Executive Director.

I'm now pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Speaker, I now insert into the Record a letter from the group Let Freedom Ring that endorses H.R. 2009.

Let Freedom Ring,

July, 2013.

Dear Friend: You have no doubt heard by now that senior

members of the United States Internal Revenue Service were

involved in a politically-motivated effort to blunt the

impact of the tea party movement and other organizations not

in sync with President Barack Obama's agenda for America.

We don't yet know all the facts but we do know that some

groups had their applications for non-profit status ``slow

walked'' through the process, existing groups were subjected

to comprehensive audits, many were loaded down with intrusive

and inappropriate questions about the prayers of their

members and other activities, and that tax returns of major

donors and conservative operatives were audited.

Things are so bad that one senior IRS official who appears

to have been involved ``took the fifth'' before a

congressional investigating committee.

If that were not enough, some of the same people that look

to have been involved in the effort to politically harass

potential opponents of the president's agenda have now been

put in charge of expansion of the IRS's role in monitoring

individual and corporate compliance with Obamacare.

Our good friend Dr. Tom Price, who represents Georgia's 6th

Congressional District, is taking the bull by the horns--but

he needs our help. He has introduced a bill--H.R. 2009--that

would prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from implementing

or enforcing any provisions of the president's health care

law.

Congress needs to act--now--and they need pressure from you

to do so. They need to get behind Dr. Price's bill before the

IRS can do even more damage. Will you please take a moment to

write to your member of Congress and your two Senators and

urge them to support Dr. Price's legislation? Tell them to

cut off funding for the expansion of the IRS for Obamacare

unless and until the American people have all the answers

about how President Obama and his subordinates politicized

the IRS to harass their political opponents.

The whole business is suspicious, especially since the IRS

has for the last three years been denying to Congress that

any such activity or any activity like it was occurring.

Congress is now asking questions and the Obama Administration

has become evasive--despite a report by the IRS's own

inspector general that the agency had committed wrongdoing.

The IRS can no longer be trusted to behave in a non-

partisan manner. It should not be given extra authority until

it can prove once again that it will not abuse the public

trust.

Thank you for all you do on behalf of freedom.

Sincerely,

Colin Hanna,

President.

I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a Member from the great State of Michigan, Dr. Benishek, and a fellow physician.

Mr. Speaker, I now insert into the Record a letter from the group Americans for Prosperity which endorses H.R. 2009.

Americans for Prosperity,

Arlington, VA, July 15, 2013.

Dear Representative Price: On behalf of more than two

million Americans for Prosperity activists in all 50 states,

I applaud you for introducing the Keep the IRS Off Your

Health Care Act (H.R. 2009), which would prohibit the

Internal Revenue Service from implementing the President's

health care law.

The health care law grants the IRS an alarming expansion of

new power, essentially granting the agency the authority to

oversee every American's health insurance decisions. The IRS

will be responsible for enforcing the health insurance

mandates on individuals and employers, collecting the 21 new

taxes created in the law, and cross-referencing individuals'

health insurance exchange applications with IRS records.

AFP is deeply concerned that all Americans will now be

asked to turn over the private health insurance information

about their children and families to a disgraced organization

that has admitted to abusing its power and processing

applications in a biased, political manner. How can the

American people trust that the IRS won't also target American

citizens who disagree with the President when enforcing the

health care law?

Your legislation also affirms the common-sense principle

that control over health care decisions should remain between

American families and their doctors, not Washington

bureaucrats like the IRS. Americans for Prosperity is proud

to support H.R. 2009, your legislation to prohibit the IRS

from enforcing provisions of the health care law. I urge your

colleagues to support its passage, and I look forward to

working with you in the future.

Sincerely,

Christine Harbin Hanson,

Policy Analyst, Americans for Prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson), a gentleman who's a member of the Appropriations Committee, a fellow who has led on this issue for his entire career.

Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Record a letter of support for H.R. 2009 from the organization Restore America's Voice.

Restore America's Voice

Foundation,

Houston, TX, July 12, 2013.

Dear Representative Price: Our more than two million

supporters are grateful for your efforts to strip the IRS of

any authority over the Affordable Care Act as embodied in

H.R. 2009 which you have introduced. Our organization fully

endorses this legislation.

We note with discomfort that this agency seems not only

beyond the control of those tasked with oversight but

willfully resists full disclosure of questionable practices

and abusive methods in Congressional testimony. We have

concluded, based on the evidence at hand, that this agency is

being cynically used for political purposes to frustrate and

intimidate law-abiding citizens who disagree with

Administration policies.

This distortion of the proper role and functioning of the

IRS makes turning over responsibility for the Affordable Care

Act subsidies, penalties and, significantly, access to

private insurance and medical records, a frightening

prospect. We are therefore in complete agreement with the

purpose of H.R. 2009 and fully support passage as the only

responsible and prudent course of action.

Thank you for leadership and hard work in developing this

legislation and for representing the best interests of not

only your constituents but the American people.

Respectfully and gratefully yours,

Ken Hoagland,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the majority leader of the House of Representatives.

I include for the Record a letter endorsing and supporting H.R. 2009 from the group FreedomWorks.

FreedomWorks,

Washington, DC,

Dear FreedomWorks Member: As one of our millions of

FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to contact your

representative and urge him or her to co-sponsor H.R. 2009,

the ``Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act''. Introduced by

Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), this bill would stop the Internal

Revenue Service or any other Treasury department from

enforcing any part of ObamaCare.

