tv Public Affairs CSPAN July 17, 2013 10:00am-1:01pm EDT
guest: it's really surprisingly as the governor of the nation's largest state and is the most famous politician in that state, it's surprising to me what sort of normal life he can have. just calling his wife to see if she will pick up the dry cleaning and working out of this third floor loft in oakland. may be that's the legacy of having this stage in his life. everybody in california says that's just jerry. i think that was interesting to me. host: james fallows from the the atlantic. we go to the house of representative on the affordable are act. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., july 17, 2013.
i hereby appoint the honorable thomas massey to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 3, 2013, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour ebate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip each, to five minutes but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, for five minutes. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, for civilian defense employees at packs river naval air station,
webster field, all of which i represent, and mr. jones, who's on the floor, represents a substantial number as well in his district. sequestration hit home last week as furloughs began. he same is true of 650,000 civilian defense workers throughout our country. the furloughs brought on by the irrational policy of sequestration are harming our national security and putting our military readiness at risk. at the same time, they also present a severe 20% pay cut in the form of days when they are forced to stay home without pay forbidding even to volunteer to continue their important task. federal employees, including those in civilian defense positions, have already contributed $114 billion over the st three years for
next seven year from pay freezes and changes in retirement benefits. these are hardworking, dedicated men and women who only want to serve their country and make a difference. as i said on this floor last week, i met with many of those preparing to be furloughed. i heard their concerns about the sequester's effect on the men and women in uniform whom these fine civilian employees support. we have men and women at the point of this spear but we have a lot of men and women who are making sure they can be as effective and safe as possible at the point of that spear. and i heard from them about how the sequester is affecting morale on and off base. what i didn't hear much at all from those employees was concern about themselves about how furloughs will impact their own families. that's because their number one
concern, even facing an undeserved 20% pay cut, is still their ability to serve and get the job done for our troops, and all of us who depend on a strong national defense. after my meeting with civilian defense employees from maryland's fifth district, i message from il an employee at webster field. he wrote this and i quote, we pride ourselves in not only delivering a quality product but on being responsive to the emergent need of our soldiers and sailors around the world. he went on to say, and i quote, if our dedicated folks are told to turn the lights off and lock the doors at 4:00 p.m. on thursday, then who, who will provide that level of responsiveness our military counterparts have so desperately come to expect and rely on when no one is here to
respond to the call on friday? what message, he said, does that send to the civilians and contractors who have made it their mission to ensure our military never goes without critical equipment, data and training they need? he goes on to say, i genuinely worry that it devalues the level of effort that our employees have put forth. and when you're losing your way and your work appears to be less important, it will become much harder to retain a lot of these very talented folk. not my words, mr. speaker. but the words of one of america's many selfless public servants who are concerned about this dangerous sequester. what will it take for congress to act? 've also seen air combat
units grounded and in some classes at the naval academy this fall could be canceled if sequester continues. he only way to reverse these effects, mr. speaker, on our military readiness and training is to replace the sequester with a big and balanced alternative. budget committee ranking member
chris van hollen has proposed a balanced alternative seven times, but the majority has not allowed us to consider a balanced plan on this floor. if we had on this floor an alternative to the sequester that achieves real deficit reduction which we know we need through a balance of revenues and targeted spending cuts, mr. speaker, i believe that the majority of us, republican and democrat, will come together and support it. it's time for speaker boehner to appoint budget conferees to the house and senate negotiators so they can begin
to reach agreement on a balanced compromise. i will continue, mr. speaker, to call on both parties to listen to the men and women of packs river, of webster field, of indian head, quantico, folks in north carolina that mr. jones represents,
folks in maryland that i represent, the folks in connecticut that mr. courtney represents, the folks in massachusetts that my good friend, the ranking member, almost ranking member on the rules committee represents and the gentleman from illinois represents. they and i will continue to -- on both parties to act, to act on a balanced, rational, reasonable alternative that brings deficits down but maintains our national security and the morale of the people who every day work to protect
our great land and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, thank you very much. i must say it is very disappointing that the last time the house of representatives officially remembered the men and women who have died in afghanistan was february of this year. since then we've lost a total of 79 members of our armed forces, 15 were killed in march, 14 were killed in april, 22 killed in may and 18 killed in june. why do we continue to send our young men and women to risk their life and limb in a country that will never change? in addition to this tragic waste of life, i'm amazed of the lack of oversight of the taxpayers money. after listening to the special inspector general of afghan speak on the c-span program,
journal journal, on monday, i'll give you two examples of fraud and abuse that particularly stood out to me. we have countless buildings in afghanistan constructed with taxpayers' dollars that remain unused or even worse falling apart. the inspector general referenced one building made of brick that he said is truly melting due to poor construction. how in the world can we continue to fund these programs in afghanistan with very little oversight and quite frankly a waste of the taxpayers' money? he further stated, we have $20 billion in the pipeline to be spent in afghanistan while we're dealing with the ill effects of sequestration that mr. hoyer just spoke about and cutting crucial programs for our military personnel right
here at home. especially our mental health programs for our veterans who are suffering because of furloughing the civilian workers who help our veterans who are suffering from ptsd and t.b.i. those people that are the professionals to help them are being cut. this is why this waste of money in afghanistan is absolutely, mr. speaker, unacceptable. congress is not listening to the american taxpayer. the taxpayer is fed up and tired of wasting money and life and limb in havings. history has said no -- limb in afghanistan. history has said no nation has changed afghanistan and no nation will ever change afghanistan. we need to listen to the american people and stop this pending and more importantly than spending is the waste of life in afghanistan. i ask my colleagues on both sides to come together and work together and let's start reducing the amount of money that we're spending in
afghanistan and let's also reduce the number of troops that have to go back and forth to afghanistan. sequestration and furloughs are creating one of the worst situations for our military that they faced in many, many years and again we are looking at furloughing the professional doctors and nurses and mental health providers. mr. speaker, beside me is really what i say speaks better than my words. it is a photograph of a full dressed army contingency walking behind a cason and apparently the wife of the soldier is standing there with her little girl holding the mother's hand and the little girl is wondering why is daddy in that flag-draped cauven -- coffin. that's what's missing here in this congress is there's no
debate on the waste of life and the waste of money in afghanistan. i ask the american people to put pressure on members of congress to stop this waste of life and money in afghanistan and with that, mr. speaker, i'll close by asking god to please bless our men and women in uniform, to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform and in his arms to hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in afghanistan and iraq. i ask god to please bless the house and senate that we'll do what is right in the eyes of god for god's people and i will ask god to please give the president strength and courage that he'll do what is right in the eyes of god. and three times, god, please, god, please, god, please continue to bless america. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley, for five minutes. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker.
mr. speaker, i don't believe that anyone is born with an inclination to hate. but sometimes in the year of 2013 it's easy to forget. not one of us begins this life hating that which is different. not one of us begins this life fearing those who are different from ourselves. as children we recognize differences. we wonder about them and question why, but as children we don't hate or fear. people must learn to hate. they've got to be taught to hate and fear. carefully taught. in "south pacific" lieutenant joe cables sings a song entitled "you got to be carefully taught." the leerks of the song confront prestigious as core, -- prejudice as core. it's imposed by others who once had it imposed upon them in a
vicious cycle of prejudice and fear. one isn't born with an inherent aversion to those of a different skin tone. one has to be taught to fear a young, unarmed black man in a hoodie. one has to be taught to fear minorities voting. you got to be carefully taught. i also believe discrimination plays a role in opposition to same-sex marriage. one isn't born thinking gay people should be treated differently than straight people. one has to be taught to fear equality for all. you've got to be carefully taught. discrimination has played a role in our immigration policy. rom the late 19th century till today. but people aren't naturally hostile to those who speak a different language, who come from a different place. they had to be thought to fear the dreamers who are american in all but citizenship or their parents who risked their lives to make a better life for their children. ou got to be carefully taught.
when "south pacific" debuted in 1949, the song "you got to be taught" was almost cut. it was told it was too preachy, too inappropriate for the musical stage. the song was so controversial that some in the deep south would not allow the musical to be played on their stages. lawmakers in georgia even tried to outlaw such entertainment with one legislator arguing that a song justifying interracial marriage was impolice italy a threat to the american way of life. but rogers and hammerstein insisted the song be sung because it told the truth and nothing combats fear better than the truth. "south pacific" premiered more than a half century ago, yet its lessons are perhaps even more relevant today. we have come a long way since the jim crow era but the truth is that discrimination, while perhaps not as blatant, is alive and well. despite all the progress we've made, we're still taught to be fearful of differences, to discriminate those of a
different race or gender or background or sexual orientation and tragically although sometimes unknowingly allow that discrimination influence our actions. it's those actions, whether on a street corner in florida or here on the floor of the house of representatives that teach yet another generation to hate in fear. as lawmakers we have a responsibility to root out discrimination, to impart upon a new generation a philosophy of tolerance and to embrace our differences. by confronting discrimination head on, we can finally stop the vicious cycle of prejudice and fear. nelson mandela said it best. people must learn to hate, and they can learn to hate they can be taught to love. for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite. you got to be carefully taught, mr. speaker, and the teaching must begin in our hearts and with our children. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. hompson, for five minutes.
mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, may of 2012 the house ways and means committee released a report that expounds upon one of the most problematic provisions included in obamacare, the mandate on employers with at least 50 full-time equivalent employees to offer, quote, affordable and government approved health insurance plans to their workers beginning in 2014. employers with at least 50 full-time equivalent employees who do not offer government approved coverage must pay $2,000 in fines annually per employee. after 2014, the fine would be indexed to the average per capita premium for health insurance as determined by the health and human services secretary. even if employers do offer government approved health insurance coverage, they could still be fined if health and human services secretary deems
the plan unaffordable and at least one full-time employee purchases a qualified health plan through an exchange or receives a taxpayer funded subsidy for the coverage. 71 fortune 100 companies have responded to the ways and means committee survey included in the 2012 report estimate that they could save $28.6 billion in 2014 by eliminating health insurance coverage for their 2.59 million employees and opting to pay the annual fine per employee. this would impact more than 10. million employees and dependsent on employer-based plans. under these estimates from 2014 to 2023, the employer survey could save an estimated $422.4 billion. the employer mandate provides a perverse incentive for companies to drop their employees from health plans that are otherwise working and are embraced by the
employees themselves. this is a stark contrast from the promise made by president obama suggesting, quote, first of all if you got health insurance, you like your doctors, you like your plan, you can keep your doctor and plan. nobody's talking about taking that away from you, end quotes. mr. speaker, as we are seeing that is simply not true. but furthermore, the employer mandate will serve to drive up the cost of obamacare as more and more people become a part of the exchange. even comedy central's john stewart in an interview with the health and human services secretary posed a question as to whether or not the employee mandate would cause employers to, quote, dump employees into the exchange, until, quote, it becomes not a takeover but a government responsibility for the health care and suddenly we are sweden. this week the house will vote to legitimatize the administration's delay of the employer mandate for one year. while i support this delay, we must continue to focus efforts
on repealing and replacing obamacare so that we can begin to reduce the escalating health care costs and the restrictions on access -- the attacks on quality and innovation in this country and the turnover of health care from a personal decision to the government. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, r. mcgovern, for five minutes. without objection. 18 mcgovern: mr. speaker, times this year i have come to this floor and talked about the need to end hunger now. 18 times i have defended our nation's anti-hunger programs, discussed the paradox of hunger and obesity, and talked about hunger among the elderly. over the past few weeks this house has voted on two versions of the farm bill re-authorization. the first was defeated after the republican leadership
overreached not only by cutting the linchpin of our anti-hunger programs, snap, formerly known as food stamps, but also by adding poison pill after poison pill amendment to the bill. last week the republican leadership responded to the stinging defeat of their farm will by stripping out the entire-- farm bill by stripping out the entire nutrition title while at the same time extending subsidies for big agribusinesses. talked about messed up priorities, mr. speaker. by the way the nutrition title not only includes snap, it includes funding for food banks and senior anti-hunger programs. opponents of snap like to focus on the idea that snap is somehow fraudulent. not just that some snap money is being misspent but so much is being waitsed we need to drastically rein in the program regardless of whether snap cuts increase hunger in america. we heard these claims time after time during consideration of the two farm bills. sadly, those who claim rampant fraud waste and abuse of snap
don't let the facts get in the way of their arguments. that's because snap is among the most effective and efficient, if not the most effective and efficient federally administered program. i serve on the house agriculture committee and i took part in extensive debate over snap during both the committee markup and on the house floor. not one member, democrat or republican on the house agriculture committee, provided statistical information on waste, fraud, and abuse of the snap program. on top of that, no hearings were held on the snap program at all. in fact, i challenged any member of the committee to find any federal program that has a lower rate of waste, fraud, and abuse. the truth is, no one could answer my challenge. mr. speaker, according to both the u.s. department of agriculture and the office of the inspector general at usda, the fraud rates for snap are at all time lows and going down. on top of that usda continues to pursue instances of waste, fraud, and abuse and is
prosecuting these cases. despite the rapid growth in snap participation, primarily due to the historic recession we are still recovering from, ther-e roar rate for snap sls at a record low according to the latest data available. specifically, 3% of all snap benefits represented overpayments, meaning they either went to ineligible households or went to eligible households by excess siff amounts. this means more than 98% of snap benefits were issued to eligible households, and the combined error rate, the total error rate that includes both under and over payments reached an all-time low in 2011, falling to 3.8%. these statistics show just how well snap is truly managed. but there is even more data to consider. in july, the usda's office of inspector general issued a report on fraud investigations of usda programs that showed that fraud in snap is limited primarily to a few bad actors. it also showed cases of fraud
are far greater in other usda programs. according to this report, 10 cases involving usda programs were closed in the past two months. and only one of them involved fraud on the part of a snap recipient, that's right. only one case in 10 had to do with an individual defrauding the snap program. in fact, half of those cases dealt with improper use of rural development funds. the remaining four cases all involve snap abuse by retailers, not recipients. while this may seem like an innocuous statistic, it goes to the heart of what opponents claim, that snap beneficiaries, poor hungry working americans, are lazy and want to steal from the federal government. nothing, and i mean nothing, could be further from the truth. snap provides a life line to hungry americans whether they are one, 10, 25, 50, 75 or older. in doing so snap is likely the most effective and efficient program administered by the federal government. mr. speaker, of course we could
make snap better, we could make anything better. we could make it more efficient. we could ensure even more people get the food they need to prevent hunger in america, but we need to address hunger as a holistic way a including the role it plays in treating hunger. this is why we need a white house conference on food and nutrition if we are going to reduce hunger and improve nutrition. we need a plan. we need to get this right. we need urgency and leadership on this issue. mr. speaker, attacking snap and demonizing those who rely on it to make ends meet isn't just wrong, it's counterproductive. cutting snap will only make hunger worse and it certainly won't reduce the rates of waste, fraud, and abuse. the snap program works. while it can always be improved, we can't simply cut our way to a hunger-free society. we must work together if we are going to end hunger now. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee, mr.
