and i believe it's prudent for us to find a way to continue to use a present loan industry to preserve efficiency and provide employment to americans during the time of economic stress. the student loan industry has been through several transformations and changes over the years since it's inception many years ago. and it works well. i voted against the house student aid and fiscal responsibility act last year and i continue to have about direct lending and the schools will face in short order this year should direct lending be enacted. i'm taking this one last opportunity, mr. chairman. to change the direction of this proposal. i would urge a yes vote. i would reserve my -- i assume i have a minute to close, mr. chairman. >> gentleman has 4 minutes left. >> i yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. east side --

edwards. >> mr. edwards is recognized. >> thank you. i would like to speak out towards the amendment. i believe in competition. competition is good for government, private sector, and i think competition with government and private will be good for both sectors and result in a more efficient system for our students and our taxpayers. also used to represent fort hood, now next to my district. sally mae employees a lot of spouses of the fort hood. for those reasons, i'd like to support mr. boyd in this amendment. >> gentleman, where do you wish to yield your time? >> i don't have any other unless somebody would like to speak in favor of the proposal. i would yield back at this point. >> you yield back. who claims time in opposition on

the republican side. >> mr. chairman. >> gentleman is recognized for 7:30 minutes. >> thank you. this proposal is obviously very similar to the program established under the bipartisan ensuring continued access to student loans act. and of course that program was intended to be in effect only while the global credit marketplace was in distress. this proposal, it would rely on federal barring to finance the student loan and prohibit the use of private capital to offer federal-guaranteed student loans in the future. i'd also like to point out that there's been -- this is not yet received a mark upor even a hearing in the senate, it's my understanding. amazing that this motion, i think really admitted to all of

the problems associated with the government takeover to student loans. one real concern is will they be able to meet the deadline to meet the july 1, 2010 deadline. i think it's a concern that schools have. if it is not able to meet that deadline, then you are going to have a very negative impact on students who are trying to go to college. i think schools would prefer to have private companies provide guaranteed loans because that will give those students a better choice and far better service than this public option, we might say, being run by the department of education. if we eliminate the current guaranteed lending program, you will see tens of thousands of jobs lost in the private sector. i think that will have an impact beyond that. on the time that will create the job losses is not going to be

good for our country. certainly, i think we'd have a hard time saying this proposal would be deficit neutral. i think the government takeover of this would certainly, to pay for the new entitlement spending would add to the deficit. i'd like to point out that cbo just reduced it's official savings from the student aid and fiscal responsibility act by $20 billion with and increase the spending by $16 billion. the advantage of the federally guaranteed student loan option is that accept for extreme circumstances, it uses private capital. without this option, the federal government will have to borrow the money to carry all of the federal student loan volume. if loan borrow riseses a expected, the loan would increase by $10 billion over the next 20 years. i would encourage a note on that motion. with that -- >> would the gentleman yield,

mr. chairman, before he finishes? >> he can yield to you if he would like. >> mr. chairman, he will have an additional minute. if i could, i would yield the balance of my time to mr. jordan. >> gentleman yields to mr. jordan. you will be recognized to close for 1:00. >> thank you. i appreciate the gentleman from florida. as i took in the motion, it's a step in the right direction, but it's small. the government is going to run, administer, operate the program. i would just point out to the committee, there were a few of us who stuck around when mr. duncan was in front of the committee two or three weeks ago. i was the one that struck around as well. if you remember secretary duncan in his presentation to the committee and when we questioned him, the department is asking for 400 more employees to administer this program. think about this, in a time when americans are faced with the

expect concerns, they are asking for more mes. when i question mr. duncan, i said, how many employees does the department have? 4128. anyone know the average salary? over $100,000. anyone know what the average teacher salary is across this country? $51,000. put it in perspective the way the american people would. the secretary of education says give me 400 employees making $100,000 to make over and run the program. meanwhile the teacher who runs the child, he admitted to that. who do you think has the greatest impact? who helps them learn the most next to the parents? is it the teacher in the classroom? he said certainly. the teacher is making half and now we're going to hire 400 more making $100,000. that's what's at stake here. i appreciate the gentleman to

attempt to move in the right direction. this doesn't do it. i would urge my colleagues to vote against this. i would yield to another member on my said. if not, i would yield back to the time and let the gentleman have his rebuttal. thank you, mr. chairman. >> gentleman yields back his time. all of the time is expired. we will recognize the gentleman from florida. 1:00 before closing. >> thank you. i would to make sure we are all on the same page. we asked the rules committee to make an order or amendment that replaces on the student loan reform with the terms of the student loan that would not require the transfer of the nation's university to the direct loan program. so, mr. harper and mr. jordan, you and i on the same page. we want the same things. i want to make sure you understood that before we take this vote. i am very concerned about the

reform of the program and moving to all direct lending. i would like to keep it like it is. i would to make sure. i thought that's what you were arguing too. i just want to make sure that everybody here understands. if we bring these bills before the house, the stimulus packages and ask us to vote, to take federal money to create jobs. and the next day you come in and say i'm going to eliminate, that doesn't make much sense. let's get this health reform done if that's what we're going to do. but leave the student loan for another day and not mix up the two. i would strongly encourage and ask for your yes vote on that motion. >> all time has expired. a vote occurs on the motion of providing, mr. bio. all of those in favor say aye.

[aye] >> all those opposed say no. [no] >> the chair reports favor of the no. will you please call the roll? [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[inaudible conversations] >> would the additional members who wish to be recorded? any member wish to change the vote? if not the clerk will announce the vote. >> the aye, 4; no, 32. >> noes are 32, the motion is not agreed to. is this an additional motion on the republican side? mr. garrett? mr. garrett is recognized. >> i'm on deck. there you go. i have a motion here that i actually think both sides of the aisle may agree on. there's an article in today's

washington post where it says though it seems compelling, it is not the only health care systems major problem. it goes on to say the big problem is uncontrolled spending which prices people out of the market and burdens government markets and president obama claims his proposal checks spending. so the motion here will if we believe or if your side of the aisle believes the argue we have made today this motion would say it would prevent the bills of taking effect of the actuary includes it will increase national health care and/or increase the federal criminate to health care and the health care reform should be able to bend the curve downwards. if you believe all of the rhetoric that we've heard that your bill will do all of those things, bend the curve down, you should have no problem with a motion that says nothing should take effect if the cms office

concludes otherwise. because you know as you've argued for the last three hours that it will bend the curve downwards. i would suggest on our side we should support the amendment. because we believe otherwise. we believe it will not bend the curve downwards. no, the president has called for any health care bill. both sides agree. this cabinet has stated the act on health care reform is to bend the curve down. we both agree on that and reduce our long term deficits and debt. we both agree on that. the president's right to do so is a goal that we all share. we would argue that it doesn't quite do that. it does not bend the curve down in that direction. one the most damaging is from the chief himself, and it increased the spending $2 billion above the estimates, putting us on a trajectory even more sustainable than the path

we are on now. i think it was chart 1. which is the reason why we are proposing the amendment. it's the true total cost of the democratic health care bill. the blue is left aside. but on the long-term cost of $2.31 trillion. this is the true first ten year cost. the amendment would say if we are in fact bending the curve upwards, then we should hold off on implementation of this. we can get into the underlying bill and the ranking member as talked about the double counting. the health care bill reduces the deficit by $118 billion. they do that by the double accounting. we would argue that the just to go up. they, in fact, pay for new programs that the majority wants to enact. if you take them out, you will

see an increase in the overall curve. in addition to the gimmicks if you will or the arguments that were made earlier, there's other ones as well. majority dropped medicare physician payment the so-called dock fix. how much does that cost us? that adds $210 billion to $370 billion to the deficit impact. what does that mean? that means that the overall numbers that we are looking here is not a true cross projection of the system but rather much deflatessed. we're suggests the number will be much higher because without the double accounting, the numbers as you see will be higher. with the new taxes, on small businesses, but large businesses too and on families and the burdens there on the payer or pay by insurance around $2,000. it all leads us down a path of

ever higher deficits. we all agree despite the argument near the side of the aisle that we have not projected any new proposals, we all agree that we need health care reform and we should do a plan that will reduce cost. all of this motion says, and i'll turn it over to the ranking member, is that we should all agree with the president. we should be bending the curve down. and republican health care reform must reduce cost and not raise them. until the cms, we should not be going any forward any other direction than that. with that, i yield the last two minutes to the ranking member. >> not to get too deep in the weeds, cbo does not have a health care expenditure. we have to look at the actuary. actuary is a person who has unimpeachable credentials when you're in the minority and we're the majority says the raise is $220 billion. the outyear, savings are suspect

at best. what this chart shows you is we are right around the pres pis of flipping who's the dominant payer. right now government and private sector. that flips and goes in the dramatic way. there are two big basic cost savings. number one, which is the legitimate one, the tax and cadillac plans. some future congress in eight years is going to put that one in place. number two, are awful these mechanism that is are being put in place which must rational care? you can put the smartest people in government. we can have a government full of peter orszags who can sit here and design health care and how to create care and how to do it. but there's not a substitute for the patient customizing the care with the doctor. or the doctor saying here's what you need, forget about the dartmouth or anything else. this is what you need.

because of your circumstances. here's the care you need. what this bill has to do if it is going to bend the cost curve is deny that physician to have that discussion to do that kind of care. i've got to tell you, if you look at those models when you put them in place, canada, great britain, whenever, rationalling is the only way to bend the cost curve under this kind of a system. that is what you will do if you are sincere about bending the cost curve. what's your own actuary says is not going to happen under this. >> what you are saying strikes me as wild staplations from a simple numbers on that board. but i don't have to yield the time to myself. i have to ask the democratic side who rises in opposition? ms. schwartz rises in opposition. you are recognized for 7:30. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your introduction.

