Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, everyone here appreciates concerns about the ways of discrimination. The question is how to collect the data in an efficient way, and the new EEOC-1 form is certainly not the way to collect that data.

What do I mean by that, Mr. Chairman?

You have to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. It is not like we don't collect data already. We have 140 different data points on the EEOC-1 form. This would increase the number of data points to 3,306 that an employer potentially would have to report.

Mr. Chairman, if we had better data, that is all right, but let's take a specific example: a large hospital. The new form groups all professionals together. A hospital would have to report what it pays its professionals in the same category, what it pays its female professionals and its male professionals. But, Mr. Chairman, it includes nurses and surgeons in the same category. They are all professionals. In fact, in the United States, for instance, among registered nurses, we have about 3 million--89 percent--are females.

Now, in the United States, we have an estimated number of physicians and surgeons of about 900,000; 65 percent are males, only 35 percent females. They are all grouped in the same category for the EEOC-1 form.

So what would the result be? If you were in a hospital and you had nurses and you had employee surgeons, it would look like you were discriminating against women because the nurses get paid less, and your average salary is going to be less for your women because you have grouped surgeons in with nurses. Only a Federal Government bureaucrat could come up with an idea like that in order to gauge whether wage discrimination occurs.

The fact of the matter is it is even worse, Mr. Chairman, because, based on the reporting of these results, EEOC can go on a fishing expedition against

whatever institution it wants to that files this. And if we don't think that happens, Mr. Chairman, I am just going to say two words: Lois Lerner.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson), the chairman of the subcommittee, and I want to thank the chairman for attaching this section to the bill. It is an important section for our employers.

Mr. Chairman, I just say that it is absolutely true if we were looking at similar work, but the bill does not look at similar work. It looks at huge categories like, for instance, professionals in a hospital that include neurosurgeons and nurses. It is not similar work.

This is the worst kind of data gathering you can have by the Federal Government because, again, they use this to go after employers that they want to go after.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from New York for his remarks. No one is naive enough to think that discrimination doesn't exist.

The question is: What tools should the Federal Government use?

And this certainly is not the tool that is helpful.

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

Mr. Chair, I agree with the gentleman. Pay disparities exist, but we need a precise tool. If we are going to give the Federal Government a tool with which to investigate and punish employers, it should be a surgical tool. This is not a surgical tool. This is an imprecise tool.

The EEOC, again, Mr. Chairman, has 3,360 data points. It groups high- wage professionals with low-wage professionals, and has nothing to do with discrimination. It is an imprecise tool. We should retain the language in the bill.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Calvert for allowing me time to discuss an issue that is important to my constituents in Ocean City, Maryland.

I am proud that Ocean City is home to beautiful beaches and views and, as a result, a booming tourism industry.

I sought the inclusion of section 438 to respond to concerns of Ocean City residents regarding the visibility of the proposed wind turbines offshore. By siting turbines within 24 nautical miles from the shoreline, I am concerned that our beach economy and tourist experience will be compromised. I believe every effort must be made to minimize the impact of this project on the Ocean City view shed.

This large scale project requires full consideration of the needs and opinions of the local community. I look forward to working with my colleagues to develop a practical solution to this challenge.

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, the House delivered on one of the President's promises to increase security in the United States to

stop foreign infiltration into the States to protect us from terrorists possibly crossing our border.

The bottom line is, Mr. Speaker, build the wall.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of one of our nation's most important holidays, Memorial Day. On Monday, May 29, we will honor the brave men and women who have given their lives to this great nation. Over the course of our nation's history, countless Marylanders have made the ultimate sacrifice to protect our freedom here at home and to liberate others from tyranny abroad. Since the War on Terror began in 2002, more than 135 Marylanders have died fighting for what they believe in.

Amidst the festivities and parades we will all enjoy on Monday, let us not lose sight of the sacrifices made by our men and women in uniform, or the sacrifices made by the families they leave behind. These heroes and their families deserve our utmost respect, support, and gratitude. May God bless these fallen heroes and their families, and may God bless the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that tomorrow the House has the opportunity to deliver on the promise that the President made and Republicans made to finally repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act which is crumbling around us.

Mr. Speaker, we do everything we said we would do. Maintain coverage for preexisting conditions and guarantee it, check. In fact, with the MacArthur amendment and the Palmer amendment, we establish high-risk pools that will actually bring down the premium costs for people with preexisting conditions, as it will for all Americans.

