Floor Statements

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

My colleagues on the Republican side in the House are so blinded by their ideology that they will not or cannot see reality or hear other voices. So here is the reality:

7-plus million people have enrolled in private plans through the ACA marketplaces. The ACA is working; millions have new coverage under Medicaid; up to 129 million Americans with preexisting health conditions, including 17 million children, no longer have to worry about being denied coverage or about being charged higher premiums due to their health status; 3.1 million young adults have gained health coverage because they can now, up to age 26, stay on their parents' health plans. That is the reality of ACA.

There is more. There is also the reality of what this legislation would do, and I want to emphasize this because I don't think it has been accurately stated to date.

It would force 1 million people out of employer-based health insurance. According to the CBO, 1 million people would be forced out of employer-based health insurance. It would increase the number of uninsured by about a half a million people, also according to the CBO. So they are bringing this up at the same time that 7 million people have enrolled in private plans through the marketplace and when millions now have coverage under Medicaid. They essentially want to go in reverse in terms of health coverage, and they don't face up to this.

I think it has also been misdescribed. This bill would add $74 billion to the deficit, according to the CBO, when there is no offset.

That is $74 billion, and you are coming forth here, the day after we receive the latest information about ACA and all that has happened beneficially and now coming and saying knock people off of employer- based insurance and add $74 billion to the deficit.

If any of those figures are wrong, I would like someone to stand up and say so.

Also, there has been much discussion about the impact in terms of part-time employment. I want to read what the CBO said definitively in February. In CBO's judgment:

There is no compelling evidence that part-time employment

has increased as a result of the ACA.

So as we heard in testimony, a community college came forth and said they had reduced the hours of teachers in order to avoid paying health insurance. Somebody in the education came forth and said that is their policy.

I suggest, instead of foregoing their responsibility as employers, they ought to go into the marketplace and see what they can do to bring more coverage for the people who are working hard.

Essentially, what you are doing here today is saying to many, many people who are working hard and who need insurance that this bill will knock you off your employer-based insurance and increase the number of uninsured by half a million, while increasing the deficit by $74 billion. Ideology is indeed blind when this kind of a proposition is put forth.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

The evidence is clear that more people would have their hours reduced if this bill passed than might be true under the present ACA.

I said what the CBO has said in terms of reduced hours of work. Once again, you are just not facing the reality. Changing this to 40 hours will hurt all around.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro).

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

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

It is too bad that we don't have a position called fact-checker on the floor. We could yield to the fact-checker every time something is misstated. If there were such a position here today, that person would be immensely busy.

For example, I think it is correct that student workers are exempted from the count, so to come here and talk about students, I think, misstates the facts.

The same is true of the story about the ACA would hurt workers, when the truth of the matter is this shift from 30 to 40 would indeed have a major impact in terms of people.

Let me read to you from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, dated October 12, 2013:

Moreover, raising the law's threshold for full-time work

from 30 hours a week to 40 hours would make a shift toward

part-time employment much more likely, not less so. That's

because only a small share of workers today, less than 8

percent, work 34 hours a week and, thus, are more at risk of

having their hours cut below health reform's threshold.

In comparison, 43 percent of employees work 40 hours a

week, and another several percent 41 to 44 hours a week.

Thus, raising the threshold to 40 hours would place more than

five times as many workers at risk of having their hours

reduced.

That is the reality. And to come here and to say that what would happen if we don't pass this bill is that more people would have their hours reduced than if we pass the bill, that simply is not correct.

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

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

I knew the majority would come here and talk about the middle class. They are trying to escape from their failure to help take action to provide jobs for middle class Americans.

They also, by the way, so far haven't helped out to provide the continuation of the unemployment insurance for hundreds of thousands of people, so many in the middle class, who have lost their jobs.

Look, I quoted from CBO, and I guess I will have to quote again. This is in February. ``In CBO's judgment, there is no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of the ACA.''

I will quote again from this study of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and it is headed this way: ``Health reform not causing significant shift to part-time work, but raising threshold to 40 hours a week would make a sizable shift likely.''