i appreciated your comments about those charts. let me say this motion is at best unnecessary. because we too -- we are concerned about bending the cost curve and what that really means is reduces the rate of growth and cost in coverage. this bill does it. we have gotten the cbo and even the senator from medicare and medicaid services to say that. they say this will reduce the rate of growth in health care spending. i'm happy to say it agree, this will reduce the rate of growth. and we have had had -- the cbo has said they expect the deficit to be reduced by health care reform by about over $100 billion in the first ten years and up to $1 trillion in the adding the decade after that. so this is definitely moving us in the right direction. and we're committed to do that. we are clearly working on health care reform, moving forward on health care reform because of the concerns of the american

families and american businesses have. but part of that is reducing the cost, the rate of growth in cost in health care for families and for businesses and, yes, for the government. unlike the republicans who proposed two ideas about how to reduce the cost curve. one was on the -- when we voted on the floor. the republican alternative actually spend billions of dollars. my recollection is $60 billion and extended coverage to 3 billion americans. actually increased the uninsured americans to 50 million. it was expensive and did little. that is not the way to spend public taxpayer dollars. mr. ryan spoke on his plan, which would be to add privatized medicare, to end employer based coverage and move individuals to high-cost, high-deductible

plans. our plan would reduce cost. how? we would do that by improving quality and you'ving outcome and demanding for efficiencies in the health care system. just a few. we want to do more to make sure there are enough primary care physicians and nurse practice i guess -- practitioners. we're going to demand and reduce hospital infections and reducing the number of readmissions. we are going to give our doctors and hospitals greater tools and incentives to improve quality with a pay for performance for health care care and value index for physicians. i'm speaking quickly because we are doing a lot in this bill that will in fact reduce cost and groove -- improve quality. it has 18 different ways that hospitals and doctors will improve quality through more

integrated, better coordinated care. and improvehealth outcomes. that is the way to improve health services and to reduce cost for americans. that's what our health care reform legislation does without excluding coverage, without dropping people off of health insurance and without increasing cost to our federal budget. we are proud of what we're doing and call to reject. with that, i would like to ask my colleague to add a couple of minutes. >> i thank my friend from pennsylvania. there have been ten major cost reduction put forward over the last couple of years. and seven of them, things like preventing medicare fraud, preventing hospital readmissions, better use of medical records technology, wellness, they are in the bill. two of them are partially in the bill. there are modest steps towards

reducing new lawsuits. the other side wants to do more than that, but there is some tort reform in the proposal. and the tax on so-called high end insurance plans, as the ranking members pointed out. although most people would say it doesn't go far enough. the one thing left out that was identified in saving $1 so was the public option. so the one thing that's not in the list of 10 is that. now i find it curious that the other side seems to be saying that we agree with the experts unless we disagree with them. so when it comes to the medicare, it's an authoritative view of the cost. he did say under the house bill there would be a slight, i think .8%. the house bill differences from the senate in two ways. the house bill did not have any

version on the tax on high end, number one, and the powers of the medicare commission to reduce cost were largely advisory in the house bill and they are in fact, far more significant incentive bill. one the actuaries look, he may well reach a different conclusions. i guess i would say to my friend who sort of made a wager. his amendment seems to say if the actuary says this will bend the cost curve we should vote for it. i would ask him why when the cbo says he won't go for that. he seems to be saying if an expert offers an opinion he agrees with, it's authoritative. if he offers an opinion he disagrees with, it isn't. >> would you yield? >> wait until it's your time. >> i agree it's authoritative, but it's also looking at a different time. i would yield back to my

friend. it's her turn to yield. >> ms. moore wanted to add a bit. >> just very briefly, this is a very interesting discussion. because my good friend from my state, the distinguished ranking member gave such a reaction to ms. de laurel when she talked about bending the cost curve for private insurance when the rate insurance commission. and then i would stunned when that happened. because i really do believe my colleague, that health care cost will continue to rise, rise, rise. that medicare is very much threatened unless we bend the cost curve some sort of way. and that medicare rates are tied to what happens in the private sector. so unless we bend the cost curve, in the private sector, we won't be able to do it in

medicare. i wanted to point out that irony. i yield back. >> and i'll just close by saying. i do believe that medicare in the role that we play as government in overseeing, medicare and financing medicare, we have a great deal to say about the payment. that we have taken very seriously and have included so many different innovative ways that we can make sure almost all americans have access and that we reduce cost for families for businesses and yes for the government and i yield back. >> chair yields a minute to close to mr. garrett. >> paul, did you want to start with clarification? >> sure. >> let me just say when cbo scores a bill, they score in front of them. when you have the actuary, they can take into circumstances all situation, they can look beyond the bill itself. >> i would say during the 6

hours that we've been sitting here, felicity was born to a member of my staff. if we can see a picture. no, it's not a picture of her. this is the poor burden than felicity will have to deal with under this current circumstances. and i'm encouraged by the fact that the other side says that they are interested in making sure that this will bend the curve down. as a matter of fact, i think your words we will ensure cost reduction. i guess this is a wager. but if you honestly believe in what you've just been telling us for the last six hours, if you believe it will bend, you should have no opposition and should support this side of the aisle. thank you. >> all time having expired, the vote occurred on the motion by mr. garrett. all those in favor will say aye. [aye] >> all those opposed say no.

[no] >> a roll call vote have been requested. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] :

through the direct loan program. this is a subject we have discussed at some length a few minutes ago. but what we are trying to do is

see to it that the pell grant that students receive keeps pace with inflation, and so we are proposing to fund pell grants at least at the level of of the cpi or the increased pell grants at least at the level of of the cpi without any new taxpayer expense and we realize the dollars that they we need from that to do that from moving, from ff el lending to 100% direct lending. let me describe the current state of play of ff el lending. it is a program that operates under terms and conditions set or why the federal government. the federal government pays the lender a subsidy to participate in the program. right now the federal government is providing 60% of the capitol that the lenders lend and we take on 97% of the risk. this is an extremely good deal for the banks and the lenders.

were it not for the federal government, there would not be an ffel program right now. we in the congress on a bipartisan basis propped up the ffel program by passing a piece of legislation mr. harper referred to earlier known as a castle in which we provide the capitol to the capital to the student lenders. so what we are simply saying is that if we are providing the capital, if we are providing the terms and conditions, if we are providing this subsidy to the lender to land and we are taking on 97% of the risk, who needs the middleman? there are things the federal government can do at least as well if not better than the private sector and one of them is to administer a student loan program at significantly reduced cost. there and considerable skepticism expressed this evening and this afternoon on the accuracy of cbo scoring. when this legislation was first considered by the congress, the

cbo scored the ten-year savings or this legislation at $87 billion. the most recent score earlier this month course it at a savings of 67 million. the reason is that now approximately 40% of the schools in the country have moved to direct lending so we are seeing each and every day the savings. so this verifies the very powerful savings impact of moving from ffel mending-- lending and we want to give that money to needy students where it can be best used and i doubt yield a minute and a half to mr. scott hurco. >> this motion would give us an opportunity to show our priorities because we are going to spend the money anyway. gentleman from new york has said how are we going to spend the money? we can help eight alien students with pell grants, work study, student loans including income contingent lowndes, to help

colleges complete their studies. we are going to spend the money so we have a straightforward choice. we can provide assistance to 8 million struggling students or we can provide subsidies to corporations which do nothing to help the students. all of those who will be in favor of this bode aye on this motion and those who will be in favor of expanding not only the students that the corporate subsidies will be voting no. i intend to vote for the students and i i thank the gentleman from new york for introducing this motion. >> thank you mr. scott. imail yield one minute to mr. etheredge. >> i can assure you i will be voting and i have spent a number of years in education. as we talk about this whole thing of education we shouldn't forget the community colleges in this country. a lot of students go back to school who have lost their jobs. this is the first step in that process of having the opportunity to move up the ladder to get an education

beyond high school and for many of the students it would be the first in their family, the first in their family not only to get an education but to change their lifestyle and make a difference for themselves and their families in years to come and i commend the gentleman for introducing this and i want you to know i fully support it. it is the right thing to do with the right time for the right reason and i yield back. >> thank you very much. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding and i want to associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues particularly to the pell grant portion of this bill. it was created by our senior senator, claiborne pell, who no student should be denied the opportunity to go to college because they couldn't afford it or go senator pell believed education was the great equalizer and he created that legislation establishing pell grants which has helped so many students go to college to this

day, and we need to continue his legacy. more and more students struggle to keep up with repayments. we know that involve the purchasing power offered by the pell grants along the way has dwindled. when he first created the program that covered 80% of the cost of the four year college education at a public college or university. today less than four decades later it covers less than 40% of a four year college education, so clearly we have work to do here to make up the purchasing power of higher education due to concerns about how they could possibly pay for it. so americans need affordable quality education opportunities to help make our economy strong and competitive again. obviously we all know the best way to row our economy is to have an educated workforce. and i would say the pell grant program is the largest source of rant aid to students under the

higher education act with approximately 27% of all undergraduates receiving the pell award and more than 8 million college students already rely on pell grants to help pay their college costs in the and the number is growing. last year 20% more students apply for pell grants in the year before. i know my time has expired but this that this is an important amendment and i urge my colleagues to support it. >> the time has expired. who claims time in opposition on the republican side? >> mr. chair? thank yous are. i would like to point out that pell grants are vouchers and it is ironic and i think perhaps incredible of this committee that this committee will vote to permit the vouchers of dodgers abuse in one area but though to decrease them and in another and i want to make it clear that i don't oppose the pell grant program and i don't oppose increasing the maximum grant award if we pay for it. pell grants have provided adults

particularly in my district the ability and means to go to college. but we have traditionally paid for these with discretionary spending not mandatory spending. the intent here is to pay for the higher grant award using savings generated from elimination of guaranteed student loan program and as you know the student loan bill passed by the house last september was estimated to save some 87 billion dollars over 10 years by providing for student loans directly from the federal government rather than subsidizing private lenders to make these loans. cbo's updated estimate shows $67 billion in savings which is why a person we are dealing with a student loan issue of reconciliation. we have to adjust projected savings. of course it also makes it easier to pass a student loan legislation in the senate. i'm not sure i believe the direct lending program is going to generate such savings but we will see. i do oppose creating a new entitlement and i'm afraid this

is what we are going to do. if we want higher pell grant awards then we should make them a priority and vote to reduce other programs to offset the higher cost during the appropriations process. we teach our children that you can't have everything you want yet we both were good policy all the time with no means to pay for it. if we are going to pay for these higher award amounts based on the expectation of lower costs cost to the government by eliminating the guaranteed student loan program i am not so sure that this would be good policy and with that mr. chairman i yield to mr. jordan. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding and let me get this straight. we are going to ensure that 8 million more college students get an increase in their pell grant and it is not going to add anything to the deficit or debt? why isn't he going to add anything to the deficit or debt? the federal government, that efficient cost savings that a government is going to take it over. outside of this town there is not one person in america who believe that.