Currently, the IRS will be the most crucial department for

actually enacting and enforcing ObamaCare. The premium

subsidies that are supposed to help individuals purchase

health insurance through the exchanges are actually tax

credits, distributed by the IRS. And most significantly, the

IRS is responsible for administering the ``tax'' upon

individuals who refuse to purchase a government-approved

insurance plan--the individual mandate.

More ominously, ObamaCare requires the IRS to collect a

vast amount of sensitive information about the kind of

insurance coverage you have, and will store this information

in a massive new database.

ObamaCare's supporters, of course, claim that the IRS would

never share the medical information they collect, and that

the agency would only collect the exact data necessary to

determine eligibility for premium subsidies. And yet, a

lawsuit filed in California alleges that the IRS illegally

seized the medical records of 10 million individuals in that

state.

Having the same organization that is both targeting

political opponents and stealing people's medical records in

charge of people's health care seems like a recipe for

disaster. Rep. Price's bill would stop the IRS in its tracks,

completely erasing their role in ObamaCare.

I urge you to contact your representative and urge him or

her to co-sponsor H.R. 2009, the Keep the IRS Off Your Health

Care Act today.

Sincerely,

Matt Kibbe,

President and CEO,

FreedomWorks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), a fellow member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Bridenstine), a freshman Member.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my friend from Wisconsin. His chastising us for voting to repeal or change portions of the Affordable Care Act is curious, in light of the fact that the gentleman, himself, I believe, supported one of our efforts just 2 weeks ago on delaying the employer mandate. But hope springs eternal that he'll be able to support our efforts in this endeavor on

Mr. Speaker, I will insert a letter in support of H.R. 2009 from the Americans for Tax Reform into the Record.

I reserve the balance of my time.

[From Americans for Tax Reform, June 20, 2013]

ATR Supports H.R. 2009, the ``Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act of

2013''

(By Ryan Ellis)

ATR supports H.R. 2009, the ``Keep the IRS Off Your Health

Care Act of 2013,'' sponsored by Cong. Tom Price (R-Ga.)

ATR is pleased to announce its support for H.R.. 2009, the

``Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act of 2013.'' The bill

is sponsored by medical doctor and Congressman Tom Price (R-

Ga.) We would urge all Congressmen to co-sponsor and support

the bill.

GAO has reported that there are 47 new powers the IRS has

acquired under the Obamacare law. We here at ATR have pointed

out time and again the 20 new or higher taxes that are

contained in Obamacare. With a new scandal coming out of the

IRS seemingly every day, the last thing that agency should be

doing is snooping into the personal health care lives of over

300 million Americans.

Yet that's just what the IRS is about to do. They will be

the agency tasked with implementing the individual mandate

and the employer mandate. They will force all of us to

disclose our personal health identification information to

them when we file our 1040s every April. They will be talking

to our insurance companies and the Department of Health and

Human Services about our health insurance packages.

This is outrageous. The IRS should have nothing to do with

our health care. Passage of H.R.. 2009 would ensure that the

agency which gave us Star Trek videos and Tea Party

harassment keeps its hands off our health care.

Mr. Speaker, I will include into the Record a letter endorsing H.R. 2009 from a group of six taxpayer advocate organizations.

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

August 2, 2013.

Hon. Tom Price,

Cannon House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Price, We the undersigned groups,

representing millions of Americans, strongly support your

legislation, H.R. 2009, the Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care

Act of 2013. This bill would prohibit the U.S. Treasury

Department from enforcing any provision of the Affordable

Care Act (aka Obamacare), ensuring that the Internal Revenue

Service (IRS) would be removed from implementing or enforcing

any component of Obamacare.

The last several months have proven to be an eye opening

experience for those who are concerned with the growing power

of the federal government, especially the IRS. Repeated and

systemic encroachment into the lives of American citizens by

targeting the very thing they cherish the most, the freedom

of speech, is a cause of great concern among many people from

all sides of the political spectrum. It is imperative to take

steps to ensure we rein in the power of an organization that

has proven to be incapable of handling the authority they

have right now with the responsibility and dignity the

American people expect. New developments on the unnerving

offenses have been uncovered on a regular basis for the last

few months and it is time to make certain that the IRS is

unable to extend these offenses into the lives of citizens

when it comes to their health care.

This legislation makes explicitly clear that the neither

the Treasury Department, nor ``any delegate'' shall have the

power to enforce any provision or amendment from Obamacare at

anytime going forward as the Administration moves to

implement the law. It is paramount that this legislation

passes, with overwhelming support, as it is clear that the

American people have no desire to have the IRS involved in

the decisions they and their families are making when it

comes to their health care. We have already seen the

consequences of the President's health care law on premiums

and job creation and it would be catastrophic to allow the

IRS to contribute to the chaos, considering their recent

record of abuses and mismanagement.

The American people deserve to be trusted with their own

decision making when it comes to their lives, including their

health care choices. The last thing anyone wants is to have

an agency they are already afraid of to be granted more.

We thank you for offering this commonsense language and we

urge all members of Congress to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2009.

Sincerely,

David Williams,

President, Taxpayers Protection Alliance.

Grover Norquist,

President, Americans for Tax Reform.

Jeff Mazzella,

President, Center for Individual Freedom.

Carrie Lukas,

Managing Director, Independent Women's Forum.

Seton Motley,

President, Less Government.

Pete Sepp,

Executive Vice President, National Taxpayers Union.

Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman that I have other speakers that may be coming, but at this point, I have no other speakers on the floor. I am prepared to close at any point.

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will submit a letter from 22 organizations from around the country endorsing H.R. 2009, and I reserve the balance of my time.

August 1, 2013.

