Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize some recent innovations in private lending to graduate and undergraduate students in U.S. colleges and universities. I also want to encourage our nation's wealthy individuals to think about participating in these programs as one way to give back to our communities. Since its inception in 2011, the Social Financial company, or SoFi, has offered compelling community-based lending and consolidation programs, and this academic year will assist students from 45 colleges and universities across the country.

At its core, SoFi demonstrates the powerful idea of community lending. It brings alumni, students, and schools together to ensure students' debt burdens are manageable. For the upcoming 2012-13 academic year, SoFi used its equity base and additional capital from alumni to secure $80 million to finance, fund, and support new student loans. This innovative student loan solution benefits students, alumni, higher education institutions, and our nation. The funds from school- specific lending pools allow students to enjoy comparatively low- interest loan rates and opportunities to refinance previous loans. In addition, the alumni that contribute to the pool earn a significant and low-risk return, while schools gain access to low-cost funding.

Mr. Speaker, although I do not expect private lending schemes to supplant available federal loan structures, I believe Social Financial's commitment to the betterment and transformation of the financial services landscape for students sets an example for how to innovate in this field. I commend SoFi for its hard work, community partnerships and innovation, and congratulate SoFi on its continuous expansion to schools across the U.S. In order to tackle student debt, we will need to be creative, in exactly the ways SoFi has been. I encourage those who have the means and desire to give back to follow Social Financial's example and invest in the education of the next generation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Lawnside Volunteer Fire Company No. 1 for its tireless efforts protecting and serving the residents of Lawnside over the last 100 years. At this great milestone, I recognize the heroic work of these individuals who routinely place themselves in harm's way for the greater good of the community. These volunteers serve as vanguards of safety and stability, performing necessary duties that few are willing to undertake.

Since its humble beginnings in 1912 with only a small fire hall and single Model T Ford, the Lawnside Volunteer Fire Company has found growth through determination and community initiative. Through fundraising and the awarding of federal grants, the Lawnside Fire Company steadily grew its fleet of emergency vehicles, providing greater lifesaving assistance to the Lawnside community. The Lawnside Fire Company has also gained statewide recognition as a premiere company, having won a series of awards at the annual New Jersey Firemen's Convention.

Mr. Speaker, Lawnside Fire Company's contributions and endless dedication to the Lawnside community should not go unrecognized. I join the citizens of Lawnside and all of Camden County in honoring the achievements of this exceptional fire company.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, Americans who served on the school board or a parents council or the board of trustees, their fire company, that have ever had a dispute about what to do know that one of the ways to resolve the dispute is to say, Listen, let's take the things that we agree on and do them, and set aside the things in which we disagree and argue about them later. But let's agree

on the things we can do and get them done.

I think virtually every Member of this Chamber agrees that if a family makes less than a quarter of a million dollars a year, their taxes should not go up. Let's pass a bill that says that and then move on to the things on which we disagree.

Here is one of the things that we disagree on: The majority's bill that's on the floor raises taxes on 25 million Americans, and they are some of the Americans who least merit and deserve a tax increase. For example, an E4 corporal in the Marine Corps with 4 years of service, married and with two children sees his taxes go up by $448 a year under the Republican bill. Under the Democratic bill, that Marine's taxes do not go up. A military police sergeant, an E5 in the Air Force, who has 8 years of service, with a spouse and three young children would see a tax increase of $1,118 a year.

How could this be?

In 2009, President Obama increased the earned income tax credit, which helps low-income people who work for a living, and he increased the child care credit, which is working people with children. We pay our marines, our Air Force, our Army, and our sailors a lot less than we should. They're very underpaid, and they take advantage of these tax breaks.

The Democratic bill preserves these tax rules for working families, including members of the military; the Republican bill does not.

So I would urge my friends on both sides of the aisle to do the following: Let's oppose the rule that's on the floor, which gives us a chance to amend the bill. When we amend the bill, let's cancel out the tax increase on the Air Force sergeant of $1,118 and let's cancel out the tax increase on the Marine corporal of $448.

Vote ``no.''

[From the Center for American Progress, Aug. 1, 2012]

House Republican Tax Bill Leaves Some Military Families Behind

Military Families with Modest Incomes Could Lose Important Tax Credits

(By Seth Hanlon)

The House of Representatives today is scheduled to vote on

a House Republican proposal (H.R. 8) that purportedly extends

all tax cuts but actually raises taxes on about 25 million

families by reducing certain tax credits. The 25 million

families include middle-class families and students who

currently benefit from a tax credit for college expenses.

Others are parents raising children on modest incomes who are

helped by the child tax credit and earned income tax credit.