I quoted why they say that because the number of people who are working 40 hours or thereabouts, that number is so much larger than those who are working 30 hours or thereabouts; and so any employer who wanted, essentially, to shift the burden from them to others, they are more likely to do it under this bill than under the present circumstance. That is the reason why it has been said by CBO that it would force 1 million people out of employer-based health insurance, and it would add $74 billion to the deficit since it is not offset.

You haven't refuted a single one of those statements. If they are not true, I would like you to say so. I would like you to say CBO is wrong, and also wrong when they say it would increase the number of uninsured by half a million people.

Those are three CBO statements. They stand here to refute the myths that are being brought here in defense of this bill.

So you raise the middle class banner. At the same time, you essentially, with this bill, would take away health insurance from many, many, many, many, many middle class citizens. That is what you would be doing here.

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

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, if you care about people you should be for the ACA. Seven million people have been enrolled in private plans through the ACA marketplaces, 7 million-plus. And millions--we will get the figures--now have coverage under Medicaid. That is lots of millions of people, and you come forth with an individual case?

In many cases, I don't know your instance, these cases have turned out to be incorrect. They have been put in political ads, and they have been refuted.

I now want to read the Statement of Administration Policy from the President:

The administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R.

2575, the Save American Workers Act--it should be the so-

called Save American Workers Act--because it would

significantly increase the deficit and reduce the number of

Americans with employer-based health insurance. Rather than

attempting once again to repeal the Affordable Care Act,

which the House has tried to do over 50 times, it is time for

the Congress to stop fighting old political battles and join

the President in an agenda focused on providing greater

economic opportunity and security for middle class families

and all those working to get into the middle class.

This legislation would weaken the provision of the

Affordable Care Act that keeps employers from dropping health

insurance coverage and shifting the cost to taxpayers.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, it would

increase the budget deficit by $73.7 billion over the 2015 to

2024 period. Moreover, the proposed change would reduce the

number of people receiving employer-based coverage by about 1

million, while increasing the number of uninsured.

The Affordable Care Act gives people greater control over

their own health care. Since October 1, over 7 million have

signed up for insurance in the health insurance marketplaces.

Because of the Affordable Care Act, Americans who have

previously been denied coverage due to a preexisting

condition now have access to coverage. Additionally, the law

helps millions of Americans stay on their parents' plan until

age 26 and provides access to free preventive care like

cancer screenings that catch illness early on.

While the administration welcomes ideas to improve the law,

H.R. 2575 would undermine it by shifting costs to taxpayers

and causing employers either to drop or to not expand health

insurance coverage.

``If the President''--and this is underlined--``were presented with H.R. 2575 he would veto it.''

With that very effective, I think so convincing statement--I hope all listen to it--I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of our time today be managed by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, let me describe briefly the challenge before us.

This bill is very disappointing. The three committees have worked on a bipartisan basis to put together a bill that would address once and for all SGR and would reform the payment system. Indeed, it would transform this bill that we worked on on a bipartisan basis--the physician payment system--into one that is more acceptable for high quality care, rewards value, and provides needed stability for providers and beneficiaries.

The bill has a much larger cost than this patch, though patches themselves are expensive.

In response to the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I want to make a few comments.

There has been no serious discussion all of these weeks about how we would pay for the permanent fix. There has been a dereliction of responsibility.

Also, what has happened here is this patch is a product that hasn't gone through the legislative process. Instead, it is a complex $20 billion bill with no public hearing, no committee hearings, and no regular order.

The draft of the bill became publicly available at midnight Tuesday, and there were flaws, so it was refiled, and we got this bill just 24 hours ago.

This present legislation contains a completely new, unvetted lab payment system. It undermines delivery system reforms for dialysis patients. It includes promising policy to hold nursing homes accountable for patient care but fails to include key protections to minimize discrimination against certain patients.

In a few words, we deserve better, and we need to do better.

As a result, a large number of physician groups have expressed their opposition to this.