Dear Congressmen: We, the undersigned organizations and

free market leaders write in united support of House efforts

this week to get the IRS out of Obamacare.

The House will consider a measure on Friday sponsored by

Congressman Tom Price (R-Ga.) to remove the IRS from any role

in the implementation of the Obamacare law.

It's a basic belief of most Americans that patients,

families, and doctors--not IRS bureaucrats--should be making

health care decisions. While this has always been the case,

its importance has been heightened in recent months by the

uncovered political targeting by the IRS of Tea Party and

other free market groups. The IRS should not be anywhere near

people's medical decisions until this black cloud of

political scandal has been lifted.

Unfortunately, the GAO reports that the IRS has no fewer

than 47 powers to implement Obamacare. That's 47 too many.

Allowing the IRS to enforce Obamacare is opening up the door

to more abuse, more targeting, and more harassment of

American citizens. The myriad of new taxes the IRS will

impose under the guise of health care reform will destroy

jobs, stifle economic growth, and impede medical innovation

in this country.

With Obamacare coming fully online in 2014, now is the time

to stop the IRS from becoming a full partner in our families'

healthcare decisions. House efforts to prevent this from

happening are welcome and all Members of Congress should

support these efforts.

Sincerely,

Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform; Dean Clancy,

Freedom Works; Al Cardenas, American Conservative

Union; Amy Kremer, Tea Party Express; Jenny Beth

Martin, Tea Party Patriots; Heather Higgins,

Independent Womens' Voice; Steven J. Duffield,

Crossroads GPS; Brandon Arnold, National Taxpayers

Union; Colin Hanna, Let Freedom Ring; Jim Martin, 60

Plus Association; Grace-Marie Turner, Galen Institute;

Phil Kerpen, American Commitment; Penny Nance,

Concerned Women for America; Ken Hoagland, Restore

America's Voice; John Tate, Campaign for Liberty; Peter

Ferrara, National Center for Policy Analysis; Ari

Winkour, Harbour League; Gregory T. Angelo, Log Cabin

Republicans; Mark Schiller, MD, Doctor-Patient Medical

Association; Betsy McCaughey, Ph.D, author of Beating

Obamacare; Brian Baker, Ending Spending; David Wallace,

Restore America's Mission.

(Signatures are for information purposes only).

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

Again, it's important for folks to appreciate that the Republican goal in health care is to make certain that every single American has the highest quality health care. We simply believe it ought to be patient-centered health care. And my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about patient-centered health care, but what they support is health care with Washington making decisions. We believe patients and families and doctors ought to be making medical decisions.

Now, what have we heard in opposition to this piece of legislation today? We've heard that Republicans have no plan. Well, on the contrary, Mr. Speaker, we have multiple pieces of legislation. I, in fact, have H.R. 2300, which is a patient-centered bill that makes certain that everybody has affordable coverage; that they are able to have the financial feasibility to purchase the coverage that they want, not that the government forces them to buy. And portability is solved. You don't lose your insurance if you change your job or you lose your job. We solve the whole challenge of preexisting illnesses and injuries, but in a patient-centered way, not a way that the government forces you to purchase what they want you to purchase. And it would provide insurance for every single American.

Second, we've heard this isn't a responsible piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, let me suggest that the American people think this is a responsible piece of legislation, where over 80 percent don't think the IRS ought to have a thing to do with their health care.

We've heard that this bill isn't going anywhere at all. Why do it? It's a futile attempt. Well, I'll remind my colleagues of seven pieces of legislation--bills passed in this House, bills passed by the United States Senate, and signed into law by President Obama--that either repealed or defunded portions of his own health care law.

H.R. 4 repealed the small business paperwork mandate; H.R. 1473 cut $2.2 billion from the ``stealth public plan'' and froze the IRS budget; H.R. 674 saved taxpayers $13 billion by adjusting eligibility for ObamaCare programs; H.R. 2055 made more reductions to the Independent Payment Advisory Board and the IRS; H.R. 3630 slashed billions of dollars from ObamaCare slush funds; H.R. 4348 saved another $670 million from the boondoggle, ``the Louisiana Purchase,'' that was included in the original bill; and H.R. 8 repealed the unsustainable CLASS programs.

All of those repealed or changed portions of the Affordable Care Act signed into law by the President of the United States.

We've heard heart-wrenching stories from our friends on the other side about health challenges and illnesses. And, yes, Mr. Speaker, there are real challenges out there. As a physician, I can attest to that, having spent over 20 years taking care of patients. But the American people don't want Washington deciding what kind of health care they must have or can't have. We need patients and families and doctors making those medical decisions.

And then there's the preposterous assertion from the other side that Republicans don't like affordable care, quality care, accessible care. Nonsense, Mr. Speaker. Nonsense. What we want is the highest quality of care that respects the principles of affordability and accessibility and quality and choices and responsiveness and innovation. We simply want patients and families and doctors to be in charge of health care, not Washington, D.C., and not the IRS.

I urge support of H.R. 2009, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a little time tonight with my colleague, Representative Young from Indiana, to talk a little bit about health care in America, talk a little bit about the Affordable Care Act that is currently being implemented, and talk about the need for real health care reform in this country.

I want to start out by just emphasizing that I firmly believe we need health care reform. I believe that the health care reform we got in the form of the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare, is not the health care reform that we need. And I would say that we have lots of proposals here in the House. I think last Congress we had over 200 bills introduced that related to the health care system, reforming our health care system. And this Congress, we have dozens of health care reform related bills as well.

