Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the DC Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. It is simply unfathomable that, other than by the methods banned by federal law, the District of Columbia allows abortion for any reason, by any method up until the moment right before birth. While people may differ on the issue of abortion, Americans overwhelmingly support the notion that abortions should be restricted at the point at which an unborn child can feel pain. And with good reason, the ability to experience pain is one of the traits that makes us human. And the commitment to protect the defenseless from physical acts of violence is one of the hallmarks of humanity.

Science demonstrates that by at least 20 weeks after fertilization, an unborn child can feel pain. In response to this scientific evidence, to date nine states have enacted laws to restrict late-term abortions. Just this week, a judge upheld an Arizona law that does the same thing we're attempting here today, citing the brutal methods used to abort a baby late in a pregnancy and the scientific fact that unborn children have developed pain sensors all over their bodies by at least 20 weeks. It is time to add the District of Columbia to the list of jurisdictions that put an end to the practice of late-term abortions.

I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday the House will meet in pro forma session, but no votes are expected. On Tuesday the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and noon for legislative business. On Friday the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of suspensions on Tuesday and Wednesday, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business tomorrow.

In addition, the House will consider two bills under a rule to stop the tax hikes and provide for comprehensive tax reform: H.R. 8, the Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act, sponsored by Chairman Dave Camp; and H.R. 6169, the Pathway to Job Creation through a Simpler, Fairer Tax Code Act, sponsored by Chairman David Dreier. Together, these bills will ensure that no American faces a tax hike on January 1, while providing our small business men and women with the certainty to grow and create jobs.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the House may consider legislation related to programs and disaster assistance under the expiring farm bill legislation.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I didn't understand the gentleman's question, if he would please clarify.

Again, without having been privy to the conversation between

the gentleman from Illinois and my friend from Maryland, I can say that the minority will be afforded the opportunity to offer the President's tax plan--not just as a motion to recommit, but certainly as a stand- alone amendment, as well.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman, again, it is our intention to allow the minority to offer as a motion to recommit or as a stand-alone amendment the President's plan. Obviously, we'll have to see what is being offered, but that is the intention, consistent with the Speaker's remarks publicly today.

Mr. Speaker, I will say back to the gentleman, we do expect, and our intention is, to allow your tax hike to be made in order. I don't understand, Mr. Speaker, how many more times I have to say that. The Speaker has always represented that we were going to work towards an open process.

I would remind the gentleman that when his party was last in the majority and considered the extension of expiring rates in 2010 that his party made in order just one amendment to H.R. 4853, for their own Member, Mr. Levin, not for the Republicans, because we were not offered a single amendment.

We weren't even offered a motion to recommit. In fact, the Pelosi-led Congress denied us a motion to recommit on 47 separate occasions.

So I would say to the gentleman again, the Speaker has been consistent throughout. We intend to continue to strive towards an open process. We intend to offer you a motion to recommit, a stand-alone amendment, if you want to offer a tax hike twice. That is our intention, yes, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. I'd say to the gentleman, thank you for that note.

I know the gentleman is continuing to express his support for the President's plan. As the gentleman knows, our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle in the Senate feel strongly, as we do over here in the House, that the President's tax plan, as was demonstrated recently by a nonpartisan study, will cost the economy over 700,000 jobs. It will reduce economic output. The gentleman knows our position on that. And we intend to, again, allow for that vote to occur and look forward to a robust debate that will ensue.

Mr. Speaker, I'd say to the gentleman that we're continuing to work with Chairman Lucas and our Members to determine the best way forward.

I would say to the gentleman that the Senate bill he refers to does not have a majority of support in the House, and actually would ask the gentleman if he would respond to the question whether he supports the House farm bill.

Mr. Speaker, I'd say to the gentleman, I'm glad to hear that the gentleman would like to support an effort to address the need for drought assistance and perhaps other programs that have or will expire, and look forward to perhaps his support if that's where we end up next week, allowing for that vote to occur, along with his support.

Mr. Speaker, I respond to the gentleman and say that, as he knows, the Senate bill is unconstitutional because it contains a revenue measure in it. So we are unable to get to conference with the Senate. I think that I, as well as the Speaker, have indicated that we support going to conference with the Senate. They need to produce a bill so that we can go to conference and effect a passage of that very important legislation to allow for relief monies to get to the victims that that bill and legislation is designed to protect.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman knows the Senate bill can't pass the House.

