Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I deeply respect the authors of this amendment and respect their effort to try to balance competing concerns, but I respectfully believe that they've struck the wrong balance.

One concern that I have here is that money is fungible and food is not. The possibility of corruption occurring--not because of the good- faith NGOs, but because of some of the forces at work in the countries we're talking about--is a problem. At the same time,

I believe the effect of this amendment would be to undercut our merchant marine activities, our agricultural exporters, and ultimately undercut support within this country for a robust program of food aid to the rest of the world.

The present structure of the program is inclusive; it builds support. I respectfully think this amendment would detract from that support. For that reason, I would urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dan Spencer for his immense contributions to the string band community in South Jersey. For the past forty-one years, Mr. Spencer has diligently served as an active leader and has promoted success in numerous string band and mummers associations across New Jersey.

Mummery traces its routes to the countless cultures brought to America by European immigrants. Mummers, as the performers are called, dress in elaborate costumes and perform choreographed musical numbers largely on brass and string instruments. The city of Philadelphia and the surrounding region has a vibrant history of mummery stretching back to colonial times. Today, this tradition is kept alive and showcased every New Year's Day in Philadelphia, an event that has happened every year for over a century.

Mr. Spencer became the Drill Master of Garden State String Band in 1981 and later led the band for six years. During his time with the Garden State String Band, Mr. Spencer helped the band receive their best drill points earning them 2nd prize.

Mr. Spencer united the string band communities of Pennsylvania and New Jersey as a delegate and later the first secretary of the Penn Jersey String Band Association. He also played a vital role in string band parades. Mr. Spencer revamped the Gloucester City String Band Parade by narrating the events as emcee and television correspondent. In 1989, he was nominated to organize the New Year's Day Parade as Director.

After his time as Master of Garden State String Band, he became a drummer in the Ferko String Band. He continued to prove his leadership skills serving as Director, Secretary, and Vice President for seven years, and later became President of the Ferko String Band. Mr. Spencer has dedicated forty-one years of his life to string bands and mummery in the greater South Jersey area. On April 6th, 2013, he was inducted into the Mummers Hall of Fame due to his outstanding efforts to promote and produce activities incorporating string band entertainment.

Mr. Speaker, the commitment of Mr. Spencer to the string band community should not go unrecognized. I join all of South Jersey in expressing our gratitude for Dan Spencer as he celebrates his induction into the Mummers Hall of Fame.

I thank my friend for yielding.

There is more agreement here than meets the eye. I think everyone in this Chamber agrees that no person who is a dangerous threat to the people of the United States should be released. I think most people in this Chamber agree that, if the Government of Yemen is unprepared to effectuate adequate security means, then no person should be released to Yemen.

The question here is who gets to make that decision. In this instance, the people who know the most about this--the leaders of our intelligence community, of our military, of our law enforcement community--have reviewed the specific details of 56 cases, and they have concluded based upon their review of those details that the right thing to do is to release these detainees to Yemen if and when they are satisfied that Yemen's security measures are appropriate.

The question here really comes down to whether this judgment should be made by the Members of this body, who have varying degrees of knowledge about this issue--including the gentlelady, who has very diligently learned a lot about this issue and cares a lot about it--or whether the decision should be made by people whom we have entrusted with the defense of our country, who have developed specific, granular, factual expertise about this question. I believe this is a case where the proper decision belongs with those experts, where the proper decision belongs with those who know the most about this matter. Rigidly limiting the options of those experts is a mistake.

So, although I believe we share the same intentions here, we don't share the same view of this amendment. I believe that the decision should be made by those best positioned to make it. If and when they determine that security conditions in Yemen are appropriate, then the decision to release should be made. In my view, that's the right process. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.

First, let me say that I think we all agree that our servicemembers who served us at Guantanamo have done a tremendous job and have brought great honor to our country. We thank and respect all of them.