So the idea that it's either the Affordable Care Act as we're seeing it unfold, or nothing at all, it's a false choice. That's not the choice that we have. There are lots of ideas; lots of much better ideas, I must add. And while I am personally for repeal--I certainly want the Affordable Care Act repealed--I want to replace it with quality, patient-centered health care reform.

I am not against providing relief to Americans who are feeling the burden of the Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare right now. In fact, we had a hearing on the implementation of the ObamaCare law in the Ways and Means Committee today, a committee of which I am a member. And my colleague Representative Young is also a member. And we heard a lot of people say hey, this is the law of the land, don't mess with it. This is the law of the land, let it go. This is the law of the land, any attempt to criticize it, to discuss its shortcomings, is a waste of time.

Well, I reject that outright. And, you know, I think the President, through his actions, has rejected that.

What am I talking about? Well, it's interesting because we've passed seven bills in this House, seven bills, that relate to ObamaCare, changing ObamaCare, repealing a part of ObamaCare, seven that not only passed this House, we sent them to the other side of the Capitol. They passed the Senate. And you know what? The President signed them into law. That may come as a surprise to some folks, but it's the truth. We passed seven bills to change, to modify, to repeal parts of, to make better ObamaCare, and the President has agreed with us on all seven. He signed them into law.

Those are the same bills, and I would like to go through, if I can, the seven bills, and talk a little bit about what they do and how they were an improvement. I think they are evidence that yes, we'd like to replace this bill with something much better, this law, but in the short term, we will do whatever it takes to provide relief to American workers, relief to American families, relief to small businesses that are under the burden of ObamaCare.

So let me mention a few of these.

H.R. 4: H.R. 4 repealed the small business paperwork 1099 mandate. I remember when I first got to Congress, I heard from a bunch of folks about the 1099 filing obligation under the President's health care law. We repealed that. You know what the President did? He agreed. Bad part of the law.

Next, H.R. 1473. We cut $2.2 billion from what was characterized as a stealth public plan, a consumer-operated and -oriented plan, and froze the IRS budget. The President signed that into law.

Next, H.R. 674. We saved taxpayers $13 billion by adjusting the eligibility for ObamaCare programs. The President signed that into law.

H.R. 2055 made more reductions to the consumer-operated and -oriented plan that I mentioned earlier, also to the IPAB, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, an independent board that's going to cut Medicare, because it hasn't been reformed, when it runs out of money. So that was signed into law. And again in today's hearing in the Ways and Means Committee, folks on the other side of the aisle were saying this talk, this criticism about the President's law, ObamaCare, a waste of time, meaningless, all politics. Hogwash; the President signed a bunch of it into law.

Precisely. And a lot of people ask, why all the focus, why all the energy, why all the speeches? Because it's important, number one. And, number two, it takes the energy, the focus, the time, the prioritization, the resources, to convince people, the President included, that this is not the way to go.

Now, I think if you were to throw these seven different bills out there a few years ago when ObamaCare passed and say, hey, what are the chances of the President signing this? People would have said no way. No way it's going to happen. So it's a process. It's a process of making the argument with facts; not through personal attack, with facts. Make the vigorous argument. That's what this body and democracy is about, make the argument, win the argument, and then repeal or change.

And I would mention, there are three more: H.R. 3630 slashed billions of dollars from some discretionary funds, some slush funds which they had some flexibility to use, and the President agreed with that. He signed that into law.

H.R. 4348 adjusted a drafting error. It saved $670 million.

And H.R. 8 repealed what was called the CLASS program--Community Living Assistance Services and Support program. The former Democratic chairman of the Senate Budget Committee called the CLASS program ``a Ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing Bernie Madoff would be proud of.''

We saved billions of dollars through the repeal of H.R. 8. So to reiterate, there are seven bills we fought hard for, and every single one of them ultimately was signed into law by the President of the United States.

Now, I would be remiss if I didn't mention that the biggest change, the most consequential change to ObamaCare, the most open and full recognition that the President's health care law is unworkable and problematic and a burden is the fact that the President himself just a few weeks ago on July 2, through a blog post, a Department of Treasury blog post, said, you know what? I am going to suspend, postpone for a year the so-called employer mandate that is one of the key pillars of the ObamaCare law.

Now, what is that mandate?

If you were to ask me what does full-time mean to you, I'd say, growing up in south Arkansas, full-time means 40 hours in a week or more, right?

That's a commonsense, practical application of what full-time is.

Would that be right under ObamaCare?

So the bottom line is the President recognized--and I applaud him for this--I applaud him for recognizing the problem, the burden of his law, particularly the employer mandate. And he said, I'm going to postpone that part of the law. I'm basically going to repeal, in effect, repeal that for a year; just make that go away for a year as a practical matter.

Now, I applaud his recognition that the law has problems. The problem I had with that action is I don't think, still do not believe the President had the power to do that. If he wants the law changed, he should have called Congress. We would have been more than happy to deliver up a bill--send it over to the Senate--that postponed the employer mandate a year.

In fact, because of the President doing that, that's precisely what we did. So I introduced H.R. 2667, that does that in legislation, not through a regulatory change, a blog post. But I introduced the Authority for Mandate Delay Act, which we voted on. We passed on this floor.

Why?

It does the same basic thing, a little bit different, but the same basic thing that the President was doing, and we did it so that what he did would be legal. And you know what? Thirty-five Democrats supported this bill. Thirty-five Democrats supported this bill, and I applaud them for doing it.

And I would add to that there are many of us that believe the reason this law is not working is because it will never work. It is unworkable by design. It is top-down. It is the old way of doing things in a world that is becoming network bottom-up, innovative, new way of doing things. This is an old central control, top-down way of legislating.