What this bill does today is miss the opportunity to do full-scale repeal and replace the physician payment system.

The Senate still needs to vote on a permanent fix. The chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee said, We passed that kind of bill. Yes, the 10-year fix was a partisan bill that had no chance of passage in the Senate. It has zero chance of passage. The Senate still plans, as I understand, to vote on a permanent fix. We should let the Senate process unfold. We have more time to get this right.

It is not correct that, if we don't act today, there will be any impact on seniors. We could let the Senate act to try to do something permanently and come back next week, if we have to, and take up this bill.

So this is the challenge before us. We are here once again doing something that is very temporary, that is very, very expensive, and we are failing to step up to the plate on permanent reform and a permanent fix, and doing it with a legislative process with a product that has not gone through committee, has had no public hearings, has had no real airing. We should not be acting blindly.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill.

As Ukraine is fighting for its independence and the people of Ukraine are fighting to preserve and to deepen their democracy, we must stand squarely with them. It has been said here, including by the majority leader, that this is a first step.

I would like to make very clear, we really should be taking, in this bill, another step; we should be providing, in this bill, as was proposed in the Senate and by many of us, some assistance to make sure that the IMF can perform its fullest role.

That was the preference of President Obama. He made it clear we should act, the U.S. We should also be able to help the IMF to act as fully and effectively as possible.

So I think, today, instead of anybody here coming and criticizing the President, they should essentially be supporting him in his efforts to have the fullest array of assistance to Ukrainian democracy.

If this is only the first step, let's take some additional steps and stand together on a bipartisan basis, instead of at times, I think, taking partisan shots verbally at the President of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the important contributions that the Pipefitters, Steamfitters, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Service Local 636 have made to their members as well as working families and communities throughout southeast Michigan. On Saturday, March 29, 2014, the men and women of Local 636 will celebrate the 100th anniversary of its founding.

Since it was chartered on March 17, 1914, Local 636 has worked to secure safe working conditions, fair wages, health and welfare benefits, and retirement security for its membership. Also notable is Local 636's longstanding commitment to ensuring that its members have the training necessary to do the difficult and skilled work required of them. In 1936, Local 636 began its first organized Apprenticeship Training. Today, Local 636's leaders and members are justifiably proud of its 27,000 square foot Pipefitting Industry Training Center, located on 3 acres in Troy, Michigan, where apprentices can receive classroom and other instruction, and where journeymen can continuously update their professional skills.

Local 636 members have literally helped to build the City of Detroit and so much of southeast Michigan. Early in its history, Local 636 members helped to build Detroit's Statler Hotel and the Stroh's Brewery, and they installed Carrier centrifugal chillers at the J.L. Hudson Company, making it the first air-conditioned department store in the United States. Local 636's members have helped build the Detroit area's iconic workplaces, including Ford, General Motors and Chrysler plants, Detroit's Renaissance Center, and the corporate headquarters of Compuware. The region's sports and entertainment fans benefit from the work that Local 636's members have done at Cobo Hall, the home of the annual North American International Auto Show and numerous events and conventions each year, the Detroit Red Wings' Joe Louis Arena, the Detroit Tigers' Comerica Park, and the Detroit Lions' Ford Field.

The members of Local 636 are also committed to the well-being of people living in communities throughout Metro Detroit, contributing their time and money to causes including blood drives, The Wellness House, St. Patrick's Senior Center, and the ``Heat's On/Water's Off' program.

Mr. Speaker, for the last century, the men and women of Local 636 have stood at the forefront of the labor movement in Michigan, and have made vital contributions to communities throughout the Metro Detroit area. I am proud to represent so many members of Local 636 in Michigan's 9th Congressional District. I hope you and my colleagues will join me in congratulating the men and women of Local 636 as they mark 100 years of excellence, and in wishing them continued success in their second century.

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

What is going on here? The Republicans are bringing up a totally partisan bill to thwart a bipartisan bill. They are tossing aside common ground for barren ground, another Affordable Care repeal vote. They are throwing out a historic bipartisan breakthrough to permanently end and replace the broken Medicare physician payment formula, once again turning to totally partisan politics.