I also believe that there is unanimity here that if someone is a credible threat to the United States, they should be detained, tried, and brought to justice. The question is where to do that.

Why should it be Guantanamo? Do defendants have greater rights if they are transferred from Guantanamo to a place in the United States? The Supreme Court has said, no, they don't. So there's no tactical advantage in a trial.

Are they more likely to escape if they're transferred to the United States? History says ``no.'' The number of escapes from maximum prisons, the supermax prisons, in the United States has been zero.

Is it less expensive to hold them at Guantanamo? Most certainly not. The average cost of incarcerating someone in a Federal maximum security supermax prison is $34,000 a year. The cost to the taxpayer of incarcerating someone at Guantanamo is over $1.6 million a year.

Is there some strategic advantage globally to holding these detainees at Guantanamo? The opposite is true. General Petraeus, Admiral Mullen, other leaders of our intelligence and military forces have said that Guantanamo is the best recruiting device against the United States, around the world for those who are trying to sell the lie that the United States is an inhumane and unjust place.

There is simply no rationale for an indefinite extension of the problem at Guantanamo. For reasons of security, for reasons of law, for reasons of cost, for reasons of strategic advantage, we should close Guantanamo Bay. That's why I support the Smith amendment.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Nothing in this amendment in any way impairs the relationship between a Christian or Jewish or other soldier or servicemember and his or her faith leader. Nothing. Nothing in this amendment impairs the operation of the Chaplain Corps.

What this amendment does is to show respect for the choices made by our servicemembers. My Christianity is an important part of who I am and how I see my life. I don't think that that same right should be denied to a servicemember who does not share my beliefs.

What this amendment says is that, for the thousands of servicemembers who choose a humanist or atheistic philosophy system of life, that they

should be able to confide in an adviser who is not a mental health professional.

Going to a mental health professional is a choice that's laden with risk and some controversy for a member of the service. Going to a faith adviser is not.

Depriving those who share the views that Mr. Polis outlined of the chance to go to such an adviser is unequal treatment. It's unworthy of the way we operate.

Nothing in this amendment disrupts the Chaplain Corps, but everything in this amendment respects the rights of our servicemembers. I would urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I share with the author of this amendment the goal of clarifying and strengthening the time-honored writ of habeas corpus for all American citizens. But my concern is that sometimes by omission we limit people's rights.

This amendment is very carefully, but narrowly, drawn in such a way it begs questions about the exclusion of those outside the ambit of this amendment and their rights. The gentleman, I know in good faith, is trying to promulgate an amendment that broadens the right of the writ of habeas corpus. But I think when compared with the Smith-Gibson language that this modifies, that it raises by omission an intention of the Congress to narrow the right of habeas corpus. So although it is not the gentleman's intent, I believe it is the effect of this amendment.

Those who believe that the right of habeas should be strengthened and broadened, I believe should oppose this amendment and support the underlying language as I, in fact, do.

Mr. Chairman, I think virtually everyone on our side of the aisle in this Chamber would agree that if the President wants to submit a treaty, he has to follow the Constitution to get it approved. I think all of us should agree that if the President wants to implement a so-called executive agreement not subject to treaty confirmation that we should vigorously exercise our power of the purse and our oversight authority to make sure that that's in the best interest of the American people, and if it's not, we shouldn't fund it, as the Constitution gives us the prerogative.

The problem with this amendment is, if it's said that we call on the President to give us complete information about what's going on between us and Russia, I would vote for it; but I can't vote for an amendment that has findings that are hearsay at best and inaccurate at worst.

But the word ``finding'' in the operation of this institution implies that there's been a sober, thorough, and factual inquiry as to what's gone on. These findings are pure hearsay. They say that certain Members have read newspaper articles. Well, that's interesting, but that's not a finding. It then characterizes--characterizes--the President as trading away for the prospect of nuclear arms reductions certain weapons system or defense systems. And I would really ask anyone on the other side if they could cite to us any instance where the President has, in fact, made an agreement where he has traded away any defense system to the Russians or anyone else. I don't think they can.