And so the President recognized that. But, of course, for partisan politics reasons, even though my bill did basically what he did, he opposed it. He opposed the bill that would have made his actions legal.

And, of course, now it is sitting, napping, because we hope to awake it, it's napping in the Senate, in the United States Senate, with your companion bill, the Individual Mandate Delay.

Thirty-five Democrats.

That's right.

That's exactly right.

Well, and one in nine of the Democrats voted for your bill. I think it was 22 total. I think, just a year or two ago, that would have been unthinkable, that 35 would have joined voting for the Employer Mandate Delay and 22 or so for your bill. It would have been unthinkable.

It is because we have been relentless in pursuit of a better way, relentless in pursuit of real health care reform, relentless in identifying and letting folks in Washington know that the people back home, constituents, have made their voice very clear, where I live, in Arkansas, on the issue of the Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare.

And what's interesting is, today, in the Ways and Means Committee, we had the head of the IRS testifying. And he was explaining why the President decided to delay, for 1 year, one of the two key components of the Affordable Care Act--one being the employer mandate, and the other part of the law being the individual mandate.

We know that the President delayed that one, the employer mandate, and he was explaining why he did that. And this is a paraphrase of what he said.

It's the head of the IRS describing why the President gave 1 year relief to businesses impacted by the employer mandate. He said, to paraphrase, not a direct quote, but to paraphrase, he said, in effect, we heard from a lot of American small businesses that this was a burden on them, and so we acted to give them relief. That's a paraphrase, but that's effectively what he said.

I agree with the general sentiment. It is a burden on American workers and small businesses, et cetera, and they do need relief, and I'm glad they're getting it.

But it raises the question, why wouldn't you give that same relief, as a matter of fairness, to individuals, families, workers impacted by the individual mandate, the other key component of ObamaCare, of the Affordable Care Act?

Why would you give relief to small businesses and businesses and what have you, but not give relief to individuals?

It fundamentally doesn't make sense. It's not fair.

And when he said that, I thought to myself, well, is it possible that he doesn't know, that the head of the IRS and the administration don't know that individuals and families and workers are also impacted in a negative way, that they are burdened, many of them, by this law?

Yes, they want health care reform. Yes, people need insurance. Yes, people want to be covered. But this is not the way to go.

Does he not know the impact that this law is having?

So I thought, why don't we put all the opinions aside, the op eds, the editorialists, and why don't we just talk about some of the news headlines?

Without my commentary, I thought you and I could just read some of the headlines. These are news stories, not op eds, not editorial writers. These are news stories from a variety of publications from around the country. And I thought it would be instructive to run through some of those tonight.

I tell you what, I'll read through one of these, and I'll put one up. You could read through, and then I'll take one. These are headlines from around the country. And we're going to run through them because they are news stories that, regardless of what you hear from this administration, this is what's happening around the country.

The AP: Florida Insurance Officials: Rates Will Rise Under ObamaCare.

Georgia Insurance Rates Spike Under ObamaCare.

Now, I would point out, we don't have to guess what's going to happen anymore. We don't have to predict what's going to happen.

Why? Because we're already there. Implementation is under way. It's already happening. So we'll just let the facts speak.

Chattanooga Business Owner Says ObamaCare Costing Workers Pay Raises and Benefits.

Consumers Could See 25-Percent Premium Increases Under ObamaCare.

UNA Asks Student Employees to Work Fewer Hours.

I would point out that these are from all over the country. Growing worries about ObamaCare forcing insurers out of State markets.

Iowa Public Radio: Full-time vs part-time workers. Restaurants weigh ObamaCare.

ObamaCare forces work-hour limits for CMU students.

Brevard cuts some workers' part-time hours to avoid ObamaCare rules.

ObamaCare delay is a relief for a family business.

As we see here:

Texas Business Owner Facing $1 Million in Annual ObamaCare Costs;

Maryland Employers Cutting Hours Due to ObamaCare;

Waitress Said She's Losing Full-Time Status Due to the ObamaCare Rule;

St. Pete College: HCC Cut Adjuncts' Hours Over Health Care;

Local Entrepreneur Sells Part of Business Due to ObamaCare.

I share your feeling there. I found common ground with a lot of labor union folks on the Keystone pipeline because they want the jobs.

Here, the labor unions are realizing this is a nightmare.

The members are speaking out.

Here you see:

Restaurant Shift: Sorry, Just Part-Time.

There's a theme here.

Workers' Hours Cut--`ObamaCare' Blamed.

Again, for those just tuning in, we're just reading news headlines, not op-eds. These are news headlines, stories from around the country, everything from the Weekly Standard to the Huffington Post, the AP.

ObamaCare Strikes: Part-Time Jobs Surge to All-Time High; Full-Time Jobs Plunge by 240,000;

16,500 Working Fewer Hours Due to ObamaCare Mandate.

This is one of the mandates we've been talking about here tonight.

Sure.

And these are folks that the Obama administration says are full-time, but they're really not full-time. They may be working 35 hours a week. They don't even have a truly full- time, 40-hour-a-week job, what most folks across America know to be full-time. We talked about this before. Who said that 30 hours is full- time?

A lot of folks working 35 hours are trying to make ends meet. They would rather work 40 and get some other time. But what is happening is they're being cut back below 30, which is not just the number of hours they work. It's simultaneously reducing the money they take home.

That's your bill.

Houston Doctors to Close Doors Because of ObamaCare;

Aetna Letter Warns Customers: `Many People Will Pay More for Health Insurance' Under ObamaCare;

East Penn Cuts Cafeteria Workers' Hours to Avoid ObamaCare;

Affordable Care Act Insurance Mandates Leading Some Businesses to Cut Employees' Work Hours;

Limiting Part-Time Hours Unintended Result of Health Law.