Guarantee coverage and renewability, check. Coverage for people up to age 26 on their parents' plan, check. No discrimination based on gender, check.

And most importantly, in the Medicaid program, we not only preserve but strengthen coverage for our elderly, sick, disabled, and pregnant women on that plan.

Mr. Speaker, it is about time we repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the good things that are going to happen on Thursday if we bring the House Republican plan to the floor.

For the first time in 6 years, we are actually going to lower premiums for Americans. We are actually going to take the problems with the ObamaCare bill, the failures of the ObamaCare bill, and correct them.

You just heard, for instance, about Jimmy Kimmel. I guess the comedian published a YouTube video. I suggest you watch the YouTube video and then just google about newborn coverage.

Mr. Speaker, we have the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act--it has been on the books for decades--that covers newborns. This is not an issue. We are a compassionate nation, Mr. Speaker. You and I were both physicians. We understand that we have to take care of Americans.

The American Health Care Act that is forthcoming from the Republicans does exactly that. It not only covers people with preexisting conditions, it adds two layers of protection for them.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge all Americans look at it and just see how much better their health care will be and how much more affordable it will be after we pass the American Health Care Act.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize April as National Lawn Care Month. The landscape industry employs nearly 1 million workers and contributes annual revenue of $78 billion to our nation's economy. From the National Mall to an opening day outfield and even in our own front and back yards, images of beautiful lawns are often iconic depictions of American culture and the American dream.

As we recognize these images, we must also recognize the work that goes into the upkeep of such lawns. Landscape and lawn care professionals play a vital role in ensuring that lawns are not only maintained but also healthy as healthy grass and turf deliver essential benefits to families, communities, and the environment.

Healthy lawns offer protection against disease carrying insects. They provide oxygen, protect our waterways, and clean the air. They are the backdrop for important life memories such as first steps, athletic accomplishments, and gatherings for friends and families. Healthy lawns are important parts of our communities.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding to me.

The gentleman just brought up an interesting point. It is true that in the Netherlands, when they reviewed their experience, they found that just legalizing physician-assisted suicide actually increases the amount of nonphysician-assisted suicide. It sends the wrong message. It absolutely sends the wrong message.

I want to thank the good doctor from Ohio for introducing this bill because certainly the Nation's Capital is one where we should be very careful since the Constitution has entrusted us with approving or disapproving the laws in the Nation's Capital. It behooves Congress to take a good look at a law like this, the so-called Death with Dignity Act. Now, that is striking because most people don't associate suicide with dignity in any way, shape, or form, and for good reason. But I will get to that.

There are a lot of myths associated with the bill. First of all, assisted suicide somehow offers patients more choices. It actually doesn't. What it does is it actually sends a very strong message that regardless of the many types of disease you might have and the many types of treatment that may be available, there is one final, common pathway that the State--in this case, the District--would now say is perfectly acceptable. In fact, it is not only perfectly acceptable, it is legal to actually go to a physician and ask them to participate in your suicide. That doesn't lead to more choice; that ultimately leads to less choice.

But the use of the word ``dignity'' is striking to me because the number one group of individuals, if we would collectively look at how we would describe those individuals to whom this applies, really, are individuals with some kind of disability, perhaps with a disease or disability that, according to the law, two physicians would just have to agree, knowing how imperfect the idea to predict lifespan is, that those could result in death in 6 months. Associating that kind of problem with the ultimate outcome of death by suicide I think removes dignity. It doesn't add dignity to anyone's life.

Worse than that, what we have done now and what we have seen in terms of the functional reduction of choice is that, according to many of the new payment systems for health care in this country, you actually align the incentives of the patient's health care from top to bottom.

What do I mean by that?

Now over half the physicians in the country no longer work for themselves; they are employed by entities. Frequently, these entities share the same financial risk as the physicians in terms of their being driven to save money. That is it. There are numerous incentives to save money within the law. If you don't believe me, go back and read the Medicare rules and regulations.

In fact, it should be noted that in the Netherlands, where assisted suicide has been legal for years, the average age for women is 65 who participate; for men it is 62. That means, Mr. Speaker, almost half the individuals are Medicare patients. There are powerful incentives built into Medicare to save money--powerful incentives--accountable care organizations, for instance, where the physician who is the patient's attending physician happens to work for the same healthcare system that shares in financial incentives if money is saved.

