As the stupak dozen, who conditioned their support for the bill upon a provision, which became the stupak amendment, that would prohibit that would prohibit abortions funded under obamacare or required under obamacare. Well, as that debate ensued, the message became clear that the white house was negotiating that the president was simply signing an executive order obamacare after it passed, after it passed and would fix the stupak version. Thats the shorthand version. But any case, it was breathtaking to hear the president in the white house who believed he could sign an executive order to amend legislation after the legislation passed and announced to so to get the votes pass. That sounds like legal jibberish. The president , according to the press, promised he was going to amend obamacare with executive order and the stupak language would remain intact after it was stripped out in the senate and we ended up with obamacare that imposes funding of abortion in all but a very few cases, to give an example, here in the house of representatives, we are compeled to sign up for obamacare. If there was a way out of it, i would have found it. And there were 112 different programs to look at, and only nine of them that i could choose from and only nine didnt Fund Abortion and of those nine, eight didnt cover me. It came down to this member was compeled to sign up for obamacare, pay the doubling of my contribution to the premium and tripling of my deductibility my deductible for the only policy that at least reportedly didnt Fund Abortion. I thank chris smith for digging that up and giving Us Foundation or else i would have to buy a pig in a poke. I know that is going on in many places. The president cannot constitutionally amend legislation by executive order, press conference or a thirdtier announcement from the United States department of treasury. None of those things are consistent with the constitution. And he continues, as mr. Gohmert said in his previous discussion in his one minute, he continues to make alterations, not to somebody else legislation, thats bad enough. It is all the same constitutional violation in my view, but when the president decides he is going to amend obamacare, thats got his name on it. Thats his bill. He signed it. How can he with a straight face step up and say im going to change it on the fly . Im going to delay the employer mandate and delay the individual mandate, im going to waive this and that and waive different provisions for businesses that have 50 employees and those who have 99 employees and those that are large businesses. And i remember also when he stepped up in the press conference at the white house and he had taken a couple of weeks for the conscience protection violations that were supposedly were in the bill that Kathleen Sebelius rules eliminated, which was a requirement that religious organizations as well had to provide policies that covered abortions, contraceptives. Contraceptives and abortioncausing drugs, sterilizations, we know what they were. These were requirements that were embodied in the rule that h. H. S. Rolled out. And after two weeks religious organizations making a case against that, the president did a press conference and stepped up to the podium and said im going to make an accommodation to the religious organizations, an accommodation. They dont want to provide these things, he said im going to require the Insurance Companies to provide these things for free. The president of the United States had the audacity to step up to the podium and say i am going to require the Insurance Companies now to fund contraceptives and sterilizations for free. Now, thats pretty interesting, maybe it just got lost in the language. Maybe the president was really talking about, he was going to agree and going to ask congress if congress would actually change the law. Maybe he thought he was going to have Kathleen Sebelius publish a different rule that would go out for comment and once it followed the administrative procedures, if it fit within the language of the obamacare legislation, maybe, maybe, maybe, mr. Speaker, maybe maybe we could give the president the benefit of the doubt. But trust, but verify. So i went back and checked the rule. The rule that had been published that compeled the religious organizations to follow the path of all of the others to provide r sterilizations and contraceptives and the president was going to make an accommodation to the religious organizations and require that these be provided for free by the Insurance Companies and you would think there would have been a proposal for an amendment a bill to amend obamacare in congress. You would think there would be a change in the rules. Mr. Speaker, nothing changed in the rule. There wasnt an i dotted differently or a t crossed differently, but the Insurance Companies began to line up behind the verbal edict of the president. That is breathtaking in scope. When you read the constitution, it says all legislative powers. Doesnt say all legislative powers except those by the president. It says all legislative powers. Yet, the president is legislating by announcements on web sites and directing his people to change the rules, by verbal press conferences that changed nothing, no rule. Id he has the tumerity to say have a cell phone and pen, i dont need the congress. So im very concerned about our constitution and the violations of it, but the president has time after time after time made changes to obamacare. Its bad law and i dont accept the constitutional decision that came down from the Supreme Court. Its got a clear and stark contradiction. One day i hope it goes back to the court to be reviewed again. But in any case, we have got to adhere to this constitution. We take an oath to uphold the constitution