Maybe the unintended consequences have something to do with the fact they didn't know half of what was in the law in the first place.

And we can help those people. We can help those people through other means. As I said before, the idea that it's the ObamaCare model or nothing is a false choice. There are many other better patient-centered ways to do this to reach the same goal.

Health Care Law Causing SCC to Reexamine Adjunct Faculty Members;

Local Employers Struggle with Affordable Care Act.

When employers are struggling, the workers are struggling. The families are struggling.

ObamaCare Glitch Could Make Coverage Unaffordable for Low-Wage Workers;

ObamaCare's $96-an-Hour Cost Spike May End 30-Hour Workweek.

We're getting short on time, so I think we ought to run through these.

I want to talk a little bit about where our bills are now, sitting at the other end of the Capitol. I want to urge our Senate friends to think about the opportunity they have.

But let's take a quick look at these before we close out.

Rancho Cucamonga May Reduce Part-Time Hours to Avoid Health Care Costs;

Part-time Staff Hours in Flux Due to ObamaCare;

Fort Wayne Community Schools Cut Hours for Part-Time Positions;

Maricopa Community College Staffs Pinched by Obama Health Law;

Dallas Area Cities, School Districts Expect Budget Hits from Affordable Care Act.

And the good news just keeps on coming. There's a little sarcasm there. This is just awful.

And there's so many more. One that I actually didn't get up here was reported just tonight. In Ohio, they announced that premiums statewide are going up 41 percent.

AAA Parks Full-Time Jobs, Cites Health Law;

Agencies Must Cut Some Part-Timers' Hours or Offer Health Insurance;

Part-Time Employee Hours Cut Over Health Care;

Fast-Food Worker Hours Cut, New Health Care Law Blamed.

I know we're short on time. We've got some other colleagues that want to talk tonight, but I just want to close

by first of all thanking my colleague, Representative Young of Indiana, for being here with me.

But I'd just like to point out that the employer mandate bill that mimics what the President did, that postpones the employer mandate for 1 year, we passed it here with 35 Democrats, bipartisan. Your bill, the individual mandate postponement, 22 Democrats. We passed them out of here. We did our job.

The worst the White House could say about my bill is that it was redundant. Those bills are sitting down in the Senate, waiting for action.

On the employer mandate delay, they should pass that immediately to make the President's actions legal, and they should pass the individual mandate delay to make the President's actions fair.

I appreciate you being here with me tonight. You are an outstanding member of the Ways and Means Committee, and I appreciate your leadership.

We're running out of time. I want to thank folks for joining us tonight, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Texas: 28.8%.

2. Louisiana: 24%.

3. Nevada: 23.3%.

4. California: 23.2%.

5. Florida: 22.8%.

6. Georgia: 22.5%.

7. Arkansas: 21.9%.

8. Mississippi: 21.7%.

9. Oklahoma: 21.4%.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The protection provided by this law is a guarantee to 5 million Texas residents that their insurance companies will spend 8o percent of their premium dollars on healthcare, or customers will get a rebate from their insurance company.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, the list of benefits from the Affordable Care Act is not complete. In 2014, when the Affordable Care Act's final provisions will become effective, insurance companies will be banned from: discriminating against anyone with a pre-existing condition; charging higher rates based on gender or health status; enforcing lifetime dollar limits; and enforcing annual dollar limits on health benefits.

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

House of Representatives

Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC, August 29, 2013.

Are these some of the very same bills, my good colleague, that the President in recent speeches has characterized as partisan, misguided, meaningless? I do believe you may be referring to some of those bills.

Well, it is hogwash. And it's particularly hogwash because among those various reforms that you've itemized there, let's reflect on how much persuasion, how much public argument was required to even bring the President of the United States to go along with repealing this egregious, superfluous 1099 obligation.

We had to make the public argument. We had to win the argument because there was great reluctance, if recollection serves, and I think it does, to make any changes whatsoever to what most Americans now know as ObamaCare.

The thought was and the thinking still seems to be among a number of our colleagues that if they touch the act, then that is going to lead to further reform, perhaps dissolution or repeal of the act altogether and replacement with something that is more patient centered, with something, frankly, that is more bipartisan.

So to our colleagues who often level criticisms at those of us who are identifying ways to alleviate the pain on the American people with respect to this law, the so-called Affordable Care Act, I think it bears reminding the importance of continuing the argument, forcefully making the argument about all the pain that it is causing.

Well, the mandate is that every employer across the United States of America who employs 50 or more persons on a full- time basis must provide government-sanctioned, government-approved health insurance to their employees.

Now, look, superficially, that sounds just great. There's some problems here. First, this law redefines full-time in a way that Americans have never understood

That's what most Hoosiers think as well.

I think I've traveled quite a bit, gotten to know people around the country. And I don't believe I've encountered, I reckon, anyone who thought that full-time was 30 hours. So where did this come from? Out of thin air, presumably.

Potentially, you, myself and so many other Members of this body agreed with the substance of the President's blog post, though one would question whether we were intended to be a Nation of laws or instead a Nation of blog posts. We could get into that separate conversation.

I think fair-minded people agreed that the delay was appropriate. ObamaCare is not ready for prime time. The computer systems don't seem to be ready. Employers are confused about exactly how this law's going to work, exactly how it's going to impact them. Employees are confused. And something had to be done.

But I think that recognition that something had to be done only occurred because there were people in Congress making arguments, as they continue to make arguments, with respect to the flaws in this legislation.