Some, as illustrated below, are members of the U.S. military

and their families.

The competing Democratic proposal, which has already passed

the Senate (S. 3412/H.R. 15), extends all income tax cuts for

the 98 percent of families with incomes under $250,000

($200,000 for singles), including these tax credits in their

current forms.

Below are three illustrative examples of military families

whose tax bill would rise next year under H.R. 8, the House

Republican tax bill.

A corporal (E4) in the Marines with four years of service,

who is married and has two children would see a tax increase

of $448 under H.R. 8.

In 2009, President Barack Obama signed into law

improvements to the earned income tax credit--an important

tax credit that boosts the earnings of low- and moderate-

income workers. In 2009, 211,000 military families benefitted

from the earned income tax credit.[1] One of the 2009

improvements reduced the tax credit's so-called marriage

penalty (phasing out the credit at higher income levels for

families that file joint tax returns). H.R. 8 would let that

provision expire, increasing the marriage penalty and thus

reducing the EITC for married couples in the phaseout range.

With military basic pay of $27,660[2] (and assuming no

other household income), this Marine Corporal's family is

affected by the worsened marriage penalty under H.R. 8. As a

result, the family's tax credit would be reduced by $448

under H.R. 8 compared to the current tax rules, the Senate-

passed bill, and the House Democratic alternative. Here are

the details:

Marine corporal (E4), four years' service, married with two

children;

Military basic pay: $27,660

Earned income tax credit under current tax policy and

Democratic plan: $4,326

Earned income tax credit under H.R. 8: $3,878

Tax increase under H.R. 8: $448

A military police sergeant (E5) in the Air Force with eight

years' service, with a spouse and three young children at

home, would see a tax increase of $1,118 under H.R. 8.

Another provision enacted in 2009 boosted the value of the

earned income tax credit for families with three or more

children, reflecting the fact that these families have a

higher cost of living. H.R. 8 would let this provision

expire, so that families with three or more children get the

same-sized tax credit as families with two children.

With basic pay of $34,723, this sergeant's family would be

affected by both the earned income tax credit's worsened

marriage penalty under H.R. 8 and the reduced credit for

families with three or more children. In total, the family's

earned income tax credit would be reduced by $1,118 under

H.R. 8. Under the Senate-passed bill and the House Democratic

alternative, it would not be cut. Here are the details:

Air Force sergeant (E5), eight years' service, married with

three children:

Basic pay: $34,723

Earned income tax credit under current tax policy and

Democratic plan: $3,508

Earned income tax credit under H.R. 8: $2,390

Tax increase under H.R. 8: $1,118

A private in the U.S. Army (El) in his first year of

service, who is married with an infant child, would see a

$273 tax increase under the Republican plan.

The child tax credit generally provides a $1,000 credit per

child. But the credit is only partially ``refundable'' for

families who do not have federal income tax liability in a

given year. H.R. 8 would reduce the ability of some low-

income families to claim the credit. That is because the

credit's refundability is based on the level of a family's

earnings above a certain threshold--and H.R. 8 would raise

that threshold.

With basic pay of an estimated $18,196 in 2013, the Army

private's family's income is too low to owe federal income

tax because of the standard deduction and personal

exemptions. Under H.R. 8, the family would only be able to

claim a partial child tax credit, limited to $727. In

contrast, under the Senate-passed bill and the House

Democratic alternative, the family could claim the full

$1,000 credit for its child. Here are the details:

U.S. Army private (El), first year of service, married with

one child:

Basic pay: $18,196

Child tax credit under current tax policy and Democratic

plan: $1,000

Child tax credit under H.R. 8: $727

Tax increase: $273

These are just three typical military families who face a

tax increase from H.R. 8's failure to extend important tax

benefits for working families. Many families with similar

incomes, military and nonmilitary, would face similar tax

increases because of H.R. 8's failure to extend the child tax

credit and earned income tax credit improvements. H.R. 8 also

fails to extend the American opportunity tax credit for

families and students paying for college.

In all, the House Republican plan raises taxes on about 25

million families, including 18 million families with children

(constituting 37 percent of all families with children).[3]

By contrast, all 98 percent of families with incomes under

$250,000 ($200,000 for singles) would see no tax increase

under the Democratic bill, and the 2 percent of Americans

with higher incomes will keep tax cuts on their income up to

those amounts.

Seth Hanlon is Director of Fiscal Reform at the Center for

American Progress.

I thank the chairlady from Florida and my friend from California for recognizing some grave and serious points.