i give you guys credit. at least you are consistent with you are consistent with the argument. you say on the whole bill 30 million new americans are going to get health insurance and it is not going to add anything to the deficit. outside of this town there is not one american that believes that. the last amendment that dealt with student loans we talked about this. your own secretary, our own secretary of education came before this committee and said we are going to hire 404 new people to for new people to administer this program. we know what this is going to be. one more bureaucratic mess right here in washington. of course we are going to tell them it is going to save them money and of course we are going to tell them it will give more kids a college education. it is pallone and the american people know it and with that i would feel back to the gentleman from mississippi. >> mr. chairman i believe i would yield to mr. hensarling. >> i thank thank the gentleman for yielding. i think i heard earlier in the

gentleman from virginia say culp we are going to spend the money anyway. chewer words were never spoken from my friends on the other side of the aisle. if i could pull up chart five yet again please. okay, for arguments sake, for arguments sake, let's assume that somehow the federal government in this instance has managed to overthrow decades if not centuries of program more efficiently. all the savings accrue. would say our friends on the other side of the aisle actually found some savings. is it used for deficit reduction as we hear so often? that our friends want to achieve? well, no. we are going to spend the words anyway so we can't pay for the entitlement spending we have as we look into the abyss of red ink, so let's just increase,

let's increase the pell grant program that we already have today. let's increase something that we can't afford. now, i will say there is a certain logic to this, because in this particular economy, under the policies of this democratic congress and this democratic president, nobody can find a job so i suppose it might as well go to college and in fact recently i was visiting the community college in my district and if it district of texas and that is exactly what the president said to me. we are getting more students because nobody can find a job. well, that is what the american people wish we were talking about tonight, is something that would actually create jobs and one of the impediments we have that is preventing us from creating jobs for these students is that threatened 2.3 trillion dollar nationalization of our health care system. we talked to small businesses,

large businesses, entrepreneurs, investors and what you see are these looming cloud of obama hello sino makes that are keeping jobs from being created in america today. people will say, how are we going to pay for this health care program? how are we going to pay for that sea of red ink wax how are we going to pay for this idea of this national energy tax? how are we going to pay for this threatened, dragani and capital markets regulatory deal? there is uncertainty, there is anxiety and the people that you want to risk the capital and create the jobs are not going to do it. they are not going to do it because they know that this story has an unhappy ending and it is either in massive tax increases, and please, please if you are not going to do anything to economize costs, at least

let's be honest about the magnitude of the tax increases that will be imposed on the american people. at the end of the president's budget, at the end of the 10 year window 60% tax increase just to balance the budget. doubling taxes on the next generation at which.we have a lower standard of living for our children and grandchildren, so isn't that ironic? we increase pell grants and he knows maybe we can provide a student with reap ph.d.'s get under your debt program they will actually have a lower standard of living, at least when my children become my age. i find that terribly, terribly ironic so again on an evening when we should be talking about jobs, there's one thing that is certain about this trick pony and expensive takeover of our health care plan is that the american people don't want it. they have followed this debate. they have followed it for a year. they don't want it.

i have no doubt you have the ability to room this thing through and that sea of red ink will continue and continue so i suppose it is a good thing the that people have the ability to be warehoused in colleges because the americans have no jobs. >> implicit in the argument that each of our three colleagues just made is that in point of fact we are going to spend the money anyway, because you are all proposing that we keep in place the current wasteful program that cost taxpayers money. we are simply saying we have a choice here. we can either neither give that money to students or we can give it to bankers. you want to give it to bankers, we want to give it to needy students but you were making the same argument we are going to spend the money anyway. i will say to other whether things very quickly. you all wanted the cbo score.

when we proposed this legislation 20% of schools in this country have direct lending aunt 80% had at ffel. the reason the score has gone from 87 to 67 is that those savings have already been realized and are now part of the baseline. this program will work and it will save money. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back his time in all time has expired. the vote now occurs on the motion offered by mr. bishop. all those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the subto have it. the recorded vote has been requested and the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] mr. garrett, you are not recorded. mr. garrett, no. >> are there additional members who wish to be recorded? does anyone wish to change his vote? changes that? if not the clerk will announce the vote. >> mr. chairman on that boat the seventh two are 22, they said three or 15. >> they are being 22 set to an teen no's the motion is not

agreed to. i beg your pardon. at being 22 ayes and 15 no's, the motion is agreed to. is there an additional motion? >> mr. chairman i have the motion to instruct and i am pretty excited about it. [laughter] >> your enthusiasm radiates. >> my sole purpose of offering this motion to instruct mr. chairman is to offer a republican motion that my good friend from arkansas mr. berry can support and i'm certain once he want to hear once he hears how good this motion as he is going to supported and i will have done my job. this motion to instruct those three things. is about using up-to-date estimates full transparency and full accountability on this health care bill and in the rush to pass this bill we will be using data that is a year old and does not tell us how much we will have to appropriate to

implement this government takeover of the health care system. the cbo cost estimate on the senate passed health care bill is off the baseline and is a year old march 2009. just last week were received cbo's real estimate of the president's entire fy2011 budget relative to the new baseline. each year we give cbo the time to produce an estimate of the president's budget. why would he use a cost estimate based on your old figures when we have randy figures to rely on? the only reason to do this is if using outdated figures makes the bill seem less costly than it really is. the bill is full of authorizations for appropriations when legislation authorizes appropriations cbo gives us detailed estimates of a potential impacts. today we received an initial assessment from cbo that indicates the senate passed bill will cost dixie six to 76 billion 276 billion more than advertised when discretionary spending is taking, taking into account.

on january 15 appropriation ranking member lewis and cochran and the senate asked cbo to provide an estimate. that was two months ago, the spending subject to discretionary appropriations in in the spill. they were based on the pulmonary information you have provided a true budgetary impact of the house and senate versions of the health care legislation once discretionary costs affect them may be as much as 15% higher than widely understood. they requested that the congressional budget office please report back on the following aspects of the house passed version and the senate passed version of the legislation. won an estimate of discretionary cost is the result of new programs of initiatives if fully funded as authorized in two an estimate of discretionary costs as a result of the expansion of existing programs if fully funded as authorized and three, an estimate and a description of all such as may be necessary provisions if fully funded as

authorized. so what we asked in the first part of this motion is to use current data instead of-year-old data in figuring out the cost of this piece of legislation. the second thing it does is as you know this bill as was the most sweeping legislation congress has passed since the inception of medicare it. will impact every man woman and child and it redesigned 17% of our economy. is it too much to ask that members of congress and the american people, whom we represent, and who will eventually be impacted by this bill have at least 72 hours to review the bill once the speaker's offices finish writing it? we all know that the bill that is in these binders before us is just a trojan horse that will be replaced by the bill that is being written in the speaker's office. all we ask is 72 hours, three days. that doesn't seem too much, that we and the american people can review it to see what is in it. finally, the last thing this does it say that we would like

an up-or-down vote on this house bill. when i heard that the majority was considering passing a rule that deemed passage of a senate health care bill, i almost started to laugh. i'll but most of you did too because you couldn't believe that it was so outrageous that anyone would actually propose that. and now we understand it is serious. that we are going to redesigned 17% of our economy, the biggest expansion of any social program since medicare, and we are going to do it as deemed by passing the rules so we won't have to take a tough votes. if this is such a good bill, stand up and take a vote on the bill and i would yield the rest of my time to the gentleman from mississippi. >> thank you mr. simpson. mr. chairman.

i would certainly say that if we have a vote on this, and it is not an actual up-or-down vote on the senate bill i would think that people will not fall for that and we view it as a form of trickery perhaps, so i hope that this is something-- i can't think of anything, we are just hopeful that tonight we will have one of our motions passed and i think this is our best shot at it. it requires an up-to-date estimate on the full cost of the bill, 72 hours notice and separate votes on each bill and i know i only have another minute that we are concerned about the cost here. if i could see the democratic chart number 9, i really like that chart. i have seen it twice tonight so far and if we could pull that up i want to talk about that. i know that cost is something that is extremely important. it is chart number 9. but, we are obviously concerned about where we are going to go

with the deficit. but we kind of talked about maybe wondering about some of our charts but here, just to make it clear, when we are in the blue and clinton's administration in about 1994 is the wealth where reform act with the republican-controlled house and senate, 97 as it is going up to the blue i believe is going to be as chip and other things that are going on and then everything looks pretty good until we get to september 112001 and then it drops down but i want to point out that the democrats have had control of this congress since 07 which if you look at that chart and see what happens to it, it is a pretty damaging spike and chart and i would suspect it will be the last time we will see this chart in the budget committee. >> at the gentleman would yield for a second? if you extrapolate a few years forward that red line would go down to the basement right now. [laughter]

>> yes, could you hold a charge back up again? because, because you know, there is just amazing-- how the other side can take any credit for that lieu. their contribution to the blue when we passed it to begin with was without a single republican vote, house or senate. and 93, not a single republican vote, house or senate. that is right, and that is how you created the blue. venue demagogue did and took over and came in in 95 and your contribution was to wreck the budget and that president clinton had to veto it so you couldn't get your way. you take credit for his veto and if you want to know what would have happened if you had signed

your budgets, he found out in 2001 when president bush signed the budget and you saw what happened. you can't blame 9/11 because the first tax-cut happen before 9/11 and you had gone to through to rob a cash surplus before 9/11. a second set of tax cuts happened after 9/11. you can't a surprise that 9/11 had already happened because that was after 9/11. can i show that chart, your chart number 5? can the ranking member, can i show your chart number 5? that thing. now, if you look very closely, you will see that comp right around 96 where we finally eliminated the deficit and had gone into surplus in that line and that line is headed down or had you not messed up the budget we would have paid off the entire debt by the public rico that entire red would be under the line because we had projected the payoff of the national debt held by the public

or co-infection 2001 greenspan was answering questions, what is going to happen when we pay off the national debt? what is going to happen to the bond market? those were questions he was answering in 2001. then you wreck the budget so all of that is actually your policy, not ours. we like to change the policy. we inherited a big deficit. we are in the middle of the recession. we have to do jobs first and then we will be the is fully responsible things in light of all the complaints we are going to get from the other side. we are going to get the budget back under control but we can't do it until we get the budget straight and health care is going to help because that is the biggest thing in terms of the problems with the budget. i yield. i am going to get to that. i will skip to that part. we call for the 72 hour posting for reconciliation prior to consideration on the house floor is redundant.