We're trying to produce results for the people and particularly for the victims that need that assistance in that bill, and believe that this, our bill, the VAWA bill that passed the House, can pass the Senate. And again, I would say that the Senate bill is unconstitutional and it can't pass the House.

So it seems to me that the best way forward is for the Senate to agree to the bill, which pretty much extends existing legislation, with some minor changes, so that the victims of abuse needing the assistance can actually receive that assistance.

I would respond to the gentleman by saying there are many women Members of our conference that are cosponsors of that bill, and I know of at least one, if not more, who've been subject to domestic abuse, and feel that our bill does provide the necessary protections for everyone who is subject to domestic abuse, and feel that the bill does address the concerns the gentleman raises.

And in the business of trying to produce results rather than to dwell on where there are differences, if those individuals who sponsored the bill and who have, unfortunately, had experience in domestic abuse, as well as law enforcement, if that is the case, certainly, those individuals would know about it more than the gentleman or I. I think we ought to go about passing this bill and allow for the Senate to go ahead and do so, so the victims of domestic abuse can actually receive the protections and assistance they deserve.

Will the gentleman yield?

I said to the gentleman, we really do want to go to the conference with the Senate. Okay? And so it's not pass the Senate bill or no bill.

We want to go to conference with the Senate, Mr. Speaker. I've said that. So I do take exception to the gentleman's remarks.

I'd say to the gentleman, the Senate postal bill does not have majority support in the House, and we are continuing to work with Chairman Issa to ensure that there isn't an incident of default on the part of the Post Office. I think that the Postal Service has indicated that there is no risk of that in the short-term, and we're going to continue to address that to ensure that that does not happen; all the while, trying to address the overall issues, as the gentleman knows, that the Postal Service has in trying to get its fiscal house in order.

Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman, I know that our staffs have been working very diligently on this trying to iron out the differences with the other body and am very hopeful that we can get this done prior to the August recess.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday next.

I thank the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of legislation before us that will cut red tape and spur small business job creation. Small businesses create the majority of new jobs in this country; but over the last 3 years, there's been a 23 percent decline in new business start-ups.

The President says he wants to help grow small businesses; but, frankly, his actions have not matched his rhetoric. Recently, the President attacked hard-earned success, telling small businessmen and - women and entrepreneurs that if you've got a business, you didn't build it. Well, it's pretty clear that the President doesn't get it.

Since the President took office, his administration has had under review more than 400 regulations that cost the economy $100 million; and small businesses are facing annual regulatory costs that add up to $10,000 per employee.

If you're a small business owner, this is just part of the maze of the regulatory red tape you're facing today. And where do we get the information for this chart? From President Obama's administration's own Web sites at SBA and the IRS.

The president of a trucking company in Ashland, Virginia, in my district, says that constant regulatory changes by the EPA have caused the prices for his operation to go up. These rising costs have, frankly, made it more difficult for him to plan for the future, difficult for him to operate in the present and, frankly, have just made it plain too hard.

We are voting today on cuts to red tape so we can empower small business owners like the one in Ashland to start growing again. Our legislation freezes costly new regulations until national unemployment drops to 6 percent or lower.

Further, we give small businesses the ability to intervene before government agencies agree to legal settlements that result in more onerous regulation.

The bill also increases the transparency for Federal agencies that have been operating outside the purview of regulatory review, such as the Obama administration's National Labor Relations Board.

Mr. Chairman, we know that, just this year, thousands of pages of red tape have been published, imposing billions in new compliance costs on businesses. Under this bill, we will require all agencies to perform the thorough cost-benefit analyses of proposed regulations. In other words, agencies must finally ask the question of whether and how their proposed actions will affect job creation and our economy. Federal regulation must become smarter and less harmful to our economy.

Mr. Chairman, we know small businesses are built because of the men and

women who take risks, work hard, and invest capital in new ideas. Because it's just too hard for these small business owners to operate, we've brought this bill forward, and that is why I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 487 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

I thank the gentlelady from Florida for her leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the U.S.-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act. As the gentlelady just said, Mr. Speaker, I, together with my counterpart, Steny Hoyer, Chairman Ileana Ros- Lehtinen, and the gentleman from California, Ranking Member Howard Berman, in May introduced this bill, and the House passed it with nearly unanimous support.

