Floor Statements

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Ryan for his leadership on this issue and so many others and for allowing me to join him on this resolution.

Madam Speaker, under our current system, every farmer buying crop insurance gets a subsidy. The question is, How big should that subsidy be? Should all farmers receive a 62 percent crop insurance subsidy or more? Or should 1 percent of the most successful folks in agriculture receive a 47 or a 48 percent subsidy, which is exactly what this resolution would do?

While I support many of the reforms found in the House versions of our farm bill, unfortunately, no provision has been included which would limit crop insurance subsidies, and this resolution rectifies that glaring oversight.

This commonsense resolution will save the taxpayers nearly $1 billion by instructing conferees to implement an economic test for those farmers with adjusted gross incomes over $750,000. Those with incomes which exceed $750,000 will see their crop insurance premium subsidy reduced by 15 percentage points.

We all understand and recognize the need for having a safety net in place for our Nation's farmers. This resolution does nothing, nothing, to undermine that safety net.

We all know the need for serious reforms also to our crop insurance programs. Last year, it cost more than $14 billion, and without reforms, it is projected to be more than twice as expensive as the conventional commodity subsidy programs over the next decade.

So agreeing to this resolution would put into place the same provisions put forward as were mentioned in the Coburn-Durbin amendment in the Senate. That passed the Senate with significant bipartisan support earlier this past summer.

Currently, Madam Speaker, 4 percent of farmers receive 33 percent of the benefits of crop insurance. A stunning 73 percent of subsidy dollars goes to the top 20 percent of agribusinesses. That just doesn't make sense.

In a time of fiscal challenge, programs like crop insurance need serious modifications, and this is a step in the right direction. Though an incremental step, and a small one at that, it is, indeed, a step in the right direction.

Also, at a time when there is little bipartisan agreement in this town, this is just such an opportunity to enhance bipartisan cooperation.

Now, most folks on our side of the aisle, this side of the aisle, have been strongly supportive of an economic test for most taxpayer- subsidized programs. More actions like this are necessary in order to avoid this Nation's fiscal ruin.

So, Madam Speaker, I urge support of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to honor the La Vista Lions Club of Atlanta for sixty years of outstanding service in the Atlanta community. Since 1953, the La Vista Lions Club has supported numerous organizations in Georgia that provide essential services to individuals with vision and hearing impairments.

In its most recent history, the La Vista Lions Club has dedicated its time and resources in support of the Georgia Lions Lighthouse Foundation, which provides hearing tests, hearing aids, vision tests, eye glasses, and eye surgeries for Georgia residents in need. Plus, the La Vista Lions Club sponsors activities for children with vision and hearing impairments including the Georgia Lions Camp for the Blind and the Mike Glenn Hearing Impaired Basketball Camp.

Over the past sixty years, the La Vista Lions Club has been a vital asset to our community by providing these services to fellow Georgians. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the La Vista Lions Club of Atlanta on sixty years of outstanding work in the Sixth District of Georgia.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 438, I was unavoidably detained and not able to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Personal Explanation

I want to commend the chairman for his work on this and in so many vital areas of the issue of health care on our committee, and I want to thank him for the time and the opportunity to bring this bill forward.

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans' goal in health care is to make certain that we have the highest quality health care in the world. That's our desire. We simply want it to be patient-centered health care, not government-centered health care. We believe that patients and families and doctors ought to be making medical decisions, not Washington, D.C. So this bill, H.R. 2009, grows out of the IRS's activities that have come to light in this country over the past number of months. As the chairman mentioned, we've been doing a lot of oversight hearings in our committee.

The American people have drawn a conclusion about the IRS at this point, and that conclusion is that it cannot be trusted now. The chairman mentioned that the IRS has targeted groups that have come to the IRS asking for a tax-exempt status. It has targeted groups for their political ideology. The IRS has leaked donor information to those groups, and many of us believe--and I think it will come out--that the IRS has, in fact, targeted donors to those groups for audits to those individual Americans.

Mr. Speaker, this is chilling activity from the Internal Revenue Service, so the American people have lost their faith and trust in the Internal Revenue Service. That's why this bill is so important.

This is a very simple piece of legislation--two pages, in fact. All it says, simply, is what the American people believe, and that is that the IRS should not be charged and have the authority to either implement or enforce the Affordable Care Act. I want to commend over 140 Members from this House of Representatives for being cosponsors, and we have hundreds of citizen cosponsors from across the country.

Some say that this isn't necessary, that it is not going to accomplish anything, that there is no reason the IRS would want that information anyway. The fact of the matter is that that's exactly what they said about what they did for the tax-exempt groups. They said, Well, it wasn't necessary for them to get that information about political ideology or beliefs or prayers that prayer groups were offering. That wasn't necessary either.

So, if that were not necessary, Mr. Speaker, how can the American people have faith and confidence that the IRS won't do something that also is unnecessary, and that is to engage in implementing themselves into that trusted relationship between patients and physicians?

Then another piece of evidence, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest is the individual who's running the IRS division that is charged with the enforcement of the Affordable Care Act. Mr. Speaker, that individual is Sarah Hall Ingram. You don't have to look too far back in her biography to recognize that she was the individual who was, in fact, in charge of the tax exempt group in the IRS at the time when the challenges to the IRS had been focused.

Mr. Speaker, the overwhelming percent of the American people understand and appreciate that the IRS should not be involved in the health care of this Nation. We believe patients and families and doctors ought to be making medical decisions, not Washington, D.C., and certainly not the Internal Revenue Service.

I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Record a letter from The Seniors Coalition in support of H.R. 2009.

The Seniors Coalition,

Washington, DC, July 30, 2013.

Hon. Dr. Tom Price,

Cannon House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Price: I am writing to you today on behalf

of the over four million members and supporters of The

Seniors Coalition in support of your bill H.R. 2009, ``The

Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act.'' The Seniors

Coalition was originally founded as a public advocacy group

fighting to repeal the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act.

Since 1990, TSC has grown rapidly and expanded its advocacy

to include any issue that concerns America's senior citizens.

Today the Coalition is one of the largest grassroots advocacy

organizations in Washington, D.C. in terms of number of

supporters nationwide. TSC currently has over four million

supporters representing every state in the union.

The Obama Administration, including the IRS, has betrayed

the trust of the American people. Allowing the IRS to enforce

ObamaCare is opening up the door to more abuse, more

targeting and more harassment of American citizens. The vast

majority of the American people do not support ObamaCare, and

President Obama is ignoring the will of the people.