The breakthrough achieved by our committees would permanently replace the deeply flawed SGR formula with a system designed to build on delivery system reform, reforms that move Medicare physician payments toward a more accountable value-driven system.

The underlying policy agreement is broadly supported by both provider communities and beneficiaries; but today's exercise is opposed by groups representing seniors, doctors, health plans, and others because it guts the Affordable Care Act through a 5-year delay to the individual mandate.

What would the result be? According to CBO and the Joint Task Committee, the Republican bill would increase the number of uninsured Americans by 13 million. What is more, the bill would raise individual market health insurance premiums by 10 to 20 percent for those who remain insured.

Last week, we saw the 50th vote. This is now the 51st vote to undermine the Affordable Care Act. So much for good faith and so much for good will.

Instead of working to find common ground to finish the job on a bipartisan solution vital to fixing a problem in our health care system, House Republicans are taking once again a cynical step in a very familiar direction, concerned only about the November election.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I say to my colleague that what you are doing, essentially, is undercutting bipartisanship with pure partisan politics. Pointing to the Senate is pure mythology.

I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), the ranking member on the Health Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania that the problem is your bill is nothing but a political bill. It is nothing except about the November election--nothing but.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), an active, distinguished member of our committee.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a member of our committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan).

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

It is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Pelosi), our very distinguished leader.

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

I will place into the Record the following letters from American Health Insurance Plans, Blue Cross Blue Shield, the California Medical Association, from AFSCME, and also from the Alliance for Retired Americans. These are just a few of the examples of letters and communications from opponents.

You know, you can just boil this down to a few words. The Republicans are so intent on manipulating everything so that they think they can strengthen themselves for November that they put a poison pill into a bipartisan product, a product that we worked months to perfect.

So there is no shame. March is irrelevant; November seems to be everything.

This bill cannot become law. This is an effort simply of a political nature.

I very much urge you, at this last minute, rethink what you are doing. It is so transparent. It is so transparent.

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

March 11, 2014.

Hon. John Boehner,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

House Democratic Leader, House of Representatives

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Boehner and Leader Pelosi: On behalf of

America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and the Blue Cross

Blue Shield Association (BCBSA), we are writing to express

our strong opposition to repealing or delaying the Affordable

Care Act's (ACA) individual mandate as part of the Medicare

physician payment reform bill.

Our members believe it is critically important to modernize

the Medicare physician payment system to promote improvements

in quality, value, and patient outcomes. However, we have

deep concerns about packaging the Medicare physician payment

bill with legislation that would sever the link between the

ACA's individual mandate and its market reforms. The

experience of states that attempted this in the 1990s

demonstrates that removing this important linkage will result

in more uninsured Americans, higher costs, and reduced

choices for individuals and families. To avoid these

outcomes, we are asking Congress to reject efforts to repeal

or delay the individual mandate in the debate on Medicare

physician payment reform.

Thank you for considering our views on these important

issues.

Sincerely,

Karen Ignagni,

President and CEO,

America's Health Insurance Plans.

Scott P. Serota,

President and CEO,

BlueCross BlueShield Association.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bipartisan Senate legislation on unemployment insurance is a major step forward for millions of job- seeking Americans. It has been 76 days since the Federal unemployment insurance expired for 1.3 million job-seeking Americans. During that time, an additional 700,000 people have seen their lifeline cut off, hindering their efforts to get work and hurting our economy.

When you add it up, as a result of failure to act, $3 billion has been taken out of the economy in January and February alone.

Upon passage in the Senate, I urge Republicans in the House to follow this bipartisan path to assist the long-term unemployed who have been without Federal assistance since December 28. They and their families' needs are urgent. It is the responsibility of this, the people's House, to act on behalf of the people, the millions of long-term unemployed looking for work.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this important resolution supporting the people of Ukraine and condemning the violation of Ukrainian sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence by Russia.