At a time when we are facing huge fiscal challenges, this bill makes it clear that no matter what, the United States always stands strong in our support for Israel, with whom we share a commitment to freedom, a respect for human life, and a commitment to security.

Among other things, this bill allows for the continuation of longstanding loan guarantees to Israel, we restate the importance of maintaining Israel's qualitative military edge, and we improve military and intelligence cooperation, particularly with respect to joint missile defense.

We also reiterate our commitment to stand with Israel in international forums like the United Nations, where Israel often finds itself in an unfriendly environment. And, Mr. Speaker, we encourage NATO to welcome an expanded role for Israel. Our investment in Israel's security is an investment in American security.

Beyond this bipartisan expression of America's support for Israel, there is much the United States can do to protect our interests and the interests of our closest allies in the Middle East. But we cannot do so as a spectator.

The U.S. must lead. We cannot rely on Vladimir Putin and Kofi Annan to broker the peace in Syria, or stand idly by as Iran and Russia protect Bashar Assad, one of the world's most active state sponsors of terrorism. And we cannot and must not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons capability.

Mr. Speaker, we must meet the existential threat Iran poses to Israel, its neighbors, and the world with strength and engagement. We cannot allow situations in the region to unfold without our leadership. In fact, during my recent trips to the region, I have found there is more agreement on the need for U.S. leadership than anything else.

Today, Mr. Speaker, the House will send this bipartisan bill to the President and deliver the message that, during this pivotal and dangerous period in the Middle East, the United States stands tall for our ally, Israel.

I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for yielding.

Madam Speaker, on Monday, the House is not in session. On Tuesday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and noon for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m.

Madam Speaker, the House will consider a number of bills under suspension of the rules, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business tomorrow.

In addition, the House will consider H.R. 5872, the Sequestration Transparency Act, sponsored by Congressman Jeb Hensarling. This is a bill that will bring needed transparency to the administration's process for implementing devastating cuts to our national defense and many social programs on January 2. Chairman Paul Ryan and the Budget Committee passed this bill in a bipartisan fashion, so I expect it to be brought up under suspension of the rules.

Finally, and in keeping with funding our national security, the House will consider H.R. 5856, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, sponsored by Congressman Bill Young. This will be the House's seventh appropriations bill of the year.

I expect the defense funding bill to be on the floor for the balance of the week. Members should be aware that late evening votes are possible on Wednesday, July 18, and Thursday, July 19.

I thank the gentleman for the question.

Madam Speaker, we've been, as the gentleman knows, very transparent about scheduling the floor, sending out a memo making Members aware of where we're headed for the remainder of the July period. I would say to the gentleman that, after next week, we will be focusing on cutting red tape, reducing the regulatory burden on our job creators. As we know, the regulatory atmosphere in this country is making it more difficult and more expensive for small businesses and large to create jobs. We'll be focusing on that.

The following week, Madam Speaker, will be the week in which we will bring forward a piece of legislation to stop the tax hikes to ensure that all Americans know we are not going to see taxes go up for them at the end of this year.

In addition to that, we'll bring forward a bill that will be focused on how we get to a pro-growth tax system in this country, laying out the principles for tax reform and suggesting an expedited procedure so that we can actually achieve results for the American people so that our job creators and working families can get back to work.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would say to the gentleman about this week's vote--in fact, today-- today we voted on a bill that helps us ``Mine it in America.'' The gentleman likes to speak about ``making it in America.'' Why shouldn't we also be mining it in America? So it's very much a bill to facilitate that business and industry in this country in an environmentally sensitive way. In fact, 22 of the gentleman's caucus Members joined us in that vote--"Mine it in America,'' Madam Speaker.

As to the gentleman's question about the suggestion that perhaps the regulatory environment does not affect the potential growth or real growth in this country, that is something that I don't believe the gentleman agrees totally with that statement, because I know he and I both have worked on trying to streamline regulations here. We don't want overly burdensome regulations on small or large businesses or working families.

So again, I would take issue with the suggestion that economists would say that regulatory atmosphere and framework don't have anything to do with job creation. Of course it does. It has to do with the environment for one to take a risk, for investors to put capital to work, for entrepreneurs to go out and sign their name on the dotted line with the bank. Of course regulation has something to do with job creation and growth. That is exactly our point. And I hope the gentleman will join us in the week that we bring these red tape reduction bills to the floor to help us accomplish something so that we can roll back the unduly burdensome framework and make sure we have a smart framework of regulation so that we can see America grow.