the house leadership has already committed to have the text posted 72 hours before the house considers the bill. so it is redundant. it would be in our vote. i yield. >> i thank my colleague from virginia. i am particularly stunned to hear our good friend from idaho asked for a simple up-and-down votes on health care. i will tell you, i will make a deal with you. i will be glad to vote for that if you can get your republican friends in the senate to give us the same deal. the reason we are in this pickle is because the republican side of the aisle in the senate. let me point out franklin delano roosevelt was president, let me finish, franklin delano roosevelt was president for 12 years. cloture was invoked four times in 12 years. last year, the republicans in one year invoked cloture 39 times.

they are the ones who are obstructing health care. they are the ones who have forced us into this kind of parliamentary situation and they have no one to blame but themselves. they can try to blame us all they want but the facts suggest otherwise. >> reclaiming my time, i i've got to confess that i was intrigued by the use of an up-or-down vote. okay, we have agreed you were going to get the 72 hours on one of the baseline requiring the march 2010 baseline would go against the long-standing precedence of using the same baseline for reconciliation of the budget for which the reconciliation instruction occurred. we are going to use the same, we have used all that long and redoing all of the scoring would do nothing but a stalling tactic you not only have to do the bill, you have to do a baseline on unemployment, gdp growth in

and all other things that go into scoring the bill and it is just delaying the tactic reeco one of the problems with delaying tactic is wing we know the bill is going to reduce the deficit not only in the first 10 years but the second 10 years. you may not believe that but that is with cpu told you. the delay only makes things worse. from 2000, to to 2009 the percentage of of businesses that offered insurance decreased to 60%. 1% drop in coverage on average every year for the last nine years. a small businesses have been hit reticular we hard and since 2000 and 2000, 57% of the small businesses offered insurance and now 46%, and again almost a point per year, year after year. from 2004 to 2712 lien americans, about one third tried to purchase insurance from the

individual market for either turn down or charged a higher rate because if preexisting conditions and people are dying because of an insurance. it is estimated 18,000 americans died unnecessarily because they lacked insurance. and so, we need to get going with health insurance. people are dying and every time we wait. in terms of an up-or-down vote, i hope we don't have to talkç sickness in this meeting. we did had-- cannot pass a bill without the the bill without the house voting. you may not like the reform of the vote but there will be a vote. if the bill passes, either as a voice vote or some kind of vote it will pass. and if you don't like the fact that the bill passed he will be able to point to a vote. you can't send the bill to the president without the house voting. in the same form, the house and the senate, basic civics so we will take a vote or coat is not going to be any higher.

on scoring all we are doing is just delaying. we need to get on with health care. people are losing their insurance. 72 hours, we already agree to that so that is going to happen in the up-or-down vote as my colleague from virginia says is just the other side would insist on an up-or-down vote on health care. i yield back the time. >> first of all let me say i'm glad to see we are going to have three days because that hasn't always been the case but i'm glad to see the mind-- the majority has said we will have three days to read the bill. secondly we certainly wouldn't want to use current numbers. let's just used numbers so let's use that once from a year ago even though we have been to what's available and that might take us a little time to see what the cost is. last come about the up, about the up-or-down vote or coat the gentleman from virginia says the senate, the republicans over

there are blocking everything and that is why everything installed and we are going to these procedures and points to the number times that the filibuster was called. you have got to understand that filibuster is actually a procedure by which it requires a majority party that don't have 60 votes to work with the minority. the biggest problem we had here and the reason that u.s. had filibusters called so many times by the senate republicans is because nobody on the democratic side has worked with the minority from the start of this bill. they had 60 votes. they didn't have to consider or talk to republicans over there on anything and they haven't. it says more about the fact that the leader over there has not been willing to work with the minority the number of filibusters that have been called than it does about the minority. >> the gentleman's time has expired. a vote there for a therefore occurs on the motion offered via mr. simpson. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no.

it appears that the no's havoc. a roll call vote has been requested. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] >> are there additional members who wish to be reported? members you care to change their vote? if not the clerk will announce the vote.

>> mr. chairman on that showed the ayes are 16, the no's, 21. >> the motion is not a read too. is there an additional motion on the democrat side? >> b. yes sir, sir chairman. i would ask that you direct the rules committee to make in order , an amendment that ensures small businesses are provided with tax credits to support coverage to their workers and increases affordability credits to families and reduces cost-sharing for families with a modest income. and on that motion mr. chairman, i think that next to the death panels, the greatest incidence of campaign information about this bill is that small businesses are going to suffer

and be undone by this health care reform. in fact, small businesses with under 50 employees have no mandate in this bill, no mandates to provide health care. and, those small businesses who are so enlightened to provide health care, those under 50, those with employees under 25 employees, will receive a tax credit particularly when the exchanges are up and running, for up to 50% of the cost of those employees. this will make it more affordable for small businesses, who now suffer an 18% increase over large businesses for providing health care health care for their employees. it makes it impossible for them to recruit and retain employees. it basically causes job loss and stops entrepreneurial pursuits. the small-business majority says , protects that this will

reduce job loss by about 72%. with respect to the individual affordability credits, we have heard here this evening that this will destroy the individual market. what individual market are they talking about? are they talking about the 46 million americans that don't have any health insurance? are they talking about the invincible's that show up in the intensive care unit after they have had a crash on their motorcycles and shift all the cost to other americans, or are they talking about the millions of americans working families, who are priced out of the market because premiums increase $1800 a year? no, we are creating the individual market by providing affordable health care that will reduce their costs by about 60%. there are so many people who

want to speak on this that i'm now going to yield to mr. larsen. >> i thanked the gentleman from wisconsin and won't be too long to accommodate other speak or spoke just note that choice and competition, where it does not exist as robustly as it should is a serious problem for small business and certainly my district are to establishing a competitive health insurance market is giving millions of americans and small business owners the same purchasing power that big businesses and unions enjoy as well with the same choices as every member of congress have. it is very important and if they still can't afford insurance mr. chairman in the marketplace, small businesses will in fact be eligible for tax cuts to reduce the cost of health health care r their employees. so it can help small businesses so they don't have to choose between hiring and health care. small businesses are the engine

of job growth in our country. in this economy, we need to have them use their dollars to fuel their payrolls instead of skyrocketing premiums. and with that i yield back to the gentleman from wisconsin. >> i have 34 seconds to give to mr. mcgovern. >> thank you. as as been said small businesses are the engine of our economy and that is where the jobs need to grow yet small business person after small-business person tells me, and i tell you, that they are being decimated by the high and constantly rising cost of health care. high health care costs have forced them to lay off workers and in some cases even go out of business. if we can remove the burden of these excruciating costs, then it will pave the way for more job growth. the three biggest issues we are faced with us here are jobs,

jobs, jobs. health care costs are one of the reasons why we are not being more job growth in the small-business area. i have got to say one final thing and that is a comment that mr. simpson made and i think it is important that we have some clarity here. he was justifying why the senate , for why the republicans have been filibustering so fruitful in the senate and he said it was because there was no bipartisanship or no attempt at bipartisanship or go if i remember quick correctly chairman baucus delayed them markup or weeks and weeks and weeks while he negotiated with senator grassley, the republican from iowa. was after senator grassley was giving the marching orders to deny the president of the united states and united states and a victory that things began to fall apart so let's get our history straight here. again, i support this amendment. we need to help small businesses , and we all need to, we all need to recognize that i

must we alleviate these crushing health care costs that are on the backs of small businesses we are not going to see the kind of job growth that is going to bring this economy back and i yield back my time. >> i would yield not to miss kaptur. >> i thanked the gentlelady for her generosity again and wish to say it is shocking that half the have the uninsured in america are small-business people and their employees, half. that is incredible. the best jobs bill job still jobs bill we could pass as health insurance. i know what it's like to live in a family where your father has a heart attack when you were a kid and he has to sell his business because he can't get health insurance. our family live that reality and if i ever had a chance to vote in congress to cover small business, my stay here would be worth the while. i have businesses that have lost health insurance because it is simply unaffordable. let's help pass this health insurance bill for all of our people. >> the time has expired or go.