Unified, bipartisan American support is needed now more than ever as the Ukrainian people and their freedom are under threat from Russian aggression.

Last week, the House spoke with one voice and took a critical step in support of Ukraine by passing a loan guarantee bill. This resolution is another positive step.

Mr. Putin's military incursion into Crimea is a blatant violation of Russian obligations under a number of multilateral agreements. It demands a strong response, and the administration and Congress have responded accordingly.

In addition to condemning Russia's military occupation to Crimea, this resolution supports the Obama administration's efforts to provide U.S. and international financial assistance to Ukraine.

It also supports the administration's work with our European allies to impose targeted financial, travel, and trade sanctions on Russian officials and institutions responsible for violations of international law.

The Congressional Ukrainian Caucus, which I cochair, has always operated in a spirit of bipartisanship with much success. This has been especially true since the crisis in Ukraine began, because supporting fundamental human rights and democracy in Ukraine and opposing illegal efforts by one country to dominate another, all of this should not be partisan issues.

In closing, I urge the House to once again speak with one voice in support of Ukraine and pass this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

I respect very much the specific impetus for this bill. Unfortunately, though, there have been no hearings on this legislation, and it was not marked up in committee.

I would like to provide information on current law, on the scope of this legislation, and its potential consequences on our health care system.

This is why I do not support this bill in its present form.

First, it is important to note that the Affordable Care Act contains a religious exemption incorporating one that has been in the Internal Revenue code since 1965. This provision permits an exemption to members of religion that join together to provide mutual aid as a community-- for example, the Amish and Mennonite faiths--or participate in a health care sharing ministry, which is akin to insurance. These groups do not participate in government-funded social services, including Medicare or Social Security. This is a longstanding, well-defined, easy to implement exemption, and it was carried over to the ACA.

The ACA's minimum essential coverage requirement was challenged in Federal court under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The court rejected the challenge, concluding that ACA did not impose a substantial burden on plaintiffs' religious exercise, despite claims that the plaintiffs ``believe in trusting in God to protect them from illness or injury'' and did not ``want to be forced to buy health insurance coverage.''

Second, a requirement to purchase minimum health insurance is not a burden on one's exercise of their religious beliefs in the medical treatment they seek. The ACA does not preclude coverage for spiritual healing or prayer treatments. Indeed, the Church of Christ, Scientist explains on their Web site that under current law:

Various U.S. Federal, State, and private health insurance

plans provide for the reimbursement of Christian Science

nursing care and practitioner treatment.

Christian Scientists participate in Medicare, and Medicare covers some Christian Science services.

It is the breadth of the language in the bill and the potential unintended consequences implementing it on a national basis that concerns me.

The language provides an exemption if a person files a sworn statement to the IRS that their ``sincerely held religious beliefs'' would cause them to object to the ``medical health care'' that would be covered under ACA's minimum essential health care requirement.

There is no indication as to how the IRS could implement this provision and, as a result, the exemption could essentially be available to anyone opposed to the ACA. While the bill states that individuals receiving ``voluntary'' medical care would lose their exemption, the IRS has no way to monitor individuals' use of voluntary medical care and to enforce this provision.

Under the legislation, individuals receiving ``involuntary'' care-- such as emergency care--would be allowed to remain exempt from the coverage requirement, passing the cost of such care on to hospitals and other taxpayers.

Because the bill does not define the ``sincerely held religious beliefs'' an individual would need to cite to avoid purchasing coverage, the IRS would be forced to determine which Americans' beliefs met the standard. Yet just 2 weeks ago, the House considered and passed H.R. 2531, the Protecting Taxpayers from Intrusive IRS Requests Act, that specifically prevented the IRS from asking taxpayers about their religious, political, or social beliefs.

I regret that normal order has not been followed on H.R. 1814 so that these concerns could be surfaced and further information on the broad and problematic consequences of H.R. 1814 considered.