As to the gentleman's final question about scheduling another repeal vote of ObamaCare, if the gentleman would like to do so, I'm happy to meet with him. Right now, as the gentleman knows, we have done that this week. And I would say to the gentleman, the reason why perhaps we spent so much time on that issue, it is the most personal issue to many millions of Americans. It's their health care; it's their family's health care. At the end of the day, this election season will underscore the importance of people engaging in this discussion and participating in our democracy because the kind of health care that we will have in this country will be determined by the outcome of the election.

The real question is, Madam Speaker, are we going to have Washington- based health care or patient-based health care? That's what it comes down to. Who's in the driver seat, patients and their doctors, or Washington-based bureaucrats deciding what kind of coverage we can have? We all know what's happened with that approach under ObamaCare: costs have gone up, employers are beginning to shed the plans, and people will not be able to have the health care they have. That's why we've spent the time we have on this bill.

I'd say, Madam Speaker, to the gentleman, can you repeat the question?

I would respond to the gentleman, Madam Speaker, that, yes, we have scheduled for that week a vote on the bill to extend existing rates. That extension will be for a year.

We will also be bringing up a bill that will outline the principles for tax reform that I know the gentleman also

has said we need to reform our Tax Code so that we can help make it fairer, more simple, and so that we can see the economy grow again. Those vehicles will be brought up that week, yes, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I'd say to the gentleman, I think I disagree with the gentleman, there haven't been hearings.

I think, for the last year and a half, Chairman Camp and his committee have been fast about looking at the Tax Code, talking about tax reform, divulging what it would mean for us to have an increased tax environment for this economy. We've been all about the economy and growth.

I'd say to the gentleman, he likes to say, why can't we do jobs bills? We have been doing jobs bills. He complains about the 30-some bills we've been doing relating to ObamaCare. I would say we've done even more than that relating to jobs.

I would ask the gentleman to just remember where those bills sit right now. They're on the doorstep of the Senate, and the leader over there refuses to bring them up.

And so, again, I'd say to the gentleman, we stand ready to work together so that we can produce results for the people that sent us here, and that is the purpose of bringing forward the bills that have been talked about, have been dissected, in terms of existing tax rates, where they may or may not go, how they affect growth in this economy. That's what we're doing.

We've had multiple votes, multiple hearings on tax reform, on what the tax rates mean, and this vote will be very clear. If you want to stop the tax hike for all Americans, at all income levels, you'll vote for the bill. If you want to engage in tax reform, if you feel the Tax Code is too complicated, it needs to be simplified, rates brought down, loopholes closed, you'll vote for the bill. It's that simple.

I would say to the gentleman, that is correct.

Madam Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, this is a very simple and clear choice here. Given this economy, if one wants to raise taxes on all Americans, you vote against the bill. If you want to go and help folks through a more simple Tax Code, and you want to look towards tax reform, you vote for the next bill. Straight up or down.

There has been enough discussion, enough hearings, in the Ways and Means Committee, as well as the Budget Committee. These issues were central to our budgets. Your Members on the Budget Committee, as well as ours, I had a full open hearing on that budget document and a markup.

We believe now's not the time to raise taxes on working people, small businesses and large. The economy is anemic. We don't have enough job growth. Why do we want to take more of people's hard-earned money? That's why we're bringing this bill forward.

This bill is straight up or down. Stop the tax hike or not.

Madam Speaker, I think the gentleman has heard my response.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman knows that his side of the aisle will have an opportunity to posit their position on taxes through the regular process of a motion to recommit. And as I had said publicly yesterday, when asked, are the Democrats in the House going to be able to offer the President's tax proposal, I said, absolutely they will.

So we'll see. We'll see, Madam Speaker, if the gentleman decides to put forward the President's tax proposal calling for a tax hike on American small businesses. We'll see if that happens, Madam Speaker. But we will see, and that will be the week it will happen.

You're either for stopping tax hikes or you're not.

Madam Speaker, what I would say to the gentleman is holding hostage working families is denying them a job. It's about jobs. The gentleman can play with the statistics all he wants and claim that 97 percent of the small businesses will get a tax break this way and that let's leave the other for later; but the significant fact is, it's with the others where the significant job growth can be.