That is why The Seniors Coalition is writing today to fully

support H.R. 2009. Clearly, the IRS has proven itself either

unwilling or unable to prudently and impartially enforce the

law, and we certainly cannot trust them with our health care.

Thank you for all your hard work Dr. Price, and please

don't hesitate to contact me directly if there is anything

that The Seniors Coalition and its over four million members

and supporters in all 50 states can do to assist you in your

effort to de-fund/repeal ObamaCare.

Sincerely,

Sean Ferritor,

Executive Director.

I'm now pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Speaker, I now insert into the Record a letter from the group Let Freedom Ring that endorses H.R. 2009.

Let Freedom Ring,

July, 2013.

Dear Friend: You have no doubt heard by now that senior

members of the United States Internal Revenue Service were

involved in a politically-motivated effort to blunt the

impact of the tea party movement and other organizations not

in sync with President Barack Obama's agenda for America.

We don't yet know all the facts but we do know that some

groups had their applications for non-profit status ``slow

walked'' through the process, existing groups were subjected

to comprehensive audits, many were loaded down with intrusive

and inappropriate questions about the prayers of their

members and other activities, and that tax returns of major

donors and conservative operatives were audited.

Things are so bad that one senior IRS official who appears

to have been involved ``took the fifth'' before a

congressional investigating committee.

If that were not enough, some of the same people that look

to have been involved in the effort to politically harass

potential opponents of the president's agenda have now been

put in charge of expansion of the IRS's role in monitoring

individual and corporate compliance with Obamacare.

Our good friend Dr. Tom Price, who represents Georgia's 6th

Congressional District, is taking the bull by the horns--but

he needs our help. He has introduced a bill--H.R. 2009--that

would prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from implementing

or enforcing any provisions of the president's health care

law.

Congress needs to act--now--and they need pressure from you

to do so. They need to get behind Dr. Price's bill before the

IRS can do even more damage. Will you please take a moment to

write to your member of Congress and your two Senators and

urge them to support Dr. Price's legislation? Tell them to

cut off funding for the expansion of the IRS for Obamacare

unless and until the American people have all the answers

about how President Obama and his subordinates politicized

the IRS to harass their political opponents.

The whole business is suspicious, especially since the IRS

has for the last three years been denying to Congress that

any such activity or any activity like it was occurring.

Congress is now asking questions and the Obama Administration

has become evasive--despite a report by the IRS's own

inspector general that the agency had committed wrongdoing.

The IRS can no longer be trusted to behave in a non-

partisan manner. It should not be given extra authority until

it can prove once again that it will not abuse the public

trust.

Thank you for all you do on behalf of freedom.

Sincerely,

Colin Hanna,

President.

I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a Member from the great State of Michigan, Dr. Benishek, and a fellow physician.

Mr. Speaker, I now insert into the Record a letter from the group Americans for Prosperity which endorses H.R. 2009.

Americans for Prosperity,

Arlington, VA, July 15, 2013.

Dear Representative Price: On behalf of more than two

million Americans for Prosperity activists in all 50 states,

I applaud you for introducing the Keep the IRS Off Your

Health Care Act (H.R. 2009), which would prohibit the

Internal Revenue Service from implementing the President's

health care law.

The health care law grants the IRS an alarming expansion of

new power, essentially granting the agency the authority to

oversee every American's health insurance decisions. The IRS

will be responsible for enforcing the health insurance

mandates on individuals and employers, collecting the 21 new

taxes created in the law, and cross-referencing individuals'

health insurance exchange applications with IRS records.

AFP is deeply concerned that all Americans will now be

asked to turn over the private health insurance information

about their children and families to a disgraced organization

that has admitted to abusing its power and processing

applications in a biased, political manner. How can the

American people trust that the IRS won't also target American

citizens who disagree with the President when enforcing the

health care law?

Your legislation also affirms the common-sense principle

that control over health care decisions should remain between

American families and their doctors, not Washington

bureaucrats like the IRS. Americans for Prosperity is proud

to support H.R. 2009, your legislation to prohibit the IRS

from enforcing provisions of the health care law. I urge your

colleagues to support its passage, and I look forward to

working with you in the future.

Sincerely,

Christine Harbin Hanson,

Policy Analyst, Americans for Prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson), a gentleman who's a member of the Appropriations Committee, a fellow who has led on this issue for his entire career.

Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Record a letter of support for H.R. 2009 from the organization Restore America's Voice.

Restore America's Voice

Foundation,

Houston, TX, July 12, 2013.

Dear Representative Price: Our more than two million

supporters are grateful for your efforts to strip the IRS of

any authority over the Affordable Care Act as embodied in

H.R. 2009 which you have introduced. Our organization fully

endorses this legislation.

We note with discomfort that this agency seems not only

beyond the control of those tasked with oversight but

willfully resists full disclosure of questionable practices

and abusive methods in Congressional testimony. We have

concluded, based on the evidence at hand, that this agency is

being cynically used for political purposes to frustrate and

intimidate law-abiding citizens who disagree with

Administration policies.

This distortion of the proper role and functioning of the

IRS makes turning over responsibility for the Affordable Care

Act subsidies, penalties and, significantly, access to

private insurance and medical records, a frightening

prospect. We are therefore in complete agreement with the

purpose of H.R. 2009 and fully support passage as the only

responsible and prudent course of action.

Thank you for leadership and hard work in developing this

legislation and for representing the best interests of not

only your constituents but the American people.

Respectfully and gratefully yours,

Ken Hoagland,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the majority leader of the House of Representatives.

I include for the Record a letter endorsing and supporting H.R. 2009 from the group FreedomWorks.

FreedomWorks,

Washington, DC,

Dear FreedomWorks Member: As one of our millions of

FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to contact your

representative and urge him or her to co-sponsor H.R. 2009,

the ``Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act''. Introduced by

Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), this bill would stop the Internal

Revenue Service or any other Treasury department from

enforcing any part of ObamaCare.

Currently, the IRS will be the most crucial department for

actually enacting and enforcing ObamaCare. The premium

subsidies that are supposed to help individuals purchase

health insurance through the exchanges are actually tax

credits, distributed by the IRS. And most significantly, the

IRS is responsible for administering the ``tax'' upon

individuals who refuse to purchase a government-approved

insurance plan--the individual mandate.

More ominously, ObamaCare requires the IRS to collect a

vast amount of sensitive information about the kind of

insurance coverage you have, and will store this information

in a massive new database.

ObamaCare's supporters, of course, claim that the IRS would

never share the medical information they collect, and that

the agency would only collect the exact data necessary to

determine eligibility for premium subsidies. And yet, a

lawsuit filed in California alleges that the IRS illegally

seized the medical records of 10 million individuals in that

state.