First, they recognize that on the 11th of September of 2001, 19 people armed with airplane tickets and box cutters wreaked havoc on the United States of America. They recognize that a group of people with a small, improvised nuclear device could wreak havoc far worse than that on the Mall that stands in front of this building or on Times Square.

Weapons these days are not just delivered by intercontinental ballistic missiles; they can be delivered by U-Haul trucks or by other means. This is the essential threat of Iranian nuclear proliferation to the United States.

The choice that we face is whether we should take concerted action to prevent that threat or whether we shouldn't. I commend the chairlady and my friend from California for choosing to unify this Congress, this country with the rest of the world with the proposition that we should present the Iranian leadership with a choice. If they decide to abandon their nuclear weapons program--which they illicitly concealed for 25 years--if they agree to live under international protocols, then the sanctions that have been imposed will be lifted and we can move forward toward peace and progress. But if they do not, they will most certainly suffer the consequences of a deteriorating economy and problems within their social structure.

We have made our choice to stand united in favor of these strong sanctions. We are presenting the Iranians

with their choice. Let us hope and pray they make a choice for peace and renewed prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor our South Jersey Olympians: Tamika Catchings, basketball; Rachael Dawson, field hockey; Michelle Vittese, field hockey; Jordan Burroughs, wrestling; and Steve Kasprzyk, rowing. They have traveled to London to compete in the 2012 Summer Olympic Games.

These athletes represent the United States on the world stage, affording them the distinct honor of serving as role models for citizens across South Jersey area and the entire nation. Their success, derived through hard work and dedication, and exemplified through athletic competition, is something every American can aspire to as a shining example of the American dream. In the same way our national ethos rewards fortitude and persistence, these athletes earned the opportunity to compete on the Olympic stage through long hours of training and sacrifice.

Part of the Olympic Creed, originating from a speech by Ethelbert Talbot during the 1908 London Games, states: ``The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.'' One hundred and four years later, as the Olympics return to London, the message rings as true as ever. Through fierce competition amongst the nations of the world, these athletes continually push the limits of human achievement. The resulting bonds of friendship, gained through equally world-class sportsmanship, enrich both these athletes and their nations.

Mr. Speaker, the dedication of these South Jersey Olympians and their teammates to athletics and sportsmanship should not go unrecognized. I join all of South Jersey in expressing our pride in their efforts.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman and the gentlelady.

If I could speak on the gentleman's reservation, obviously there is no nefarious intent. There's no question about that. I would like the House to understand where we are procedurally.

It's my understanding that the House, yesterday, spent the better part of the day debating a bill which said that regulation should not take effect until unemployment hits 94 percent. Is that the gentleman's understanding?

I would assume that that flows from the fact that people didn't read the bill, because we debated yesterday for most of the day on a bill that erroneously said ``regulations can't take effect until unemployment hits 94 percent.'' The intention evidently was ``until employment hits 94 percent.''

Then it's my understanding that we find ourselves at the present moment in a situation where the correcting rule that would have fixed the word ``unemployment'' to be ``employment,'' itself, has an error in it, that it refers to another bill by reference; is that correct?

And I yield to the gentlelady from North Carolina.

If the gentleman would yield, my understanding is it was in the fourth paragraph of the bill.

I thank my friend for yielding.

I agree completely with the gentlelady that human mistakes are made, but that is not what this is about. And certainly the House should review----

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Ranking Member, I recently wrote a letter to the Secretary of Defense to ask for his assistance in documenting the annual cost to the military of treating servicemembers and veterans who are living with hydrocephalus.

Hydrocephalus is a medical condition characterized by the abnormal accumulation of fluid within the brain. Experts suspect that two-thirds of the 41,000 servicemembers diagnosed with moderate to severe traumatic brain injuries over the past decade also suffer from hydrocephalus.

The primary treatment for hydrocephalus, a shunt implanted in the brain, was developed decades ago and has the highest failure rate of any implanted medical device. Veterans living with this condition will face a lifetime of medical uncertainties and incur costly brain surgeries, unless a better treatment is found.

Would the ranking member, the gentleman, be willing to work with us to help gain a better understanding of the incidence and cost of hydrocephalus among our injured servicemembers and veterans so we can focus the appropriate amount of DOD research dollars on finding a better treatment?

I yield to the ranking member.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Walz of Minnesota

Mr. Speaker, as a strong supporter of Taiwan and a founding member of the Congressional Taiwan Caucus, I would like to bring to your attention an issue of concern to Taiwanese Americans and the people of Taiwan.

