you will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic, that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that you take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which you are about to enter so help you god. [inaudible conversations] [laughter] >> come on up. this is the vice president. >> holy mackerel, how are you? >> this is riley. >> hey, riley. how old are you, 15? oh, 4. >> this is jack. >> hey, jack, how old are you? >> 6. >> 6. ..

laudable conversations] >> why don't we gather around. little guys in the front. girl is only -- only one thing i have. you are not allowed to have any dates until you are 20 years old. >> then you have to take your grandfather with you. >> we are going to do it right. right in here.

thank you. [laughter] >> this is one of the -- [inaudible conversations] [laughter] >> good idea. i will work hard to get that done. seriously. that is a great idea. we need jobs. that is good thinking. build a lego shop here. i will work that into the state of the union. >> what were you doing?

>> i was holding the virus down to get a re-enactment of the cops getting sworn in. [inaudible conversations] >> you are going to hold that. >> raise your hand. here we go. do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic and bear true faith and allegiance to the state, that you take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and you will well and faithfully charge the duty of the office upon which you are about to enter so help you god?

>> i do. >> congratulations. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you. congratulations. it is okay. here we go. stand right here. there you go. put your left hand on the bible and raise your right hand. please raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic and bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that you take this obligation freely without any

mental reservation or purpose of evasion and you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter so help you god? congratulations. this is a long road. thank you. >> happy new year. [inaudible conversations] >> put your left hand on the bible and raise your right. do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic, that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that you take less obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and you

will discharge the duties of the office upon which you are about to enter so help you god? congratulations. [inaudible conversations] >> let's get the families. josh, how are you doing. how ru? how are you? good to see you. good to see you. i love that. what do you like it? get right here. can you get us all?

[laughter] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> do you solemnly swear to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic and bear true faith and allegiance to the same, you take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter so help you god? >> i do. [inaudible conversations] >> ladies? >> what is your name? what a beautiful girl. how old are you? i can do you are the oldest.

how are you? oh now they are 16. good to see you. hi, everybody. how are you doing? all right. you get over here. right next to me. remember i told you last time i saw you, remember? [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> all right. congratulations. >> ok, we are here. >> all right. we will have you stand here. you are going to stand on that market. we will hold the bible for you. all right. all right. please raise your right hand, senator. do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic, that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, you take

this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and you will well and faithfully discharge the office upon which you are about to enter so help you god? this is a good one. this is a good one. >> get these hands away from the vice president. [inaudible] >> this is my nephew. what -- >> what is your name? what is this child's name? how are you? >> a great friend. how are you? how are you? nice to see you. >> doing good.

>> how are you? good to see you. [inaudible conversations] >> great friends. here we go. come on. we got you over here. all right. [an audible conversationinaudib >> now you know why she is in the senate. >> here we go.

>> hit we go. >> ok, guys. one more. [inaudible conversations] [laughter] >> all right. >> i love that. two logistic questions. >> we could have one more. >> here we go. all right. >> you are doing good. [inaudible conversations] >> you all got good blood. >> not the best way --

[inaudible conversations] >> there's an old expression. do me a favor, do my son or daughter of favor -- [inaudible conversations]a favor -- [inaud conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> all right, thank you.

[inaudible conversations] >> this is almost done. >> i will be happy to. here you go. >> we got to go this way. >> i am equipped. i know how to spell your name to begin with. >> do it in pictograms here. >> get lower. [inaudible conversations] >> a you willing to come up

here? [inaudible conversations] >> william, are you ready? all right. senator, raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies

foreign and domestic, bear true faith and allegiance to the same, you will take this obligation for the purpose of the evasion and well and faithfully discharge the office upon which you are about to enter so help you god and followed a speech? thank you. nothing in the world. you are getting for the end of the alphabet. >> i used to do that. [talking over each other] [inaudible conversations] >> we are going to do a picture. williams says he doesn't want any. >> will you hold this for me? will you hold this? will you hold this? come on in. will you hold that? it will be quick. make it quick. [inaudible conversations]

>> i tell you what, you are okay. >> you did it! all right! [inaudible conversations] >> you graduate this year? [inaudible conversations] >> i think he wounds to speak.

okay. . i will trade you. here you go. here is the deal. you see this? tell me which hand it is in and you can have it. which hand? you got it? it is a mint. there you go. >> thank you. >> sorry to keep you waiting, kimberly.

ok, man. you get on that side. i tell you what. you hold that. put your left hand on and raise your right. raise your right hand, senator. do you solemnly swear to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic. kissel that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which you are about to enter so help you god? congratulations. >> how old are you?