Having the same organization that is both targeting

political opponents and stealing people's medical records in

charge of people's health care seems like a recipe for

disaster. Rep. Price's bill would stop the IRS in its tracks,

completely erasing their role in ObamaCare.

I urge you to contact your representative and urge him or

her to co-sponsor H.R. 2009, the Keep the IRS Off Your Health

Care Act today.

Sincerely,

Matt Kibbe,

President and CEO,

FreedomWorks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), a fellow member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Bridenstine), a freshman Member.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my friend from Wisconsin. His chastising us for voting to repeal or change portions of the Affordable Care Act is curious, in light of the fact that the gentleman, himself, I believe, supported one of our efforts just 2 weeks ago on delaying the employer mandate. But hope springs eternal that he'll be able to support our efforts in this endeavor on

Mr. Speaker, I will insert a letter in support of H.R. 2009 from the Americans for Tax Reform into the Record.

I reserve the balance of my time.

[From Americans for Tax Reform, June 20, 2013]

ATR Supports H.R. 2009, the ``Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act of

2013''

(By Ryan Ellis)

ATR supports H.R. 2009, the ``Keep the IRS Off Your Health

Care Act of 2013,'' sponsored by Cong. Tom Price (R-Ga.)

ATR is pleased to announce its support for H.R.. 2009, the

``Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act of 2013.'' The bill

is sponsored by medical doctor and Congressman Tom Price (R-

Ga.) We would urge all Congressmen to co-sponsor and support

the bill.

GAO has reported that there are 47 new powers the IRS has

acquired under the Obamacare law. We here at ATR have pointed

out time and again the 20 new or higher taxes that are

contained in Obamacare. With a new scandal coming out of the

IRS seemingly every day, the last thing that agency should be

doing is snooping into the personal health care lives of over

300 million Americans.

Yet that's just what the IRS is about to do. They will be

the agency tasked with implementing the individual mandate

and the employer mandate. They will force all of us to

disclose our personal health identification information to

them when we file our 1040s every April. They will be talking

to our insurance companies and the Department of Health and

Human Services about our health insurance packages.

This is outrageous. The IRS should have nothing to do with

our health care. Passage of H.R.. 2009 would ensure that the

agency which gave us Star Trek videos and Tea Party

harassment keeps its hands off our health care.

Mr. Speaker, I will include into the Record a letter endorsing H.R. 2009 from a group of six taxpayer advocate organizations.

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

August 2, 2013.

Hon. Tom Price,

Cannon House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Price, We the undersigned groups,

representing millions of Americans, strongly support your

legislation, H.R. 2009, the Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care

Act of 2013. This bill would prohibit the U.S. Treasury

Department from enforcing any provision of the Affordable

Care Act (aka Obamacare), ensuring that the Internal Revenue

Service (IRS) would be removed from implementing or enforcing

any component of Obamacare.

The last several months have proven to be an eye opening

experience for those who are concerned with the growing power

of the federal government, especially the IRS. Repeated and

systemic encroachment into the lives of American citizens by

targeting the very thing they cherish the most, the freedom

of speech, is a cause of great concern among many people from

all sides of the political spectrum. It is imperative to take

steps to ensure we rein in the power of an organization that

has proven to be incapable of handling the authority they

have right now with the responsibility and dignity the

American people expect. New developments on the unnerving

offenses have been uncovered on a regular basis for the last

few months and it is time to make certain that the IRS is

unable to extend these offenses into the lives of citizens

when it comes to their health care.

This legislation makes explicitly clear that the neither

the Treasury Department, nor ``any delegate'' shall have the

power to enforce any provision or amendment from Obamacare at

anytime going forward as the Administration moves to

implement the law. It is paramount that this legislation

passes, with overwhelming support, as it is clear that the

American people have no desire to have the IRS involved in

the decisions they and their families are making when it

comes to their health care. We have already seen the

consequences of the President's health care law on premiums

and job creation and it would be catastrophic to allow the

IRS to contribute to the chaos, considering their recent

record of abuses and mismanagement.

The American people deserve to be trusted with their own

decision making when it comes to their lives, including their

health care choices. The last thing anyone wants is to have

an agency they are already afraid of to be granted more.

We thank you for offering this commonsense language and we

urge all members of Congress to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2009.

Sincerely,

David Williams,

President, Taxpayers Protection Alliance.

Grover Norquist,

President, Americans for Tax Reform.

Jeff Mazzella,

President, Center for Individual Freedom.

Carrie Lukas,

Managing Director, Independent Women's Forum.

Seton Motley,

President, Less Government.

Pete Sepp,

Executive Vice President, National Taxpayers Union.

Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman that I have other speakers that may be coming, but at this point, I have no other speakers on the floor. I am prepared to close at any point.

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will submit a letter from 22 organizations from around the country endorsing H.R. 2009, and I reserve the balance of my time.

August 1, 2013.

Dear Congressmen: We, the undersigned organizations and

free market leaders write in united support of House efforts

this week to get the IRS out of Obamacare.

The House will consider a measure on Friday sponsored by

Congressman Tom Price (R-Ga.) to remove the IRS from any role

in the implementation of the Obamacare law.

It's a basic belief of most Americans that patients,

families, and doctors--not IRS bureaucrats--should be making

health care decisions. While this has always been the case,

its importance has been heightened in recent months by the

uncovered political targeting by the IRS of Tea Party and

other free market groups. The IRS should not be anywhere near

people's medical decisions until this black cloud of

political scandal has been lifted.

Unfortunately, the GAO reports that the IRS has no fewer

than 47 powers to implement Obamacare. That's 47 too many.

Allowing the IRS to enforce Obamacare is opening up the door

to more abuse, more targeting, and more harassment of

American citizens. The myriad of new taxes the IRS will

impose under the guise of health care reform will destroy

jobs, stifle economic growth, and impede medical innovation

in this country.

With Obamacare coming fully online in 2014, now is the time

to stop the IRS from becoming a full partner in our families'

healthcare decisions. House efforts to prevent this from

happening are welcome and all Members of Congress should

support these efforts.