Well, kudos to the one of, what is it, six colleagues on the other side of the aisle that joined us in voting for your bill.

Thirty-five in total?

I think one out of every six members of their conference were supportive of your bill.

I think that was the right thing to do, the right vote to cast. It certainly preserved the precedent that it is this body that passes the laws, that develops the legislation.

It's the job of the executive branch to sign those various acts into law, and then to execute them, not to recraft the laws as it might see convenient, for whatever motives.

And so you mentioned my bill, which is really, in the end, the American people's bill because it's designed to provide relief to American families, the Fairness for American Families Act.

You know, the thinking behind this is quite simple. If the President wants

to offer businesses a relief from the employer mandate tax, as our Supreme Court has styled it, then why won't you offer relief to working Americans and their families?

It's that simple. And I have yet to hear an acceptable response. No, we're playing politics.

Well, are those one of nine Democrats who voted for my legislation also playing politics?

No, candidly, I think they're being fair minded. Some would argue that they're looking for political cover or whatever. I'll let others assess that.

But, certainly, it's good legislation. It's fair and equitable legislation to accord the same sort of treatment to hardworking Americans that the President would give to the business community.

And though I agree, let me go on record that that business community needs relief too.

There seem to be a lot there. How would you like to proceed?

So the Contra Costa Times of Concord says that half of the Affordable Care Act call-center jobs will be part-time.

The Missourian says ObamaCare is going to impact Franklin County workers.

The Weekly Standard reports Wisconsin grocery store forced to cut hours due to ObamaCare.

The Huffington Post reports that White Castle indicates that ObamaCare is causing them to consider only hiring part-time workers.

KHN indicates Wellpoint sees small employers dropping their health coverage.

There's more.

So we're already picking up on some trends here. From a number of the headlines, we're getting the sense that this health care law is not what we were told it would be, what the American people were told it would be. It's not sustainable. That's why there's all manner of taxes, from medical device taxes to what was once a tanning tax. They're looking for revenue under every rock to make this thing sustainable.

It doesn't control costs. By some estimates in my own State, the State of Indiana, premiums are expected to go up 70 percent-plus within the next year or so. There are problems about access that we're hearing about that are captured in articles around the country. Rural areas, in particular, can expect to have a shortage of doctors as a direct result of this law. And there are quality concerns.

I've just listed my thoughts on what health care reform ought to accomplish. All those various things ought to happen. Unfortunately, ObamaCare is failing on every front. And I don't say this with any celebration. I lament the fact. It's all the more reason that we need to continue to educate our colleagues and that minority of the American people that still believe this is going to work.

There are people behind every one of these headlines.

Forbes says: Labor Unions Are Indicating That ObamaCare Will Shatter Our Health Benefits and Cause Nightmare Scenarios.

My recollection was that labor was very much behind this bill, originally. I would love to work with them or any members of union or union leadership

to be part of the solution here to help alleviate some of the pain. Welcome home.

Absolutely.

Well, they're hearing from their members.

That's right.

Objective journalists.

Let me press ``pause'' here before we read more of these headlines, which are incredibly illustrative and instructive.

So many of them deal with the cut in the number of hours for our wage earners during the worst economy since the Great Depression.

Why is that happening? Why is that happening?

Well, you've got employers that are now mandated to provide health insurance to their employees, and many of them, in order to remain profitable, must change their way of doing business. So they change people from full-time into a part-time status. They hire people into part-time positions rather than full-time positions.

And then we have, perhaps most pathetically and tragically, what has been dubbed the ``29er effect,'' where people are working more than 30 hours a week, many of whom are barely getting by, barely able to put food on the table and meet their utility bills and so on, that are being dropped down to 29 or fewer hours.

How is that helpful to the American people?

That's right. And we have legislation here, again, to address this problem, like the Saving American Workers Act. There's lots of cosponsors here in the House.

I introduced the bill in response to some of the same things I'm hearing from my colleagues who are, in turn, hearing from their constituents and the sort of things I hear back home in Indiana, which is this is absolutely ridiculous. We're helping very few people at the expense of many.

Let's restore the definition of full-time as it's always been popularly understood and provide some relief. So we need to move forward on that. Let's continue to educate and assess what is being reported across the country on some of these.

That's right.

I've seen some Indiana headlines--a number of them--related to some of these effects. One pops out there for me.

The Indianapolis News: School Part-Timers Fear Fewer Hours, Less Pay, as Impact of Health Care Law Kicks In.

Let's remember this is not just businesses that are being impacted. We've got municipalities, school workers, and businesses, especially in the hospitality industry or your retail sector, where we see a lot more people being hired on a part-time basis. Seemingly, every aspect of our economy and much of our society is being adversely impacted by this law.

Now, that's not to say that some people aren't helped. All things being equal, if we can insure a few more million people, that's a great thing; but with all the collateral damage created by this law and its unsustainability, that's the real problem here.

Out in Colorado: Fort Collins Small Businesses Prepare for Affordable Care Act Changes;

The World-Herald: Districts to Cut Back Paraprofessionals' Hours as a Result of Health Care Law.

It's already even impacting paraprofessionals right now.

Beacon Journal: Limiting Part-Time Hours to Avoid Health Care Costs.

More of the same, impacting yet more Americans.

Requirements for Health Care Reform and Resulting Requirements for Chesterfield County Public Schools;

The Salt Lake Tribune: Ahead of Health Reform, Granite District Cuts Part-Time Workers' Hours.

Redundant to the Treasury Department's blog post, it bears reminding. They're sitting over there, gathering dust, as the American people demand relief. It is so important.