>> 28. [inaudible conversations] >> in the early 80s. [inaudible conversations] >> good for you. i tell you what. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you for joining us. see you. >> thank you very much.

stand in the middle. please rate your right hand. do you solemnly swear to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic, that you will bear true faith allegiance to the same and execute these obligations freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which you are about to embark so help you god. >> i do. [inaudible conversations] >> these are our daughters. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> thank you very much. >> look forward to seeing you. how are you? >> now i know how we did it. congratulations. that is pretty cool. aren't put your right hand on the bible. please raise your right hand, senator. do you solemnly swear you will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic additional that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same that you take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and you will well and faithfully

discharge the duties of the office about which you are about to enter so help you god. congratulations. [inaudible conversations] >> it is a hard thing. [inaudible conversations] >> hi, kristin. how are you? i like that. [inaudible conversations] >> don't want you getting out side that. [laughter]

>> who else have we got? anymore family? [inaudible conversations] >> 29 years old. [inaudible conversations]

>> folks in the south of don't ask you -- [inaudible conversations] [laughter] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> thank you so much. >> congratulations. best wishes. >> thank you.

[inaudible conversations] >> how are you? good to see you. we are going to do this again. you stand right here. we are going to do this again. put your left hand on the bible and raise your right. do you solemnly swear you'll support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic, that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, you take this obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office your are about to enter so help you god? >> thank you. >> this is my mother and father in law. >> good to see you! [inaudible conversations]

>> my dad and my stepmom. >> you get in the middle and you get over here. get beside me. there you go. great. got it? i think we will have you go the other way. that is it. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you, everyone. thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you. >> great to see you, welcome.

we are going to do this again. >> one more time. put your left hand on the bible. do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the constitution of the data states against all enemies foreign and domestic, they will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and you take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which you are about to embark so help you god. congratulations. so many beautiful -- >> that is mired daughter jennifer. [inaudible conversations] there

we go. [inaudible conversations] >> congratulations. i hope you enjoyed this as much as i did. thank you so much. who is that good looking guy? i am joe biden. good to see you. great to see you. how are you, buddy? good to see you. >> close to the same age. >> you are going to stand on that spot and you will stand in the middle and what will stand here and once again put your

left hand on the bible and raise your right hand. please raise your right hand, senator. the you saw lease where that you will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic, they will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, you take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which you are about to enter so help you god. >> i do. >> congratulations. a, hanson. i tell you what. you put a tie on. how are you? look over at me. come on -- >> elaine and george. >> don't let mom and dad get to you. you stand wherever you want. dads are ok but they rank behind

moms in my house. congratulations. thank you. appreciate it. thank you so much. go out to your left. your other left. [inaudible conversations] >> how are you? great to see you. welcome to the senate. whenever you want to. this is politics. are you sure you want to do this? >> sort of. >> stand right in the middle. you stand there. to do this we will have you reenact all things. put your left hand on the bible

and raise your right. do you solemnly swear to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic, that you will bear true faith to the same and take this obligation freely without mental reservation or purpose of the evasion and you will well and faithfully served the duties of the office upon which you are about to enter so help you god? congratulations and welcome back. i am serious. [inaudible conversations] >> a lot of senators have cried in this room. all right. are you ready?

[inaudible conversations] >> i tell you. the camera comes out and stops crying. that is kind of hard. there you go. >> nice to meet you. thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> you tell him the vice president said i have to see him. it is true. that part is true. look forward to working with

you. welcome. good to see you. how are you? pleasure to meet you. stand right there. we are going to do the re-enactment. you hold the bible and i will reenact for the senator. okay. do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic, that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and you take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and discharge the duties of the office you are aboutydyou discharge the duties of the office you are aboutwill fdisch the office you are aboadischarg the office you are abodischarge the office you are aboutthfulld duties of the office you are aboy discharge the duties of the office you are about to enter? thank you. [inaudible , thank you. [inaudible so h thank you. [inaudible thank you. [inaudible lp thank you. [inaudibl you god thank you.