Mr. Speaker, I would proffer--and I think any Member who is against this legislation and for the Death with Dignity Act should stipulate that, clearly, it saves money to give someone a $300 prescription for secobarbital rather than pay for expensive cancer therapy or expensive therapy that might cure a patient. That doesn't give a patient dignity. That doesn't add to their dignity. What that does is it now places the patient in the situation, if they truly understand the financial incentives in the system, to actually question whether their physician is doing the right thing for them.

In fact, the consulting physician under the Death with Dignity Act doesn't have to belong to a different financial entity. A physician working for this healthcare entity who actually saves money through the act of suicide can send the patient right across the hall to a consulting physician to agree, that consulting physician being a part of the same accountable care organization. That is wrong. But that is the situation patients will find themselves in, questioning whether their physician has a financial incentive to write that lethal prescription.

Now, the other straw man that is set up very frequently, and if you look at the Pew Research study that asks people their opinion, ``Do you think we should allow death with dignity?'' they frequently mention only one situation: a patient with terminal disease in extreme pain. But, Mr. Speaker, the data

is that only 20 percent of patients who seek physician-assisted suicide have pain as their primary reason.

Now, we are all compassionate people. Every human being has suffered pain, some human beings more than others, and it is not hard to understand how someone answering that poll question thinking of a patient with terminal illness in severe pain, knowing what pain is about, how difficult it is to treat pain unless it is done with the most modern methods, might say, yeah, maybe dying is better. But, Mr. Speaker, that is a straw man: 80 percent of patients say it is something else; 92 percent saying it is losing autonomy--losing autonomy.

Our solution to losing autonomy in a patient or being less able to engage in activities making life enjoyable, 90 percent of patients saying that, society's solution is to write a lethal prescription?

I will tell you, I am most troubled--and I will close with this. As a physician, I went into medicine to actually help people, to help people get better. That is why people go into health care. That is why my daughters became nurses. They became nurses to help people get better. God knows that is what we want to do. That is true compassion.

But now to say that if a physician, against their Hippocratic oath, shall prescribe a medication that knowingly kills a patient--and let's not mince words. That is what the Death with Dignity Act does. It says a licensed practitioner with a license to heal now has a license to kill--knowingly kill--a patient put under their care. That is a step, Mr. Speaker, I would offer that, as a society, we should take a long and hard look at before we ask our healers to, effectively, become killers.

Mr. Speaker, this year, House Republicans have hit the ground running in addressing harmful and outdated policies that have hindered job growth and hurt the American economy over the last several years. One of our first priorities has been to pass a bill to build the Keystone pipeline, which I hope will have final passage here later today.

It has been 6 years since the original Keystone pipeline application was submitted--6 long years where we would have increased job creation, energy security, lowered energy costs, and built a stronger economy.

It is time to take action where this administration has failed to and move forward with the Keystone pipeline, an issue that has broad bipartisan support and will create jobs and positively impact hardworking families across the country.

We plan on getting a lot done this Congress, and our top priority will be kick-starting our stalled economy. House Republicans remain focused on creating good-paying jobs, growing our economy, and ensuring that every hardworking American has the opportunity to succeed.

I want to thank the floor leader for yielding the time.

Madam Speaker, there is no amendment necessary to this rule. Three weeks ago, we passed a fully funded Department of Homeland Security. Except for the President's illegal actions, the entire rest of the Department is funded: TSA, the Coast Guard; all these critical things.

Let's review how Congress really works. The House takes an action--we did 3 weeks ago--and then the Senate is supposed to take an action. What action did they take? Harry Reid and the Democrats have blocked three efforts to even debate the bill. They know if they didn't take that action, the Senate could debate the bill and they could strike those amendments. The Democrats are free to strike the amendments that we put on the bill that limit the President's illegal actions with regards to amnesty. They know they can.

Madam Speaker, let's be honest. The last time the President shut down the government, 87 percent of DHS was fully funded. TSA was there. The Coast Guard was on the job. Yeah, there were some administrators who didn't go to work for a few days, but let me tell you, after the unemployment problem we have had in this country, there are a lot of people outside the Federal Government who don't go to work for a lot more days. That is not what the American people expect from us.