The former President of Taiwan, Mr. Chen Shui-Bian, is currently serving a 19-year prison sentence for corruption charges. He has been incarcerated for over 1,200 days thus far. Today, I am inserting into the Congressional Record a summary report drafted by a three-man medical team led by former professor Joseph Lin, Ph.D., and professors of the University of California at Davis Medical Center, Ken Yoneda, M.D., and Charles Whitcomb, M.D., who visited Mr. Chen Shui-Bian in jail in Taiwan last month in their capacity as private citizens. The report is titled, ``The Effects of Incarceration on the Mental and Physical Health of Former President Chen Shui-Bian of Taiwan.'' A full transcript of the report is available here: http://www.fapa.org/public/ CSB_Report_to_TLHRC_12Jul2012.pdf.

These medical professionals traveled to Taiwan in June 2012 to assess President Chen's physical and mental condition, and to inquire into reports of inhumane living conditions and confinement. The physicians concluded that President Chen's imprisonment conditions are contributing to President Chen's health problems. In their recommendations the report concludes: ``Former President Chen Shui-Bian [should] be released from confinement on medical parole based on the above assessments, conclusion and recommendations, and on compelling humanitarian grounds.''

I am entering this report into the Congressional Record and, in light of the conclusions, ask that the distinguished Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission investigate this important case at its earliest convenience.

Report to the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, United States House

of Representatives

An Assessment and Recommendations

The Effects of Incarceration On the Mental and Physical Health of

Former President CHEN SHUI-BIAN of Taiwan

(By U.S. Citizen Medical Team--Joseph Lin, Ph.D., Ken Yoneda, M.D.,

Charles Whitcomb, M.D.)

July 12, 2012

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Sabrina Umstead Smith, and her husband Roosevelt Smith, for their work to provide resources and financial support for the families of chronically ill children by founding the non-profit organization, The Erick J. Umstead Memorial Foundation, Inc.

In 1988, Sabrina lost her first husband in an apartment fire while expecting a child. As a result of oxygen deprivation caused by the fire, the child was born with underdeveloped lungs and cerebral palsy. Tragically, just three years later her young son succumbed to these medical disabilities.

Sabrina knows the challenges of caring for a chronically ill child. Motivated by a desire to make a tangible difference in the lives of chronically ill children and their parents and caregivers, she founded the Erick J. Umstead Memorial Foundation.

The foundation provides numerous services, to the families of chronically ill children, students, and medical professionals. Caregivers Count provides grants to financially disadvantaged parents and caregivers. Future Health Care Leaders offers scholarships for undergraduates who intend to pursue providing care to chronically ill pediatrics. The Assistive Technology Program awards grants to hospitals and pediatric facilities to purchase specialized equipment and devices that facilitate the developmental progress of chronically ill children. In addition to financial aid, the foundation also provides a resource center for parents on their website, and distributes donated pajamas for chronically ill children.

Mr. Speaker, Sabrina's endless dedication to chronically ill children and their families should not go unrecognized. I join all of South Jersey in thanking her for her efforts.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am.

Madam Speaker, if my amendment passes, we will proceed immediately to final passage of this bill. It doesn't delay or defer consideration in any way.

My amendment raises the following question: Should Members of Congress live by the same laws we write for everyone else?

I say we should.

The last 2 days have been filled with sincere focus and passionate debate about the future of the Affordable Care Act. Members whom I respect and admire have taken strong positions saying we should repeal the law. Members whom I respect and admire have taken strong positions saying we should uphold and enforce the law, as I believe strongly.

But whether you believe in the repeal of the law or the upholding of the law, you ought to believe in the basic principle that when we write a law around here, we should live by that law the same way everybody else does. So my final amendment says that supporters of repeal should live by the same consequences that everyone else will live by if they succeed in repealing the law.

You see, because if my amendment does not pass and the bill passes, Members of Congress will be protected if an insurance company tries to discriminate against us because we have had breast cancer or asthma or diabetes, but our constituents will not enjoy that protection.

If my amendment does not pass but the underlying repeal bill does pass, Members of Congress cannot be forced to pay higher premiums because they are female or because they are a certain age, but our constituents will not enjoy that protection.

If the final bill passes without my amendment passing, we will be able to take our sons and daughters who are less than 26 years of age and keep them on our own policies, but the people who pay our salaries, our constituents, will not have that protection.

If the underlying repeal bill passes without the amendment that I'm offering, then we would, as Members of Congress, get help paying high prescription drug bills under Medicare, but our constituents under Medicare would not enjoy that same benefit.

If my amendment does not pass, and the underlying repeal bill passes, if, God forbid, a member of our families is struck with a horrible disease or malignancy and runs up millions of dollars of bills, the insurance company will not be allowed to say, ``Sorry, we're going to stop paying your health care bills because you've run up against a lifetime or annual policy limit,'' but Members of Congress will have that protection.