>> mr. chairman? i will claim the time in opposition. >> mr. campbell claims the time in opposition. >> thank you esther chairman. we had discussion earlier and i know the gentleman from new jersey and perhaps others may not like the cms actuary that the president actuaries determination. it is the only, the only objective analysis we have are co-we don't have one for cbo so it is the only one we have, and it says it is going to bend the cost curve up, it is axl going to increase the cost of premiums for people who are not getting their health care for free. frankly it make sense because if you look at the other stuff that is in the bill, what else is in the bill? there are a lot of increases in coverage is that are supposed to be but we can't increase coverage is without increasing the cost of what is there. there is nothing that is going to increase competition and in fact it is probably going to reduce competition and of course there is a new entitlement in

there. when you give somebody something for nothing they will use more of it. and rather than address the drivers that are, and that are driving the cost of health care up and yes, malpractice insurance is one of them but over utilization is another and if somebody gets something for free, they don't care what it costs so they use lots of it. so the more you do that, the more the costs go up. this is why if you want to bend the cost curve down, look at what is happening in medicine that is not paid for by insurance which is elective and the cosmetic surgery and that sort of thing. so in any event, so what is happening here is this bill is going to drive up the cost of health insurance and then because you are providing a new entitlement, they are going to tax people. you are going to tax people with health insurance. you are going to tax people over a certain income and tax all kinds of people. to pay for this new entitlement. so we are going to raise the

cost of health insurance, tax the same people more and then give them back a little bit of their money in a tax credit? i mean, come on. people understand this. that is why people in america don't want this bill. they understand that this tax credit is a shell game. you are taking $5 away from his people and giving them to and then increasing the cost of what they are paying for by another three. they lose. they get that, they understand that. it is a shell game. it is a sham. we normally like tax credit right? we are republicans alike credits to go down. but not this way, not this way. so with that i am happy to yield to the gentleman from north carolina. >> thank you. i appreciate mike colleague from california yielding. i do want the reference to the cbo, that they are the gold standard for this, and so one of

my colleagues said we take this analysis as the rules. there has been multiple references to the cbo. i am not sure why my colleagues actually, now that i think about it i am sure why my democratic colleagues don't reference the cbo when they discussed that the bill that they are working with right now would raise premiums by 10 to 13%. that is the cbo's numbers. for the nongroup market they say it will free-- raise premiums for the nongroup arc it. this is the bill that you all are proffering and forcing on the american people and yet you wonder why they don't like it. because you are going to raise their health care costs. then they say well, we are going to give you subsidies. okay, they also see you are going to have one-handed their pocket taking more tax money out in order to put money in their

other pocket to give them a subsidy, because the law that you are passing raises health care premiums. the costs go up. am i missing something here? so, what i would say to my colleagues, this is the wrong process are co-you certainly have your time in rebuttal. you can use your time to respond. thank you mr. andrews. you have spoken plenty. what i would say to my colleagues is that we need to address a plan that actually deals with the rise in the cost of health care. there is no-- been no mention of medical malpractice reform. and so, what we should be doing is looking at ways to control the cost and the cost drivers of health care inflation. that is what we are concerned

about are co-people are not able to afford to buy health insurance and that is prohibiting some of them from buying it, because of the high cost. we want to address that as republicans just as much as democrats do. unfortunately the legislation you are offering does the exact opposite of reducing the cost of health care. in fact, by the mandates you put in this legislation, and the operations you have put in place with the bureaucracy it will lead to higher health insurance premiums. so, i think we should just be very honest about it. the cbo says 10 to 13% for health insurance premiums to rise, 10 to 13% in the nongroup markets, 27 to 30%. if you think that is the right approach for the american people, go home and state clearly to them if they want to raise your health care premiums.

>> with the gentleman yield? i would simply say there seems to be in a alice meant that this is a burden on small businesses because you are exempting people you define as less than 50 employees but what happens when that is was ms. tries to expand and 750 bucks pay or pay tax welty for every worker at that job so it is a huge marginal tax increase as soon as they start growing. either we we are acknowledging this is a burden on small businesses, which i think you are and then as soon as they pop up and have that extra work or from 50 to 51, hit them with attacks and i yield the rest of the time to mr. hensarling. >> there is no more succinct way to say it. if you don't impose the mandate, you don't need to offer the subsidy. it is quite simple. again, small business all over america is hurting. they are not creating jobs

because among other things, they still fear as everybody else does in this economy, how is this going to be paid for? i continue to hear my friends on the other side of the aisle say the congressional budget office has certified that this is going to save money. do you know what? i agree with their analysis as long as you agree that every 10 years, that you are going to have this program disappear for four. i agree as long as you agree that you are actually going to cut doctors pay 21% this year and 24% next year. i agree with their analysis as long as you would read that you are going to raid the social security fund for $53 million. i agree as long as you agree you are going to take 73 billion out of the class act and never replace it. it goes on and on. i yield back the balance of my time. >> all time is expired. the gentleman had no time to yield that. >> i would just like to wrap up.

i think we know what the roadmap says. roadmap says. just make medicare voucher and let it wither on the fine and pass the vine and pass the cost onto people. this is why we need to-- the premiums may increase initially but the cost curve does go down and i want to yield my balance of the time to the gentleman of new jersey. >> mr. mchenry, here's something you are missing. for 45,000-dollar a year family, right now the individual market and the typical cost share is 40% and co-pays or deductibles cover 40% of the policy. the premium figure you use is for policy that has only 15% cost-sharing which means the dramatic reduction in co-pays and deductibles before you even get to the subsidy far outweighs any dreamy and increase are co-the net result is much lower coverage for the cbo report.

>> all time having expired, the vote occurs on the motion offered by the gentlelady from wisconsin. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the subto have it. the ayes habits and the motion is approved. the ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. is there an additional motion? i announce the vote. nobody else for one. i beg your pardon. >> mr. chairman, i would request a roll call. a roll call vote has been requested on the last motion. therefore, we will call the roll please. [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call]

>> are there additional members who wish to be recorded? is there any member who wishes to change changes that? if not, the clerk will announce the vote. >> the ayes have it 21 and the no's are 14. >> 21 ayes and 14 no's, the motion is it read to. is there an additional motion? >> yes mr. chairman. >> mr. mchenry. >> republican motion number 9. this motion would prevent an increase in health care premiums that would otherwise result in the federal mandates in the health care reform package and to my colleague of new jersey i would say maybe i jumped the gun on my arguments and now with a little more time to make them more fully, what in essence my colleague from new jersey is stating is that under federal law, he will have individuals

that will be mandated to have as a minimum policy, a policy that is more expensive than more expensive than they would otherwise seek in the private marketplace. so therefore, you are mandated under federal law that in essence a family would have to spend about $2100 more per year on health insurance than they would otherwise choose to. and so, in essence that is a tax. the federal government is saying you must do this. now, this is the challenge that i have are co-you have certain folks right now that are simply trying to make ends meet. and $2000 a year to the folks in western north carolina is real money. especially when we are facing massive unemployment. when my district has unemployment of around 15%. now, $2000, $2100 for a family

in western north carolina is it a lot of money, so for us to require in federal law that they carry a health insurance plan that is more costly than they would otherwise seek i think it's destructive. i think it is harmful. i think it is definitely painful for these families that are struggling and i think what we need to do is acknowledge the cost of these families are going to the air under this health care plan, so the amendment to the motion to instruct that i am offering simply says that we would prevent an increase in health care premiums that otherwise would result from passage of this bill, meaning we are not going to raise health insurance premiums as is operable under the senate bill that is going forward, going through this committee. the average premium increase is 10 to 13% as they stated earlier under this bill. now, in total based on actions

of this bill, it is between 27 and 30% increase in this individual market. there are a number of other options in this bill and some subsidy so that sort that reduce that amount to only 10 to 13% increase in premiums. but let's just be honest. this is not a jobs bill. this is not going to put people to work. it might what some folks downtown to work, working for the federal government dealing with this monstrosity of a bill but it is not going to help those folks in western north carolina who are trying to get a job. it is not going to help us compete against foreign workers. it's not going to help small businesses rowan get started when your cost basis is often employing individuals goes up but that is what this bill does. the concerns i have are that it is going to hurt the very people that you expressed to help. that is really what i am concerned about.

i am very concerned about access to affordable health care. i think we all are. i think there is bipartisan support for that. and so, with that i would like to yield to my colleague from california, mr. nunes. ..

and it doesn't really allow competition across state lines. a number of things can be very helpful. so i would urge my colleagues to support this, support this simple motion and state to the american people the you do not want to raise their health insurance premiums and with that i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back the time in opposition. >> i do. >> listening to all this talk to my about everything from catastrophes to european socialism, i am reminded of a fellow that i knew down in the texas legislation from west texas. he went home and they asked what was he was trying to do in austin of the state capital and he said i'm not trying to do anything i'm there in case

anybody else tries to do something. that's the case with the republicans responding to the health care crisis we face. at ten, 12 years to do something about health insurance, rising premiums and they did nothing about it and now we come along and try to do something and try for over a year to get them to cooperate in finding a solution to these problems and they come along to mike and tell the american people they want to protect them from rising health insurance premiums. well goodness knows they need some help. i'm reminded of a fellow talk to the other day from oak hill, a small-business man out there trying to run his business against all kinds of challenges in southwest austin. he said i get these introductory offers. i synnott my employees for this group health insurance plan that i mofford, and about the time we get to the end of the year the rate goes up so high the introductory offer doesn't apply anymore, i can't afford it and i have to cancel. i think about all those stories we've been hearing about just within the last month about

insurance premiums going up by 20, 30, even 40% since last year for some companies. there is a tremendous problem with insurance rates going up. they go up in texas beef, pa 104% since 2000. what this bill is about is not raising insurance rates but doing something to try to address what those who sat on their hands for a decade and now are mainly opening their mouth with every kind of negative comment that they can about this bill rather than offering a solution used to try to lower the cost of insurance. a party to the congressional budget office under our comprehensive reform, people who get coverage through their employer will stop seeing their premiums increased and we will for the individual market expect the premiums will drop by 14 to 20%. that's a pretty good savings for people in the individual market,

and certainly something that they have not seen in recent years. i would yield to the gentleman from new jersey for a couple minutes to respond to this motion. >> i think my friend. let's talk about a family that has authority thousand dollars a year in come, where they are self-employed looking for health care. right now the national average of a policy of an individual market premium is $9,000. first full they are going to come up with $9,000 in premiums. secondly, the -- their share of the cost of delivering the value of the policy is typically 40% of the cost, so that's another $6,000 a year worth of exposure to the co-payments and deductibles. let's say they have a pretty good year and they don't see the doctor very often, they don't get sick, don't have a car accident and run up $1,500 in co-payments and deductibles. that means they're out of pocket

is $10,500 a year out of a $45,000 income. this is what this bill does. it says their premium would be about $3,100 instead of $9,000. and this is that at that income level, their exposure to the co-payments and deductibles would be a maximum of about $2,100 a year. so again, if you assume that family has a modest experience, not a lot of sickness or in accident that year and xv hundred dollars and co-payments and deductibles, they're out of pocket is $4,500 instead of $10,500. that's the difference between this bill with the status quo. and i think what we've heard from the other side is what is wrong with the bill we really haven't heard i would say my friend from texas like his friend in the legislature is what they would do about it instead.