desjarlais, for five minutes. mr. desjarlais: mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the extraordinary life of admiral frank benton kellso ii. a great american and true son of tennessee. on sunday, june 23, tennessee's fourth congressional district and our country lost this great american hero. to describe admiral kellso as honorable, principleled, and dedicated would be insufficient. his achievements and individual character are matched only by his patriotism and love of country. admiral kelso's 79-year life included a gallant and decorated 4 -year career in the united states navy. he graduate interested the u.s. naval academy in 1956 and began his career in the navy by joining the nuclear submarine program where he would later command two nuclear submarines. in 1986, the admiral commanded the atlantic fleet planning military actions against libya that significantly curbed
gaddafi's terrorist activities. in 1990, he earned the position of chief naval -- chief of naval operations, the navy's top uniformed officer. during this time, he successfully led naval operations in the persian gulf war. in addition to his distinguished naval career, admiral kelso was a family man. landishappily married to for 56 years until she passed away last year. together they had four children and eight grandchildren. he retired from the navy in 1994 and in 2003 he returned to his hometown of fayetteville, tennessee, where he he would spend the last 10 years of his life. these years were filled with love for his family and friends and service to his community. i believe that there is no greater example of commitment to one's country than the life of admiral frank kelso. his legacy of integrity and courage truly exemplify the best of the united states navy. to quote the celebrated song of our navy, here's wishing you a
happy voyage home. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney, for five minutes. mr. courtney: i request permission to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, on july 1 the front page of the "washington post" had a headline which showed in many respects just, again, the disconnect between this town and the rest of the country. it said, they said the sequester would be scary, mostly they were wrong. well, i would like those reporters to have joined me on july 3, two days later, when i went to the grotten navy base in southeastern connecticut to talk with over 100 civilian d.o.d. employees who are on the verge of being furloughed because of sequestration. under sequester 650,000 civilian d.o.d. employees for one day a week for the next 11 weeks will be furloughed or lose 20% of their paycheck despite the fact
that they contribute enormous value to the military readiness of this country. again, at that meeting where i was joined by captain carl lotte, the commander of the sub base, he talked about the fact among those employees are crane operators, those who install torpedoes, supplies to make sure our attack sub fleet is ready to go at any given time. again, losing them one day a week, again, pushes back the readiness of the sub marine complete. i talked to the head of the metal trades council, represents the maintenance crews on the base, again make sure that the tip of the spear of america's navy is ready to go. again, losing those folks one day a week is going to slow down and retard the ability of that fleet to be ready. rob, who is the head of the a.g. force talked about the staff that provides critical services whether it's health care, fire fire services, clerical work to
make sure that sub base is ready to accomplish its mission. in every case they all confirmed the fact that not only is this going to cause personal hardship, but it's also going to harm the military capability of that base. i received a number of emails from folks who are there that day or whose co-workers told them about that meeting. here's what some of them said. kimberly said, i'm a frl employee working on the navy base. i'm a gs-5 step 2, which means i make $17 an hour and paid biweekly. i'm mared rid with three children, ages 6, 4, 1, my husband works part-time and capped at his salary range of $16.40 an hour. it's already hard enough to make ends meet as it is and now with the furlough i'm losing $226.44 every pay period. robert, as a member of d.o.d., specifically the department of navy, working in grotten, i'm in the second week of furloughs. as a civilian employee for the
past 39 years i have never seen our government in such disarray. my command supervisor of shipbuilding performs extremely important jobs with government oversight of design, construction, and repair of our country's nuclear submarine fleet. john, furloughs will immediately manifest itself in the local economies around every u.s. military base if the in the form of 20% less goods, gas, groceries being bought and 20% less taxes being paid to town and state covers, already at an all-time low. lastly, as a result of the civilian furloughs at the health clinic, i believe our patient's access to care and continent through hampered. our military and dependents don't have the option to be sick or injured on a nonfurlough day. clinic staff have been trained to send patients to urgent care and emergency rooms largely due to the sequester. where is the wisdom of forcing the use of higher cost facilities in a fiscal crisis? thank you, it shows because
these furloughs don't save anything structurely or long-term for the federal government. what's clearly needed is for congress to respond to sequester based on what its original intention was. if you go to phil gramm, the gramm-rudman sequester act of 1985 which today's sequester is verbatim based on, he he stated in a speech in washington not too long ago, it was never the objective of gramm-rudman to trigger sequester. the objective was to have the threat of sequester force compromise and action. again that's from the inventor of sequestration. . there was a measure to turn off sequester, replacing it with smarter cuts, achieving the goal of deficit reduction but do it without a chainsaw that's disrupting the individuals of the stories i just described.
in every single instance, the rules committee denied the ability of this house to vote on a commonsense measure to turn off sequester. folks, we are now 4 1/2 months into sequester. its impact extends even beyond the department of defense. head start programs, kids are losing slots. n.i.h. research grants are being canceled. it's time for congress to listen to phil gramm, to turn off sequester and to represent these hardworking americans who every single day are serving our nation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway, for five minutes. mr. conaway: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. conaway: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, three years ago the democrats told the american people that congress had to pass the obamacare act so we can learn what was in it. well, three years later, we're just learning what is really in the law and how it will cost american jobs and limit their health care choices. it's no surprise to me that the
administration delayed the employer implementation mandate. obamacare is costing americans full-time jobs and hourly wages as employers fail to comply the mandates spawned by in law. later today the house of representatives will vote to delay imposing obamacare's crushing burdens on employers. for once we agree with the president. this law cannot be implemented without significantly harming our economy. we'll also go one step further and delay the same burdens falling on the backs of individuals as well. i don't believe it's appropriate to protect one half of america from obamacare but not the other half. we'll give the american families the same reprieve that the obama administration is giving to employers. this is important steps towards repeal. all the relations required by this law are still not written. with every day that passes, a new regulation is announced revealing just a little more what this bill will actually do. each rule and regulation mandates new costs for employers, more restrictions
for the insured and ultimately hikes the cost of health insurance for american families. this law is not ready to be implemented. there are too many questions, too many inconsistencies and too many complications. despite the promises of the democrat leadership, the fact is we still do not know what's in it. mr. speaker, my constituents want to see this law repealed. i think it's bad policy, bad politics and terrible for health care in america. i've supported every effort to end this law and i'll continue to support these efforts as long as i am in office. fundamentally, i do not believe this law will ever be ready. so next year, if the president has not worked with us to delay it or replace it, we'll argue for delays on individual mandates and employer mandates. i'll continue to demand that congress and the president repeal this law and replace it with one that puts patients first, allows new and innovative care and coverage and does not put the government
between patients and their doctors and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, for five minutes. mr. connolly: boy, i was going to talk about sequestration and i will, mr. speaker, but i got to respond to my friend on what he calls obamacare. it does everything he says he wants it to do, and i will remind those critics of obamacare that the individual mandate was a republican idea. and far from putting government between patients and their doctors, it actually facilitates patients' care directly with their doctors and their medical providers. just two weeks ago, mr. speaker, we celebrated our nation's independence, and it reminded us of the -- of american history. american history, especially at the constitutional convention, is all about parties coming together for the common good and compromising.
the first grade compromise created the united states senate and the united states house of representatives, allowing proportional representation here to protect the interests of the bigger states but equal representation in the other body to protect all of the states. that was the first grade compromise. the second grade compromise was between thomas jefferson and alexander hamilton. it involved the federal debt and the location of the future nation's capital. they had a dinner and they compromised. hamilton got what he wanted in the federal debt and jefferson got what he wanted in terms of the nation's capital. it was all about compromise. that's what we have to now we deal selves of as with the horrors of sequestration. yes, horrors. on july 5, the e.p.a., the housing and urban development department and the i.r.s. completely shut their offices throughout the united states furloughing 115,000 employees that day.
it was the third such agency shutdown for those agencies. last week, 680,000 department of defense civilian employees began a one day a week furlough that continues through the end of this fiscal year. for my colleagues who are so fond of saying let's run government the way a business ought to be run, what business would furlough 85% of its work force one day a week for three months? what c.e.o. or chairman of the board would last one day advocating for that as a management practice? and yet my friends on the other side of the aisle thinks that perfectly fine to manage the federal government. i recently met with members of the federal bar association who highlighted yet another unforcing cost to sequestration. and that has to do with $350 million of cuts in the judicial branch. since july of 2011, spending cuts have forced the federal court system to shed 10% of the
total judicial staff through layoffs. staffing of the court system is now at 2005 staffing levels, but the volume has only grown. many federal courts across the nation plan now to close one day a week. think about that. the american judicial system is looking at possibly only operating four days a week because of the lack of resources because of sequestration. that will result in lower -- slower processing for civil and bankruptcy cases which will ave a ripple effect on local communities. court security will be cut 30% and we can ask ourselves what rhetorically can go wrong with that. this will undermine the sixth amendment rights. cuts will lead to attorneys being furloughed up to 15 days.
the office is understaffed after losing 113 employees between last fall and spring as a result of budget cuts. mr. speaker, the judicial conference of the united states recently called this situation an unprecedented fiscal crisis that will seriously compromise the constitutional mission of the united states courts. the same constitution so many of my friends on the other side of the aisle probably hold up and say they believe in, it's just the latest in a string of what i hope are unintended consequences from sequestration and another reason why we must act within the next month to resolve the situation and stop mindless disinvestment in the important functions of government. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today.