The right vote on this is ``no.'' We should exercise oversight. We should not engage in science fiction.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding, and I would like to thank and congratulate him and Chairman McKeon and their outstanding staffs for first-rate work and leadership on this issue.

This bill is an example of a properly resourced and properly thought- out plan that would serve the interests of those who serve us. As we meet tonight, there are America's best sons and daughters stationed around the world in dangerous and often lonely places who are defending our freedom and doing us proud every single day. I do believe this budget plan is one that gives them the tools and the support that they need. It has many good things to recommend it.

But I wish it were actually going to take effect, because the fact of the matter is unless this Congress acts, this plan will never take effect. Instead, it will be about $50 billion shy of the resources that we're going to debate and vote on this week.

Mr. Chairman, I think the whole House would be well-served by following the example by which this legislation was put together. Led by Chairman McKeon and Mr. Smith, there was open, transparent, substantive dialogue throughout this process. Members on both sides of the aisle met for--my goodness, was it 16 hours, 18 hours, it seemed like longer, and any idea that any Member had was brought to the body, was vigorously debated, and either approved or disapproved. There was an open process that led to a good piece of legislation.

This is exactly the opposite of what we've done on the sequestration problem. There have been backroom meetings. There have been high-level discussions, and absolutely nothing has happened. This, frankly, is a bipartisan responsibility of a national problem.

I think that what is incumbent upon us doing here is the budget that has passed this Chamber and the budget that has passed the other body should be brought to a conference, and our body should select our conferees, and I'm sure the other body will select its, and they will thrash out this process and, I hope, come to a resolution of this mindless, harmful sequestration process.

About a third of our Navy and Air Force planes aren't flying training missions because of sequestration. There's intelligence training for intelligence units throughout the services not being done because of sequestration. Important research and development, deferred maintenance on our capital stock, isn't being done because of this problem.

We have spent hours in this Chamber accusing each other of whose fault it is that we are in this box. I, frankly, think the American people are tired of hearing whose fault it is and are ready to see this problem resolved.

I thank my friend.

The way to solve this problem is to emulate the example Chairman McKeon and Mr. Smith have given us: have a fair, transparent, open process; debate the issues; make some difficult choices. There are other difficult choices yet to make because of the amendments that are forthcoming.

When the Members are given the chance to act in regular order, we can solve problems. Let's have that full and open debate on sequestration; and some day the plan that we're going to pass this week will actually take effect.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the State Department to take a more active role in resolving a important dispute between two of the United States' valued allies, Greece and the Republic of Macedonia.

Since the nation commonly called ``Macedonia'' declared its independence from Yugoslavia in 1991, Greece has objected to its use of the name ``Macedonia''. Greece considers this both a usurpation of its rich heritage and part of a potential basis for forming a territorial claim on the neighboring Greek province of Macedonia. The geographic area of the Greek province of Macedonia corresponds with the ancient Kingdom of Macedonia, whose capital city Pella, sits well within Greece's borders.

Mister Speaker, this issue is not just about names, but about security for Greece and for the entire region. In 2008, the Republic of Macedonia applied to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Despite meeting all requirements for NATO membership, Greece, as a member of NATO, vetoed the entrance of Macedonia until the name issue is resolved. Greece worries that by calling itself ``Macedonia,'' its northern neighbor risks raising the specter of future territorial accusations based on the idea of a ``united Macedonia.''

The United States has long been a leading partner in the NATO Alliance, and as such we should be doing all we can to resolve this issue. The Department of State should be making a concerted effort to work with both nations to bring a mutually agreed upon resolution. Greece has long been an important NATO member and ally of the United States, and once this issue is resolved the United States should encourage the acceptance of ``Macedonia'' into NATO as well.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is vital to the interests of this nation in maintaining stability in the Balkans and adding a new member of the NATO Alliance.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the late Senator Frank Lautenberg, who spent his life serving this nation and the people of New Jersey as a member of the military and a five-term Senator. With Senator Lautenberg's passing, the Senate has lost its last veteran of World War II.