Sincerely,

Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform; Dean Clancy,

Freedom Works; Al Cardenas, American Conservative

Union; Amy Kremer, Tea Party Express; Jenny Beth

Martin, Tea Party Patriots; Heather Higgins,

Independent Womens' Voice; Steven J. Duffield,

Crossroads GPS; Brandon Arnold, National Taxpayers

Union; Colin Hanna, Let Freedom Ring; Jim Martin, 60

Plus Association; Grace-Marie Turner, Galen Institute;

Phil Kerpen, American Commitment; Penny Nance,

Concerned Women for America; Ken Hoagland, Restore

America's Voice; John Tate, Campaign for Liberty; Peter

Ferrara, National Center for Policy Analysis; Ari

Winkour, Harbour League; Gregory T. Angelo, Log Cabin

Republicans; Mark Schiller, MD, Doctor-Patient Medical

Association; Betsy McCaughey, Ph.D, author of Beating

Obamacare; Brian Baker, Ending Spending; David Wallace,

Restore America's Mission.

(Signatures are for information purposes only).

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

Again, it's important for folks to appreciate that the Republican goal in health care is to make certain that every single American has the highest quality health care. We simply believe it ought to be patient-centered health care. And my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about patient-centered health care, but what they support is health care with Washington making decisions. We believe patients and families and doctors ought to be making medical decisions.

Now, what have we heard in opposition to this piece of legislation today? We've heard that Republicans have no plan. Well, on the contrary, Mr. Speaker, we have multiple pieces of legislation. I, in fact, have H.R. 2300, which is a patient-centered bill that makes certain that everybody has affordable coverage; that they are able to have the financial feasibility to purchase the coverage that they want, not that the government forces them to buy. And portability is solved. You don't lose your insurance if you change your job or you lose your job. We solve the whole challenge of preexisting illnesses and injuries, but in a patient-centered way, not a way that the government forces you to purchase what they want you to purchase. And it would provide insurance for every single American.

Second, we've heard this isn't a responsible piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, let me suggest that the American people think this is a responsible piece of legislation, where over 80 percent don't think the IRS ought to have a thing to do with their health care.

We've heard that this bill isn't going anywhere at all. Why do it? It's a futile attempt. Well, I'll remind my colleagues of seven pieces of legislation--bills passed in this House, bills passed by the United States Senate, and signed into law by President Obama--that either repealed or defunded portions of his own health care law.

H.R. 4 repealed the small business paperwork mandate; H.R. 1473 cut $2.2 billion from the ``stealth public plan'' and froze the IRS budget; H.R. 674 saved taxpayers $13 billion by adjusting eligibility for ObamaCare programs; H.R. 2055 made more reductions to the Independent Payment Advisory Board and the IRS; H.R. 3630 slashed billions of dollars from ObamaCare slush funds; H.R. 4348 saved another $670 million from the boondoggle, ``the Louisiana Purchase,'' that was included in the original bill; and H.R. 8 repealed the unsustainable CLASS programs.

All of those repealed or changed portions of the Affordable Care Act signed into law by the President of the United States.

We've heard heart-wrenching stories from our friends on the other side about health challenges and illnesses. And, yes, Mr. Speaker, there are real challenges out there. As a physician, I can attest to that, having spent over 20 years taking care of patients. But the American people don't want Washington deciding what kind of health care they must have or can't have. We need patients and families and doctors making those medical decisions.

And then there's the preposterous assertion from the other side that Republicans don't like affordable care, quality care, accessible care. Nonsense, Mr. Speaker. Nonsense. What we want is the highest quality of care that respects the principles of affordability and accessibility and quality and choices and responsiveness and innovation. We simply want patients and families and doctors to be in charge of health care, not Washington, D.C., and not the IRS.

I urge support of H.R. 2009, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a pivotal member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the chief deputy whip of the Republican Conference and a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Madam Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the author of H.R. 2667, a gentleman who recognizes where the authority ought to come from for this piece of legislation, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased now to yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the chair of the Health Subcommittee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased now to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the vice chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Renacci), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on our side?

Am I correct that the other side is out of time?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 300, I call up the bill (H.R. 2668) to delay the application of the individual health insurance mandate, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2668.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 2668, the Fairness for American Families Act. The administration says that they invited business to come in and explain how the cost and the complexity of ObamaCare was hurting business and hurting the economy, and they granted business relief appropriately.

Mr. Speaker, why hasn't the administration invited the American people into the halls of government?

Why hasn't the White House listened to the concerns of the American people about the cost and the complexity of ObamaCare for American families?

Have American families seen a $2,500 premium decrease as promised by the President?

No. In fact, premiums have gone up.

The American people don't understand this law any better than the employers, employers who can hire lawyers and consultants and health benefits experts. In fact, individuals who have no help understand this law even less than business; yet the administration granted relief only to business.

Mr. Speaker, it's clear: the President has now admitted it. His law, ObamaCare, is not ready. Deadlines have been missed. System testing is not complete. Income verification systems are not in place.

In the words of Senator Baucus, the train wreck is happening.

The law should be repealed, Mr. Speaker. President Obama disagrees with that, and that's unfortunate. But we all should be able to come together on the simple principle of fairness. If business gets a 1-year delay, the American people ought to get a 1-year delay. It's a simple principle.

If ObamaCare is behind schedule, the American people should not have to bear the burdens alone. They should get the same delay as business.

I urge my colleagues to come together today and to advance this very simple principle that this government will treat its citizens fairly and equally.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young), the author of the bill, recognizing his wisdom and his diligence in working on this issue and recognizing that fairness was absolutely vital on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my friend that it's the President who has delayed the employer mandate in this arena. All we're looking for is fairness and equality for the American people.

I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a fellow physician colleague in the United States House, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).

* * * The fact of the matter is that this bill, understanding that ObamaCare is a huge, destructive element in job destruction-- Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the gentleman's words be taken down.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my previous statement.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the majority leader of the United States House of Representatives, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to insert into the Record a letter of today from the National Federation of Independent Business.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record a letter dated July 15, 2013, from Matt Kibbe, the president and CEO of FreedomWorks in support of H.R. 2668.

FreedomWorks,

Washington, DC, July 15, 2013.

Key Vote YES on Delaying ObamaCare's Individual Mandate

As one of our millions of FreedomWorks members nationwide,

I urge you to contact your Representative and urge him or her

to vote YES on H.R. 2668, the Fairness for American Families

Act. Sponsored by Rep. Todd Young (R-IN), this bill--which

the House is expected to take up this week--would delay

ObamaCare's ``individual mandate.''

Beginning on January 1, 2014, ObamaCare will require most

U.S. citizens to purchase government-controlled health

insurance. This ``individual mandate'' is, by the

Administration's own admission, the ``linchpin'' of the

Washington takeover of health care. If the mandate were to go

away, the whole costly and intrusive scheme would unravel.

The individual mandate is a latter-day ``intolerable act.''