>> the second bill that will delay for a year the requirement that individuals buy health insurance or pay a penalty. that debate begins later today when members return. and the house ways and means subcommittee hearing this morning is looking at the delay of the employer mandate. the testimony from the treasury department official, retirement and health polcy. that hearing under way now is live at c-span.org. going now look at the white house where we are standing by to take you live for remarks from president obama, the onfirmation of richard courdray. vice president joe biden swore him in to the position just before 10:00 eastern this morning. the senate voted to confirm cordray last night 66-34. the vote came after a deal was
struck between senate republicans and democrats to avoid the so-called nuclear option in changing filibuster rules. you can see live coverage of the president's remarks starting in about 10 minutes from now at 10:50 eastern here on c-span. as we mentioned, the house is take up two bills today dealing with delays on parts of the health care law. for more about those bills, a conversation with congressman john fleming, vice chair of republican doctors caucus. host: not only is our guest, representative john fleming, represents louisiana, the fourth district, he's the vice chair of the g.o.p. doctors caucus and here to talk about aspects of the affordable care afpblgt thank you for joining us. two votes planned today taking a look at the affordable care act, reportedly the 38 and 39th vote is. talk about those votes, what happens today? guest: we'll look at the mandates. as you know the president announced without any fanfare that the business mandate would
be delayed for a year. that's huge. because the business mandate, as you know, requires businesses to either cover all of their employees with health care, particularly if there are over 50 employees, or pay a huge fine. and to delay it a year is really a very interesting development. so what we are going to do is vote on it to codify and say, let's do that, fine, but we also need to give individual americans a break. why should they be forced to buy into this insurance program when businesses are given a break? i think it's a very interesting development. it will be very interesting to see how democrats vote on this. i'm certain republicans are all going to vote to delay both the individual and the business mandate. host: the purpose of the vote, considering it probably will go nowhere in the senate, is what? guest: the purpose is to
continue to get a fix, if you will, for the american people as to where their representative stands in washington on obamacare. as you know it's very controversial, more now than ever want to see it to goway, to be repealed. it's very unpopular. it passed with not a single republican vote to begin with. and all we have seen is problems with it. and i think it's just another pulse check, if you will, where we are with this. the problems with implementing it. we are three years down the road and this darn thing hadn't been implemented yet. it looks like it won't be implemented much for another four years except for the taxes. so it seems to be all pain and no gain. host: our guest joining us to talk about issue when it comes to the vote, the affordable care act at large. if you want to ask questions, here's how can you do so.
202-585-3880 for democrats. 202-585-3881 for republicans. and 202-585-3882 for independents. you can also give us a tweet if you want to tweet them on c-span wj. you can send us email, too, at firstname.lastname@example.org. the g.o.p. doctors caucus, what is that? >> this is physicians who are in the house of representatives who are republicans and some of our counterparts who are health care workers as well. we have the clinical psychologist, we have a nurse, we have a foot specialist, podiatrist who come together to work on these things really kind of offline, outside of committees. the reason for doing so is the health care economy is a very, very unique microeconomy. so we try to work out what are
the best solutions? we try to do this during the health care debate. of course we were kind of shut out on that, but now that obamacare is still -- its fate in question, i think, to many of us, we are still discussion and preparing the alternatives that would be, i think, advantageous to the american people should we have the opportunity to go back and repeal and revise obamacare. >> the question of the economy, it was the congressional budget office that says the government would collect about $4 billion in penalties in 2014 from the law, making the case it does bring money in. guest: no question about it. this is a -- an extension of the tax and spend bigger government in washington. of course the c.b.o. from the beginning said that it would sofert pay back some on the deficit -- sort of pay back some on the deficit. us on the republican side never believed that. now we had just the other day
the c.b.o. came out and said, oops, we found another $115 billion of added expense to it. i think as we work through this we are going to find that it's going to begin to mount up, more deficit spending, more debt for the nathes. -- nation. that's another, i think, unfortunately, a nail in the coffin. host: when it comes to the individual mandate, jay carney was asked questions about the affordable care act and he talked about how the affordable care act makes concessions for those who are individuals and low-income. here's what had he to say. get your response to it. >> what it allows is the opportunity for individuals to -- who could not prior to passage of the affordable care act afford certain insurance, to get insurance. and it provides subsidies for those who need help in affording it. and it assists businesses in that effort so that they can provide insurance to their employees. host: under that, giving
assistance to individuals, so there are already things according to jay carney. guest: let's understand what's going on here. individuals are being forced into this. who are those individuals who would otherwise opt out if they are young, healthy individuals? and what we are finding is that their cost, their subscriber cost, premiums, are going to double or triple. and the reason for that is, if you're going to bring people into health care with pre-existing illnesses, somebody's got to pay for it, and that somebody is young, healthy people. when they realize that they can either pay a $95 fine, which may not even be collectible, by the way, or $3,000 to $5,000 in health care premiums, many of them are not going to opt into it. so the government has a real problem with getting strids -- individuals even with the mandate to sign up for the bill. host: either $95 or 1% of the
taxable income. that's structured. it goes up year after year. guest: right. we are mostly talking about 20-something. so $95 would apply to most. host: our first call, mark from pennsylvania, republican line. you are on with representative john fleming. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you very much for taking my phone call. i do have a question for representative fleming. i honestly feel that this individual mandate is so illegal and so long wrong. i'm a 51-year-old male and i work and i don't have insurance. even though i don't have insurance right now, i do not think that government should -- can legally force me to pay a private company to cover me. i just think this is criminal. i agree with you, representative fleming, i think this whole thing should be thrown out, put in the trash can of history, and
start from scratch. i would like to get your response to this. guest: thank you. many americans, i think, agree with you on that. of course this went to the supreme court. it was very interesting. the government argued, the obama administration argued, that under the 10th amendment individuals could be required to purchase insurance. and it turned out that the court agreed. that they decided, well, let's do a little twist here. we'll put this law into a pretzel here and we'll call it, instead, a tax. so the penalty even though the obama administration argued against this idea, the penalty somehow became a tax. so under the -- congress' taxing authority, individual mandates became legal. the whole thing about this is that we have government forcing
people to purchase a product or service. i think that really sticks in the craw of most americans. what we republicans, what we conservatives would like to see is insurance become more affordable and attractive so more people will want to buy into it. and there are many ways to handle the pre-existing problems. we talked about creating a federal health benefits-type of scenario where people can aggregate together through various associations and get the same pre-existing coverage that you would have being part of a large company. of course there's state exchanges, most of which from my understanding, work very -- not exchanges, but high-risk pools, most of which work very well. i know the one in texas works extremely well. so there are a lot of solutions. the problem is when you have a top-down command and control slue, unfortunately we end up with more problems n. my
opinion, than we do solutions. host: a story in the "new york times" this morning talking about new york state saying the insurance regulators in that state the approved rates for 2014 are 50% lower on average than those currently available in new york. vinning in october, individuals in new york who now pay $1,000 will be able to stop for health insurance for as little as $308 monthly. with federal subsidies those costs will be lower. guest: you need to understand who you are talking about. if you are talking about people in the higher risk categories, people with more health care problems, by law their rates will have to come down. but somebody's got to pay for that. who is going to pay for it? it's going to be a combination -- other people on insurance, younger, healthier people who are going to have to pay higher rates. that's if they actually opt in which we believe many want. and the other thing is taxpayers. there is $1 trillion worth of taxes. somebody is paying for any lower rate. the bottom line is going forward
when you have a system that comprehensively covers so many people in their health care, it takes away the incentive, what we say skin in the game, for individuals to live more healthfully, to have more investment and better outcomes, and they are on health care. so utilization rates just skyrocket. we saw this back in the 1980's with h.m.o.'s. what happens is while some people may get a break on their insurance, many others will have to pay a lot more. and all of it will go up over time. host: new york, judy on our independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. judy from greenwood lake. i couldn't disagree more with you or that caller that called before me. 51 years old, no insurance. i'm 56 with know insurance. my husband is almost 50 with no insurance. we are self-employed. what are you going to do for people like myself and my husband? i have a 33-year-old son who works a crappy job because he can't get a job with a college degree. no health insurance.
i have a 26-year-old daughter who has no health insurance. and i can guarantee you we will all be on that exchange getting our health insurance. i cannot believe a doctor, i can in the believe the people in this country who disagree with getting everybody health insurance. should be universal health insurance, but we'll take what we can get, ok. this is a republican plan that was implemented and you were all against it. so it just proves to me what you're really against. and is it always the almighty dollar, sir? is that always what matters to you? because my health matters to me. ok. and i'm 56 years old. i need to go see a doctor yesterday. i had wheezey in my one lung for montreal, but i won't go. you know why? i'm self-employed. i own my own home. and i can't lose everything to some doctor who thinks everything is owed to them.
guest: well, all insults aside, what i would say is that all of us, both republican and democrat, want more people covered under insurance. we want more access to care. it's very questionable whether there will be even more than a marginal increase in people covered under obamacare. look what's happening in small businesses. we have a massive shift, full-time workers to part-time workers. why? because businesses that have more than 50 employees are going to find their bottom line completely wiped out. they go out of business. not only do their employees have insurance, they don't have a job. and that's one of the reasons why president obama delayed this is that is a prickley problem. it's not only affecting regular businesses but now we have the
unions coming out saying, wait, we are not into this to become part-time workers. you have many professors at universities now that are the only jobs available to them are part-time adjunct positions rather than a full-time with tenure. this is having a chilling effect on jobs all together. and as we see jobs decline, and we have the largest rate of -- smallest sector in the work force today than we have had since president carter was resident, if we don't get this country back to work, we are not going to be able to afford the nsurance that we already have. the question is how do we get more people covered by insurance? so republicans, we have been all about using the marketplace,
more options, more forms of insurance available, more involvement of the patient, himself or herself health savings account, which have been so effective. we want to see more people covered, but we want to make insurance and insurance industry and health care in general more efficient. as to physicians, doctors reimbursement rates have been declining over the years, especially against inflation. so now one of the problems we are seeing, particularly in medicare, this has been a problem in the past in medicaid, is the fact that physicians are opting out of these, or opting out of practice altogether. as utilization rates go up and doctors, the numbers go down, we are going to run into a crisis of access to health care. and that's a very serious problem. again with a very ridged system that's top-down from government, it's going to be very difficult to solve those problems.
host: hanson says the american people voted for the a.c.a. by voting for president. why aren't the republicans helping to shape the law? guest: they need to check with my constituents. i can tell i by an overwhelming majority my constituents opposed it then and oppose it now. if you look at the various polls by a majority of two to one americans are against it. they want it repealed. they want it replaced with something that's common sense. this is an unpopular law. make no mistake about it. it's an unworkable law. host: next call, birmingham, alabama, democrats line. caller: i'm a native of texas, born there. i have family members there. i'm young. i was going to go and get the insurance once i found a job, soon, i'm a recent graduate.
what i don't understand about this whole entire conversation is mixing the two together. the individual mandate and the business one. the business one, small business one, in particular, 96% of the people are already covered. we are only talking about 4% of people. my family owns three different usinesses. i think the problem in this country is we have such a misallocation of everything. for example, the deficit, why can't people just be honest about medicare? people have cancer and other things is where the cost s. no one wants to tackle those kind of chronic issues. you have something you guys are
>> as we wait for president obama, a little bit what's been happening with mr. cordray's nomination. the senate voted to confirm him. the vote was 66-34. it came after a deal was struck between senate republicans and democrats to avoid the so-called nuclear options. we're expecting president obama here in a moment or two.