Why would we want to go and tax job creators? We know that 50 percent of the people who will get a tax hike under the President's proposal get at least a quarter of their incomes from small business, and the more their incomes the more the percentage. That means the jobs

So why would we want to stop job creators from hiring people? Because Washington takes more of their money. Why would we want tax rates to go up on anybody in this anemic economy? And why would we want to go and raise taxes when we haven't put an end to the out-of-control spending in Washington? Because what you're doing is digging the hole deeper.

That's our position, Madam Speaker.

So I would ask the gentleman straight up: Is the gentleman going to bring to the floor a motion to recommit for his proposal, the President's proposal? Is that going to be the motion to recommit? Will the gentleman actually put his words to work and have that be their motion to recommit?

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow, and further when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at noon on Tuesday, July 17, 2012, for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. Speaker, there are many issues in the health care law that require Congressional attention. After repeal of ObamaCare, as we craft proposals to reform the health care system, there are a variety of issues that were dealt with in the original ObamaCare law that had nothing to do with the central elements of the law that we will seek to address. These include for example reforming the Medicaid program in a way that, among other things, addresses disparities in Medicaid funding amongst the states and territories. Puerto Rico Governor Fortuno has personally raised this latter issue with me. The Governor has taken commendable steps to reduce Puerto Rico's deficit and grow its economy and it is important that with respect to Medicaid, Puerto Rico and the other territories be treated fairly.

Madam Speaker, it is my honor to yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), the chief deputy whip.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the Republican conference chairman.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington, the Republican Conference vice chair, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, the Republican Policy Committee chairman, Dr. Price.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the majority whip, the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy).

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close and reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I introduced this legislation on behalf of my colleagues so that we may all be on record following the Supreme Court's decision in order to show that the House rejects ObamaCare and that we are committed to taking this flawed law off the books.

This is a law, Madam Speaker, that the American people did not want when it was passed, and it remains a law that the American people do not want now.

First and foremost, ObamaCare violates President Obama's central promise to the American people that if they like their current health coverage, they can keep it. The vast majority of people in this country like the health care that they have and they want to keep it. But now, thanks to this law, patients across the Nation are losing access to the health care they like. Millions stand to lose health care coverage from their employers because ObamaCare is driving up costs and effectively forcing employers to drop health care coverage.

Beyond that, ObamaCare takes away from patients the ability to make their own decisions and individual choices. Instead of letting patients and their families work with their doctors to decide the best care, ObamaCare puts Washington in the driver's seat to make health care choices for them and their families.

Taking away choice, driving up costs, and making health care dramatically more expensive is not the prescription that Americans asked for.

Madam Speaker, we know in this tough economy we need to be doing everything we can to help our small businessmen and -women. They are struggling because of uncertainty and facing the prospect of one of the largest tax hikes in history. ObamaCare increases that burden by adding new costs and more red tape. The new harsh reality is that creating new jobs and bringing on new employees may just be too expensive and too burdensome if this law is left to stand.

The President said throughout the health care debate--as did former Speaker Pelosi and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--that his health care law was not a tax. Well, we now know that the Supreme Court has spoken: It is a tax. Madam Speaker, it's time to stop all the broken promises and get back to the kind of health care people in this country want.

It cannot be overlooked that ObamaCare also has disastrous implications for the moral fabric of our Nation. Despite the claims to the contrary, this law actually paves the way for Federal funding of abortion, violating many individuals' religious, ethical, and moral beliefs. It is also the basis from which President Obama launched an assault on the religious freedom of millions of Americans by requiring employers to cover items and services with which they--and perhaps their employees--fundamentally disagree.

Washington-based care is not the answer. There is a better way to go about improving the health care system in this country. The American people want patient-centered care that allows them to make the very personal decisions about health care with their families and their doctors. They want to keep the care they like. They want to see costs come down, and they want health care to be more accessible. That is the kind of health care we on the Republican side of the aisle support, and frankly the type of care that the vast majority of the American people support.

Madam Speaker, we have said since day one that we must fully repeal this law. Today, we can start over and we can tell the American people, we are on your side, we care about your health care, and we want quality care at affordable cost. We listened, and we've acted.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

First of all, I would say to the gentleman, my friend from New Jersey, we on this side of the aisle care about the health care of the American people. That's why we're here. That's why I brought this bill forward, along with and on behalf of my colleagues. It is not about Members of Congress. It is not about trying to say that you get health care and we don't get health care.