Despite the Supreme Court's erroneous 2012 ruling, Congress

lacks authority under the Constitution to impose such a

mandate on U.S. citizens. And even if it were constitutional,

the mandate is immoral because it violates individual

liberty, is not necessary to ``help the uninsured'' (there

are less coercive and less costly ways to do so), and is

terribly unfair, both in its effects and how it is being

implemented.

The unfairness of the mandate is this: its costly burden

falls most heavily on just one segment of the population:

young adults in their twenties and thirties. They are the

group most likely to be uninsured. Indeed, two-thirds of the

uninsured are in their twenties and thirties. ObamaCare

causes their insurance premiums to rise exponentially, in

some cases doubling or even tripling. These Americans are

uninsured because health insurance costs too much.

ObamaCare's mandate is unfair to them, because it forces them

to buy a product that is already too expensive, relative to

their needs.

But the law is also unfair to everyone, not just

millennials, in terms of how it is being implemented. The

Obama Administration recently made a unilateral (and illegal)

decision to cancel the ``employer mandate'' (which requires

employers with more than 50 employees to offer and heavily

subsidize health insurance to their workers). But it left the

individual mandate in place for the rest of us. The

Administration had already displayed rank unfairness by

granting more than 1,200 waivers from ObamaCare provisions to

its labor union allies and corporate cronies. It has now

given Big Business the ultimate waiver, a complete exemption

from the mandate, while making sure that Big Insurance gets

its own ``ultimate gift'' from Big Government: a compulsory

customer base. No wonder more than 70 percent of Americans

oppose the individual mandate, and just 12 percent support

it.

The only cure for the manifold ailments of ObamaCare is to

immediately defund or repeal it entirely, and to replace it

with patient-centered health care that will actually lower

costs and improve quality and access for all. Until then,

basic fairness demands that individuals be granted the same

favor as the Administration has given to businesses. The

individual mandate must be delayed for as long as possible.

H.R.2668 would delay the mandate for the same length of time

that the Administration claims to be ``delaying'' the

employer mandate: one year. That's a start.

I urge you to call your Representative and ask him or her

to vote YES on H.R. 2668, to delay ObamaCare's individual

mandate. We may count their vote as a KEY VOTE when

calculating the FreedomWorks Economic Freedom Scorecard for

2013. The Scorecard is used to determine eligibility for the

FreedomFighter Award, which recognizes members of Congress

with voting records that support economic freedom.

Sincerely,

Matt Kibbe,

President and CEO.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the chairwoman of the House Administration Committee, the gentlelady from the great State of Michigan, Candice Miller.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. Speaker, I insert in the Record a notice from the National Taxpayers Union, dated July 15, 2013, in support of both H.R. 2667 and H.R. 2668.

National Taxpayers Union,

Alexandria, VA, July 15, 2013.

National Taxpayers Union Vote Alert

NTU urges all Representatives to vote ``YES'' on H.R. 2667,

the ``Authority for Mandate Delay Act'' and H.R. 2668, the

``Fairness for American Families Act.'' These bills would

delay for one year the Affordable Care Act's health insurance

mandates for employers and individuals, respectively. While

the primary goal of Congress ought to be full repeal of the

Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. ``Obamacare''), in the meantime

it is imperative for legislators to recognize and address the

numerous problems associated with the law.

The Obama Administration acknowledged the detrimental

effects that the employer mandate will have on businesses,

workers, and the economy at large when it unilaterally

elected to delay this provision for one year. With the

legality of this move very much in question, the House of

Representatives is wisely moving to codify the change by

passing H.R. 2667. This would greatly assist--albeit only in

the short-term--the many businesses that are already cutting

employee hours or jobs as a result of the law.

At the same time that businesses are making difficult

staffing decisions, individuals are poised to be hit by

Obamacare's requirement to purchase health insurance. In

2014, the penalty for failing to do so is $285 per family or

1 percent of household income, whichever is greater. By 2016,

the penalty jumps to $2,085 per family or 2.5 percent of

household income, whichever is greater. As the Supreme Court

ruled last year, this penalty is a tax. For many families

continuing to struggle due to the weak economy, the burdens

from the individual mandate will become increasingly

difficult to bear. H.R. 2668 would delay the provision for a

year, which would provide much-needed, temporary relief to

these families.

Passage of H.R. 2667 and H.R. 2668 would help alleviate

some of the harmful effects that the Affordable Care Act will

impose on businesses and individuals. Enactment of these

bills would be an important step toward more significant

legislative goals, such as permanent repeal of both mandates

and the Affordable Care Act in its entirety.

Rollcall votes on H.R. 2667 and H.R. 2668 will be included

in our annual rating of Congress and ``yes'' votes will be

considered the pro-taxpayer position.

If you have any questions, please contact NTU Federal

Affairs Manager Nan Swift.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock), another member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, a fellow physician from the State of Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a gentlelady who, prior to coming to Congress, worked as a nurse and who is a pivotal member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlelady from Tennessee, Diane Black.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup), a gentleman who is engaged in the health profession.

As we have no more speakers, I am prepared to close.

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

There are a lot of folks who've come to the floor on the other side of the aisle to speak about this piece of legislation. Curiously, there aren't any individuals who came from those States that have actually passed legislation to implore Congress not to continue with the individual mandate--Alabama, Arizona, Missouri, Ohio, individuals from the other side of the aisle who didn't come down to the floor.

We get asked by folks on the other side about where's the jobs bill? Well, in addition to all the remarkable pieces of legislation on jobs that we have indeed passed and sent over to the Senate and it then gains dust over there, this is a jobs bill. I don't know if our friends on the other side haven't talked to their employers back home. Employers large and small, all of them say, Look, this is damaging job creation. We had one before the committee on Ways and Means that my friend from Washington and I sit on just last week who said he wasn't going to be able to expand his business. He couldn't, because of this bill. So this is a piece of jobs legislation.

We have a number of folks on the other side who say, Look, this is just about politics. Mr. Speaker, you talk about politics. You've got the President saying that he's going to delay the reporting requirements for the employer mandate for a year. And, by the way, that just happens to be after the 2014 election. You talk about politics.

Then you talk about delay. Some of my friends on the other side, they act as if this is something that we have indeed supported in the past. This is delay. This isn't repeal. In fact, we appreciate that the administration has awakened to the challenge of this piece of legislation.

They've recognized that it doesn't work for businesses and job creators because of the uncertainty and fewer jobs being created, so they have promoted a delay of 1 year for the employer mandate. But that uncertainty remains for those employers, and they're not going to be able to hire significant individuals.