Senator Lautenberg served his country proudly during World War II, earning distinction in the United States Army Signal Corps. After being deployed overseas, he came back home and founded Automatic Data Processing, a company that grew to become a giant in the payroll industry.

First elected in 1982, Senator Lautenberg was a champion of the middle class and left the state of New Jersey stronger for his years of service. Policies he championed, including public smoking bans, raising the drinking age, and lowering the DUI limit saved countless lives. Senator Lautenberg was also a longtime advocate of Amtrak and transportation infrastructure in New Jersey, helping to grow the state economy.

Mr. Speaker, I stand with the rest of the New Jersey Congressional delegation in remembering Senator Lautenberg for his dedication and tireless work. His death has left a void in the Congress, the state of New Jersey, and the nation. For Senator Lautenberg, service was not just a buzzword--it was an ethos and a purpose. All of us gathered in these hallowed chambers should remember not just the man, but his legacy, and his example. We join the people of New Jersey and the United States in remembrance of Senator Frank Lautenberg, an extraordinary public servant.

I thank my friends and colleagues for joining in this moment of solemn remembrance.

There is not a corner of our State that does not bear the manifestation of the greatness of Senator Lautenberg's career. Some of the manifestations are functional and somewhat ordinary--bridges and exit ramps--but so many of the things are things of beauty and splendor. This is a person who risked his life for his country in the Second World War and who gave his life to building a successful business and building a great State and a great country.

We are profoundly saddened by his loss, but we are heartened by his example, and I thank all of us on both sides of the aisle for remembering him. Our prayers go to his family, and our thanks go to him for a great life well led.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for giving me the time.

We approach July 1 with a problem where if the Congress does nothing, interest rates will double on student loans from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. There are three options that are before the country and before the Congress. The first is to just let it happen, to let the rates go up to 6.8 percent and make higher education less affordable for people in the country.

The second option is the option that's on the floor which will make it worse, to raise the interest rates over the long term higher than 6.8 percent, and cost students and families an additional $3.7 billion to pay for a higher education.

There is a third option offered by Mr. Courtney from Connecticut. That option would say let's leave the rates at 3.4 percent for 2 years, let's pay for that decision so it doesn't add to the deficit, and then use those 2 years to negotiate a sensible, long-term solution to the problem.

Now I know that there are those who disagree with Mr. Courtney's approach. I know there are those who agree with the Republican approach. But what I don't understand is why all three options aren't before the Congress.

See, what we have in front of us today is to either do nothing and let the rates go to 6.8, or do something and make them go even higher. There's a third and better choice that the majority has refused to let the Congress vote on. I suspect the reason we can't vote on that choice is it would win. It would prevail.

This is supposed to be a body where a majority rules. Instead, it's a body where paralysis rules. This bill will probably pass the floor.

I thank my friend.

This bill will probably pass the floor. It will go nowhere, and we will be back sometime in late June trying to solve this problem.

Let's have a democratic vote with a small D. Let's let the House vote on all the options, and I believe Mr. Courtney's option to leave the rates at 3.4 percent would and should prevail.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

The question before the House this morning is whether we should make college more affordable or less affordable, which is better for the country.

If we do nothing by July 1, interest rates double on student loan rates from 3.4 to 6.8 percent. This bill makes it worse. It will actually increase college costs for a typical student by $5- or $6,000 over a 10-year period, $3.7 billion across the country.

There's a better way. The government's borrowing money today at 1 percent. Why don't we borrow the money at 1 percent, factor in the cost of administering the loans and setting aside a reserve for default, and charge that amount to the students, rather than run a profit-making enterprise on student loans?