The fact is that this bill is sitting over in the Senate. The President said 22 times he didn't have the authority to do what he did on amnesty. All we did is just made it quite clear the House position is he doesn't have the authority.

So, we are not going to spend the money. We take article I seriously. We have the authority over spending, and if we think the President is taking an illegal action, we have the authority to withhold that funding--and that is what we did, fund the entire Department except for that one illegal activity the President is doing in violation of article I of the Constitution. It gives us the authority over the law.

The President said he can't rewrite the law 22 times--and he did. We are just going to keep him to his word. He can't rewrite the law.

The previous speaker said you can't do authorizations on appropriations. That is nonsense. We do it all the time. We can correct the President's mistake in the bill. We did. That is the bottom line.

The Democrat leadership in the Senate has blocked even debate on the bill. What kind of country are we when one party, the party that is really holding this bill hostage in the Senate--not the Republicans; it is the Democrats--refuses to even debate the bill? I am shocked.

Americans expect the Senate to debate. That is what we are asking them to do. That is what they are not doing. I don't understand that. Why don't they want the Homeland Security bill to be funded? I don't get it.

Madam Speaker, I will close by saying we just need to move the motion on the previous question, pass the rule, and build the Keystone pipeline.

Mr. Speaker, one area of unfinished business for the 113th Congress is comprehensive tax reform, which would have given us the chance to reduce the burden of the Internal Revenue Code on families and businesses and would have stimulated economic growth.

Recognizing that tax reform is an issue that the 114th Congress should prioritize, I am introducing today a bill that offers a creative solution to the problems associated with the current federal estate tax. I want to note at the outset that I was an early cosponsor of Congressman Brady's legislation to repeal the estate tax. However, as part of the tax reform process, Members of the Ways and Means Committee have demonstrated a willingness to consider a variety of policy suggestions and thus, in the interest of stimulating discussion, I am introducing the American Solution for Simplifying the Estate Tax Act of 2014, the ``ASSET Act.'' As I will explain further, the ASSET Act is intended to be a revenue-neutral solution that would provide a new voluntary simplified method for Americans with large estates to pay a fair share of taxes but without any of the distortive, inefficient effects created by the current method of collecting the estate tax.

The origins of the current federal estate tax arise out of the need to fund World War I and enactment of the Revenue Act of 1916. In that respect, this law has outlived its original purpose. It might come as a surprise to some that over the past 50 years, the much-debated federal estate tax has generated only around one percent of total federal tax collections and in 2013 brought in $14 billion, or around 4/10th of a percent of total tax revenue. When one considers the distortive effects of the current estate tax and the disproportionately low amount of revenue actually raised, it is incumbent upon us to identify more appropriate policy solutions.

The case for reform is dramatically illustrated by reviewing the data cited by the Joint Economic Committee (JEC) in its May 2006 study and updated in a July, 2012 study issued by the Republican staff of the JEC. The 2006 study indicated that individuals' costs of complying with the estate tax (avoiding wealth transfer taxes) roughly equals the revenue yield of the estate tax for the Treasury. Both studies demonstrated that the costs of the estate tax includes tens of millions of dollars of compliance costs, a substantial reduction in the capital stock of our economy, reduced savings/increased consumption, and the dissolution of family-run businesses. The 2006 study cited the Congressional Budget Office in saying that many estates that owed estate taxes had a tax liability in excess of their liquid assets, which is a key reason why many family-run businesses are liquidated prematurely or sold at firesale prices after the death of the primary owner.

One example of this problem is Maryland resident Jack Fitzgerald. Jack is a successful owner of a number of automobile dealerships. He has explained to me and to many others in Congress that he is kept up at night by concerns that he will pass away and that his heirs will have to liquidate his thriving small businesses in order to pay the federal estate tax. He routinely mentions the 1200 employees whose livelihoods depend to a great extent on him and his managers. To prevent against the risk of a forced liquidation, Jack says that he pays nearly $700,000 annually in life insurance premia so that his estate would have enough funds to cover the IRS tax liability. Those are funds that he could be reinvesting in his business, his employees, or otherwise using productively if the current estate tax were not looming in the distance. We all know of farmers, ranchers, and other family-run businesses that have to consider selling at an inopportune time in order to ensure that the tax man will get his share. One famous example was captured in the film, ``Secretariat,'' when the horse's owner almost has to sell him and the entire horse farm to pay the estate taxes after the patriarch's death, but she creatively developed an innovative syndication scheme to raise the $6 million and to keep the trailblazing horse and the farm within the family