and its our job to preserve and protect it. And the reasons that we might be supportive of a debt ceiling increase or in the shortterm, it gets people off the hook in the shortterm. But i want a balanced Budget Amendment attached to it. If we dont get that, lets audit the fed. Lets something we ought to get behind, eliminate the bailout of our Insurance Companies. Insurance companies were wrote in they would be protected from loss if their ackturel numbers and premiums dont match up. It would be impossible for them to figure this out because the president has been changing this law all along. I would make the clearest one would be when the president of the United States decided that he was going to extend the employer mandate a year. Now, the law says, the law that was signed by president Barack Obama Says that the employer mandate shall commence in each month after december of 2013. That means it must start january of 2014. We should be in the second month of the employer mandate. And im happy enough for the policy to change. I dont think it should ever be implement the. If they bring that extension to congress. I would vote for an extension to delay the employer mandate for a year, because thats probably the right kind of policy. We didnt get that before this congress. Instead, the president just announced, he was going to extend it. And i happen to be on a bit of a trip when the notice came that he was going to do some delays of the individual mandate. And i remember sending an email to one of the top Insurance Companies saying is anyone talking about the constitutional violations . Well, not very much, but yes, they are talking about. My answer is, this is what we get for christmas, the president rewriting obamacare at will. Its everchanging. Months ago, a search of the congressional record will show, mr. Speaker, that i said, nobody knows what the law is. Nobody knows what obamacare the law obamacare is, because it keeps changing and of the thousands of pages of regulations that are piled on top of it on the 2,700 pages of legislation all together, it has been changed over and over again. Insurance companies cant abide these changes, cant adjust these premiums and yet they wrote into the bill the risk corridors and they say we have to have this, because if obamacare is go to be here, we cant be going broke because the president changed the law again. And i say to them, were you for or against obamacare when it passed . Their answer is, well, might check their shoeshine and they said our choice was to be at the table or on the menu. So im supposed to infer and the proper inference was they were at the table. The largest Insurance Companies were not only at the table but at the white house. And sometimes and so, they decided they didnt want to be on the menu and got to the table at the white house and associated their risk corridors and their bail out from losing very much money under obamacare. If they werent on the menu, they were at the table instead. Who was on the menu, mr. Speaker . And i would argue that instead of the Insurance Companies being on the menu, it was the taxpayers that got put on the menu and ended up with risk corridors to bail out Insurance Companies because they wanted to stay in the large Insurance Business and they pleeved if the taxpayers could fund, it is a more reliable funding scheme if you get it from the individual rate pairs. And also, it was designed to put 30 million more people on the insurance rolls. Who in the business expanding their business trying to get a margin. I have paid a lot of premiums. They are an important component in the stability of a Free Enterprise economy, all insurance is, as a matter of fact, but when they drew that protection and wrote that protection in called risk corridors in the bailout for the Insurance Companies into obamacare, somebody was going to pick up the tab. Thats the taxpayers. It expanded their potential universe to 30 million more insureds, 30 million more premiums. There is a profit margin in that. But you expand those premiums to that 30 million and the design that came out of obamacare was we were going to see more insured. And at this point, i would lay it down, mr. Speaker, there are fewer people insured in this country than the day obamacare was signed into law and we are losing people continually and employers watching this employer mandate kick in over time, delayed now, more employers are going to be dropping people from insurance, more employers are cutting hours, more employers are reducing the number of employees. I happen to know of an employer that had 58 employees and lined them up and said, if obamacare is passed into law and implemented, there will be 49 of you, not 58. That have had to have happened all across the country. Businesses that shrunk down to under the 58 mandate and businesses that decided not to grow into 50 employees. Thats the fact of this life. And if you have more than those in employees and then the formerly 40hour work week which has been used to measure a fulltime worker was reduced to under 30 hours, 30 hours not 40. People are getting 28 hours, working 28 hours a week so they are underneath the mandate and the employer then who cant afford the premiums often for this higher cost Health Insurance, can keep his employees on. So here are the circumstances. There might be somebody who has a job and they could be working 48, 50 hours a week. I have done the math on this, mr. Speaker, but running 50 hours a week, the employer looks at that and says i cant afford the Health Insurance. This federal mandate is either going to take me out of business or im going to have to lower your hours. He said you are 28 hours, you are 28 hours, 28 hours. He needs more employees to fill up the production and he hires more