>> another quick update to talk about richard cordray. he was confirmed as directsor of the consumer financial protection bureau yesterday. the senate this morning, another president obama's nominees. voting to caught off debate on or fred hoffburg to serve as the director of the export import bank. there's the president. >> thank you. thank you, everybody. thank you. thank you. please have a seat. please have a seat. well, for decades the middle class in this country was the engine that powered the economy
and that allowed us to all grow together. hard work paid off, responsibility was rewarded. it was that basic bargain that made this country great that no matter who you are, where you came from, you could make it if you put in enough blood, sweat and tears. but over time a winner take all philosophy began to take hold and delivered huge rewards to those at the very top but left everybody else working harder and harder just to stay afloat. a lot of families took on more debt just to keep up. mortgages from sold that people really didn't understand, and in some cases couldn't afford. financial sector was able to make huge bets with other people's money, and that strain of irresponsibility eventually came crashing down on all of us. now, i ran for president to restore that basic bargain.
i ran because i believed that our economy works best, not from the top down but from the middle up and from the bottom up where you got a rising, thriving middle class and ladders of opportunity for everybody. so four years ago even as we were working on restoring the economy and dealing with the immediate crisis, we also wanted to figure out how do we set new rules for the road to make sure that a few bad apples in the financial sector couldn't break the law or cheat consumers or put the entire economy at risk. and i was fortunate, even when i was running for president, to have some friends like elizabeth warren who already done a lot of academic work on this and, you know, had a whole series of ideas about how we might start making sure that consumers were treated better and as a consequence take some of the risk out of the system. and because of those
conversations and because of some terrific efforts by other members in congress, we were able for the first time in history to get a consumer watchdog on the job, to look out for the interests of everyday americans and i am very proud to say that last night rich cordray was finally confirmed by the united states senate to keep serving as america's consumer watchdog and consumer ector of the financial protection bureau. so very pleased about that. [applause] i first nominated rich for this position two years ago this week. [laughter] he was imminently qualified. he had the support of democrats
and republicans from across the country. a majority of states' attorneys general from both parties, rich's former colleagues called on him to be confirmed. and for two years republicans in the senate refused to give rich a simple yes or no vote. not because they didn't think he was the right person for the job but because they didn't like the law that set up the consumer watchdog in the first place. but without a director in place, the cfpb would have been severely hampered, and the cfpb wasn't able to give consumers the information they needed to make good informed decisions. folks in the financial system who were doing the right thing, didn't have much certainty or clear rules of the road, and the cfpb didn't have all the tools it needed to protect consumers gets mortgage brokers or credit reporting agencies or debt collectors who were taking advantage of ordinary
americans. as a consequence last year, i took steps on my own to temporarily appoint richard so he could get work -- get to work on their behalf. and americans everywhere are better off because he did. and thanks to not only rich but his terrific team, i know many are represented here, we've made real strides even despite the fact that the agency was hampered by the confirmation process. and i would argue that part of the reason we were able to finally get rich confirmed today is because he's shown through his leadership and because the very hard work that everybody at the cfpb has already done that this is making a difference in the lives of the american people, a positive difference day in and day out. it's hard to argue with success. so yesterday richard was
officially confirmed. i want to thank senators from both parties, including senator reid, senator mcconnell, senator mccain for coming together to help get rich confirmed. and obviously elizabeth, who wasn't the senator when she thought this up but now senator, she was poking and prodding people for a long time to help make it happen. senator reid's leadership in particular was obviously instrumental in getting this done. i couldn't be more grateful to him. together we're giving americans a guarantee that the protections they enjoy today will still be around next year and the year after that and the year after that and for years to come. while on the topic of nominations, i want to thank the senate for agreeing to give my other nominees who waited far too long the votes they deserve. these are all highly qualified men and women who are just ready to go to work for the american people. for students and for seniors,
for veterans, for middle-class families, special interests, they'll always have their lobbyists. they'll always have the capacity to tilt the system in their favor, but middle-class folks deserve leaders who will stand up for them as well on a day-to-day basis in the trenches. so let me use this opportunity to remind people of what the consumer financial protection bureau under rich's leadership can do and has done already even in some difficult circumstances. today, if you want to take out a mortgage or a student loan or a payday loan or you got a credit reporting agency or debt collector who's causing you problems, maybe they're not playing by the rules, maybe they're taking advantage of you, you have somewhere to go. the cfpb has already addressed more than 175,000 complaints
from all across the nation, giving people an advocate who's working with them when they're dealing with these financial institutions that may not always be thinking about consumers first. today as part of the cfpb's efforts. e you know they can get a simple report before taking out student loans. and more than 700 colleges have joined to make this information clear and transparent. it's making a difference. and by the way, if you've noticed that some credit card forms are becoming easier to understand than they used to be, that's because of the work of rich's team and other folks across this administration have done to make sure that people understand the kinds of debts that they're taking on through the -- through their credit cards. today, veterans have access to tools that they need to defend against dishonest lenders and
mortgage brokers who try to prey on them when they come home from serving their country. today, seniors are better protected from someone who sees their homes or their retirement savings as an easy target for get rich quick schemes. and thanks to the hard work of folks at the cfpb, so far six million americans have gotten more than $400 million in refunds from companies that engaged in unscrupulous practices. so this is not just some abstract theoretical exercise. families, many of them hard pressed, have money in their pockets. maybe in some cases saved a home or were able to send their kids to college because of the work that rich and his team is doing right now, and that's money that oftentimes families didn't have the power to recover before.
so americans are better off because of what rich has done as our consumer watchdog and his outstanding team is doing each and every day. and by the way, that's just the tangible benefits that we know of. that $400 million in refunds. but part of what happens when you got a watchdog, people don't try as many things. and everybody starts tightening up their practices. because they know somebody's watching. so that has ripple effects throughout our economy. so americans everywhere are better off because of the work that these folks have done. and now that rich has gotten the yes or no vote he deserved, businesses, consumers have more certainty than before that this will continue. so we've come a long way over the last 4 1/2 years. our economy's growing, our businesses have created 7.2 million new jobs over the past 40 months. we've locked in new safeguards to protect against another crisis, and we are making sure
that we are doing everything we can to change the incentives inside the financial system, try to end tax-funded -- taxpayer funded bailouts for good. even though more work remains, our system is more fairer and is more sound than it was when the crisis hit. of course we still got a long way to go to restore that basic bargain, to restore that sense of security that too many middle-class families still are fighting to rebuild. but if we just keep letting people like rich do their jobs, if we let all these incredible young people know that you're going to keep on going for a long time, you're building something that will last beyond our government service and will be providing protections for generations to come. if we keep focused on that north star, a rising, thriving middle class, an economy where prosperity is broad based, then
i'm confident that we're ultimately going to get to where we need to go. so i want to thank everybody and i just want to give rich a quick chance to say something. [applause] >> thank you. i want to thank the president, this president in particular, who's believed in us from the beginning. i want to thank the senate and the senators for the chance to persevere and be confirmed as the director of this consumer financial protection bureau. it's all i ever asked for, all i ever worked for was a chance to have an up or down vote on the merits. i thank them for that. for nearly two years, as the president indicated, we have been focused on making consumer finance markets work better for the american people.
today's action, the action, i was sworn in by the vice president this morning and the senate confirmation means there will be certainty for those markets and for the industries we oversee. for me it also reaffirms that our central responsibility is to stand on the side of consumers and see that they're treated fairly. just as the president described it. it's something that people deserves, it's something they want and need and we're there to try to provide it. we'll continue that essential work and each one of us, those of us here and those of us in washington and around the country who work for this new consumer bureau, including most especially myself, we're grateful for the opportunity that you've given us to serve our country in this important way. thank you. thank you, sir. [applause]
help u.s. companies get are the financing they need tokes port their products, areas where the private sector is unable or unwilling to go. the senate is expected to continue working through other pending executive nominations after reaching the agreement yesterday to avoid a change in the filibuster. we're seeing there elizabeth warren who handled the implementation of the consumer bureau and the special assistant to the president. richard cordray confirmed today as director of the consumer financial protection bureau. the house coming in at noon eastern. working on two bills related to the health care law, dealing with the employer mandate and the individual mandate. the house ways and means scompresh hearing this morning is looking into the delay of the employer mandate part of the law. that hearing got under way at about 10:00 eastern. we'll go to it live as we wait for the house to come back in. >> the individual mandate wouldn't exclude the opportunity -- or that portion of the law, isn't that correct?
have you had any discussions at treasury about the possibility of a delay of the individual mandate? >> mr. price, i'm not part of all the discussions at treasury, of course. >> have you been involved in any discussions at treasury and the i.r.s. to consider a delay in the individual mandate? >> congressman, we have not -- discussions ad any at all about considering a delay in the individual mandate? >> congressman, i do not recall being part of any discussion involved a view on my part that there would be a necessity
to provide more transition relief than congress has already provided for individuals under the individual responsibility provisions, the chancings relief that's faced in that provides a much lower level of penalty in 2014 and lower in 2015. >> but you were involved in the discussions about the delay in the employer mandate, is that correct? >> congressman, very much involved in discussions about whether transition relief was needed with respect to the employer reporting and the broader employer requirement. >> there have been questions about this 95% of employers who employ more than 50 individuals currently cover those -- their employees with health coverage. 5% do not. do you know how many that is?
how many folks is that? how many employees? >> 5% of employers who are over 50 that do not offer coverage currently? >> correct. >> be happy to get you that figure. >> analysis that you all said you did, these are the individuals that are thrown into the individual mandate, right? these are the folks that now have to provide coverage for themselves. i look forward to following up. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. smith is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you to mr. iwry for being here today, to share your insight. can you tell us what the first indicator was in -- that you detected that would eventually lead to this delay in the employer mandate? was it just the weighing in of business folks or were there other indicators? >> mr. smith, as you -- i know
you appreciate -- we are in continual contact with stakeholders. >> but more specifically, what would you say was an early indicator? >> and for at least the last ear or so, a number of major representatives of large ortions of our economy, people such as the retail industry -- >> ok. it was concerns by the private sector that were raised that were the earliest indicators that perhaps this needed to see a delay? >> mr. smith, i'm not sure i'd be comfortable in trying to reconstruct the earliest indicator, but clearly a very prominent request, a very pronounced request for additional time has been coming and very publicly, and not to
treasury in particular as opposed to anyone else, but to anyone who would listen, certainly to congress and congressional testimony and press releases and public statements from industry that more time on the reporting systems issues to adapt their systems to the reporting rules, to collect information that they would need to collect more efficiently and at lower costs -- >> so then on the reporting issue, are you saying that that just -- the administration won't be enforcing the reporting? how is it -- explain, again, how this can be done without congress codifying the very desire for the one-year delay? >> congressman, happy to do that. the announcement that we've made indicates that one additional year would be provided before the reporting requirements for the entities that are required to report,
employers -- that is authorized in the law itself? >> the law itself provides for the reporting requirements for insurers -- >> but for the delay? >> the delay is one we have made pursuant that the transition relief is something that we have provided pursuant to our authority under the tax to section 7805-a, provide when necessary -- >> so did this authority exist before the passage of the affordable care act? >> congressman, not only did the authority exist, but it has been exercised by administrations on both sides of the aisle on a variety of occasions to provide appropriate and necessary transition relief, not just to employers but to taxpayers
generally when the circumstances persuade the treasury department that additional time would be consistent with the furtherance of what congress intended when it enacted the particular requirement at issue. >> ok. so now shifting gears a bit. on -- if an individual qualifies for a subsidy that is conditional upon employer provisions of health insurance but there would be the delay for the employer provision -- this was touched on earlier -- can we really effectively still mandate the individual situation when the employer mandate is not in place? >> congressman, the transition relief with respect to the employer responsibility does
not at all make it impractical for individuals to be able to report -- >> but it is a condition upon which an individual would qualify for a subsidy, is that correct? >> if an individual wants to apply for a subsidy for a premium tax credit, there are a number of conditions that apply, including the individual's income, whether the individual has acquired coverage. >> time has expired. thank you, sir. mr. rangel. > thank you, mr. chairman. yes, i this so. good. thank you, mr. iwry. you seem to be hesitating in a lot of the responses from the requests that are being asked of you.
it is my observations it's because they sent the wrong person here to answer. you've indicated and your record shows you are involved in policy, and this committee needs someone that's involved in politics. because there is no question that no one cares about whattle policy is and no one cares whether the president delayed anything. actually most anything that the president wants the majority party in the house, they don't want. if the president actually walked on water, i'm certain that the speaker's group would be saying that the president can't swim and we ought to take another look at him. now, it's very unusual for me to remember any circumstance where a major piece of
legislation is being opposed and suggest that it be repealed of they have a president the sponsor of the legislation in office. and so i don't think you have to be a policy -- politician to answer that. if the republicans were to repeal the affordable care act, oes it appear that the president of the united states would veto it? if the repeal is passed by the house and senate, which is almost politically impossible, does, in your opinion, would not the president veto it? >> my understanding, mr. rangel, is that is certainly the case. >> and everybody in the house
of representatives and the senate, they know this. and so obviously they don't give a darn about your policy or the president's policy. it's here to embarrass the president or the administration as it relates to doing what they want done. they not only want it delayed, they want it out. there are bills on the floor to delay and repeal other parts of the bill. my question to put on your policy hat is, if their political goals and legislative goals were achieved, what would be in place to provide health care for americans? what would be there? >> mr. rangel, if this legislation were repealed -- >> wiped out.