For example, today, the American Academy of Pediatrics just expressed their concerns about the impact of H.R. 1814 on children. The American Civil Liberties Union also opposes the legislation, and the CBO just indicated today that the bill would increase the deficit by $1.5 billion over 10 years and increase the uninsured by about 500,000 each year.

Current religious exemptions in the Tax Code are circumscribed and well-defined. This bill would create a broad and difficult to determine exemption in the individual responsibility requirement and force the IRS to take on an inappropriate role. Congress should take a more careful approach to this issue.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

This bill, as has been discussed, encourages veteran employment and the growth of midsize businesses.

For post-9/11 veterans, the unemployment rate has continued to decline. However, the rate of unemployment is still higher than the national average.

For February 2014, the unemployment rate for veterans from this period was 9.2 percent higher than the national average of 5.3.

I am so happy that the Republicans, at this moment, are trying to help the ACA work for veterans, for businesses, and for all Americans. I hope we will join in supporting this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a special privilege to yield as much time as she shall consume to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard), a veteran who I think is going to relate her own experience.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief because I think the bill speaks for itself, and those who have spoken on its behalf have spoken so eloquently on behalf, especially of the veterans of this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I shall consume and rise in support of the bill.

Well, first of all, let me mention that this bill followed regular order. It was brought up in our committee, it was discussed, and it was passed unanimously; and I think that is a plus and, I think, is a good precedent.

Let me also say that this is an important issue, and it was one responded to by Treasury in its regulation. I think there has been a lot of misshaping as to what the regulation process is all about, and there have been times when we essentially have wanted to stop the regulatory process.

I think that has been a serious mistake. It is sometimes used for a purpose, I think, unrelated to the substance of the issue.

In this case, as I said, Treasury listened to the concerns that were expressed--and I think important concerns--and issued their final regulation; and essentially, what we are now doing is to say that what Treasury has decided in its regulation is correct. I think there is no concern about it being changed.

However, this legislation says: let's put it in the books as legislation. And I think so be it because it is so important for this Congress to join the administration in recognizing that volunteer first responders are absolutely critical to the safety and security of communities across the country.

I think it is sometimes not fully understood that 70 percent of all firefighters across the country are volunteers, and for the communities aided

by volunteer first responders, the services donated annually by these volunteers are estimated to be worth more than $140 billion.

So I rise in support of this legislation, as I said, and I want to emphasize that it was raised in regular order. It was brought before our committee. It was discussed within our committee. We took a vote. It was unanimous. Treasury had responded appropriately to the concerns expressed by us.

So I now think we should give a further imprimatur to this legislation and support it, I hope, unanimously.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleague how many further requests for time he has, and I will reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I just want to close by stating--it can be done very briefly--the importance of this legislation. I think we have heard eloquent testimony to it, and I hope we can proceed on a bipartisan basis, as has been true before.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in fervent support of this legislation. This bills comes at a clearly crucial time. The people of Ukraine need to be able to preserve their Nation. We need to help.

The people of Ukraine fought for their long-desired independence. We need to help them keep it. In my capacity as cochair of the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus, I have had many chances to dialogue with the Ukrainian American community and members of the current Ukraine Parliament.

They have outlined in detail their determination to maintain and sustain one Ukraine against Russian aggression and any other force. The President has taken strong steps to support that endeavor.

We today should join together in unison with the President, and with, I believe, the overwhelming majority of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Paul Tait on the occasion of his retirement from the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) after 42 years of dedicated service.

Paul attained his undergraduate and graduate degrees from the University of Michigan. He came to SEMCOG in 1972, and was named Executive Director of that organization in 1998. Under Paul's leadership, SEMCOG has used data and information to help make decisions resulting in literally billions of dollars in road, transit, and water infrastructure investment.

As important as data and information are to regional planning, local government actions are also critical. Paul recognized this and worked to give all communities--large and small--a voice in the process.

In a speech at the National Defense Executive Reserve Conference in 1957, President Eisenhower, who of course had served as Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe during World War II, made this remarkable assertion: ``Plans are worthless, but planning is everything.'' He went on to say that while there are indeed some immutable truths, most of what we confront in our daily lives changes over time. President Eisenhower's basic point was that we shouldn't put too much faith in static plans, but rather invest in planning that assumes that conditions will change.