So, you see, I think this comes down to a basic point: If we write a law, we should live by it. This is something that I think most Members, liberal, conservative, Republican, Democrat, say when we go home to our district.

We, frankly, have all encountered constituents who wonder why we don't pay into Social Security. The truth is we all do--we all do--just the way our constituents do.

We run into constituents who say that they don't understand why our sons and daughters can pay off their student loans or get them forgiven for free when their kids can't. That's false. Our sons and daughters live under exactly the same student loan rules everybody else does.

We have people ask us, you know, how come we don't follow the tax laws everybody else does. We most certainly do. Republican, Democrat, liberal, and

conservative live by exactly the same laws that we write.

I don't think we should make an exception to that policy here. And if you don't vote for this final underlying amendment--and I think we all should--if you don't vote for this final underlying amendment, understand what happens. Members of Congress are protected against preexisting conditions, but our constituents aren't. Members of Congress are permitted to have our sons and daughters on our policies until they're 26, but our constituents can't. Members of Congress can't be charged more for premiums because of their age or their gender, but our constituents can. Members of Congress under Medicare would get certain rights and privileges and their prescription drugs, but our seniors and constituents can't.

I think whether we agree or disagree with the Affordable Care Act, we all ought to agree with this principle: When Congress writes a law, we should all live by it.

So I would respectfully say to my friends, both Republican and Democrat, if you believe in the law you're having to vote for today, then vote to live under it as well. Vote ``yes'' on this motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank my friend from New York. It's great to be with her on the floor today, and my colleagues on the Republican side as well.

Today we could be voting on a bill where we work together to cut taxes for small businesses that put Americans back to work, but we are not. Today we could be voting on a bill that would help cities and counties and States around the country rehire police officers and firefighters and teachers they've had to lay off--over 600,000 of them the last few years--but we are not. Today we could be voting on a bill that would say that, if an American company brings jobs back from overseas, we'll cut their taxes and we'll pay for it by eliminating tax giveaways and loopholes for companies that outsource their jobs outside of the United States and take them overseas, but we're not voting on that. For the 31st time in the last 18 months, we're voting on a bill to repeal the health care law.

Now, I know there are Americans who feel strongly for and against the health care law, but almost every person I listen to feels very strongly we should be working together to help create an environment where businesses can create jobs for the American people, not voting for the 31st time on essentially a political argument.

Now, I do agree with my friend from Texas--and I thank him for mentioning my name; I respect him very much--about the need for facts in this debate. There is one fact that I think we've got to get to right away, which is whether or not the law that they are trying to repeal for the 31st time increases or decreases the Federal deficit.

The Congressional Budget Office, which is our neutral, nonpartisan auditor, said in January 2011--the first time of the 31 when the other side tried to repeal this law--that repeal of the law would add $220 billion to the deficit. In other words, if you write the law off the books, the deficit goes up because of the spending restraints and the new revenues that are in the bill.

I would want to ask my friend from Texas if he can tell us what the effect of the repeal of this bill--in other words, if this bill passes, what will this bill do to the deficit, according to the Congressional Budget Office?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Reclaiming my time, I would then respectfully ask my friend: Why don't we wait and see what the auditor says the bill will cost before we vote on it? My understanding is that they're going to do that probably by the end of this month. Why don't we wait and see what the auditor says it's going to cost before we vote on this bill?

And I would yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Our side is going to try to bring some facts to the debate. My friend from Minnesota, the chairman of the committee, said this is a job- destroying health care bill. Since the day the President signed the bill, American companies have created 4.3 million private sector jobs.

At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, who clearly understands the need for high-quality health care for all people in our country, Mr. Hinojosa.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I would ask my friend from Michigan if he could just stay for a question.

My friend from Michigan just said that there is an estimate that the bill has doubled in cost, and I have read all the CBO analyses of this bill. I wonder if the gentleman could tell me the source of his statement from the Congressional Budget Office that the bill has doubled in cost from the original estimate.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, if the gentleman could supplement the record with the date and the document that says that, I would appreciate it.

At this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a gentleman who has become an expert on the budget, who understands that this repeal bill increases the national deficit and debt, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, we know what our Republican friends mean when they say give seniors more choice under Medicare. They mean let them choose which private insurance company should run Medicare instead of regular Medicare. American seniors know you can count on the Medicare guarantee no matter what the circumstances are, whether you're profitable to take care of or not. That's why they support Medicare. That's why we support Medicare, even though the majority has voted on several occasions to terminate the Medicare guarantee.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a gentleman who understands that preexisting conditions should be made illegal and insurance companies should not be able to pursue them, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.