>> our proposal may be far from perfect, but i look at the system we have got now, and in our state we have seen premiums go up about five times as fast as the increase in wages and that is pretty good hike in premiums that hasn't worked under the current system. i think it is time to try an alternative approach that in the to inject an organization like the budget office would reduce premiums. some of the criticisms constant attacks on big government that our republican have are valid but they've become so overwhelmed in their ideological and tariff to attack government that's to be defended at insurance monopolies they're too big and consumers and small businesses all over the country are paying the price for that. i would urge rejection to the motion and consideration of alternative to a system that this field the yield back.

>> the gentleman yields back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will just save real simply that for the life of me i cannot understand why you guys on that side of the i will continue to point fingers at the republicans let's do a little math here. you guys have 250-some democrats in congress, why? i think it is 252 after last week masa is on. you only need 218 if you have a full body of the house. masa is gone now. you guys ran him off so now you only need 216 votes to pass this bill. you have 250-some democrats, so, you know, and even the bill that we are debating here tonight is and even going to be the bill that's before the house.

so, i mean, this is kind of a circular firing squad. you're trying to engage republicans, but you know how this place works. you have all the votes, use them. quit blaming us. and i yield to the gentleman from north carolina. >> it sounds like the arguments within the democratic caucus, not republicans. >> the time has expired. all time having expired a vote occurs on the motion offered by mr. mchenry. all those in favor say aye three all post 69. in the opinion of the share the noes have it. >> [inaudible] >> recorded vote has been requested. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] >> any additional members who wish to be recorded? any member who wishes to change his bate dee dee to vote the work will announce the book. >> on that vote this peter 16, the noes, 22. >> this peter 16, noes are 22. the motion -- noes having at the notion is not agreed to. is there additional motion on

the decr side? the gentlelady is recognized for six and a half minutes. >> mr. chairman, this motion is very cut and dried. it would prohibit insurance companies from denying in full or partial coverage to women including coverage for routine maternity care because of so-called pre-existing conditions, such as domestic violence, pregnancy or history of cesarean sections. i offer this motion today because some of the most egregious insurance industry practices and our health care system disproportionately harm when. under the current system, women pay more and get less and often are denied care. we men on average pay higher premiums than the man through practice known as gender reading. 95% of insurance companies engaged in this practice. this is especially troubling when you consider that women generally earn less than men in our country, earning just 78 cents for every dollar men earn.

more women than men are single parents who care for and financially support their children, and more women than men tend to be recipients of food stamps. however, a 25 year old woman can pay up to 84% more than a man for a healthcare plan that excludes maternity coverage. more than 60% of health care plans charge authority-year-old woman who doesn't smoke more than a four year old man who does. but it doesn't stop there. beyond cost, the coverage in the individual market is woefully inadequate, and women are uniquely harmed by the system's status quo. in many states it is still legal for insurance companies to deny a woman coverage if she has been the fact of domestic violence, presuming as our colleague congresswoman louise slaughter quoted as you've been on lucky enough to get yourself beaten up once, he might go around and do it again. this is true in eight states including idaho, mississippi, north carolina, wyoming.

some of the streets represented by my colleagues across the dial. every day america's to beat the americans pay thousands of dollars in premiums each year in order to have the assurance the health care system that they have worked so hard to build will be there when they needed. however if a woman as they certain age or is already pregnant, insurers can be by her maternity coverage. our current system allows insurers to exclude exactly those services that women will need, pocketing their premiums as profit. these examples illustrate the utter pointlessness for many women of purchasing the type of insurance that is currently offered and shows how the current system discriminates against over 50% of the population of our country. we need health care reform to put an end to this once and for all and i urge passage of the motion and yield to my colleague, congresswoman rosa delauro for ten minutes. >> i thank my colleague and urge my colleagues to support this motion. one section did not take the

quality of coverage received. for the man or women, and it is time that our insurance system recognize the health needs of women and treated them as coequal with men. let me just recount a story very quickly. a week ago i was out to dinner with my family in new haven, and as we left the restaurant, a young woman said can i talk to you and i said sure. she says i waited for you. i said why didn't you just come over to the table? she said well i didn't want to distribute to read a young woman from east haven connecticut. actually a beautiful young woman and she had tears in her eyes and said i have long cancer and being a cancer survivor myself, i identify with the study to assess. and she said to me please pass health care legislation. she said pre-existing condition is killing me because i can't survive this.

in addition to which she says on have a job and i'm afraid to leave my job because i won't have coverage if i leave my job. there is celia who died from breast cancer because she couldn't afford a mammogram. these are not stories that you make up. we all hear them. we all do. i don't care what side of the all of you are on. today, and i say this to you because of what my colleague, mrs. tsongas, said, that women are not treated as coequal with men in society when it comes to insurance coverage. we need to do that. and that, in fact, is what the abolition, if you will, of gender rating will do in this country. being female should not be a pre-existing condition. vote for this motion.

>> and i yield to my colleague, chris woman. >> an estimated 1.3 women are victims of sexual assault each year. 85% of domestic violence victims are women. ligon an example. in 2006 and attorney tried to get health insurance but was rejected because she received treatment -- she received treatment following a domestic violence incident. her insurance told her her medical history and made her a high risk more likely to end up in the emergency room or require additional care. we can do more to insure that no one hears that again. you are a victim twice. not only of being beaten but being denied insurance. we can do better. buyer urge my colleagues to support this motion and provided on the denial of coverage to women, daughters, mothers and granddaughters. the need health care reform now.

the need to be able to afford their health care. i yield back to mrs. tsongas. >> as we've heard this motion is about fairness is goes back to the principle no one should be denied coverage based on a pre-existing condition, and simply being a women should not be the worst pre-existing condition of all. thank you. i yield back. >> would you yield -- with the leedy field meet your time? benet yes i well, guess. >> i just want to mention for our pro-life friends on the other side that, you know, pregnancy is a preventable -- there are deaths caused by lack of health care in our community. i see my time is expired, but i just want to remind you that women don't have healthcare disproportionate to man and this is because i give a greater number of infant and maternal mortality in our country. >> who claims time an

opposition? >> i do, mr. chairman. >> thank you. we couldn't agree more. we absolutely agree with you. this amendment is crafted narrowly enough and fairly enough and it addresses a significant problem, and we commend those who oppose this amendment and we support it. women should not be discriminated against by their insurance plans. i'm going to use my time to talk about a couple of other issues. in fact, earlier it was set by the majority party that they wanted to use this bill to impose a minimum consumer protection standard, floor some people would have protection from these kind of things, and yet we heard earlier this year

about a government-funded study that said women in their 40's no longer need to get mammograms. now, does that mean that if this government nominee elected a group decided that they could drop mammograms for women in their forties and still be consistent with minimum consumer protection standard that the would be okay? and presumably the answer is yes. so i would suggest it is better to have opportunities for competition that would provide for women choices that may not be the choices that would be made by a government commission -- >> [inaudible] >> -- further more on that -- you know i will give you some time and i am about done. >> many thanks. >> furthermore there is a marriage penalty in this bill and would hit low and

middle-income couples who receive subsidies to purchase their insurance for the new exchanges. the penalty comes about because subsidies for purchasing health insurance are paid to federal poverty levels, so it limit subsidies for married couples with a combined income prepared -- compared to the subsidies received if the individuals were single. for example, in the senate bill and on married couple earning 25,000 each would pay a combined premium of $3,450 if the couple was married and had the same combined income of $50,000, their annual premium cap would rise to $5,100 which is a marriage penalty of $1,650. a penalty because they were married. a reform bill should address these types of inequities and not just create them. we should fix what's broken without breaking what is working, and i yield to mr. hensarling.

>> guice thank the gentlelady for yielding, and this is frankly an issue near and dear to my own prior to coming to congress. my wife became pregnant with our first child and i vividly recall an insurance company deciding that we would no longer have maternity coverage. i feed wheat, due to state mandates, they gave substance abuse coverage and psychological counseling coverage. and i am not making light of those, but i didn't get to choose in a competitive market what was best -- my wife and i couldn't choose what was best for us. and one of the reasons we couldn't was because number one there was eight mandates, and number two, we had lawsuit abuse running rampant through the state of texas. between 1999 and 2003, medical insurance premiums for texas

doctors -- and texas went from 50 insurance carriers in the late nineties to only four in 2003. now, when my daughter was born that was roughly a $15,000 expense out of our family pocket, now my daughter is worth every penny of it. but i would not want to wish that on any other family. but my concern as the gentle lady from wyoming pointed out, we share the concern of the plight of women coming did we know what happened with this u.s. prevented it task force which is clearly a precursor to comparative effectiveness. one of the things i did before coming to congress i used to surf on the board of directors that the american cancer society in dallas texas where i live. and so i know i've met with the people who have had to contend

with issues like breast cancer. and to think that all of a sudden as we mandate and tax and subsidize and we have debt and it goes into this vicious circle, what comes all on the eckert and is rationing. rationing. and we've already seen the precursor. all of you know, women, maybe you ought to wait to 50. maybe you don't need it at 40. we are the federal government and we know what's best for you. don't listen to your doctor, listen to us. it's not so much about clinical effectiveness, it's about cost effectiveness now because again, we have mandated and wheat subsidized and we've taxed and we've got debt and somehow we are only left with rationing. and so i appreciate what the gentlelady is doing with her motion but i would just also

look at the underlying legislation and i would think long and hard have you done everything you can to address the gravity of the issue that is presented. and as long as you are not plan to have competition in insurance, as long as you're going to engage in rationing, as long as you refuse to do anything to address lawsuit abuse which runs rampant in the ob/gyn -- i mean, i remember when i first went to congress, one of my for role counties which i believe may be in the district of mr. edwards now, limestone county. i believe. when i first represented limestone county in congress, i was informed that three years earlier they had four doctors delivering babies, but in 2003 when i first came to congress, they were down to zero. lawsuit abuse.

there were no doctors and limestone county the were delivering babies. women had to go to waco, texas, the gentleman from texas knows this, probably 50, 55 miles away, had to go to waco, texas to find someone to deliver prenatal care due to lawsuit abuse. i thought the president of the united states said this was one of those areas we agreed on, but i don't see it in the legislation. i don't see it anywhere. so if you're really passionate about these issues i would just say do everything you can do. address lawsuit abuse. that is what is hurting women. that is what is hurting nguyen minh triet thank you. of the yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentlelady from massachusetts, mrs. tsongas, for one additional minute to close. >> i yield to my colleague for 50 seconds. >> i will be very brief, mr. speaker.

we have heard a lot. the real issue is right now one and five women aged 50 and over should get recommended mammogram. on the legislation that would end because the of the effort and the to have it fully paid for. let me give two quick stories. one, she led from raleigh send me a note that says she fears the same fate of her sister. resistor by its asthma. she is afraid she will have the same thing because she can't get health insurance. nancy from louisburg said i am not looking for a handout. i just want a fair and level playing field so i will have an opportunity to get health insurance. i yield back. >> thank you. this motion is about fairness and goes back to the principle no one should be denied coverage based on gender. insurers should not charge more or deny coverage based on gender and i am grateful to see my colleagues across the way an agreement to beat thank you.