Eisenhower's admonition is relevant because, for more than four decades, SEMCOG has been the regional planning partnership in Southeast Michigan. Over that time, our area has seen an astonishing amount of change. SEMCOG's task has been to recognize the changing circumstances and needs in our area--whether it's land use, transportation, air quality, water infrastructure, or economic development--and help our communities shape a regional public policy that is responsive and dynamic. Paul has played a key role in SEMCOG's work and effectiveness.

Among his many other accomplishments, Paul is the devoted husband of Chris. They have four children and six grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Paul Tait for his leadership at SEMCOG and his commitment to the citizens of Southeast Michigan.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I shall consume.

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

Well, here they go again. But this time, it is the 50th time that House Republicans have brought up legislation to repeal or to undermine the Affordable Care Act. But this 50th time is no golden anniversary. It is a House Republican goose egg for millions of Americans. Just look at this--fifty votes, but zero votes to raise the minimum wage, zero votes to renew unemployment insurance, zero votes to guarantee paycheck fairness, and zero votes to pass immigration reform.

So let's spend a minute looking exactly at what would be the impact of this if it became law. In 2014, we would see an additional 1 million uninsured--1 million. In 2015, 2 million more people

would be uninsured than if the individual mandate stayed in effect, and in 2016, another million people.

The irony of this, and I think my colleagues on the Democratic side will speak to this, the irony is the individual mandate was a Republican idea. It was born out of the conservative Heritage Foundation in the eighties. And throughout the nineties, Republicans argued its merits. It was one of the foundations of the Massachusetts law. Its parent, at least in good measure, was Governor Mitt Romney.

I met an hour or so ago with representatives of a major insurance carrier in Massachusetts, and one explained how it is working--97, 98 percent of the people are covered. That law has sparked an improvement in the delivery of health care and in the restructuring of health care delivery systems. So here we are, instead of constructive action, essentially, we have a Republican demolition squad.

Can any law be made perfect? Yes, including this. But that isn't what the Republicans are after today. They have never come up with their own plan. Indeed, they are a wrecking crew. America deserves much better.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it is now my special pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) with whom those of us on Ways and Means have worked all of these years on health care reform. He is one of the authors of this bill and the ranking member of Energy and Commerce.

Madam Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

I also ask unanimous consent that the balance of my time be managed by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), the ranking member on the Health Subcommittee.

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

On a day when the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Camp, is unveiling a tax measure that requires serious bipartisanship to be successful, we are here on the floor considering a totally political bill in an attempt to resurrect an alleged scandal that never existed.

Was there incompetence at the IRS in the processing of 501(c)(4) applications?

Yes--and I was among the very first who said that those in supervision should be held accountable.

Was there corruption, political interference, White House involvement, an enemies list, as the Republicans have claimed since day one?

Absolutely not; no evidence whatsoever.

Yesterday, the IRS Commissioner confirmed that $8 million has been spent directly on those investigations as over 255 people have spent over 79,000 hours doing nothing but responding to congressional investigations. An additional $6 million to $8 million has been spent to add capacity to information technology systems to process securely the 500,000 pages of documents Congress has received.

What have they learned? That both progressive and conservative groups were inappropriately screened out by name and not activity, and that no one was involved in this outside of the IRS, and that there was no political motivation involved.

When the inspector general asked his chief investigator to look into the possibility of political motivation by the IRS, that investigator concluded:

There was no indication that pulling these selected

applications was politically motivated. The email traffic

indicated there were unclear processing directions and the

group wanted to make sure they had guidance on processing the

applications so they pulled them. This is a very important

nuance.

Indeed, it is, and it is precisely that lack of clarity that the IRS was responding to in proposing new regulations for 501(c)(4) organizations. New regulations that are designed to bring certainty in determining whether an organization's primary activities are political.