And that uncertainty and that oppression of government-run health care isn't just for business. It's also true for individuals.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would say that I just encourage my friends to read the bill. This is the bill, H.R. 2668. It's very short and easily read. It simply changes the year requirements for the individual mandate from 1 year, 2014, to a year's delay in 2015. That's all it does. It simply equalizes the treatment for individuals as for businesses.

I know that many of them haven't read the bill. If they did, they would recognize that this bill has no change in it for preexisting illnesses or injuries and the rules thereon. It has no change for 26- year-olds being covered on their parents' health insurance. It has no change for lifetime limits. It has no change for the medical loss ratio provision. It has no change for gender equity. It has no change for out-of-pocket limits, and it has no change for anybody's insurance being taken away.

All this bill does, Mr. Speaker, is simply say that individuals ought to be treated fairly and equally, just like businesses, that we ought to delay the individual mandate for a year.

I call on my colleagues to support and vote for H.R. 2668, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered by: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 3: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the Chair's leadership on this.

This law has been in place now for a little over 3 years. So, as a physician, let's look at the symptoms of this law. Cost of premiums: increasing. Access to your doctor or your plan: already more difficult. Quality of health care going down because of Washington interference. Innovation: terribly affected, harming quality in this country. Choices for patients: decreased.

So let me get this straight. Increasing costs, less access, lower quality, less innovation, limiting your choices.

Madam Speaker, that's a life-threatening and terminal diagnosis.

It's time to repeal the ACA and adopt patient-centered health care, where patients and families and doctors make medical decisions, not Washington and the IRS.

Mr. Speaker, the greatest amount of opportunity, the greatest amount of success for the greatest number of people--ensuring that the American Dream lives for all--that's what we want. That's our goal. And our constituents know that the path to that goal demands real solutions.

Sadly, all we hear from the President and the other side is to just stay the course. More failed policies, more debt, more taxes, less American energy, more government control of health care, more dependency on government, less economic growth. That's their plan. And it simply isn't working for American families.

And now the President is forcing air travel delays, blaming the action on the sequester. The FAA is spending right now exactly what it spent in 2010. So these are Obama flight delays. The truth is that any spending reduction at the FAA could easily be gained by cutting waste, not necessary services.

President Obama, stop playing politics with the American people. We in Congress are used to it, but the public doesn't deserve it. Enough is enough.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and pride that I ask all members of the House to recognize a fellow physician and Georgian, S. William Clark, III, M.D., who has received the American Academy of Ophthalmology's 2012 Outstanding Advocate Award. This honor is bestowed upon Academy members who participate in advocacy-related efforts at the state or federal level. Recipients perorm advocacy functions in their capacity as ophthalmologists and demonstrate a pattern of supporting and improving the profession of medicine over a period of years.

Dr. Bill Clark, whom I have had the privilege of knowing for nearly 30 years, is a fitting recipient of this honor. As a general ophthalmologist in Waycross, Georgia, Dr. Clark has long been a committed advocate for ophthalmology, and medicine in general, since before completing his fellowship in 1984. A second-generation ophthalmologist, he learned the importance of being an effective proponent for quality health care from his revered father. With great concern for patients and respect for the principles of the healing arts, he has shared his passion with generations of new physicians.

Dr. Clark is a Past President and Board member of the Medical Association of Georgia (MAG) and has served as Vice President and Academy Councilor representing the Georgia Society of Opthalmology (GSO). Since 1988, he has served in the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates, representing the AMA Young Physicians Section, the American Academy of Ophthalmology, and Medical Association of Georgia. He currently serves as the Vice-Chair of the Georgia AMA Delegation.

For his commitment and devotion to physicians and patients on the state and federal level, I am so very pleased to take this opportunity to recognize my friend, Dr. Bill Clark, and congratulate him on the occasion of his receiving the American Academy of Ophthalmology's 2012 Outstanding Advocate Award.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my friend, Mr. Scott, for bringing forward a budget on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus. I think it's important that we have all sorts of options here on the floor to be able to discuss as they relate to a budget.

I would note a couple of items that he conveniently left out. One is that

the budget that the CBC brings to the floor--this will come as no surprise, Mr. Chairman--never gets to balance, which means it continues to spend more money than the government takes in, continues to spend more money than Washington takes in. The people of this great country understand that we can't continue going down this road over and over and over and over.

A couple of points that Mr. Scott made regarding the Republican budget, which is the budget that is the base budget here that we're bringing to the floor that, in fact, does get to balance in a responsible way:

It saves and strengthens and secures Medicare, as opposed to the misinformation that was provided by the other side;

It makes certain that States have the kind of flexibility so that they're able to provide the highest quality of health care to their Medicaid population;

It doesn't, as a matter of fact, address in a specific way the issue of Social Security because it provides for a reserve fund so that that is able to be addressed in a more specific way through the committee structure, which is also the important thing to recognize about the issue of taxes.

Our friends on the other side are so specific about what they accuse us of regarding taxes, but, in fact, as you know, Mr. Chairman, it's the Ways and Means Committee that will ultimately define that.

A couple of items that he conveniently left out on the budget that he is proposing is that they do raise taxes. In fact, they raise taxes by $2.8 trillion--$2.8 trillion over the next 10 years--and much of that increase in taxes is in the area of those who create jobs. We all know that if you tax something, you get less of it. So by taxing job creators, we'll get fewer jobs, and, Mr. Chairman, that's the last place we need to be heading right now. They spend $5.7 trillion more than the Republican budget that's being proposed, and they add another $2.9 trillion to the debt relative to the base budget that we're working on today.

I also want to address the issue of business taxes. They talk about removing the incentives that move jobs overseas. Well, Mr. Chairman, the biggest incentive to moving jobs overseas is that the United States now has the highest business tax rate in the industrialized world. If you're a business and you're planning on either expanding your business or you're thinking about starting a business here in the United States and you go to the line that says taxes, the other side of that says, no, go somewhere else, get out of here, because taxes are lower elsewhere, which means that jobs are being created elsewhere. We're driving jobs overseas by virtue of our current tax structure, and our friends on the other side of the aisle, especially with the CBC budget, actually increase that as opposed to decrease that.

I do, however, want to commend them, once again, for bringing a budget forward because, as you've heard earlier today and in the conversations around the budget, the President has not. We did find it. I found the President's budget. Here it is. Not a doggone thing on this poster, Mr. Chairman, because the President hasn't brought anything to us.

Now, that might be amusing to some, but the fact of the matter is that the law states that the President of the United States is required to present a budget to Congress by the first Monday in February. That was February 4 this year. We're a little over 6 weeks beyond that. The President has flagrantly--flagrantly--ignored his statutory responsibility to bring to the United States Congress a budget.