My office has received letters in support of the ASSET Act from a diverse group of Marylanders, including a CPA, the owner of a minority/ woman-owned public relations and advertising firm, the president of a general contracting firm, and the Maryland Auto Dealers Association. One gentleman, who is a farmer who also owns an agricultural business, wrote that ``the present federal estate tax law is very detrimental for businesses (whether it be a farm or other operating business) to pass onto the next generation. During my lifetime I have seen many hardworking farmers and business owners' lifetime work be sold upon their death in order to pay for the inheritance tax. This is a bad situation for creating and keeping jobs and it also creates a real hardship on families.''

Responding to their concerns and others I have heard on numerous occasions when meeting with constituents, the ASSET Act offers a new, simplified approach that will solve permanently the problems with the current estate tax. It permits individual taxpayers to opt-in to a new system in which death would no longer be a taxable event. By taking the uncertainty of death out of the question of how and when assets should be liquidated, the ASSET Act will contribute to economic growth and preserve the stability of companies. Small business owners, farmers, ranchers, and others will not have to live their lives fearing the tax liability imposed under the existing estate

tax and will not have to dismantle profitable companies, sell farms and ranches, over-purchase life insurance, and waste their money on lawyers and accountants with sheltering strategies.

Under the ASSET Act, individuals could make a ``down payment'' on their estate taxes during their earning years and then the government would rely upon traditional capital gains taxes to generate revenue from estate assets when sold. In the current draft of the ASSET Act, a taxpayer may ``opt in'' to this approach by agreeing to pay an additional one percent of his/her AGI each year. (If, based on Joint Committee on Taxation revenue estimates, the one percent rate needs to be adjusted to ensure revenue neutrality over time, that would be possible prior to enactment.) Once in the system, these payments must continue through the earning life of the taxpayer, but no tax will be levied against the estate of such a taxpayer at his death. His or her assets remain intact until they are sold, at which time they will be subject to capital gains tax at the then current rate Taxpayers must pay the I percent fee for a minimum of seven years before they can take full advantage of the ASSET Act system.

There are several primary reasons to support the ASSET Act. As noted earlier, owners of small and medium sized businesses could better plan for the orderly succession of their companies and preserve critically needed jobs. This can avoid forcing the heirs to liquidate the company at just the wrong time, destroying the business and eliminating jobs. And, the government can avoid losing significant capital gains tax revenue that it would have realized had the asset been sold at the right economic opportunity in the future. The ASSET Act solves those concerns and ensures stability for vital engines of our economy.

The ASSET Act will help reduce tax avoidance scheming. Current law exempts estates that are worth less than $5 million for an individual or $10 million for a couple. However, it does not solve the liquidation problem for large estates, which will pay 40% on amounts above those levels. Individuals with very large estates or who expect to accrue such large estates now spend a great deal of time and significant money on strategies to shelter their assets from the estate tax. When these strategies are successful, the government receives nothing. That is why, historically, estate tax revenues have comprised only 1% of total federal tax revenues and 2.47% of the AGI of taxpayers earning more than $1 million per year. The ASSET Act eliminates the incentive to hide assets from the IRS and to engage in unproductive strategies and avoidance schemes, so individuals will ``stay within the system'' and contribute their fair share of taxes to the Treasury.

The ASSET Act is intended to be revenue neutral and would offset the revenue loss of eliminating the current estate tax collection methodology for some taxpayers by imposing a very small annual prepayment surcharge and by capturing the benefits of increased capital gains tax revenues that would occur over time as estate assets are sold.

I encourage my colleagues to study the ASSET Act and to work with me to ensure that as the next Congress considers comprehensive tax reform proposals, we leave no stone unturned in the effort to rectify the problems associated with the current estate tax.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Utah for allowing me to speak on this bill on the floor. As the body may know, the gentleman from Utah succeeded me as chairman of that committee. We had numerous hearings about the EPA Science Advisory Board. So I am glad that one of the results of those years of hearings was H.R. 1422, and I rise to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I hope America is watching. The opponents of this bill clearly and simply believe that people who work for the government know best.