I want to thank you for your leadership on this issue. Those in Arkansas are well represented by you on this and other matters, working very hard to ensure that where relief can be provided, we provide it; where the prerogatives of the legislative branch can be defended, you will defend them.

That's where I stand as well. We just need the United States Senate to act.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 30, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills:

S. 37, to sustain the economic development and recreational

use of National Forest System land and other public land in

the State of Montana, to add certain land to the National

Wilderness Preservation System, to release certain wilderness

study areas, to designate new areas for recreation, and for

other purposes;

S. 343, to provide for the conveyance of certain Federal

land in Clark County, Nevada,

for the environmental remediation and reclamation of the

Three Kids Mine Project Site, and for other purposes;

S. 364, to establish the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation

Management Area, to designate certain Federal land as

wilderness, and to improve the management of noxious weeds in

the Lewis and Clark National Forest, and for other purposes;

S. 404, to preserve the Green Mountain Lookout in the

Glacier Peak Wilderness of the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie

National Forest;

S. 753, to provide for national security benefits for White

Sands Missile Range and Fort Bliss;

S. 1169, to withdraw and reserve certain public land in the

State of Montana for the Limestone Hills Training Area, and

for other purposes;

S. 1294, to designate as wilderness certain public land in

the Cherokee National Forest in the State of Tennessee, and

for other purposes;

S. 1300, to amend the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of

2003 to provide for the conduct of stewardship end result

contracting projects;

S. 1301, to provide for the restoration of forest

landscapes, protection of old growth forests, and management

of national forests in the eastside forests of the State of

Oregon;

S. 1309, to withdraw and reserve certain public land under

the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior for

military uses, and for other purposes;

H.R. 507, to provide for the conveyance of certain land

inholdings owned by the United States to the Pascua Yaqui

Tribe of Arizona, and for other purposes;

H.R. 862, to authorize the conveyance of two small parcels

of land within the boundaries of the Coconino National Forest

containing private improvements that were developed based

upon the reliance of the landowners in an erroneous survey

conducted in May 1960;

H.R. 876, to authorize the continued use of certain water

diversions located on National Forest System land in the

Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness and the Selway-

Bitterroot Wilderness in the State of Idaho, and for other

purposes, and;

H.R. 993 and S. 507, to provide for the conveyance of

certain parcels of National Forest System land to the city of

Fruit Heights, Utah.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to John_Assini@energy.senate.gov.

For further information, please contact please contact David Brooks (202) 224-9863, or John Assini (202) 224-9313.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, July 31, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills:

S. 398, to establish the Commission to Study the Potential

Creation of a National Women's History Museum, and for other

purposes;

S. 524, to amend the National Trails System Act to provide

for the study of the Pike National Historic Trail;

S. 618, to require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct

certain special resource studies;

S. 702, to designate the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers

Valley National Heritage Corridor as ``The Last Green Valley

National Heritage Corridor'';

S. 781, to modify the boundary of Yosemite National Park,

and for other purposes;

S. 782, to amend Public Law 101-377 to revise the

boundaries of the Gettysburg National Military Park to

include the Gettysburg Train Station, and for other purposes;

S. 869, to establish the Alabama Black Belt National

Heritage Area, and for other purposes;

S. 925, to improve the Lower East Side Tenement National

Historic Site, and for other purposes;

S. 995, to authorize the National Desert Storm Memorial

Association to establish the National Desert Storm and Desert

Shield Memorial as a commemorative work in the District of

Columbia, and for other purposes;

S. 974, to provide for certain land conveyances in the

State of Nevada, and for other purposes;

S. 1044, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to install

in the area of the World War II Memorial in the District of

Columbia a suitable plaque or an inscription with the words

that President Franklin D. Roosevelt prayed with the United

States on D-Day, June 6, 1944;

S. 1071, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make

improvements to support facilities for National Historic

Sites operated by the National Park Service, and for other

purposes;

S. 1138, to reauthorize the Hudson River Valley National

Heritage Area;

S. 1151, to reauthorize the America's Agricultural Heritage

Partnership in the State of Iowa;

S. 1157, to reauthorize the Rivers of Steel National

Heritage Area, the Lackawanna Valley National Heritage Area,

the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor, and the

Schuylkill River Valley National Heritage Area;

S. 1168, to reauthorize the Essex National Heritage Area;

S. 1252, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to

designate segments of the Missisquoi River and the Trout

River in the State of Vermont, as components of the National

Wild and Scenic Rivers System;

S. 1253, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to

designate certain segments of the Farmington River and Salmon

Brook in the State of Connecticut as components of the

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other

purposes;

H.R. 674, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to

study the suitability and feasibility of designating

prehistoric, historic, and limestone forest sites on Rota,

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, as a unit of

the National Park System;

H.R. 885, to expand the boundary of the San Antonio

Missions National Historical Park, and for other purposes;

H.R. 1033 and S. 916, to authorize the acquisition and

protection of nationally significant battlefields and

associated sites of the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812

under the American Battlefield Protection Program, and

H.R. 1158, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to

continue stocking fish in certain lakes in the North Cascades

National Park, Ross Lake National Recreation Area, and Lake

Chelan National Recreation Area.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to John_Assini@energy.senate.gov.

For further information, please contact please contact David Brooks (202) 224-9863 or John Assini (202) 224-9313.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 30, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1240, the Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2013.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Lauren_Goldschmidt@ energy.senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571, Dave Berick at (202) 224-2209, or Lauren Goldschmidt at (202) 224-5488.