> we would continue to see tens of millions of americans, without 50 million coverage. so many of whom would get coverage as a result of this act. we will continue to see from nce taken away people because they've gotten sick or the pricing -- >> well, what about young people? would they be able to get on their parents' insurance program up until 26, would that be available to them? >> it would not. >> if it was repealed? >> no, mr. rangel. >> what about the prescription drugs discounts that are provided in this law for seniors, would that be available if this was repealed? >> no, sir. >> ok. now, what about these preventive services, not waiting until you get sick, but to be able to see a doctor and to get medical advice and help
before you get sick, would that be available if we repeal obamacare? >> it would not and it would not be required to be provided at no cost. >> what would the lifetime, is it possible that you could make insurance companies keep you insured for life or could they continue as they had in the past to just cut you off? >> that is another protection of the law that would not be in effect if the law were not in effect. >> if you were applying for health insurance and they said, well, you've been sick before, we don't want to take you, if you wipe out obamacare, would they be forced to -- >> all time has expired. >> my time has expired. send a politician next time, mr. iwry. >> thank you for your brief, concise answers. we hope it continues. >> thank you so much for being
here. i was reading over your resume. it is really impressive. i mean, there's no question about you being in authority on this. with that in mind, you are graduate of harvard law school. let me ask you, because this is where the crux of this whole problem. where i'm from back home people expect to be treated fair and equally under the law. the affordable care act is the law, correct? so i think there's a natural feeling that i should be treated fairly and equally under it. the question then comes down to, what's the definition of fair? now, i tell you what, fair is defined as marked by impatient and onesty, free from self-interest, prejudice or favoritism. back from where i'm from, you treat me the same way as everybody else. u don't have -- need a law degree to understand that. liken quality or status.
but i thought the part that was best is, like for each member of a group, class or society. so now on july 2, there was a decision made, and coordinate to your testimony, there was great deliberation over this, is that true? >> there was careful deliberation. >> yes or no is easy for me. so there was great deliberation, yes? was there consideration if we do this with the employer mandate, what do we do with the individual mandate and discussion on that and that's a yes or no question? >> congressman, there was -- >> i am not trying to be a wiseguy for you. please tell me, yes or no, was there discussion on the individual mandate? >> congressman, as the employer responsibility provision transition relief -- >> i'm going to ask one more
time. was there discussion on the individual mandate, because you said there was quite a discussion on the employer mandate. my question to you, was there discussion on the individual mandate? it's a yes or no, sir. it's a very easy question. >> congressman, the individual responsibility provision, how it would be affected and how it would might interact if transition relief was given on the employer responsibility reporting provisions as the other employer requirements, consideration of the -- >> so there was discussion? >> certainly given. >> ok. all right. there's discussion on it. i don't want to be disrespectful. i only have a little bit of time and i need you to answer the questions as i -- these are all yes or noes, really. my next question, do you know when the deadline is? i look these things up. i'm concerned about this because i've never seen an organization that pays less attention to deadlines than this organization. deadlines really aren't deadlines. not in the government sector. in the private sector, if there is a deadline, by golly, you
are held to that deadline and if not you're held accountable for it. here we'll pick and choose what we want to do. we'll figure out what's fair and equal depending on what we want to do. a deadline is a date or time before something -- before which something must be done. ok. the deadlines were all established under the law. go back to march 23, 2010. that's when we started working this. my goodness. it's over 3 1/3 years and we're still trying to figure this out. i got to tell you, i am an employer. you sit there, i keep hearing, i don't understand. a lot of big people got waivers on it. i'm tired of getting jerked around being in the public sector and hearing excuses why it couldn't be done. this is absolutely pathetic we have to stand here and have this type of a conversation when the answers are all yes and no answers and the truth of the matter is we keep hearing the overwhelming support, my friends keep saying, you know what, we should delay this, we have to take our time. my goodness, we don't want to
rush this through. isn't it a shame they didn't use that same philosophy back in 2010? would have been a little bit easier. i got to tell you, i have great respect for treasury. i know you have 115,000 people in a work there and you guys go through $14 billion of taxpayer money to run that. i expect a little better performance and better return on by the american taxpayers. this is unraveling before our eyes. you guys said you studied it, talkeds about. there was intense -- maybe not intense -- but deliberative discussion on it. july 2 it comes out. it comes out on a blog. we wait until friday afternoon which is the way of this administration and then we drop this bomb on them. so the individual mandate has to be kept, can't be considered even though we did it for the employer mandate, we can't do it for the individual, yes or no? >> time has expired. >> good deal. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
thank you for the testimony today, sir. i share the concern about this decision of the administration for the employer mandate. but what i would like to do in our exchange here today is to clearly get an understanding from treasury's perspective and for my constituents as to what you did over the last 3 1/2 years since the enactment of this law in march, 2010, and what are your concrete steps going forward as to what treasury needs to do, will do and that we can hold you accountable to so that 12 monthsno we come up in the 2015 deadline we're not faced with another last-minute announcement through an internet blog saying, well, you know, we're not ready again. so question i have for you, sir, what did treasury do? you knew this employer mandate was coming the last 3 1/2 years. what did you do to prepare for that? where did you fail?
because clearly you failed because you didn't meet the deadline. what are you going to do over the next 12 months, in detail, to make sure we don't have another delay going forward? so let's start with what did you do? what did you organizationally do? >> congressman, what treasury did, has done with respect to the employer responsibility art of the affordable care act extensive set of guidance that involved five rounds of interaction through written comments with the private sector and the whole stakeholder community. so those guidance are documents you prepared based on input to say what to the employers? >> we issued proposed
egulations in december of 2012 that told taxpayers they could rely on the rules in those proposed regulations. >> it took two years to get those proposed rules ready to go. where do we stand today on those rules and where are we going over the next 12 months? >> so congressman, those proposed rules tell taxpayers that they can rely on those ules for implementation in 2014, that the rules embody the results of the intense dialogue with planned sponsors and stakeholders in all parts of the -- >> so if those rules are all done, why do you need any delay? >> the -- >> that's what i'm hearing. you're telling me the rules are done and you're giving guidance to the industry and to employers and then you're come
with the same breath and say we need delay. explain to me why i'm wrong. >> the employer responsibility proposed rules relate to most aspects of employer responsibility under the law. employers asked us to give priority to those particular rules to do that first in our discussions with them when we asked them what's most important, what's the critical path. the reporting requirements are ot part of that proposed regulation. >> so you going to do the reporting requirements as part of that proposal because it was too complicated for you to deal with the reporting requirements or because the employers said, we want you to focus there first rather than on the reporting requirements? is that what your testimony is? >> congressman, employers told us that of the very significant
different portions of this legislation that need to be digested and implemented and worked out in regulations, the employer reporting requirements were generally something that they thought we should do not as the first priority or the first step but rather as a second step after the main body of employer responsibility requirement. >> time is running short. now, going forward, what are you going to do over the next 12 months that i can hold you accountable to next time you come up here and ask for a delay? >> congressman, we are moving orward now to take advantage of the feedback we've received from planned sponsors and other stakeholders on the reporting requirements in the form of written comments which we've asked for and gotten and we're
now moving to prepare proposed regulations on those. >> all time has expired. mr. crowley. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for allowing me to participate. not a member of the subcommittee, and appreciate the opportunity. mr. iwry, thank you for your testimony today. i know this hearing is focused on the employer responsibility requirement, i want to point out something about the individual responsibility requirement as well. today's "new york times," as i know my colleague from wisconsin, mr. kind, mentioned earlier, highlights that in new york's marketplace, individual licies are expected to see a rate drop of 50% or greater. that's a huge success of the affordable care act or obamacare because the major thing that's changed in new york's market is the addition of all those healthy people into the -- into these plans. does the tangible success and
proof that all the doom and gloom of my colleagues on the other side is not likely to come to pass? i believe that most employers will continue to offer health insurance coverage. my republican colleagues want to use the a.c.a. as a scapegoat for business decisions that nay well be happening irrespective of health reform. but i'm confident that the overwhelming majority of businesses who offer coverage today without any requirements will continue to do so. mr. iwry, aren't there a number of surveys suggesting that employers will continue to offer coverage? do think wley, we there is a good reason to believe that employers that have been offering coverage will indeed continue to offer coverage in 2014. that employers will not drop coverage in 2014 simply because
of the one-year transition relief with respect to the employer reporting and because of the employer reporting with respect to the employer responsibility. >> and it's not just your belief, i want to point out for the record. a survey by the international foundation of employee benefit plans found that most employers, 99% of employers will continue to offer coverage. is that not true or correct? >> congressman, i don't have that survey in front of me, but happy to review it and get back to you on that. but that's consistent in general with our expectation that employers will continue to provide coverage. >> thank you, mr. iwry. clearly providing health insurance as good for business and will continue to do so. in a recent survey, over 2/3 of employers said they value
offering health insurance because it helps them retain current employees as well as attract future employees. having healthy employees is also important for reduced absenteeism and increased productivity, which i know my republican colleagues would all support. so i thank you, mr. iwry, for your testimony today. if there's anything more to add, i would yield your time, if you have more additional information you want to provide. >> mr. crowley, i would add -- i think it's important to note that another reason that employers have been providing health coverage to such a great extent and another reason to expect employers to continue look so in 2014 as they 1/1/2014 implement
dation date for employer provisions is the tax incentives for employer sponsored health coverage, that is the employee's ability to not recognize income on the value of the employer coverage provided to the employee, the income tax exclusion, the payroll tax exclusion and the employer's payroll tax exclusion for the employer sponsored health coverage. and those advantages have continued and will continue throughout to make it particularly advantageousous for employers to provide coverage in addition to the factors you mentioned. >> thank you, mr. iwry. mr. chairman, once again, thank you for allowing me to
participate in the subcommittee hearing. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. iwry, thank you for being here today. you're widely acknowledged as an employee benefits lawyer in this country. i know you spent three-plus years working on the regulations intended upon the statute dealing with the employer mandate. you, the administration have now have acknowledged it's not ready, not ready for primetime. clearly it's complicated. you have a talented team around you. you're one of the preimminent lawyers in this area, and yet there is an admission, it's not ready. you met with industries, various stakeholders as have we. we heard a lot of testimony on this. i want to run through a couple of industry sectors and get your opinion. basically yes or no. do you think that the employer mandate statute would have a particularly large impact on
employment practices for the ranchise industry? franchisees? i mean, we've seen a lot of reports in various articles about this. >> congressman, you're asking whether we think that the employer requirements -- >> yes. >> would have an impact on -- >> their employment practices, heir hiring. will it affect the franchise owners? will it affect restaurants, individually owned restaurants, what about retailers, small businesses? right, all of the franchise operations and small businesses, restaurants and so forth that have fewer than 50 employees, as defined in this legislation, would be
completely unaffected. >> i understand that. what about right at that mark? what about those just above? do you acknowledge that many of them are shifting to part-time employees to try to work with this statute as it is implemented? >> congressman, i don't think we have seen evidence yet that a lot of these employers are in fact shifting. clearly there has been conversation about whether they would, to what extent. >> we're seeing that in our congressional districts. we're hearing it directly from employers who are making those kinds of changes. i guess i would follow-up with this. we have slow growth, record unemployment, people are not looking for work, people are out of work particularly in the younger demographic. what is a one-year delay do on this when you acknowledge it's
very complex, you've been at it over three years and you haven't come up with the final package on how this is implemented? health care's complicated enough, and yet now we're putting this additional very complex set of regulations potentially on these business wners in a very sluggish economy. what's one year going to get us? what kind of certainty will that provide for these business owners? >> congressman, we've been very close touch with business owners, small business, large business. we've had many, many conversations at the nuts and bolts level about how this law would potentially affect them and about what we can do to make it more workable, as workable as possible for them and as easy as possible for them to work with and help their employees get coverage. and what we have done as a result of all that is to actually be ready. we have put out employer
responsibility rules. >> but you're not ready because you asked for a one-year delay on this. we're trying to understand what does a one-year delay get us after three years of very hard work trying to put this in place. to me it's an admission of something that's far too complex and probably should be repealed. >> congressman, the one-year delay of response to the employer requests for more time for them to adapt their systems of information reporting and for us if we can to find a way to simplify or streamline that particular aspect of the employer requirements. if we can find more ways to make it easier and more cost-effective from employers that are already providing coverage. >> it's a very big if. it's a very big if. >> congressman, we've had a good experience working with employers and finding creative
ways in making the other employer requirements more workable. we hope to do the same if we can with respect to reporting. >> all time has expired. at the top of this hearing was a delay employer mandate. and fairness and equality of treating workers differently than the treatment of businesses. i want to thank you, mr. iwry, for being here today. since you were not informed of the key elements, the timetable, earlier in testimony you agreed you'd provide promptly in writing to the committee when the treasury department made the final decision on employer mandate, when they informed that the white house of the decision, informed the h.h.s. and the answer to the question were any members of congress or the staff notified of this decision ahead of the blog post. i would encourage you to provide that promptly within the week, a week to this committee. agree? >> mr. chairman, we will
certainly be happy to respond to your request. i can't speak for the whole department in terms of the exact timing for details, but we'll be happy to work with your staff and cooperate. >> as a reminder, any member wishing to submit a request for the record, will have 14 days to do so. mr. iwry, ask the witness to respond in a timely manner. with that the committee is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> this hearing talking about the employer mandate. the members of the house today working on two bills related to the health care law. the employer mandate and the individual mandate. and on this morning's "washington journal," representative gene green of texas talked about those things.