Mr. Tierney and others have taken the lead on this, Mr. Courtney has, and that's the bill that I think is the appropriate long-term solution.

But I do know this. If you listen to any corporate leader, any business leader in America, they tell you this: we will only grow and prosper with a skilled workforce, and we will only have a skilled workforce if higher education is affordable.

The simple question before the House is, if you think higher education should be less affordable, vote ``yes.'' If you think it should be more affordable, vote ``no.''

``No'' is the right vote. There's a better way. We should put that on the floor and proceed that way.

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

I'm pleased to rise in support of the gentleman's legislation. I think it's an example of how we can work together and achieve a benefit for the American people. I commend him for introducing the bill and would outline our reasons for our support.

Probably the second largest expenditure most Americans make in their lifetime is a college education for themselves or for their children, second only to their real estate, to the home that they buy. It's surprising how little consumer information is available to families before they make that choice.

If you buy a phone, you can find out what apps it can run, how much bandwidth it has, how much it can store, what it can do, what it can't do. You can find all this information about what the phone cost, what it does, and how it works. But if you're about to enroll in a school that purports to teach Web site design, or if you're about to send your son or daughter off to a college to major in philosophy or engineering, it's surprising how little you know about that school.

The gentleman's proposal is that there be an effort by the Department of Education to make those data more accessible and more transparent for students and their families, questions that are natural to ask: What does it cost to go to the school? What happens to students when they graduate from the

school? What kind of jobs do they get? How much money do they make? How much debt do they graduate with? Who transfers in and out of the school and what numbers? How many people finish their education at the schools?

I'm not suggesting that there is any one-size-fits-all list of questions, that it's the right list of questions. What I'm suggesting is that the maximum amount of information should be available to families and students to make reasonable decisions about this sort of thing.

The only comment that I would make further is that we would encourage, Mr. Speaker, the committee leadership to consider bipartisan legislation--that's been sponsored by Mr. Duncan Hunter, Jr., on the majority side; I'm involved in it on the minority side; and the other body, it's sponsored by Senators Wyden and Warner, along with Senator Rubio--that would create this kind of information in a user-friendly, Web-based environment as soon as possibly could be done.

I view this bill as complementary to this effort, and I look forward to working with the gentleman and the other leaders of the committee on this issue.

I would finally say that, on our side, we do strongly believe that the time has come for a full reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. There are a myriad of issues. Tomorrow, we will have student loan financing issues on the floor. There are questions about Pell Grants, the cost of college and numerous other issues that we think are best dealt with in an omnibus and comprehensive fashion.

Having said that, we commend the gentleman for his introduction of the bill, urge its support, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I would just ask my friend, Mr. Speaker, if he has any other speakers.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, this is an example of how we can work together and accomplish something constructive for the American people. I am pleased to support this bill, and I would urge a ``yes'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor fifty-four high school seniors in Camden County for their commendable decision to enlist in the United States Armed Forces. Of these fifty-four, twenty have joined the Army: Kristina King, Leroy Jones, Thomas Harkin, Kristopher Ponce, Laura Aune, Page Scarretto, Anthony Andrews, Michael Whelan, Cordeiro Dougherty, Travis Daniels, Jose Acevedo, Marco Medina, Samuel Adames, Harley Marks, Spencer Barber, Quiomy Abelaria, Fernando Santiago, Zachariah Gill, Michael Brown, and Isaiah Johnson. Four have joined the Navy: Dioned Gonzalez-Cabral, James Lewis, Linh Tran, and Petrell Vereen. Three have joined the Air Force: Brandon Nataro, Salvatore Mannino, and Kyle Bedwell. Twenty-three have joined the Marine Corps: Joseph Rodano Jr., Richard Sheldon, Adam Dobson, Christopher Taylor, Andrew Morgan, Tristen Boggs, Kevin Dickson, Christian Dobush, David Groff, Timothy Leadley, Allen Reid, Gregory Sycz, Walter Holloway, Detaniel Jackson, Garrett Mercer, Jose Baez- Claudio, Pabel Arrizaga, David Pellot, Jesus Ortega, Justin Benejan, Eric Regensberger, Roy Ensign, and Evan Magargel. And four have joined the New Jersey National Guard: Tucker Patten, Trinidad Rodolfo, Alicea Yolanda, and Brendann Murphy. All fifty-four will also be recognized on May 21st at ``Our Community Salutes of South Jersey.''