This is a dire situation for millions of Americans. There are so many things going on right now--critical, critical needs out there across this country where people are out of work, people don't have their health care. People are hurting. And for us to sit here and discuss a motion to recommit like this, I just don't think, Madam Speaker, it is what the American people would like us to be doing. It is about health care for Americans.

Most Americans do have health care. Most Americans like the health care they have, but it's just too expensive. And more and more Americans are going to go without health care because of this law. And as the President said when he first started this discussion in 2009, Americans that have health care and like it should be able to keep it. Well, that is clearly a promise that's been broken. And we are trying to end the era of broken promises. We are trying to end the era of Washington-controlled health care.

We believe, as do most of the American people, that patient-centered care is our goal. That's where we need to start. We start along the path towards that goal by repealing ObamaCare. ObamaCare has added cost upon cost. In fact, the average American family, in terms of the premiums that they pay, has paid a premium increase of approximately $1,200 since the passage of ObamaCare. In fact, the CBO estimates that insurance premiums for individuals buying private health coverage on their own will increase by $2,100 in 2016 compared to what the premiums would have been if the law had not passed. This is why, when study after study is showing that people are not able to keep the health care they like, it's because of the cost. People aren't able to afford it. The employers are unable to afford it.

We are after patient-centered care. We are after affordable care. And we are trying to improve and enlarge the access to care. ObamaCare fails on all those fronts.

So, Madam Speaker, it is not a game to be played, as is evident in this motion to recommit. It is about the American people and that health care.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to recommit and urge them instead to vote for the passage of repeal of ObamaCare.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the fallen police officers of Henrico County, VA. We have with us today the Henrico County Police Athletic League, who are in Washington to lay a wreath at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, in honor of the fallen and their families.

The legacy left by the fallen officers of Henrico County illuminates the strength of their commitment to public service. To pay tribute to those officers whose lives were tragically shortened, 250 students from Henrico

County, VA have traveled to Washington to participate in today's wreath laying ceremony. These students are part of a program offered by the Henrico County Police Athletic League that instills in young people the values of integrity, self-respect, and discipline.

I offer my support and gratitude to the families and countless friends of these officers that have paid the ultimate sacrifice. Their memory is an inspiration to all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me today in remembering the fallen heroes of Henrico County, and thanking the Henrico Police Athletic League for service and commitment to our community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Montford Point Marines for their selfless service to our country and for their fortitude in the face of social turmoil. This group of warriors forever remains a testament to the American ideals of bravery, patriotism, and liberty.

Through the courageous efforts of civil rights activists and President Franklin D. Roosevelt's signing of Executive Order 8802, race restrictions on the defense industry were eliminated during the buildup of World War II. And in 1941, African Americans wanting to serve their country were given the right to do so.

Though still facing adversity in segregated camps, these brave soldiers answered the call to arms without hesitation and trained to become United States Marines at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. Between 1942 and 1949, more than 20,000 men were recruited and enlisted at Montford Point. These Marines would steadfastly serve our country during a time of great social unrest. The example they set and the legacy they left at Montford Point inspired countless future Marines and inspires us all today.

President Truman's signing of an executive order in 1949 desegregating the military is surely a direct reflection of these Marines' role as trailblazers of racial equality. The sacrifice of the Montford Point Marines represented a pivotal step forward for our country and they deserve our utmost respect and admiration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me today in saluting the Montford Point Marines as they receive the Congressional Gold Medal commemorating their timeless example of valor and American heroism.

I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet in pro forma session, but no votes are expected.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and noon for legislative business.

On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of bills under suspension of the rules, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business tomorrow.

In addition, the House may consider two appropriations bills next week, H.R. 5972, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act, and H.R. 5973, the Agriculture, Rural Development, and Food and Drug Administration Act.

Members are advised that the House will begin consideration of one of these two bills after the 6:30 p.m. vote series on Tuesday and should expect an additional late evening series of votes on amendments. Again, Mr. Speaker, that is on Tuesday.

The House is also scheduled to consider a privileged resolution finding Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the U.S. Department of Justice, in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena issued by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Finally, I expect the House to consider legislation dealing with both the expiring authority of our Nation's highway programs, as well as the pending increase in the Federal subsidized student loan rate.