host: we continue our conversation about today's votes on health care with representative gene green, served sembs the 29th district of texas. also on the energy and commerce health subcommittee. member of that. hello. guest: good morning. host: should there be a delay on the individual mandate side? guest: well, the president had that authority to do that. i'm a big supporter of the affordable care act. i thought we had the house bill instead of the senate, but the president made a decision. i'm not comfortable with that. i would rather have that employer mandate go into effect just like the individual mandate. again, they're managing that. i want to make sure when we roll it out they have everything ready to go so it's not chaotic. we're still going to start accepting through the state exchanges. in texas we won't have a state exchange. we have a national exchange starting october 1. people can sign up for it. the policies go into effect in
january. i have a district in very urban houston that's one of the highest in the country of people who work who don't have insurance through their employers. so i'm looking forward to having them have the opportunity to be able to buy insurance. >> the house speaker had different thoughts when it comes to the individual mandate and here's a little bit of what he had to say. listen to it and we'll get your response. guest: ok. >> if obamacare so wonderful, why are health care prices exploding? why are millions of americans getting kicked out of their plans? why are people getting their hours cut? the law isn't wonderful. it's a train wreck. you know it, i know it and the american people know it. even the president knows it. that's why he proposed delaying his mandate on employers. but it's unfair to protect big businesses without giving the same relief to american families and small businesses. host: and to his statement there at the end. guest: well, i appreciate the speaker. he's a friend. he and i disagree on it.
i disagree it's a train wreck. any national program that's rolled out going to have glitches in it. that's the job of the president and the administration to fix those glitches before it goes into effect. they decided the employer mandate, they didn't have the rules in place for them. so they're going to delay that a year. the individual mandate will stay there. there's been individual mandates proposed throughout the history. in fact, even by republican members of congress. but you can't get to health care for everyone unless people take responsibility. the employer, if you're over 50 employees, like minimum wage, you have to have insurance for your employee. if you're individual an you work, you're required to go -- if you don't get it through your employer, go through the state exchanges or national exchanges. host: what about the fairness argument? guest: well, fairness, there's a lot of fairness arguments in government. if you're going to -- we're going to provide health care opportunity for everyone in our country, we're going to have to get through these glitches over the next six months or so and
figure out how to do it. now, to all -- republicans, we voted 37 times to repeal affordable care act. hey like to call it obamacare. they lost. it never has passed the senate and it would be vetoed by the president. this is just another way that they want to oppose providing an opportunity for health care for all. i'll be glad to be on the record today saying, no, we voted in 2010. it passed the law. it's not a perfect law. i'd like to amend it. my frustration with the majority in the house is there are things in the law we could fix on a bipartisan basis. they don't want to do that. there's a number of issues in there. i'm not a big one on the independent group to decide what insurance requirements you have. there's a lot of things in there. they don't want to do that. they just want to repeal the law. again, one of the highest districts in the country of people who work and who don't
have insurance through their employer and so they will give them an opportunity. host: our guest here to talk about today's votes on the affordable care act, you can ask him questions about it on one of three lines this morning. 202-585-3880 for democrats. 02-585-3881 for republicans. 202-585-3882 for independents. email@example.com is the email. when it comes to exchanges, health insurance exchanges and the marketplaces, couple things to be aware of. october 1, open enrollment. january, 2014, exchanges again. 17 state-based exchanges. 27 states defaulting to the federal exchange. your thought on the rollout so far. guest: well, we're getting ready to roll it out over the next couple months. working with health and human services and also our regional offices. i'm scheduling a big event in
our district where people can come in and hear from both health and human services but also our navigators. they are selecting different groups all over the country. in the houston area where i represent, we will have nonprofit groups to help people actually apply for that insurance. they will show them how you can do it. >> "washington journal" airs every morning live at 7:00 eastern here on c-span. the house is coming back in now to work on two bills related to the health care law dealing with the employer and individual mandates. will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our guest chaplain from cavalry episcopal church, indian wok beach, florida. the chaplain: god of abraham, isaac, and jay can be, -- and jacob, thank you for the men and women who have been called to serve your people in this house. as they strive to chart the best possible course for our remember able them to
that we are all in the same boat when it comes to our love of this country and our desire to see the hopes and dreams of our fellow citizens fulfilled. as they seek to walk the road of truth, help them to learn what it means to walk that road together on the common ground of respect and forebearance. bless their families, and make their homes havens of kindness, encouragement, and love. timely, when they shall have served their final day as members of this house, send them home filled with the true and lasting joy that always comes at last to those who have done their duty and done it well. amen. the speaker: the chair has
examined the journal of the the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule 1, dimanned a vote on agreeing to the speaker's -- i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentlelady rom ohio, mrs. beatty. mrs. beatty: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
the speaker: without objection, the gentleman from florida, mr. young, is recognized for one minute. mr. young: mr. speaker, it is a great honor to introduce to the house our guest chaplain today, father bob wagenseal, the pastor of calvary episcopal church in the beautiful town of indian rocks beach, florida. father bob, as he's affectionately known, is a beloved friend and member of our community. he was ordained in may of 1981, spent most of his 14 years serving churches in long island and new york city. by 1993 he was appointed archdeacon of queens. to our good fortune in florida, he was asked to come to calvary episcopal in 1995 and has been a true love affair ever since. in had addition to serving the church, which just celebrated its 50th anniversary, father
bob and his wife, patricia, or p.t., as she's known, have served our community in many special ways. he serves as chaplain of the sun coast fire and rescue where he's also a volunteer firefighter. he helped develop a computer learning center at the church, a critical important food pantry and nearest and dearest to his heart, a community sailing program for the youth of the church and the local community. father bob will retire from calvary on september 15 of this year. after 18 years of service to the church and 34 years to the priesthood. he and p.t. have been married for 35 years will remain active members of our community and dear friends to the thousands and thousands of people whose lives they have touched, including congressman bill young and his wife, beverly, and our two sons, patrick and billy. please join me in welcoming
father bob and p.t. to the house today. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair will entertain 15 further requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? ms. ros-lehtinen: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, madam speaker. the case for obamacare repeal was given a big boost by the administration's decision to delay the controversial employer mandate for another year. this house will vote, we hope, this week to support that much-needed action as well as postpone the individual mandate for a year. delaying the burdensome employer mandate will allow companies to continue providing employee health care benefits without reducing work hours. providing a one-year delay from the individual mandate will relieve american families from
thousands of dollars or additional taxes. but postponing the two mandates are only the latest steps to repeal obamacare. without complete repeal, americans will face $1.1 trillion in new taxes, $716 billion in medicare cuts and huge health insurance premium increases. madam speaker, we must all work together to finish the job by completely repealing obamacare so that small businesses and individuals will be permanently free from this onerous regulation. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mrs. beatty: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in honor of standing up for women and
celebrating the 100 years' roarity ry of my sew elta sigma theta sorority. bladge college women -- black college women. they were the only women who participated in the civil rights march. i want to thank my sorority in the dayton and columbus chapter. they understand we must continue to stand up for women in health care, in education, and in the workplace because when women do better, our children do well. when women do well, our families do well. when women do well, our men do well and, yes, when women do well, america does well.
thank you, women, and thank you delta sigma theta sorority. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. olson: madam speaker, i rise to ask my colleagues to support h.r. 2667 and h.r. 2668, bills that would delay the employer and individual mandates in obamacare. these mandates force businesses to provide health coverage to their employees and as well for dictator to -- health care or pay a penalty. president obama cited the complexity of the mandate as
the reason for his delay. a first grader back home would say, no kidding. being-dollar corporations with access to the white house -- the struggling american family gets left out. that's unfair. that's wrong. and more is coming. and that's why i urge my colleagues to support these two bills until we can fully repeal obamacare and give every american quality health care at a price they can afford with a doctor of their choice. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i recently sat with my colleagues to call for a national emergency summit on urban violence and in light
of the verdict in florida, the vayvon martin verdict, i wanted -- the trayvon martin verdict, i wanted to talk about criminal in my district and why we need to do something about mental illness. mr. veasey: a man killed his pregnant girlfriend, the mother and 10-year-old brother and then went into a neighboring police station and asked for the police to shoot him. we had another incident, a ung somalian boy, only 5 years old, people loved to see this boy ride a bicycle around and a 13-year-old got into a disagreement and beat him in the head and we had a recent drive-by shooting in the district where the assailant said he shot the wrong guy and the wrong guy was an innocent 12-year-old boy. we need to do something about mental illness and about violence that's gripping this country. it is clear there are many people who do to mental -- due to mental illness do not have
the ability to calmly and rationally resolve their differences with others. instead, they turn to violence. let's do something about the rising violence in our urban communities. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: madam speaker, the president made inaccurate promises when he shoved a 2 ,000-page health care takeover bill through both houses of democratically controlled congresses. now he's usurping power again by choosing to relieve employers from the higher taxes and increased government regulations mandated by the unaffordable care act that still requires individuals to suffer. for a president who says he's for fairness, this decision protects big business and targets american families, taking more from their paychecks. house republicans are acting to protect every american from the
unworkable provisions by voting to repeal both the employer and individual mandates. obamacare is unworkable, unaffordable law that destroys jobs, disrupts the doctor-patient relationship and promotes uncertainty for future generations. as a proponent of limited government, i fully remain committed to defunding, dismantling or repealing obamacare to provide the fairness necessary for -- to allow every american family to make their own health care decisions. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. higgins: madam speaker, the united states postal service continues to try to fix themselves financially with service cuts that will undermine the agency's viability, not strengthen it. i am pleased to be a co-sponsor
of my colleague, congresswoman rosa delauro's legislation to protect overnight delivery act, to prevent the postal service from weakening service standards. eliminating overnight delivery would threaten hundreds of postal services across the nation, including the william street facility in my western new york community. mr. speaker, while the postal service is certainly in need of reform, this is the wrong way to do it. once again, the postal service is making ill-conceived decisions that hurt both workers and consumers. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from alabama seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. roby: thank you, madam speaker. i rise to discuss today's fairness. earlier this month the obama administration announced it would be delaying the business mandate in the president's health care law. setting aside a moment of the dubious legal authority that the executive branch is using to pick and choose which parts
of the law will be enforced and which won't, this is the unfair treatment of obamacare. in delaying the business mandate for a year but not the individual mandate, the president is choosing to protect big business from obamacare but not hardworking individuals and families. in explaining this delay, white house officials repeatedly said president was listening to business. madam speaker, why is the president listening to the american people? why is he not? why is big business getting a break while individual americans get the short end of the stick? maybe in is what happens when big business has access to the white house and individual americans can't even take a tour. today we will take action to protect all americans by delaying both the employer mandate and the individual mandate. our work to dismantle obamacare is part of our ongoing fight to spur economic growth, create jobs and provide a more secure future for all americans. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition?
>> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise today in strong opposition to this 38th attempt to repeal the affordable care act. ms. meng: our country needs affordable care. my constituents in queens and new york need affordable health care. right now 17,000 new yorkers buy their own health insurance because the insurance premium rates are too high and 2.6 million new yorkers do not have health insurance. 13 million people are uninsured nationwide. the most exciting part is that obamacare is already working. as of this morning, the new approved health care premiums available in new york state health care exchanges for 2014 are on average 50% lower than this year's insurance premiums. that's not even taking into account individuals who can take advantage of other federal subsidies and that everyone with a health insurance plan will be able to gain access to a basic free preventive health
care services. i want to thank new york governor andrew cuomo and the new york state legislature also for their leadership on this issue. with all the partisan sniping about health care, we cannot lose sight of why the country needs obamacare. better access to affordable preventive health care is esen torblereebing in costs and more for antly it's essential a healthy america. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> the record is clear, obamacare has been a train wreck since its inception. this latest attempt is testament to the widespread mismanagement and poor planning by president obama and his administration. this plan to delay the employer
mandate comes after months of promises that the implementation was on schedule and the law was working the way it was supposed to. every day i hear from constituents who remain strongly opposed to the government takeover of their health care. delaying the employer mandate for one year is a step in the right direction but individuals need relief also. we must protect all americans from the unworkable mandates of the president's health care plan by voting to delay both the individual and employer mandates. i urge my colleagues to support r. 2668 and i urge its swift adoption. mr. lamborn: thank you, madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? the gentleman from new jersey s recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise to
speak about the community parks act. it will provide matching funds and a new loan program to assist communities in developping and redeveloping parks and recreation facilities. mr. sires: i have seen firsthand the value that investing in parks brings to communities. when we make investments in our parks it leads to healthy, vibrant neighborhoods where businesses want to invest and families wan to live. our parks an recreation centers are also instrumental in helping to achieve the important national goal of increasing exercise and providing recreation opportunities for our youth and disabled and aging veterans. the community parks revitalization act has the support of many national organizations including the national park association and the national society of landscape architects and it has strong bipartisan support in the 113th congress. i urge my colleagues to join me in strengthening our parks. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman
from montana seek recognition? mr. daines: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from montana is recognized for one minute. mr. daines: one of the best parts of my job is meeting with montana students. these young people are the future leaders of our state. it's exciting to hear about their ideas and aspirations for making their communities and our state a better flice live and work. as a father of four and personally myself a product of montana's public school in fact from kinder garten in boozman all the way through college at montana state university, i know montana students have so much potential. we're excited our oldest daughter will be graduating from montana state university this fall with a degree in education. that's why it's critical that they have education and training to pursue the goals and careers they're passionate about. we must empower our schools an teachers to innovate and address student's unique needs. no two students or schools are the same.
more local and state input and less federal bureaucracy will provide the flexibility they need to help our kids learn. i'm looking forward to upcoming debate on how to improve our education and i yield pack. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, this week over 650,000 civilian employees of the department of defense are required to begin taking involuntary furlough days. mrs. davis: over 25,000 of these employees reside in san diego this represents about a 20% pay cut for the next three months for these public servants. this pay cut is in addition to the fact that federal employees have not received their standard salary adjustment for the past three years. these salary cuts have a very damaging effect on the employees and their families that should be clear to all of us. but they also have disastrous secondary effects. i'm worried particularly about
the impact these cuts will have on the recruitment and retention of the civilian work force. as one of my san diego constituents in the federal work force said, furloughs send a very demoralizing and humiliating message to all federal employees. that suggests that we are not valued and that the work we do is not valued. we must do better. we can start by appointing budget conferees immediately. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, the house will vote today to delay implementation of the employer and individual health insurance mandates dictated by obamacare. the administration announced by way of a blog post that it could not implement the employer mandate by their legal deadline despite repeated
assurances that everything was ok. it is completely unfair for the administration to grant an extension to businesses but not individual tax paying americans. mr. marchant: house republicans are fighting for all americans. there's still much work to be done osm because macare continues to be a drag on our economic recovery. leading to fewer choices and more expensive insurance premiums. i urge support of these bills and complete repeal of the president's health care law. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise today to highlight the benefits of cancer research and the importance of funding for the national institutes of health. in my home state of iowa alone, 17,480 people will be diagnosed
with cancer this year. 6,240 will lose their battle with this disease. like every state, iowa receives essential funding from the n.i.h. n.i.h. funds lifesaving medical research that is leading to the development of new and better ways to diagnose and treat cancer. the research takes place at thousands of universities, hospitals, cancer centers and laboratories across the country including the university of iowa's holden comprehensive cancer center. mr. loebsack: in addition to the obvious benefits of combating cancer and so many other diseases, n.i.h. funding supports economic activity and job. in 2012, n.i.h. funding supported 3,940 jobs in iowa alone. funding for cancer research in the n.i.h. i believe must be a top priority.
i urge congress to support this life-saving research and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from indiana seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. the administration prove what had local employers have been telling me for months, obamacare is bad policy. even after three years preparation, this law is not ready for implementation. just today we learned we have paid an additional $1 billion in new taxes just on the medical device tax alone. if there's a delay enacted for businesses, then there needs to be a hardworking hoosier delay for hardworking taxpayers as well. mrs. walorski: the american people are the building politics or our companies. the individuals include parents, young people, single moms and seasoned employees. together they form our nation's work force. in our district in northern indiana, i have heard from
schools, restaurants, manufacturers, small business owners, who strongly oppose this mandate. at the very least, news of this delay is a relief but the future is so clouded with uncertainty as long as this law exists. hoosier nose a one-year delay of the employer mandate and even the individual mandate is no more than a man dade. obamacare is a roadblock -- is no more than a band-aid. obamacare is a roadblock to companies. that's why i ask the president to permanently delay the health care law. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has ex-er food -- expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> good afternoon, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, as the house prepares this week to vote for the 38th time to take patient protections away from working families and to undermine the
economic security of the middle class, millions of americans working are struggling to make ends meet due to this chamber's inaction. it's been months since across the board sequester cuts were enacted, devastating so many important federal programs on which americans rely. mr. cartwright: now as the house leadership refuses to allow votes on alternatives to replace the sequester, 18,132 defense employees are currently being involuntarily furloughed across pennsylvania resulting in a $ 1 million economic loss for my state. one place alone, 3,50 -- 3,52le 8 middle class americans are being furloughed at the tobey hanna army depot a facility that provides essential support for our war fighters. we have to work together to fix this problem, reduce our deficit by growing the economy,
and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for one minute. >> obamacare is not working. the american people know that, now it seems that president obama knows that too. the president's unilateral decision to violate the law and delay the employer mandate postpones some of the law's worst daniels for businesses. fundamental fairness dictates that individuals get the same reprieve. mr. messer: some say delay gives the administration time to get it right. i say no amount of time will fix what's wrong with this job-killing law.
each day, this law is delayed -- each day this law is delayed gives us more time to seek its total repeal. we must protect as many people as possible from the pain this big government behemoth is inflicting on our nation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for one minute. >> literacy is the foundation for success in every aspect of our economy and society. research nonstraits that a research -- that a -- demonstrates that literacy is a basis for success. 2/3 of all fourth and eighth graders do not read at a proficient level. underachievement in literacy at all educational levels contributes significantly to the nation's high dropout rate
which squanders the potential and contribution of each student who crops out. that's why today, along with my colleague, mr. polis, i'm introducing the literacy education for all act. the learn act provides a strong federal investment for states and localities to develop comprehensive literacy plans for children from birth to 12th grade. mr. yarmuth: i urge my colleagues to support me in supporting -- to join me in supporting the learn act to keep our nation at the forefront of the global economy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous con -- consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, joining me off the house floor today is jeff hartman -- jeb hartman, a staff employee for two years.
he embodied the traits we need for our nation. he's worked tirelessly as an intern helping to keep my states updated on my actions in d.c. and at home. jeb isn't a future leader, he's a leader today. in just a few weeks he'll leave my office to go to law school. though he'll be missed, i'm incredibly proud of him. mr. gosar: for jeb and the students reaching their own dream well, must prevent the burden of student loan debt from being cost pribetive. i -- prohibitive. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady seek recognition? without objection. . cruz bard: senators ted and rand paul is in support of the military justice improvement act. this is a group of courageous leaders, bipartisan, taking serious action to stop the epidemic of violent sexual assaults amongst our men and
women who courageously serve in our military. recently, the defense department reported that 26,000 sexual assaults had occurred in 2012 alone. contrary to popular belief, this is not just an issue affecting female service members. over 53% of these assaults, over half of the 26,000 had been male victims. unfortunately, 87% of these assaults went unreported. this is a matter of basic fairness, transparency and justice. placing the decision to bring charges against these perpetrators of serious violent crimes into the hands of experienced professional military investigators and prosecutors outside of the chain of command will not erode a commander's ability to lead his or her troops. we must change the status quo. these crimes have been ignored for far too long. thank you very much, madam
speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? foxx knox i ask unanimous consent to -- ms. foxx: i ask fleak to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: the president announced his administration plans to ignore obamacare's employer mandate for one year. the white house scrambling is to be expected. obamacare is a bad law. but it's a bad law the president asked for and it's a bad law he is mastermind and chief enforcer must obey. unless congress authorizes a change. it's no secret to anyone that house republicans see obamacare for the broken law it is. we don't want any american to suffer under its weight. we voted nearly 40 times to delay, dismantle or repeal the law and we'll vote again to delay implementation of obamacare's onerous employer mandate today. but we aren't stopping there. if businesses are getting a break from the president's law, individual americans should
too. attempting to justify selective enforcement is beyond rationality. delaying the individual mandate tax is a matter of basic fairness. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from hawaii seek recognition? ms. hanabusa: mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. hanabusa: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, 38 times. how many times will we vote or take away patient protection from families and to undermine the middle class? it makes no sense. look at what we know. the united states supreme court said the ppaca is constitutional. millions have already benefited. 100 million cannot have lifetime limits placed upon their health care. by january, 2014, 129 million nnot be deemed -- coverage
cannot be denied because of a pre-existing condition. there will be no doughnut hole and 3.6 million seniors save $1.6 billion on prescription drugs. women cannot be discriminated against by 2014. last year alone 90% of the best selling plans still charged women more, and 17 million children are now protected from being denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition. mr. speaker, really, 38 times? why? it makes no common sense. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. without objection. mr. burgess: all right, mr. speaker, here it is. patient protection and affordable care act. paragraph d, effective date. this is the section that deals with the employer -- so-called
employer responsibility what we call the employer mandate. the effective date as defined in law, the amendments made by this section shall apply to the months beginning after december 31, 2013. mr. speaker, i'd like to bring the house's attention to a letter that was submitted to leader pelosi and leader reid by leaders of some of our country's labor unions. since the -- this is by -- from james hoffa from the teamster's union. since the affordable care act was enacted, we've been bringing our deep concerns to the administration seeking reasonable regulatory interpretations to the statute that would help prevent the destruction of nonprofit health plans. as you both know firsthand, our persuasive arguments have been disregarded and met with a stonewall by the white house and the pertinent agencies. this is stinging because other stakeholders have repeatedly received interpretations for their respective grievances.
most disconcerning, of course, is for the employer community, extending the statutorily mandated december 31, 2013, deadline for the employer mandate and penalties. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new hampshire eek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. shea-porter: i had a easure of meeting an elementary school to congratulate the school community for their recognition as the national blue ribbon school. bedford memorial elementary educates children from preschool through the fourth grade and the school is dedicated to each student's academic, emotional and physical development. the teachers and staff's attention to every single child detail was ngle obvious from the moment i entered the school. the young students at the schoolwide ceremony i attended were some of the best behaved children i have ever seen and
it's clear that the teachers and the administration celebrated children and were dedicated to their wellness and their education. at the ceremony, the school recognized the children -- the leaders who had worked throughout the year to help other students get along. they also sang and they danced a very happy and spirited dance to help showcase their arts and their holistic approach to education. the ceremony served as a testimony to the tremendous leadership of the principal and the staff and the school board and most importantly the parents. the department of education's blue ribbon school award is exactly the kind of positive recognition that helps our best available schools and shows others what is possible in every school for every child. congratulations to them and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute, i ask unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor the great contributions of delta sigma
theta sorority. founded in 1913 on the campus of howard university, delta sigma theta is dedicated to scholarship and service. it's the largest african-american women's organization in the country and provides assistance to support to communities throughout the world. delta has played an important part in civil rights and human -- women's rights and even in 1913 just after its founding marked -- walked in the women's suffrage march. for a century, they have been at the forefront of politics, medicine, law, the arts, mifrlt and faith. esteemed members includes presidential of medal of haight ecipient, dore and shirley chisholm. delta's story history includes etchfissian's great -- memphisian's great talents. i salute both the memphis and
shelby county alumni chapters and the thousands of deltas who are currently in our nation's capital to celebrate their first 100 years. i thank them for their service and wish them many more. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 300 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 43. house resolution 300. resolved, that upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 2668, to delay the application of the individual health insurance mandate. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. the shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening mokes eggs september one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
committee on ways and means and, two, one motion to recommit. section 2, upon the adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 2667, to delay the application of the employer health insurance mandate and for other purposes. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion debate one, one hour of equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means and, two, one motion to recommit. section 3, a, in the engrossment of h.r. 2668, the clerk shall, one, add the text of h.r. 2667 as passed by the house as new matter at the end of h.r. 2668. two, conform the title of h.r.