We share the gentleman from Wisconsin's concern about squeezing down health care costs. The record shows that since the Affordable Care Act was enacted, growth in Medicare costs, which had been 8 percent annually, has fallen to 6 percent annually by stopping giveaway corporate welfare profits to insurance companies and other waste while increasing Medicare benefits.

I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to a Member who understands that being a woman should never mean paying higher premiums or being a preexisting condition, the gentlelady from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, we continue to hear this charge that there's $500 billion in Medicare cuts in the health care bill. Here are the facts: the new law eliminates a corporate welfare subsidy for certain health insurance companies and goes after some wasteful Medicare practices. All the Republican speakers who have spoken today must agree with those cuts because every single one of them has voted for every single one of those cuts in the last two Ryan Republican budgets. Every dollar of Medicare savings in the Health Savings Act is in the last two Republican budgets.

I am pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to someone who understands the benefit of families' being able to keep their sons and daughters on health insurance policies until they're 26, my friend and colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 25 seconds.

The gentleman just said this is the largest tax increase in American history. Here is the record: there are two kinds of people who will pay higher taxes under this law. Ninety-seven percent of American families won't pay one dime of tax increases under this law. The first family that pays a tax increase is a family with a gross income in excess of about $300,000 a year. It's about 1 percent, maybe 2 percent, of the U.S. households. The second is a person who can afford health insurance, who elects not to buy it, who uses the emergency room and expects his or her neighbors to pay their bill. That's not the largest tax increase in American history.

At this time, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a gentlelady who understands who gets hurt if this law gets repealed, the gentlelady from San Diego, Mrs. Davis.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Two points with respect to my friend from Virginia's comments:

This tax, once again, 97 percent of American families don't pay a dime more in taxes here. It's families with a gross income in excess of about $300,000 a year and people who can afford health insurance, opt not to buy it, and send their neighbors the bills.

These regulations my friend talks about, here's what one of the regulations says:

If your health insurance company--which doesn't really have to compete for your business because they have a monopoly or oligopoly-- doesn't spend money on your premiums, at least 80 or 85 percent, they have to give you the money back as a rebate.

I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.

This summer, millions of American families will be getting rebates from their health insurance companies because they haven't spent their money on care; they spent it on profit and overhead. We don't think that's such a bad regulation.

Mr. Speaker, in the interest of time, I think my friend, the chairman, has more speakers than we do, so we're going to have them go two for our one to kind of keep it even, if that's okay with my friend, the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.

My friend from Pennsylvania just made reference to the employer mandate. It's very important that the public know and the Members know that if a business has 50 or fewer full-time employees, what they have to do under the Affordable Care Act is nothing. There is no mandate of any kind for a business with fewer than 50 full-time employees.

I'm pleased at this point to yield 2 minutes to a gentlelady who fought hard for senior citizen rebates and prescription drugs, the gentlelady from Cleveland, Ohio (Ms. Fudge).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

My friend's comments echo ones we've heard for the last 2 years about the unconstitutionality of the law. The Supreme Court spoke with great authority to that question. People may agree or disagree with the policy, but this law is clearly constitutional and valid.

I am pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), the author, the originator of the discrimination provisions against preexisting conditions, the gentleman that really initiated that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

The gentleman from Indiana just said that this would be where taxes would hit the middle class. I wish that were true in some ways because the people this hits are people with a household income of over $300,000 a year. I wish more people in the middle class made more than $300,000 a year, but they do not.

And then secondly, with respect to Medicaid enrollees, for the first 3 years the Federal Treasury picks up 100 percent of that cost. And thereafter, the average is about 95 percent of the cost of the new enrollees. This is a benefit to State governments, and I predict that virtually all of them will opt to join in.

At this time, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a gentleman who understands the impact on hardworking families being able to get affordable health care in this country, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.

The gentlelady just talked about cutting a half a trillion dollars from Medicare. The fact is that the Affordable Care Act extends the life of Medicare for 8 years. It adds benefits for seniors and, more interestingly, the cuts that were made which take corporate welfare money away from insurance companies and avoid waste were voted on in favor by every Republican who has spoken today because every dollar of those cuts was used in the last two Republican budgets.

At this time, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a gentleman who has been a leader in health care for a long time and who understands just how much his district has benefited from affordable health insurance, my good friend from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

My friend from Alabama, in describing the individual mandate which Republicans have supported for years, said that it's imposed irrespective of income. That's not accurate. If you're on Medicaid, the mandate, of course, is covered by Medicaid. There is also a hardship exemption for someone who can demonstrate that he can't afford it, and he is given a subsidy. There is also a religious conscience exemption.