We have heard 60 percent of the Science Advisory Board works for the government. They received millions and millions of dollars in grants from the EPA. They work for the government. The other side wants America to believe that because they work for the government they know better.

Mr. Speaker, I did science, and I had an academic appointment. You know, the joke was that people who can, do, and people who can't, teach; that people who don't really know how to do something end up in an academic institution and end up teaching. I have got to tell you, there was some truth to that.

What this bill does, it says that the Scientific Advisory Board ought to be made up of more than just academics because that is really who makes up the board now. It actually ought to be made up of people who are in the field.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you, you know that some of the corporations who are affected by the EPA hire the best scientists they can because they have to deal with the EPA, and those scientific minds, in fact, work in the private sector. They don't work for government.

What is wrong with a balanced approach? The gentleman from California said we should be unbiased, unfettered, and transparent. That is what the Science Advisory Board ought to be.

How can you be unbiased if you come up with the wrong conclusion, the Science Advisory Board? You are biting the hand that feeds you. Because 60 percent of those scientists derive their grants from the EPA.

There is no way they can be unbiased.

Mr. Speaker, they are neither unbiased nor unfettered. We know fully and truly, as the gentleman from Texas said, because of the revelations of Mr. Gruber, that transparency is not a major objective of the administration. And I am afraid that has filtered down to the

Mr. Speaker, last month, on October 23, 2014, we celebrated the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, honoring the memory of freedom fighters who rose up against the communist regime imposed on Hungary after World War II by the Soviet Union. It was not only a culmination of Hungary's struggle for freedom, democracy and independence, but also presaged the collapse of the Soviet Empire. Indeed, the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and Fight for Freedom was the first tear in the Iron Curtain, which collapsed none too soon 25 years ago. Many heroes died fighting, others were tortured and executed, while 200,000 had no other option other than to leave their country. A large number of them came to the United States and, together with their families, started a new life as part of our vibrant Hungarian American Community.

We must never forget the heroes of 1956 who knew exactly what they wanted. They fought and died for freedom, a multi-party democracy and independence from the communist tyranny imposed on their country by the Soviet Union.

One of our greatest presidents, Ronald Reagan, whose statue now stands in Freedom Square of Budapest, remembered the Revolution as follows: ``The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 was a true revolution of, by and for the people. Its motivations were humanity's universal longings to live, worship, and work in peace and to determine one's own destiny. The Hungarian Revolution forever gave the lie to communism's claim to represent the people, and told the world that brave hearts still exist to challenge injustice.''

Consistent with our practice of fifty-eight years, we are committed to keeping the memory of the heroes of 1956 alive. As we contemplate the promise of Hungary 1956, we are reminded that that promise must never be forgotten or abandoned, as the heroes of 1956 deserve nothing less.

Mr. Speaker, article I of our Constitution says Congress makes the laws, article II says the President enforces them, and according to article III, the judicial branch resolves conflicts between Congress and the executive. That is the system the Founders gave us. That is why the House of Representatives is taking the President to court to stop his unlawful actions.

According to legal experts, legislators sued the executive branch 41 times. Sixty-eight percent of the time, they were brought by Democrats, including the Rules Committee ranking member, who joined a 2006 Democratic lawsuit against President Bush. Now, you would think the Democrats could have better spent that time working to avoid the Great Recession of 2008.

President Obama unilaterally delayed the legislative mandate in the Affordable Care Act without consulting Congress. This is only one of many areas he has abused his executive authority, with the latest abuse leading up to the current border crisis.

No President of either party should ever abuse their power. That is why this lawsuit is so necessary.

Mr. Speaker, over half of Americans view the President's health care law unfavorably, according to a new Rasmussen report. But this is no surprise. What started only as a failed Web site has turned into even more logistical failures: problems about applications, questions about subsidies, and lots of confusion.

But the policy behind ObamaCare is equally flawed. Premiums are rising. Americans are losing the coverage they liked. They are unable to see the doctors they were previously visiting. And they are finding that many of the services or drugs that they need are not covered. President Obama promised the opposite of this, and Americans should not be misled by their leaders.

House Republicans will continue to pursue patient-centered reforms so Americans can get the care they need and want, the care they were promised.