Now, some folks on the other side say, Oh, it happens all the time. Don't worry about that. It happens all the time. Well, as a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, in just one term, President Obama has missed the budget deadline more than any other President. He's now missed it four out of five times.

In the 90 years between 1923 and 2013, President Obama is the only President to miss the deadline 2 years in a row. He's the only President who's missed the deadline 3 out of 4 years in his first term, and he holds the record for the longest delay--98 days. Maybe that's the record he's trying to beat, Mr. Chairman.

So I want to commend, again, my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus for bringing forward a budget. As I say, I think it's extremely important that we have all sorts of different ideas out here on the floor to be able to debate and have people take a perspective on and have the opportunity to vote ``yea'' or ``nay'' on. I would respectfully suggest, however, that their budget moves this country in the wrong direction, not the right direction, and we'll urge opposition to their budget proposal.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, what's the time remaining on each side?

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita), a member of the Budget Committee.

I would just point out to the gentlelady that, in fact, multiple economists have looked at the budget that Republicans have brought forward, and a couple from Stanford had an editorial, I believe, in The Wall Street Journal this week and noted that their review, their study, their evaluation of the Republican budget actually demonstrates that 500,000 jobs would be produced in the first year in the Republican budget and 1.7 million jobs in the 10th year.

So if you want jobs, there's a way to get jobs created in this country, and it is to reward those individuals who are creating jobs. That's what the Republican budget does.

I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to another new member of the Budget Committee and a member of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains on each side, please?

May I inquire of my friend how many more speakers he has?

I reserve the balance of my time.

I have one more speaker outside of myself, and then I will be pleased to close.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a senior member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Chairman, I would, once again, remind my friends on the other side of the aisle and those listening that the Republican budget creates 500,000 jobs by the end of the first year, and it will result in over 1 million jobs in the 10th year. It's important to appreciate that. And I agree with my friend on the chart that he has about the jobs decreasing, the deepest and longest period of poor job growth in any recession. He's absolutely right. He's correct on that.

But what this budget does that he proposes is doubles down on policies that don't work. Spending money that we don't have is not a prescription for more job creation. A little honesty, Mr. Chairman, on this: only in Washington, as the American people know, is spending at a lower rate a cut. More spending at a lower rate in this town is a reduction, is a cut accused by the other side.

The fact of the matter is that the Republican budget increases spending on average 3.4 percent each year over the next 10 years. It's a responsible budget. It's a budget that actually gets to balance, which means that we don't spend money at the end of this budget that Washington doesn't have, and gets us on a path to paying off the debt.

It's that way that we realize that we can create jobs for the American people, we can ensure that young people in this country will be able to get out of college and be able to find a job in their sphere of education, and we can make certain that seniors have the kind of services that they need, the kind of things that have been destroyed by the current administration and by the budget being proposed on the other side. The Republican budget is a responsible budget.

I urge that Members of our party vote down the budget.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Ryan for his remarkable leadership on this and many other areas.

Mr. Chairman, it is no wonder that folks are confused out there. I tell you, there is so much misinformation that is coming, and the fearmongering that is coming from the other side is truly remarkable. So let's try to set the record and the motive straight.

Republicans care about seniors staring at devastating reductions in Medicare under current law. Republicans care about workers and middle class folks fighting to make ends meet with increased gas prices and increased food prices and on and on. Republicans care about young people struggling to get started in careers and being crushed by government rules and regulations. Republicans care about students getting out of school and not being able to get a job in their field. Because we care about seniors and workers and single moms and young people and students, because we care about all Americans, we present this responsible, balanced budget.

Budgets, Mr. Chairman, are about priorities. Priorities that the American people overwhelmingly support include getting Federal spending under control--poll after poll tells you that--getting our economy moving again so we can get folks back to work, and getting our debt crisis under control so that we may preserve the American Dream for future generations. These are precisely the priorities of our House Republican budget, the Path to Prosperity.

This Path to Prosperity is the way to responsibly balance our budget. American families all across this great land know that the Federal Government shouldn't spend more than we take in, and we agree.

Let's look at a couple of specific items.

Our friends talked on the other side about loopholes. We're interested in closing loopholes, you bet. The gentleman from Maryland says not one dime of closing loopholes will go to reduce the deficit on our side. He's absolutely wrong, Mr. Chairman. He's just wrong. I've had this discussion with him. He is simply wrong. It's really sad that he perpetuates that misinformation.

Second, taxes. The gentlelady from Pennsylvania said that we were interested in raising taxes by some remarkable amount. I can't even remember what it was. In fact, we don't. We actually balance the budget without raising taxes.

Mr. Chairman, they can't have it both ways. They can't say that our plan is not specific enough on taxes and then say it's so specific that we increase taxes by a specific amount. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, as you know and our friends on the other side of the aisle know, it's the Ways and Means Committee that develops the tax plan. That's why the Budget Committee doesn't address it.

As a physician, I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that taking $716 billion from Medicare and spending it on something else means that seniors are not going to have the kind of quality health care that they need, and that's why we go get that $716 billion. We'll bring it right back to the Medicare program. It's imperative to do that to keep quality health care in this country.

Then, finally, they talk about slashing and severe cuts to spending. Mr. Chairman, our budget increases spending by 3.4 percent every single year, on average, and we do that because that's the number that you need in order to bend the curve down so that we do indeed get to balance.

Mr. Chairman, the Path to Prosperity ensures that we're honoring America's most important priorities. Our budget saves and strengthens and secures Medicare. We protect national security. It cares for the poor and the sick by repairing America's safety net programs. And we expand economic opportunities for all.

We believe in the industriousness and the ingenuity and the dreams of the American people. It's time that we have a government that is worthy of the people that we represent.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Madam Chair, it is probably appropriate to refocus ourselves on the bill that we're discussing today, that's before us today, H.R. 444. It simply does one thing. It says to the President: when you bring a budget to Congress, tell us when it's going to balance. That's all it does.

Now, the sequester is an important issue, there's no doubt about it. President Obama's sequester is an important issue. House Republicans have passed two times spending reductions that prioritize in a much more responsible way. We agree that it ought to be much more responsible. The ball is in the Senate's court. The ball is in the President's court.

This bill, though, simply says to the President: when you bring your budget to us, just let us know when it balances. That's important because the last four budgets that the President has brought to this House, to this Congress, have never, ever balanced.

I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. DesJarlais).

Madam Chair, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to our distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Madam Chair, how much time remains on each side?