parttime workers. Well, thats a good thing for some people, but those who had a fulltime job and time and a half overtime, they get their hours cut. The person who was working 50 hours now is now down to 28 and they have to go get another parttime job that maybe is another 28 hours and up to 46 or 60 hours and dont have Health Insurance. Moms are in the same circumstance. She has been cut. She has to have another job. Mom and dad trying to raise a family when each were maybe working 50 hours a week, now working 56 hours a week with two jobs with transportation and four jobs for two people to raise a family. Those circumstances are emerging today under obamacare, mr. Speaker. And its wrong. We need to raise that minimum, that 40 hour standard that 30hour standard mandate up to 40. That is an essential component to obamacare. Another one is this. Full deductibility for everybodys Health Insurance premium. It has always been wrong that a certain percentage of the american pop us will has had to buy their populous has had to buy their Health Insurance with aftertax dollars. Ive done this for years. That as an employer i start a Construction Company in 1975, provided Health Insurance for our employees. But i couldnt deduct the premium for me. Unless i wrote up unless i incorporated, put myself in the salary and wrote off those wages. I wanted to stay a Sole Proprietor for a number of reasons but i couldnt deduct my Health Insurance premiums. And so the business expense of premiums for my employees, legitimate expense, just like wages, salary and benefits. Write those off, but i couldnt write off my own. So merrill and i had to pay for Health Insurance with aftertax dollars. That piece thats left after you pay uncle sam, after you pay the governor, the takehome pay so to speak. After you pay the tax. Now, here we are in this circumstance where thats not bad. And it should have been changed a long time ago because its an injustice and inequity. But now we have obamacare that mandates that individuals buy that Health Insurance. And its a federal mandate. You shall buy this Health Insurance. Now, in my case it isnt that i go out on the marketplace and shop for a Health Insurance policy. Its that if im going to comply with the law, ive got one choice. One choice only. Thats not competition. That was by the way one of the reasons that the president wanted to pass obamacare, is to thered be more competition. He wanted to have a federal Health Insurance company to compete with the private Sector Companies so that there would be more competition. I dont know if anybodys talked about this in quite some time here on the floor. The president s plan. I had one choice, but to have the federal government impose that you buy a product thats either produced or approved by the federal government, and they take out of your check a command, they comman deer your takehome pay to pay that premium, while thats going on, an employer somewhere, often a large corporation, can deduct that same premium to all their people as a business expense, but mom and pop operations, family farm, whoever it might be, they cant. It puts them at a significant disadvantage. This country needs to provide for full deductibility of everybodys Health Insurance premiums. Its immoral to to compel someone to buy a product thats produced or approved by the federal government and its even more immoral to say to them, and the money you shall pay shall be after tax dollars and im going to send the i. R. S. In to audit you and make sure that youre paying that premium with aftertax dollars and if not, were going to levy a tax against you. It was just going to be a penalty, but now its convenient to make the argument before the Supreme Court that its a tax. A whole series of things that we could do. The debt ceiling is in front of us. Theres an increase thats being pushed at us. If the president s people in this congress think a clean debt ceiling is a good idea, they should step up and all of them pledge to vote for it. I think we might find enough republicans that would vote for a clean debt ceiling increase. If not, mr. Speaker, id suggest that we put a balanced Budget Amendment on that and send it over to harry reid. If that doesnt work, then id suggest that we resurrect ron pauls legislation, audit the fed. Attach that to the debt ceiling. Send it over there. If that doesnt work, then id point put the elimination of the bailouts for health Insurance Companies on there and send it over to the senate. If that doesnt work, then i would take the 30hour workweek, which is supposedly the standard for fulltime, id change that to 40 so that mom and dad, who were working 50 hours, now theyre working 56 hours or 60 hours each, can go can hang on to just one job, not two each, and they would get, instead of having their hours cut from 50 to 28 or maybe even 40 to 28, that they could keep their fulltime job and go to work and manage their lives and their schedules. And by the way, this argument that obamacare, under according to the c. B. O. , obamacare cuts the job equivalent by 2 1 2 million a s over the course of decade, thats also appalling and breathtaking, mr. Speaker. To think that this obamacare that was going to create four million jobs according to then Speaker Pelosi now is going to reduce by 2 1 2 million jobs, thats 6 1 2 million jobs off from what was predicted, compared to what we now have a better look at, what were likely to end up with, and i wont say that numbers certain. It might be greater than that. 2 1 2 million jobs. So how does the administration spin this . You would think that they would find an alternative number and argue the c. B. O. Score. Or you would think that they would find a way to point out that somehow these definitions dont combite match up just right