Later this month, these young men and women will join their classmates in celebration of graduation. At a time when many of their peers are looking forward to pursuing vocational training or college degrees, they instead have chosen to dedicate themselves to military service in defense of our country. They should rest assured that the full support and resources of this chamber, and of the American people, are with them in whatever challenges may lie ahead.

It is thanks to the dedication of untold numbers of patriots like these fifty-four that we are able to meet here today, in the House of Representatives, and openly debate the best solutions to the many and diverse problems that confront our country. It is thanks to their sacrifices that the United States of America remains a beacon of hope and freedom in a fractious world.

Mr. Speaker, their decision to serve our country will not go unrecognized. I want to personally thank these fifty-four graduating seniors for the selflessness and courage that they have shown by volunteering to risk their lives in defense of others. We owe them, along with all those who serve our country, a deep debt of gratitude.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the graduating students of the Garden State Pathways Program at Camden County College.

For the past two years, these remarkable students have acquired valuable expertise in career skills while experiencing a college campus atmosphere. The students graduating May 18, 2013 from the program are Ashley Cousins, Kevin Joseph Hillegas, Wesley Jay Johns, Austin Jarrett Parrish, Ashley M. Smollock, and Lucas Alexander Tavlas.

None of this, of course, would have been possible without the invaluable dedication of

their teachers and mentors. The staff of the Garden State Pathways is headed by Ms. Bernadette Gismonde, who is the program coordinator. Her staff includes Ms. Bernadette Stettler, Administrative Assistant; Ms. Danielle Brittin, Job Coach; Ms. Hazel Thompson, Lead Mentor; and Ms. Joyce Howie, Assistant Mentor.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate these young men and women on the hard work they've put in and they have already accomplished. These students have bright futures ahead of them, and I wish them the best in all coming endeavors.

The House deserves a vigorous debate on any question. It also deserves the factual record.

The President, the Vice President, and the employees of the executive branch are subject to the law in the following way: because they receive coverage through their employer, their employer is subject to the rules of the law.

The second thing I want to make very, very clear: no Member of the House of Representatives is exempt from this law in any way, shape, or form. None. As far as the committee staffs are concerned, the committee staffs that you refer to are members of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program. Nothing in the law changes that. Just as any other person in America who is insured by their employer, they have to live by these same kinds of rules. This just isn't true.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

No, they're not.

Reclaiming my time, this is just not correct. There is no one exempt from this coverage.

Does the gentleman agree that he is not exempt from this coverage? Are you exempt?

I would yield to the gentleman. Are you exempt from this law, sir?

Reclaiming my time. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time.

The committee staffs who were involved in writing the bill are Federal employees subject to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act.

There have been many distortions about this law; this is just one of them.

I want to point out that one of the earlier speakers said that there's a GAO study that says this increases the deficit by some imaginary number. The scorekeeper around here for deficits is the Congressional Budget Office. They say it reduces the deficit by $100 billion.

I thank my friend for yielding.

It is right and good that people should passionately pursue their points of view in democratic debate. But it's also our obligation to work from the same set of facts. I have sat here and listened to my friends for the better part of an hour, and I do think it's important that we reflect a correct record on a lot of things, first of all, about the deficit. We have a neutral referee here on questions about spending and taxes called the Congressional Budget Office, and several Members on the other side have approvingly quoted what the CBO says on different things.

