Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 45) to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

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

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

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

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

Then I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vote ``no.''

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

I thank the gentlelady for her leadership.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

discriminating against anyone with a preexisting condition

charging higher rates based on gender or health status

enforcing lifetime dollar limits

enforcing annual dollar limits on health benefits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General Leave

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have an additional speaker, and then my close.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews.)

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

I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

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

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

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

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

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

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 2 minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the minority leader.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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