2668 to reflect the addition of the text of h.r. 2667 as passed by the house to the engrossment. three, assign appropriate designations to provisions within the engrossment and, four, conform cross-references with short titles within the engrossment. b, upon addition of the text of h.r. 2667, as passed by the house, to the engrossment of h.r. 2668 h.r. 2667 shall be laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one hour. mr. burgess: i thank the speaker. for purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from new york, ms. slaughter, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks . the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burgess: mr. speaker,
house resolution 300 provides for consideration of two closely related bills. h.r. 2667, the authority more 68, ate delay, and h.r. 26 the fairness for american families act. the rule provides for one hour of general debate controlled by the ways and means. the minority will be offered a motion to recommit on each bill. because the issues before us in these two bills are so closely linked, the rule provides that upon passage the clerk will merge the text of both bills into a single measure to send to the senate. mr. speaker, we are here today because the president has decided that he alone, he alone without consultation, without advice, consent or even notice to the united states congress has the sole authority to decide which laws he will and which laws he will not enforce. the president has done this with regard to immigration laws.
he's done this with regards to duly enacted marriage laws. and now in an act of -- he's done this with respect to his own signature issue, the president's health care law. july 2, 2013, a blog post. a blog post. not a letter, not a phone call, not a press conference. not even a press release, but a blog post the president announced three significant changes to his health care law that we have been assured over and over is perfect, it's on track, it's on schedule, we will be ready. but in announcement posted just before the july 4 holiday, 6:00 p.m. eastern time on july 2, when the administration knew that everyone in the country was preparing to celebrate this country's independence, spending time with their families, everyone's attention was diverted so they did not notice that two provisions of
the president's signature piece of legislation were being postponed. first, the requirement that employers report to the internal revenue service -- postponed for a year. second, the requirement that large employers offer coverage to full-time workers or pay a penalty, large employers are defined of having 50 or more full-time equivalent workers, well, that's postponed. and the coverage offered by large companies be not more than 9.5% of an employee's pay for his or her individual coverage. with the president's supporters chanting, they can't wait, they can't wait any longer for the benefits of the health care law to go into effect, the president has responded and told them just wait. in showing that the house of representatives -- in showing, the house republicans and the president can in fact come together and agree upon an issue, mr. griffin from arkansas introduced h.r. 2667, the authority more mandate
delay, providing the president with the statutory authority that he has already assumed and codifying the president's announcement. although republicans have long held that all provisions in the health care bill should be delayed, delayed permanently, we can at least come together, on the same page as the president and support his efforts by passing his announcement into law. however, while he's giving a pass to employers, not requiring them to offer health care coverage next year, he gives no such pass to individual citizens. he vim mandate and other aspects of the affordable care act remain in place. republicans believe this is unfair. for this reason, representative todd young of indiana introduced h.r. 668, the fairness for american families
act this would provide the same relief to families that the president provided to business owners. it is the fair thing to do. it is the right thing to do. the president has justified his postponement of the employer mandate by pointing out that the regulations surrounding the mandate are just so very complicated. businesses will need at least one more year to comply and quite frankly, his administration will need at least one more year to put the regulations into place. this is the same argument that could be used for the individual man tate. i'm likely -- i'm highly skeptical as are many colleagues on both sides of the aisle that this administration will be able to have the exchanges and insurance programs up and running, remember, open enrollment starts in just a few weeks, october 1 of this year. a prerequisite for the individual mandate to be able to be implemented. though officials from the
administration claim they're on track to implement the law and meet the deadline, employer mandate postponement shows that the train is not coming off the rails, it's already off the rails with regard to implementation. on october 1, navigating the exchanges will be a nightmare for constituents. yet the administration has turned its back on giving them any relief from their law. even the law's original proponents are becoming more vocal about the law's unintended consequences and negative effects on americans' lives. in a letter sent to nancy pelosi and leader reid last friday, three major unions wrote, when you and the president sought our support for the affordable care act you pledged that if we like the health plans we have now, we could keep them. sadly, that promise is under threat right now unless you, that's speaker pelosi and leader reid, unless you and the
obama administration enact an equitable fix, the o-- the affordable care act will destroy the foundation of the 40-hour workweek that's been the backbone of the american middle class. after detailing in the letter how democrats have repeatedly ignored the union's pleas to fix this in-conceived bill, the letter concludes. time is running out. congress wrote this law. we voted for you and we have a problem you need to fix it. the unintended consequences of the affordable care act are severe. reverse incentives are already creating nightmare scenarios. mr. speaker, i hope that the democrats will join republicans the and frankly follow president's lead and postpone this law. what's good for business should be good for he american people. the american people do not want
this law to be implemented as it's written and we are here today to see that it is not. i'm encouraging my colleagues to vote yes on the rule, yes on the two underlying bills and with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my friend for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, i feel as though i could give the same speech today that i have delivered repeatedly in the rules committee and on the house floor for the past three years. despite failing 37 times before, the majority is trying a 38th and 39th time today to repeal, defund or orse undermine the affordable health care act. however, unlike past votes, today's attempt to undermine the law occurs on the very same day that my home state of new york delivered incredible news to new york families. today, we learned that thanks
to the affordable care act, health insurance premiums for many of my fellow new yorkers ill be reduced by 50% or more. my district alone, 56,330 persons will be eligible to access those savings through new york's new health exchange. new york is just the late nest a growing number of states finding the same thing, including this state of washington, oregon, california, where the cost of the health care premiums are being reduced because of the affordable care act. as "the new york times" reported this morning, some individuals in new york, low income, could see their premiums go for $1,000 a month to as low as $308 a month and subsidies provided for the lower income persons through the affordable care act will drive those premiums any lower. believe me when i tell you new
york does not want to be relieved of the burden of the affordable care. for many it will be the first time in their lives they've been able to afford it. this is incredibly good news for millions in new york and a realization of the law's promise to provide more affordable health care. now among other accomplishments, the affordable care act is increasing competition in new york because 17 insurers have been afrufede participate in the individual insurance marketplace. that competition, again, mr. speaker, as all of us know is what helps to bring down costs. that is working. meanwhile, on top of that, as we know the affordable care act requires insurers to spend 80 cents of your premium dollar on health care, that will add to the lower costs. the other man tates will soon
take effect driving down costs even more. it is the height of irresponsibility for the majority to attempt to delay its implementation one more time. delaying the individual mandate would undermine the very foundation of the affordable care act. and cause health care premiums to skyrocket. in fact, the urban institute is estimated that without the individual mandate an extra $13.-- an extra 13.8 million people would go without insurance because of the cost. now everyone from doctors to health insurance companies knows this fact and indeed they are working together in new york to perfect this act. that's why associations such as the american academy of family physician the american heart association, the american diabetes association oppose the majority's proposals today. in a letter to congress, the american academy of family physicians recently wrote that
the individual mandate is, quote the foundation of improving access to care and vital to ensuring everyone has health insurance coverage, end quote. for that reason, the american people academy supports the health coverage and urges that we get on with the program. mr. speaker, the fact of the matter is the majority's proposal is nothing more than a prose pollal to score cheap political points. the senate will not take up this bill an everybody here knows that. and even if they did, by some strange quirk of fate, and pass it, the president would veto it, he said so already. so we're spending another week of legislative business doing meaningless pieces of legislation that we know will not go anywhere. when we should be rejoicing, mr. speaker, about the things that are coming in from states that have already set up exchanges about the money the being saved and
many, many more people being insured. i said many times before the estimated cost of running the house of representatives is $24 million a week. of all people, the majority who claim to care so dearly about stopping spending should be objecting to a legislative agenda that holds a version of the same go-nowhere bill for 39 times. bridges are collapsing, the economy is anemic, million of -- millions of americans are unemployed and if the farrm act passed here last week were to become law, they not only would be unemployed they wouldn't be able to get food stamps. they're cutting programs for vulnerable populations such as our indian populations on reservations hit extremely heard by sequestration. yet instead of addressing any of these issues, the majority
continues to play this game. such a self-serving political pursuit is a shameful mark on the history of this chamber and our democksitch etched above the speak ears rostrum is a quote from daniel webster that speaks to the need to end political games and to focus on issues that are important to the american people. in part the words read, quote, let us see whether we also in our day and generation may not perform something worthy to be remembered, end quote. in 2010, i was proud to play a central role in the passage of the affordable care act. i spaced -- faced a lot of vitriol, my district office was vandalized, the lives of my grandchildren were threatened. yet i remain dedicated to passing the law because at the time health care costs were approaching 20% of our nation's g.d.p. and an unconscionable number of americans were being
denied basic health care because of the cost for pre-existing conditions and in eight states in this united states and the district of columbia, violence against women, domestic violence, was considered a pre-existing condition. no more. before voting on the legislation, the democratic caucus read the bill three times, line by line. by the time it was signed into law it was clear this legislation would deliver on the promise of secure and affordable health care for millions who had been denied health care for far too long. looking back at that moment in time, it is my belief that the law we produced will go down in history as webster says as something worthy to be remembered. already, thanks to the affordable health care act, seniors have begun receiving free preventive screenings and subsidies to cover costs of prescription medicines as we close the doughnut hole. in a few dwhreers edoughnut hole will be completely closed. in addition, children under the age of 26 are now protected
under the -- under their parents' insurance coverage while they find their first job and start a life of their own. finally, prior to the enactment of the affordable care act, domestic violence was considered a pre-existing condition. those policies are now outlawed and no health insurance plan in the country will be allowed to deny an individual coverage because of pre-existing conditions and women will no long ver to pay a higher price for their insurance than men simply because of their gender. all of this incredible progress of e cost -- is because the affordable care act. so the propose theefl majority is against the health and well being of the american families. they are focus -- they should be focused on solutions not a 39th attempt to rehash the
debates of the attempt. as we debate another go-nowhere attempt, i urling the majority to read the words above the speak ears rostrum and put an end to the tired political games. it is pastime for us to get to work on meaningful legislation to help the american people. i urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from texas is ecognized. mr. burgess: i would like to yield three minutes to mr. kline of minnesota. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support of the rule and he underlying legislation. as the attention of the american people turned to celebrating the july 4 holiday, the obama administration quietly announce through the a
blog post on the treasury department's website it would delay enforcement of a vital part of the president's health care law. the employer mandate. the reason for the delay? according to administration official the federal bureaucracy, the federal bureaucracy needs more time to get it right. let's be honest. no amount of time or bureaucratic tinkering will ease the pain obamacare is inflicting on workplaces across the country. the employer mandate will destroy jobs, whether it's implemented a year from now or 10 years from now. in fact, in fact, mr. speaker, jobs are already being lost and employees' work hours are being cut. today. because of the law. that's the difficult reality facing workers and job creators from my home state of minnesota and across the country. it's part of the reason we are stuck in a jobs crisis with 12 million americans searching for full-time work. even union leaders are beginning to realize how the health care law they supported
is hurting workers. vote for my colleague, mr. burgess -- my colleague, mr. burgess, laid that out clearly, they were promised if they liked their health care they could keep it and they're finding out that's simply not true. the delay of the employer mandate is the latest confirmation of the fatally flawed nature of obamacare and the need to dismantle it. that's why i support the proposal to delay the employer mandate for one year as well as a bill the us house will also consider today to delay enforcement of the individual mandate. . in less than a year, individuals who fail to purchase government-approved health insurance will be forced to pay higher taxes. it isn't right, mr. speaker, to deny american families the same relief available to american businesses. the american people didn't ask for this government takeover of health care, and they don't want it. let's give every family and business the reprieve from obamacare they deserve.
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on