At this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to a gentleman who worked very hard to make sure that small businesses and entrepreneurs were aided by this bill and not hurt by it, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 40 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, we've done some research, and have been unable to find any occasion in the recent history of the House where a major piece of legislation has been brought to the floor where the Congressional Budget Office has not yet scored what it's going to cost. I think it's very important that Members understand this. No one can tell the Members of the House how much this repeal will add to the deficit. No one. When the first repeal came up in January of 2011, the Congressional Budget Office said it would add about $220 billion plus to the deficit to repeal the law. No one can tell us this afternoon how much this will add to the deficit.

The Congressional Budget Office has said by about July 23 they will be able to answer that question, but we're in a huge hurry tonight. We have to pass this law this week because Mr. Cantor said the day of the Supreme Court decision that we're going to show how bold and decisive we were.

Why should Congress vote on a bill when absolutely no one knows how much it's going to cost? I have not heard that answer from the majority side.

Mr. Speaker, if I may engage the chairman. We have only one speaker left on our side. I assume he has the right to close. If it would be amenable to him, we're going to let him finish the rest of his speakers, and then I will close for our side.

The last and only.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

The changes in Medicare that the gentleman from Wisconsin just spoke about added 8 years to the life of Medicare, added benefits to Medicare. They were so bad that he voted for them twice. Every dollar of those Medicare savings were in the last two Republican budgets for which he voted.

I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time, apparently, in the modern history of the Congress where we voted on a major piece of legislation and not a soul knows how much it's going to cost the Federal treasury. I think that's an irregular and irresponsible procedure. I think on that basis alone people should vote against this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

The $1.7 trillion cost the gentleman just mentioned is a gross cost. The last time the CBO looked at this, which was in 2011, the first of 31 attempts at repeal, they said that the net savings to the deficit would be over $200 billion. Repealing the health care bill costs the Federal treasury money and adds to the deficit.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Yes, we are. We have no further speakers.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues on both sides for the civil and constructive tone of this debate. It's been an honor to be a part of it.

I also want to note that the leader of our committee, Congressman Miller of California, is regrettably not with us because of the death of his mother. We extend our condolences to his family and certainly to our beloved colleague, George Miller.

I want to speak for just a few minutes about some people who have been left out of this debate tonight. Most importantly, the people who have been left out of this debate are the people looking for a job in this country, are looking to grow business in this country, because that's what we should be working on here together tonight. We should be working on legislation that puts the American people back to work and creates an environment where America's entrepreneurs can grow and thrive and succeed.

Instead of doing that, instead of asking Speaker Boehner's infamous question, ``Where are the jobs?'' we're asking, ``Where is the 31st vote on the repeal of the health care bill?'' By doing so, we're forgetting about some other people whose voices will not be heard in this Hall tonight but who need to be heard throughout this country.

The person who had a malignancy in her breast when she was in her twenties and now, when she goes to start a company and get insurance in her thirties, is told, We won't sell you an insurance policy because you had breast cancer, or, We'll charge you three times what we charge someone else. That should be illegal. Under the law that the majority is going to repeal today, it is.

We ought to be hearing from the family whose son or daughter graduated from college and is still working as a substitute teacher or still going to grad school part-time, who has health insurance today because the law says they can stay on their mother's or father's policy. That should be the law; and under the law the majority wants to repeal today, those families would lose that benefit.

We ought to be hearing from the senior citizen who has to choose between paying their prescription drug bill or their utility bill at a time of a heat wave or a cold snap. They ought to be in a situation where the Medicare program helps to make those prescription drugs affordable; and under this law that the majority wants to repeal today, that senior is getting between $600 and $800 a year of a rebate.

We ought to be thinking about the family who has suffered the tragedy of a malignancy for a child in their family, and the child hits their millionth dollar of chemotherapy and the insurance company says, We're sorry; we're not insuring you anymore; we're not paying the bill anymore. That ought to be illegal, and it is illegal under the Affordable Care Act. But if the majority succeeds in its repeal, that will no longer be the case.

You have heard a lot of things today about what this bill isn't. It isn't a $500 million cut in Medicare. It expands Medicare benefits. It lengthens the Medicare trust. It does so by cutting out corporate welfare for health insurance companies. And every single Republican speaker here today voted for every one of those cuts in the last two Republican budgets.

It's not the largest tax increase in American history. Ninety-seven percent of American families don't pay a dollar more in taxes under this bill. If your family has a gross income above about $300,000, yes, you do. But for the other 97 percent of American families, that's not the case.