>> all time is expired. the vote therefore comes on the motion offered by mrs. tsongas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. and agreed to. is there an additional motion on the republican side? >> mr. chairman? thank you, mr. chairman. this is the mti number ten during a brief description. this would prevent the establishment of new bureaucracies, and fisa panels, other fairly responsible entities that would add to the expanding government work force that have taxpayer expense. and again, for someone that is in an area that has been pretty hard hit by this recession especially on the manufacturing

site we've seen across this country since 20,078.4 million jobs lost, wages falling and the americans throughout this country have tightened their belts. yet despite the hard times there is one industry that has had an incredible boom in hiring and that is the federal government, and over all government in general has added 100,000 jobs. that is the slide number 19 put up. as we are waiting, as you can see when the slide comes up, and again this is from the bureau of labor statistics, the blue line is on the private sector side. you can see that coming down tremendously from the 2007. what we've seen from 2007 going up on the government employment side going up quite a bit. and when you look to these numbers according to the president's own budget data the federal government is on track

to add over 274,000 new employees to the payroll system beginning in the recession. that is a whopping 15% increase. if we include the temporary census workers that number is going to be even higher. and again, when we are out in the district's the question that always comes up to me, and i mean is this constant, people start hearing about these numbers and they start looking around their own businesses, their own shops and factories and say we have cut to the bone. we are trying to figure out how we can shut the lights of during the day to make sure we can meet our utility costs, we are worried about our natural gas costs, worried about lay off employees, worried about having to reduce. those people were serious about this because when they look around these are the same people that go to church with them, the sing grocery stores, their kids go to play at the same high school on the same basketball teams, you name it and so they are concerned. but they always ask me what is the federal government doing and when you look at these numbers

on the employment it's getting pretty bad to have to explain this. and it's kind of interesting. you might see the articles on the front page of the washington post late last year -- and again, when i look at papers back home i know that ms. kaptur gets the same newspapers i do, it is usually bad news on the front page. what happens to be of the "washington post," i saw this great big picture on the left that says job fair. that's before i started reading the article. that "washington post" article reported that over 6,000 people poured into a government career fair last summer with 75 different agencies hiring for new positions. among the jobs offered work all the terse of the government accountability office stimulus and bank bailout funds, the department of housing and urban development was looking to hire five dozen new employees to oversee stimulus funds. in other words the stimulus created jobs to track stimulus funds. so what we are looking at though again we've got people being hired on the public sector side

especially on the federal side, but they are not increasing jobs at home. now, what is troubling about this is again, we are seeing that the number of people making six-figure salaries are going up to especially on the government side and if i could have slide 21 put up, please. if you get this slide the average compensation wages and benefits, you notice the blue line is on the verbal and civilian side at 119,000, 198 or 19,982. in the private in side it is -- we are watching this with the wrong direction. we have to remember the federal government doesn't create wealth, it just consumes wealth and what we have to do in this country is a private-sector going again, and with that i will yield to mr. mack.

>> thank you. ausley thank the gentleman for yielding. we started off tonight talking about trying to preserve the doctor-patient relationship, to which you all said no. then we went through a series of different motions to instruct, of which most of them you said no. and i think it take away from tonight that i think the american people and the people who are watching all of a clear understanding that on one side of the all people respect the decisions of government, that it's really about having government in charge of the decisions. and on the other side of the aisle, on our side of the aisle we say that we respect the individual, and that the individual should be allowed to make the decisions for themselves and for their families. on your side of the nile, and you believe that a bureaucrat,

another agency, another department, another board, another commission, another group of people, another study that is how you are going to reduce costs in health care and get more people to be able to purchase health care. we believe in the free market. we believe that the individual would make those three decisions, and i glad you agree with me because when you go home look at people. they don't want you making your decisions. they want to make the decisions for themselves people are fed up with this. but get the whole night on every one of these motions you have said no. someone earlier -- you keep saying that republicans are obstructionists and voting know. if you continue to bring this type of legislation to the floor, for us to vote on you can count me in as no because i will not vote to make sure that my children's health insurance is going to be dictated by a government bureaucrat or politician.

it will be left up to the individual. thank you. >> the gentleman's time is expired. who claims the time on opposition? >> i claim time in opposition. thank you, mr. chairman. this has been an interesting evening for me and we have heard an awful lot about -- this is the essence of the republican but this is going to be a government takeover so this motion speaks directly to that by suggesting that we eliminate new bureaucracies devoted to expanding the federal government. i can tell you we have done a great service in expanding the federal government's role in health care so that our veterans can have health care, our seniors, medicare for which i will be eligible in six short years. people with disabilities, the low-income children and families, many here all the

other side of the ogle voted against schip, the program that's covered most of the children in this country and so we are very happy the government made that intervention since the benevolence of the insurance companies to cover those people was not forthcoming. we have heard the most vitriolic argument here this evening about one idea, the health insurance rate authority. so i am assuming that is the government bureaucracy that has drawn most of the fireworks here tonight and we have heard people that are paying their utility costs and laying off employees and we see them in the grocery stores and churches are worried about all these government employees making six figures. if the insurance companies are making in line figures, they are making $24 million a year. are these people you run into in the grocery store worried about the people that make nine figures is wine worried about

because the health insurance rate authority will in fact cut out some of the 39% rate increases that we've seen just last week or so in california. another government entity that would be part of this would be the state exchanges that are proposed in this bill. we need them to come up with minimum level of care. as a member of the state legislature i remember fighting for mammograms to be in the basic plan. fighting for contraceptives to be in a basic plan while those insurance companies were comfortable providing by viagra they wouldn't provide birth control for women and mr. hensarling i don't want any government agency to tell me that over 50i have to have a baby so i agree with you on that. [laughter] i can tell you that the

insurance companies have been very bad boys and girls here. we can't trust them to not have state regulation of insurance and regulation going forward. we have seen the worst. discrimination against women, rescissions for people who become ill dropping coverage, denying lifesaving medicines and procedures while they pay themselves millions of dollars in salaries, premiums growing four times of the wages in this country and premiums doubling every decade. family premium stumbling, going of $1,800 every year. i want to yield time to my friend mr. langevin who wants to speak on this as well. >> i thank the gentlelady and let me associate myself with her

comments. let me just say that health reform that we are debating is about cutting cost. it is about slowing spending and getting better health outcomes, not creating new bureaucracies. but the simple fact of the matter that requires more people working to cut waste fraud and abuse and would administer programs providing health care that these are worthwhile like all investments. now let's look at two important areas one in terms of consumer protection. the other in terms of the free market into the fuel that allows more competition and transparency on the consumer protection side we are proposing of the health insurance rate authority which is going to provide a new oversight and helps monitor insurance market eight behavior. let me point out that restraining insurance takes to

the review policy that we are proposing would prevent unreasonable practices of the insurance industry such as my colleague 39% premium increase experienced by the analysts and some blue cross of california and the unreasonable outrageous insurance rate increases that we've seen across the country some 30, 40 and 50%. these are outrageous. it wouldn't have been under the plan that we are proposing. also, when you talk about things like preventing insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions or dropping coverage when you become sick also requires tough enforcement. i know that my colleague just a minute ago talked about how he likes the private market. leave the private market to work and to itself. the simple fact of the matter is sometimes when that happens people fall through the cracks

and when that happens there is an obligation for government to step in and make sure that the private market does what it should have done in the first place doing the right thing by those individuals. now let me turn to the health insurance exchange. my colleagues talk about on the other side of the leal talk about the importance of the free market system. well, you know what, that's basically with other allin please have in basically the federal employees benefit program. that's not a big government-run program at its government negotiated and the office of personnel management acts as the chief negotiator, the federal employees so the federal and please including the members of congress get the best plans at the best prices and that is exactly the type of system entity that we are creating the american people in the health insurance exchange that we are proposing. the health benefits commission is the entity that would oversee the health insurance exchange that would promote and ensure competition and transparency.

so the american people now in the same way federal employees get the best plans of the best rates that is exactly what we are going to be proposing and we are proposing the american people what it's going to require involvement and oversight in this health benefits commission. so this is the right plant at the right time and the amendment proposed tonight by my colleagues on either side of the aisle would prevent things i had just outlined both in terms of the insurance rate increase oversight policy and also the health benefits commission. so with that i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support the overall democratic plan for health insurance reform and yelled back >> the gentlelady's time has expired. the chair recognizes mr. latta for women for closing. >> thank the chairman. the taxpayers back home have had it and again, when we talk of

these numbers some of the things that are in the senate bill these are some of the bureaucracies they want to create. the quality for measurement programs evaluation of payments, value based purchasing, interagency working group on health care quality, independent payment advisory board, patient censored outcomes research institute, no wonder that there was reported to federal employees make the $100,000 jumped 14% of the work force than 19 per cent in the first 18 months of the recession. we now have more federal government employees making more than $100,000 than we had making $40,000. an example mr. jordan gave with the department when they were here they are making over $100,000 versus schoolteachers out there. so i urge the passage of this motion. thank you very much, mr. chairman.