I want to commend my friend from Maryland on the

other side for trying to change the subject. There's a lot of talk over here about the sequester. That's an important issue. There's no doubt about it. We look forward to that debate.

This is about having the President submit a budget to Congress that balances, and we're concerned about that because the last four budgets that this President has submitted to this Congress have never, ever balanced.

With that, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Madam Chair, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a member of the Budget Committee and the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).

Madam Chair, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a new Member on our side of the aisle, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).

Madam Chair, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to another new member of our Conference, the gentleman from Texas, who knows a significant amount about budgets and who is a new member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Williams.

I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to another new member of our Conference, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Bridenstine).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Sometimes in these conversations and debates, Madam Chair, it's important to set the record straight. My friend from Maryland says that the reason the President hasn't been able to submit his budget on time--by the way, the law is by February 4, the first Monday in February--is due to what happened at the end of last year.

I would remind my colleague that President Obama has missed the budget deadline more than any other President. In the 90 years since the President has been required to submit a budget to Congress by the first Monday in February, President Obama is the only President to miss the deadline 2 years in a row, and he's the only President to miss the deadline 3 out of 4 years in his first term. So that's just to set the record straight.

Secondly, I would remind my friend from Maryland that the last time this country had a balanced budget it was a Republican Congress that did it. In fact, President Clinton vetoed the budget twice and then signed it, but it was a Republican Congress, and we reduced taxes at that time.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to our policy chair on the Republican side, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

Madam Chair, this is pretty simple stuff. It's what families do across this country. It's what businesses do across this country, and that is to make certain that they don't spend more than they take in. All this bill does is say to the President, When you bring your budget to the Congress, Mr. President, let us know when it balances. And hopefully it's not never, as he's had for the last 4 years.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's amendment, and although possibly well-intentioned, we're not saying at all that this is just on the President's watch, that this is simply this President that is culpable, but you'd have to ignore the President's fiscal issues that he's had over the past 4 years to think that he didn't have a hand in this.

On taking office, President Obama promised to cut the deficit in half. Madam Chair, the deficit, when the President entered office, was $458 billion. We all know that the deficit last year was $1.3 trillion--hardly in half, not even with new math.

Instead, he's presided over four straight trillion-dollar-plus deficits. Spending is 22 percent higher at the end of this President's first term than it was when he took office. Under his own budget, spending will be 40 percent higher at the end of his second term if Congress were to go along with the proposals he brings forward. And finally, the President is on track to double the national debt by the end of his term in office.

Now, my new colleague from California says that all you've got to do is pass a budget through the Congress and all things will be wonderful, and the House Republicans have passed a budget. And, Madam Chair, it's been a budget that has put us on a path to balance, yes, and we'll do that again this year. But I will remind my colleague that the Senate hasn't passed a budget in nearly 4 years, which is why 2 weeks ago this Congress, this House, passed a bill--No Budget, No Pay--where we finally got the Senate to admit that they hadn't passed a budget. And, oh, yes, by the way, they'll do one this year. We got their attention.

So, Madam Chair, though well-intentioned, trying to change the subject and the issue a little bit, this amendment doesn't--doesn't-- assist in getting us to the point where it is the President's responsibility to tell the American people--in fact, it's only fair for the President to tell the American people when he brings his budget forward, when will it balance.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, what time remains for each side, please?

Madam Chair, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the vice chair of our conference, the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

Madam Chair, I urge a rejection of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, I want to commend my colleague from Oregon and the colleagues that came together to submit this amendment, as I believe it truly to be well-intentioned, but I think it misses the mark. I think for two reasons, specifically, that it ought not be adopted by this body.

First, it unnecessarily restricts the ability of the President to determine how he would balance the budget. Remember, the underlying bill doesn't tie the President's hands in any way. It simply says to the President when you submit your budget to Congress, just let us know when it's going to balance. And if it's not going to balance within the period of time that's defined by the budget window, then tell us when it's going to balance, and tell us what you're going to do to make it come into balance.

And the reason that balance is important, Madam Chair, is not just because it makes numbers, zero equals zero on a page somewhere. It's because it's about the economy, to get the economy rolling again and get jobs being created. That's why it's important.

Secondly, this amendment would have the President build his balanced budget around a foundation that never balances. A lot of talk about Simpson-Bowles, and I commend them for the wonderful work that they did. However, if you get down into the details of that, there are some things in there that just simply will not work. And the biggest thing is that it never gets to balance.

So the underlying bill again, Madam Chair, is crafted very carefully so that it gives the President the greatest amount of flexibility to propose how he believes the budget ought to be balanced.

And finally, maybe the most important thing about this, the inadequacy of this amendment, is that the President has already rejected the findings in the Simpson-Bowles commission. The President's already rejected it, his own commission; said never mind, that's not the way I want to do it.

So we would suggest that allowing the President the greatest amount of flexibility on how he would propose to balance the budget--something he's never done, but we want to leave him the greatest amount of flexibility, so we ought to retain the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, again, I think the intention of the amendment is sound. However, it's important to appreciate that the Simpson-Bowles approach fails to address the primary driver of spending, and that's health care. And maybe that was why the President rejected it. I don't know.

But the fact of the matter is that the Simpson-Bowles approach leaves in place the President's health care law with its $1.7 trillion in higher spending, soon to be over $2 trillion, and its trillion-plus dollars higher taxes. So I think this amendment, again, ties the President unnecessarily and that it's a step in the wrong direction. I would urge its defeat.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I commend the gentleman once again, but I would point out that there's nothing in the underlying bill that precludes the President from using this as a model if that is what he so desires. But there isn't any reason why we ought to constrain the President to hopefully bring to this Congress a budget that, for the first time in this administration, actually gets to balance. That's what the underlying bill is all about. Mr. President, bring us a budget. Just tell us when it balances, because, oh, by the way, the last four budgets that you submitted have never gotten to balance.

I urge defeat of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I want to commend my colleague from Louisiana and the chair of the Republican Study Committee for bringing forth this amendment and supporting the underlying bill.

The amendment, as the gentleman from Maryland said, simply provides greater information, more transparency, more information from the President in his budget on the differences between the mandatory and the means-tested in the discretionary side of the budget.

It also, I think, is so important for the American people to gain as much information as possible as we move through this national debate, the national debate of whether or not it is appropriate for the President to bring a budget to Congress that in the past 4 years has never balanced.

The underlying bill, again, urges the President to bring a budget to the Congress that gets to balance and let's the American people know when it does. So I want to commend my colleague from Louisiana for his amendment and urge adoption of the amendment and the underlying bill.

Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.