Here is what the CBO says about this law:

Repealing this law will add at least $100 billion to the

deficit.

Now, our friends disagree with that, but the referee that they hired, that we live by, says repeal of the law adds $100 billion to the deficit.

We hear that health insurance premiums have gone up by an average of $3,000 per year. I don't know the source of that claim. Someone should share that with us. But I do know this: the cost-control strategies in the new law which involve the establishment of a competitive insurance market so the insurance companies don't have huge market control hasn't taken effect yet and doesn't take effect until January 1 of 2014. This is characterized as government control of health care.

Here's what the law actually says: it says a person without health insurance can get a subsidy to choose among private insurance plans, like Blue Cross and Blue Shield, like Kaiser Permanente, and make their choice.

There is nothing in this law--and I would challenge any of my friends on the other side, Mr. Speaker, to show us one word that says that the doctor-patient relationship is in any way impeded or impaired by this law. They can't find those words because they're not there.

The bill is referred to as a job-killing health care law, right out of the polling and focus groups of the Republican Party. Here's the facts: in the months before the law was signed, the country was bleeding jobs; 750,000 jobs lost in the month of January of 2009 when the President was inaugurated. Since the law was signed, the private sector has added 3.5 million jobs. Now, you can argue, well, it would have been four and a half or five. Have that argument if you want. But since the law was signed, the number of jobs in the private sector has gone up by a lot, not down. That's what the private sector has done.

One of the gentlewomen referred to CBO saying 800,000 jobs are being lost. Apparently CBO is okay in that fact. Here's what that report really says: it says that a lot of people who are older--in their late fifties and early sixties--who are working because they feel they have to work for health insurance are likely to take early retirement. That's where the 800,000 job difference comes from. That's what the report says if you read it.

We've heard ObamaCare is a tax. That is true. ObamaCare is a tax on two kinds of people--people with investment income in excess of about a quarter-million dollars and people who can afford health insurance, choose not to buy it, and choose to have our neighbors and our constituents who do buy health insurance pay their bills when they go to the emergency room. That is true.

We've heard we have to protect the Constitution. Well, we are protecting the Constitution. With all due respect, your side litigated this and lost. The Supreme Court of the United States heard the claim this is unconstitutional and said you were wrong.

Finally, we hear about the assault on the 40-hour workweek. Massachusetts, under a Governor named Romney, did something very similar to this law--imposed an employer mandate. Here's what happened in Massachusetts: while the rest of the country was shedding 3.6 percent of its full-time jobs, Massachusetts lost 2.8 percent of its full-time jobs.

I thank my friend.

Massachusetts added nine-tenths of 1 percent of part-time jobs to the workforce. The country was 0.8. So if this bill is going to force all of these employers to drop their hours from full time to part time, why didn't it happen in Massachusetts?

This has been a fact-free debate up until this time. The country deserves better. The House deserves better. We should oppose this absent-minded repeal.

Madam Speaker, on the east coast it's almost the end of the workday. And we know that somewhere a mom who stood on her feet all day in a retail store, or broken her back all day in a nursing home, will come home, and she will see that her son or her daughter isn't feeling very well, is too sick to eat dinner, can't seem to sleep through the night.

Most of us in this country have the privilege of taking that child to the pediatrician or to the emergency room

right away. Right away. But for over 40 million people in this country, they don't have that privilege. She'll hesitate because she'll think, maybe my daughter will get better by the morning, because a trip to the emergency room for that family might also mean a trip to the bankruptcy court.

We are here today to honor her work, not disrespect it. Almost every day here the Wall Street bankers, the oil barons, the big shots get their way. Her day is coming on January 1, 2014, because for the first time in this country's history, we'll do more than talk about the fact that we honor her. We will honor her work and honor her family with affordable health insurance. That day is coming.

This charade won't stop it. No amount of misrepresentation will cease it. That day is coming. Her work will be honored. The Affordable Care Act will be implemented.

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