The regulations are among several steps the IG himself recommended in his audit report that the IRS undertake, each of which the Republicans repeatedly called for action on.

In a June 3, 2013, hearing before the House Appropriations Committee, Chairman Crenshaw told Acting IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel:

We're going to insist that the IRS implement all nine of

the recommendations in the inspector general's report.

A Republican member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Roskam, has a bill to implement all of the inspector general's recommendations, including implementing new 501(c)(4) regulations.

Why is this important? Because applications for 501(c)(4) status have nearly doubled between 2010 and 2012--to 3,357, and spending has skyrocketed.

In 2006, $1 million was spent by (c)(4) organizations. In 2010, $92 million was spent. In 2012, $256 million has been spent by (c)(4) organizations.

The (c)(4) designation presently allows organizations to keep their donors secret, hidden as to which individuals contributed, and that is exactly the secrecy that the Republicans are trying to preserve.

Why? Because the three largest spenders, representing fully 51 percent of the total, are a Who's Who list of Republican political operatives.

It is indicated here: Crossroads GPS, Karl Rove, $71 million; Americans for Prosperity, the Koch brothers, $36 million; and the American Future Fund, the Koch brothers again, $25 million. That is $132 million of the skyrocketing $256 million that the Federal Election Commission had reported to it, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

If you live in a targeted State and you turn on your television, you have probably seen these groups at work distorting the Affordable Care Act.

That is why we are here today, purely and simply, not because Republicans want to stand up for the rights of social welfare organizations--and they often talk about small ones--but to preserve the secrecy around the Republicans' big campaign efforts.

These are draft regulations that the Republicans themselves called for. Over 76,000 comments--and I think now more--have been received, and the comment period does not close until Friday.

These regulations aren't likely to come out this year anyway with all these comments, so why this bill? Why this bill? It is very, very clear, and it is very simple. There is a problem with 501(c)(4)'s. The three organizations that I mentioned that are involved as political operatives, in one form or another, these are people who have donors nobody knows. This is secret money.

Why are we standing here and saying to the IRS: Don't look at 502(c)(4)'s; don't look at the possible massive abuse; don't look at what has happened in the last few years where political operatives, under the guise of 501(c)(4), have moved from $1 million in many cases to $256 million reported to the FEC?

Our constituents, Democrats and Republicans, are offering their comments. Some of them I agree with and they deserve to be read, but not to be shredded at the hands of a November campaign strategy by the Republican Party of this country and by the Republican Conference of this House.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) control the balance of the time.

Let's look at the facts. Only those who won't look don't see them.

There have been 1.9 million long-term unemployed Americans who have lost their unemployment insurance since December 28 and another 72,000 every week. Unemployment insurance lifted 2.5 million from poverty in 2012, and now hundreds of thousands are sinking into poverty because this institution and the House majority will not act.

The long-term unemployment rate in this country: 36 percent of jobless workers over 6 months; the lowest percentage of jobless receiving unemployment insurance in over 50 years. It is mindless not to act in terms of the national economy. It is heartless not to act in terms of the individual lives of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Americans and their families.

Vote for this motion to recommit. I don't see how anybody can go home and vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, we have been adamant about a clear, clean debt ceiling vote, and now it is happening. It should have happened the last time, and because of the Republican position, a high price was paid--jobs were lost, 120,000; the stock market plunged nearly 20 percent; and economic growth was slowed significantly. So this time around, we are going to do the right thing.

The gentleman from Michigan, my colleague, the chairman of the committee talked about working together, and I want to close by suggesting now with this vote in terms of the debt ceiling, we have cleared the deck. Let us now take up the other issues of major importance to the people of this country, and one of them is unemployment insurance.

As we stand here today, isolated maybe by the walls around this Chamber, but I hope not, 1.7 million people have lost every dime of their unemployment insurance, the long-term unemployed. All right, we are clearing the decks. Now let's pay attention to the business of the American people in addition to full faith and credit. We should not be leaving here with 1.7 million Americans out in the cold because too many people in this institution haven't been willing to listen to their stories. Listen and act.