We've heard this is a government takeover of health care. This is a consumer takeover of health care.

It's a law that says when your insurance company says to you, ``Sorry, but you have had breast cancer. We won't insure you,'' you don't have to take that anymore.

When your insurance company says, ``We're sorry your daughter has leukemia, but we're not paying her bills anymore,'' even though you paid your premiums for 20 years, you don't have to take that anymore.

When the insurance company says, ``Here's a bill that's 40 percent higher because you're a woman,'' you don't have to take that anymore.

This is not about defending a statute; it's about defending the rights of middle-class Americans who deserve better than this repeal.

We should defeat this repeal and come right back to work tomorrow on a bill that will stop outsourcing and support insourcing of American jobs. It's time to get back to work putting America back to work and end the 31st travesty of trying to repeal this bill.

Vote ``no.''

I thank my friend for yielding.

The seeds of this bipartisan agreement were sown in the other body 3 or 4 months ago; and, frankly, I wish these agreements had been brought to this floor a lot sooner. They would have done a lot more good, but I'm glad that these agreements are here today.

This is a bill that will help create jobs in the transportation sector. It's overdue. It's a bill that will help our real estate industry by resolving matters about the national flood insurance program. That is overdue. And it's a bill that will avoid a dramatic doubling of student loan interest rates on Sunday, which is long overdue, so it's worth supporting.

I want to commend the negotiators on both sides for another provision regarding pension law that helps offset and pay for the provisions in this bill because it, I believe, will represent a significant investment by businesses around the country in job creation and purchasing of equipment and capital goods.

Under the terms of the pension pay-for in this bill, American employers will have about $28 billion for the next year to spend on something other than pension plan contributions. Now their pensions will be safe and secure, but this is $28 billion that will be available to these companies--private money--to hire people, to buy equipment, to invest in their companies and to help their businesses grow. This is businesses as large as some of the major companies in our country and businesses that are quite small.

So one of the reasons to support this legislation is, in fact, it includes for

this year alone a $28 billion opportunity for the private sector to help put Americans back to work. This is a good idea. It was advanced by both Republicans and Democrats in this body and the other body, and I hope that we receive a ``yes'' vote for it here today.

Mr. Speaker, every Member of this Chamber wants to get to the bottom of the issue of the tragic death of Officer Terry. Every Member of the Chamber wants to find out how the ATF and Justice Department were run as related to that tragedy.

So the committee that's looking into this refused to hear the testimony of the person running the ATF.

The committee that's looking into this refused to hear the testimony of the Assistant Attorney General, who was responsible for the ATF and talked about this with Attorney General Holder.

The committee that is responsible for this received thousands of pages of documents from the Attorney General to try to get to the bottom of the matter.

This procedure does violence to the American Constitution. Yes, we have three separate branches. Those branches are designed to respect each other's prerogatives. Those branches are designed to avoid a constitutional confrontation and engage in one only when necessary.

In the 225-year history of this institution, there has never been a vote like this before--never.

Is it because the Attorney General didn't turn over documents? He turned over thousands of pages of documents.

Is it because the people that know about this issue haven't been made available? To the contrary. The committee refused to hear the testimony of the head of the ATF and the Assistant Attorney General.

This procedure diminishes the House. It vandalizes the Constitution. It should not go forward.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time.

I think most Americans would agree, irrespective of which party they are in, that it would be a good idea to put Americans back to work building our highways and our bridges and our transportation systems, and do it now.

I think most Americans would agree that doubling interest rates on student loans would be disastrous for people struggling to get a college education.

I think most Americans would agree that if the other body passed a transportation bill by three-quarters of the Members voting for it, Republican and Democrat, it would be a good idea to take that bill up here.

I think most Americans would agree that if the Republican and Democratic leadership in the other body reached an agreement on a way to keep the student loan rates low and not add to the deficit by paying for it, it would be a really good idea to bring the bill up here.

The unfortunate thing for the House and for the country is that the only people who don't seem to be a part of that consensus are the Republican Members of the House of Representatives. No matter if the Senate Republicans say it's okay, and the Senate Democrats say it's okay, and the President says it's okay, and the House Democrats say it's okay, and more importantly, if the American people say it's okay, it somehow isn't usually okay with them.

So what Mr. McGovern is saying is this: until we keep the student loan rates low, and until we pass a jobs bill to put people back to work on transportation, let's not take our 10th week of paid vacation this year. I think that's a pretty reasonable thing to do. So voting ``no'' on the previous question says let's get our work done before we go home and take our 10th week of vacation for the year. Vote ``no.''