>> all time is expired so a vote occurs on the motion offered by mr. latta. all of those in favor say aye. all of those opposed say no. the opinion of the chair the noes have it. >> [inaudible] >> recorded vote has been requested. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

>> any additional members who wish to be recorded? is there any member who cares to change his vote? if not, the clerk will announce the vote. >> mr. chairman on that vote the speeder 15 and the noes, 23. >> ayes of 15 and the noes are 23. the noes have it and the motion is not agreed to. there is one additional motion on the democratic side. mr. scott is recognized for the purposes of that motion for six and half minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. can i get chart number one? we have seen a lot of the chart with exploding debt. i think it's important to just read that up the time a little bit because this chart shows where we were in 2001 with projections showing that by now we would have been into surpluses no debt held by the public a position that we would

have been in for half of the 21st century. we got there by making tough choices, spending cuts and targeted tax increases the dow jones industrial average almost quadrupled, record number of jobs unfortunately eight years we created the new chart that you keep shoving and we are going to fix that just as we did in 1993. we just can't do it right now while we are in the middle of a recession. we are going to fix it and expect complaints and a plane and no help on the tough choices that are required to fix the financial mess. now earlier this evening, i said that the republicans had no plan that it's just complain and blame and i would like to apologize to the ranking member because after this whole discussion we have ascertained that you do in fact have a plan, chart 22, and you notice as a percentage of gdp everything up there is just about flat except

for medicare. and so if you can take care of medicare, you can balance the budget and that's what your plan does. essentially eliminates medicare as we know it to balance the budget. now it's a plan i disagree with but it is in fact a plan. you do it by giving vouchers. you do what would have been a medicare recipient a voucher and because the value of the voucher doesn't keep up with medical inflation and keeps up with regular inflation we are progressively represent a smaller percentage of the cost by 2007. only -- only about 25% of the cost, just imagine a senior citizen wandering around trying to get insurance with a voucher covering 25% of the insurance. this motion also -- this motion would prohibit the use of the vouchers not only on medicare but also medicaid and other programs and medicaid we know those with lower incomes are likely to suffer chronic illness and many with medicaid which

would have been medicaid beneficiaries and would find themselves with a voucher and unable to get insurance. the voucher will not kill medicare or medicaid outright but it saves any money it would be because it fails to keep up with medical inflation and so the voucher scheme would cause medicare and medicaid not to die quickly but just to gradually and slowly wither on the find. we can solve our medical health care challenges, our bill will eliminate pre-existing conditions. there will be cast on overall premiums and out-of-pocket co-payments and deductibles. there will be no co-payments and deductibles on a routine preventive care and insurance will be affordable and 30 million additional americans will be covered and we don't have to and medicare to dewitt. that is why i've offered this motion to prohibit the vouchers and preserve medicare as we know it. at this point i will yield to the gentleman from kentucky.

>> i thank my colleague and i agree mr. rossi and's plan is legitimate there is no question about it as a matter of fact a man named david jones from my district is one of the founders of amana proposed something very similar in an op-ed piece in "the new york times" just last week. if you believe in the total infallibility of the free market, then you might want to consider that plan seriously. unfortunately as we have seen all too often in recent history the free market does not always work for everybody. in my district i have a small company, 110 employees. last year they had to people get sick. 108 people had premiums raised and co-payments and deductibles raised because the insurance companies raised their rates 30% because two people got sick. the lobbies of supply and demand didn't work for those people. they were beating themselves and still, their quality-of-life declined. we see is repeated time after

time after time, so now as these people get older we are going to put them into a voucher system, we are going to put them into the system where they are up the total mercy of an insurance company that is not regulated, that where we have taken an door concept we've taken the referee off the field, we no longer have rules of the road established by anybody not to speak of the government, and we are going to leave them to the bulls. now i'm going to be in that category much too soon as well as some of the other people on the committee, and it's clear to me that is not a course i want to follow. i'm sure the american people don't either since medicare is one of the most popular programs in the country with a high rate of satisfaction just as the veterans administration also has a high rate of satisfaction. so, again, you can find all sorts of ways to cut spending to cut programs. unfortunately they also sometimes lead to great hardship

i yield back. the gentlelady from connecticut ms. delauro. >> thank the gentleman. the medicaid and medicare programs have worked, they worked for decades. chip, tricare, evidence system, other programs should not be sacrificed in the names of and ideologies that our republican friends tend to selectively apply. we've gone down this road before. essentially what you want to do with medicare is privatize it. this country rejected your direction on social security several years ago. they said flat know. they will once again reject what he wanted with medicare because today nearly all seniors have access to affordable health care and only 14% of our seniors live below the poverty line and that is because of social security and medicare and what you want to do with medicaid, it would be even worse come to take away

from low-income seniors and their families. you know, the market has been devastating for people in this country. the insurance companies have taken folks over that are not going to like it we shouldn't buy it. let's make sure we don't. >> from queens time in opposition? >> i think i will. >> the gentleman is recognized. [laughter] >> first i want to say to my colleagues on the other side i appreciate the attention to my plan. i really do appreciate because it's given the ability to talk up these issues. if you can bring it chart number two, please. i've got news for you. medicare is going broke. the medicare program we have right now will not exist in its current form in the near future. just know that. right now $38 trillion unfunded liability. $335,000 per household is what we know right now to medicare to make whole. let's say we don't do anything

for four years as people are proposing. $52 trillion. medicaid has about a $20 trillion unfunded liability. chart number three please. look at how these are growing. these programs are growing such that they will consume the entire federal budget. no money for food stamps, no money for programs, no money for defense because these two programs, just these two are basically consumed the entire federal budget. go to chart ten, please. here as just the interest on the budget on the cost for the next ten years. cbo is telling us by the end of this budget about $1 trillion will be the interest per year. go to chart 13, please. this is this particular exercise. we've done reconciliation together jointly in the past. this is the 97 feel the one the chairman was intimately involved in. that had pretty good savings targets.

what is this deal? $1 billion in savings. you are muscling through a takeover of the health care system a trillion dollars, we think it is $2.3 trillion takeover for 1 billion in savings and reconciliation. now let's get to the issue of the vouchers themselves. we do use vouchers. everybody's in favor of vouchers when it comes to entitlements. pell grants, vouchers, to the stamps, vouchers. take a look at what we as federal employees get for our health care system. i have the book right here. here is the blue cross blue shield standard option for self and family. our voucher per month is $814 a month and we pay $400.97 a month for the blue cross plan. this is what we get as federal and police. what is it that i'm proposing? the bill i've offered. this. and by the way mr. yarmuth, i don't mean to insult you but i think you were over 55 if i'm not mistaken. don't worry about it, rest easy.

this doesn't affect you. so what we can do is if we act soon is we can guarantee these programs for those near retirement. we can say to people who fought and organize their lives around these programs by the way medicare goes bankrupt in seven years according to its trustees. we can say you're going to get the medicare benefits you plan on. but if you were under 55, those of us in my x generation and everybody else, we know we are not getting the program as it is currently structured. so why don't we come up with an idea to save the program to make it sustainable, to give as a benefit that my generation that is something we know we can count on? i completely understand and completely respect people don't like the way that i propose to fix this problem. i'm basically saying let's give seniors in the future a booklet like i have as a congressman in fixed payment and then a list of medicare pre-certified plans i can choose from to get my benefit. according to the trustees at

medicare, according to the cbo it mixed program solvent. i do three other things. if you are low-income let's cover your out-of-pocket cost. we do that. if you're wealthy were not going to get as much because you have the money and can afford higher premiums. and if you get sick we adjust premiums up to make sure that you were taken care of, to make sure that you can get a plan that covers you for the rest of your life. this works. i understand the fact you don't like the way it works. so then i did my colleagues come up with your own idea. come up with your own plan. give us your own proposal to make medicare permanently solvent to wipe off the unfunded liability which is 38 trillion today to help us deal with a debt chart. here's what i'm going to ask my colleagues to do on this motion to instruct. your bill basically gives vouchers. you see to people go on the exchange, get the insurance we decide and define the minute you have to have and we will

subsidize it with a voucher. so you were endorsing a voucher concept. mrs. kaptur said all we want people to have his private coverage just like members of congress. that is what you are proposing in this exchange and for subsidizing it with vouchers so i want to ask my colleagues from my side of the ogle please vote for this motion to instruct so we can kill this bill because that is what it will basically because if we are sincere about this amendment to instruct and we are against vouchers, basically we are against the architect of this bill and since i really believe this is one of the worst things this congress can do, this is the biggest social legislation we have created in a generation. i mean, congress hasn't passed something like this since before i was born and we are creating a government takeover. we are telling people in america you've got to buy this. we are going to tell you what you have to buy. one person is going to define it. it's going to increase your

cost. we are going to subsidize it. it's going to get this debt get much worse and we are going to give you a voucher to help you purchase this. so please come passed a motion to instruct so we have a chance of defeating this bill. we don't think you have the votes to pass this right now. if you did we but have passed it last thursday. we realize the exercise we have here to get $1 billion of savings is all because one by one and e election, scott brown won the election in massachusetts. so you can't go through the regular order some your quick to try to jam it through this week. so we want to put up any hurdle we can to prevent this from happening because that's what our constituents really do want us to do. and we realize if you go home for your easter recess he won't come back with as many votes as you have right now. i don't know how many were down by but you will be down by a lot more after your members, and listen to your constituents because of your constituents are like any of our constituents, they don't want this.

so, please, let's pass this motion to instruct its we can try and actually kill this bill. i yield back my time. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman for one minute to close. >> thank you, mr. chairman. there are a lot of people who are defending the date could in an honest passengers. those that have insurance today are losing it at 14,000 a day. 30 million people don't have insurance at all. those with pre-existing conditions, small businesses, many people are going bankrupt. they are depending on us passing health care reform. they don't want us to end medicare as we know it, in fact many people i think as every congressional office in the country has had at least one call to somebody challenges them and warrants them to keep government hands off my medicare. they want to -- they won the medicare program to continue. the voucher programs will end medicare as we know it. we need to pass reconciliation, pass health care reform and reduce the deficit and we can do that if