Before I yield back, Mr. Speaker, I want to assure Members that we will accommodate both the congressional White House picnic on Wednesday night, as well as the congressional baseball game on Thursday evening. Debate may continue on appropriations amendments after the picnic and during the baseball game, but during those events no votes will take place.

I thank the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

I would say to the gentleman the conferees continue to work in a bicameral nature. The discussions are proceeding between Chairman Mica and Chairman Boxer. And as the gentleman knows, I have said before, we are desirous of seeing a bill done, as the gentleman said, to afford more certainty to the folks who are relying on the funding of our Nation's transportation program. We certainly think it would be a huge benefit to producing a bill prior to the expiration of the program next week, but knowing full well most of us do not want to see any kind of shutdown in the funding, that we would be prepared in any way to make sure that does not happen.

But the intention is to allow these conferees to continue to do their work and, hopefully, we'll have a bill to vote on next week.

Mr. Speaker, I'd say to the gentleman, it has been our position all along that we do not want to see the expiration of the funding of the program to impact the students that right now are struggling, and we have presented to both the White House, as well as the gentleman's side of the aisle here in the Capitol, various ways of accomplishing that end in a responsible manner, in a fiscally responsible manner so that we're not digging the hole any deeper, we're not incurring any additional debt in order to do that, and thus far, have not seen a willingness on the part of the White House.

I am aware that there are discussions ongoing on the other side of the Capitol to see if there can be some resolution on this issue. And that's all I can say to the gentleman as far as I know.

Mr. Speaker, I'd respond to the gentleman, and I think the gentleman does know this is a privileged resolution of which he speaks, and it would be subject to the 1-hour rule, just as privileged resolutions were under their majority, Mr. Speaker, and we will expect to proceed accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, I'd say to the gentleman, this is an issue of making sure that the American people are given an opportunity to have all the information surrounding the issues involved with the Fast and Furious program.

This is an issue that we feel, as has been indicated by the actions of Chairman Issa, that in acting with all reason, asking of the administration and the Attorney General to produce certain documents, the Attorney General, having agreed to produce certain documents, then refusing to do so, Chairman Issa, leading up to the vote in committee the other day had said all along, if the Attorney General had produced the documents, that there would be a postponement of the hearing.

And in the same fashion, Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman, the Democratic whip, if the Attorney General would do what it is he committed to do and produce the documents, we'll postpone the vote. We've not seen any indication of that. He has not done that. And that's why I've announced the vote.

Mr. Speaker, I would say that some of that is still in discussion, but this resolution does have privilege.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman, as he knows, the Senate has the so-called ``blue slip'' problem with its bill, and that is about as far as I know as to the progress in the Senate.

As the gentleman knows, we passed the bill here in the House. We did so in recognizing the suggestions and incorporating the suggestions that the GAO had made as to how to streamline the grant programs on the Violence Against Women Act to allow for dollars to reach victims in a more expeditious manner. We wholeheartedly support the passage of that as the gentleman saw when it passed the House. We would like to see a resolution on this.

Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the gentleman and say to the gentleman that, again, if he looks at the schedule, we are scheduled and have been in accord with that schedule and in session more days this year than we were in a similar year last session. So I would say to the gentleman the schedule is right on track. The predictability, the certainty of this schedule, has allowed for the work to continue.

We will be here throughout July. Our intention is to continue to focus on job creation. We will be looking, obviously, towards the Supreme Court and what its actions may bring next week on the issue of ObamaCare. If we have to act in response to that to assure all Americans that we want and care about their health care, we will do so. If the Court does not strike down the bill in its entirety, the gentleman knows our conference is fully committed to the total repeal of the ObamaCare bill.

In July, we will continue to focus on that bill and its impact on employers. We also are very concerned about the overreach of the regulatory agencies in this town and intend to bring forward a bill with a series of provisions which will address the red tape that has begun to strangle the innovation and growth in this economy.

We will also be very focused on a measure to stop the tax hike that is facing the American people this year. If you look at the enormity of the tax hike, it is something that is hanging over this economy, that is hanging over the mindset of small business people and working families. I don't think anybody would advocate raising taxes, especially in this economy.

That will be the outline of our work with, obviously, some other measures that may be brought up in July.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday next.