[inaudible ? thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> my daughter. >> i am getting bored. you did something not really right. [inaudible conversations] >> no dates until you are 30 years old. >> we are going to go this way. we are going to have you here.

[inaudible conversations] >> you are going to hold the bible again. so you don't block, in the picture here. raise your right hand. or purpose of evasion and you will faithfully discharge the duties of the office you are about to enter, so help you god? >> i do. >> congratulations. >> thank you.

>> i don't know what is going on. great to see you again. how are you? [inaudible conversations] >> hi, theresa, how are you? hello, joe martinez. hy, susan. power are you? you acted like you like me on the phone. [inaudible conversations]

>> what is your name? [inaudible conversations] >> good to see you. >> don't go too far. >> up front. [inaudible conversations] >> in the balcony. [inaudible conversations] >> exit. >> you must be very proud. i can't figure it out. >> what is going on here? [laughter]

[inaudible conversations] >> congratulations. great day. congratulations. [laughter] >> good to see you. >> pleasure to meet you. >> you have a great smile. [inaudible conversations] >> you are going to stand in the middle and you will stand on the other side. we will do the oath again.

[inaudible conversations] or purpose of evasion and you will faithfully discharge the duties of the office you are about to enter, so help you god? >> i do. [inaudible conversations] >> some of our people are missing less.

[inaudible conversations] >> soo is this guy? >> matthew. and david. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> go out this way, senator. >> thank you so much. [inaudible conversations] >> good to see you. we are going to have you stand right here. can you hold the bible. raise your right hand. or purpose of evasion and you will faithfully discharge the

duties of the office you are about to enter, so help you god? >> i do. thank you very much. >> tape, guys. what is your name? how are you? hey, patrick. good to see you, man. how are you? good to see you. congratulations. you come over to this side. right over here. we will get a good picture. [inaudible conversations] >> my mother would say --

[inaudible conversations] >> great to see you guys. very proud. congratulations. all right. >> a pleasure to meet you. [inaudible conversations] >> only reason i wanted -- [inaudible conversations] >> you will be right there in the middle. stand on that mark right there. you are going to hold the bible.

you hold the bible. raise your right hand. [laughter] >> i should be raising my hand. >> do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic, that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and you take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and you will well and faithfully discharge the office you are about to enter, so help you god? >> oh, come on. [inaudible conversations] [laughter] >> i don't doubt that a bit.

[inaudible conversations] [laughter] >> that is great. [inaudible conversations] >> see you guys. anybody want to be sworn in? >> maybe vice-president. any takers? okay. only five minutes. i don't want to -- [inaudible conversations] the way they got

it staggered probably five minutes ahead of time. that is like -- >> getting out of here early. [talking over each other] >> raise your right hand. [laughter] >> thank you. >> come on. take 4,000 pictures for me. great to see you. who is next?

i tell you what. i am not sure which part. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> henry clay and joe biden. >> this is my youngest son william. >> good to see you. [inaudible conversations] >> i was 29 years old and running for the senate. my sister who is smarter and better looking, true story, went to the senate reception which you will see. all of the famous people in the senate. i had my picture taken with

senators. my sister was standing against the wall. all of a sudden my sister said i got it! she said joe, henry clay. i turned around and there was henry clay. next time people make fun of you you should say it is true. >> how did it work? >> you have to be 30 to be sworn in but you can be elected at age. [talking over each other] >> my birthday, for my birthday i was -- [inaudible conversations]

>> okay. congratulations. i know every senator's family -- >> here is what we will do. you stand in the middle. and you guys can stand on either side. you stand here. i will have you take the oath again to reenact and put your left hand on the bible. do you solemnly swear to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic, that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, you take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office you are about to enter so help you god? this is the real deal. i admire you.

i really do. i admire you. i never belonged with any interest groups in the united states. the only one i remember is the aclu. they defend -- i admire you. believe what you say. i admire you. okay. we have the whole deal. here we go. congratulations. [inaudible conversations]

>> how are you? great to see you. congratulations. >> you can do it. ready? raise your right hand or purpose of evasion and you will faithfully discharge the duties of the office you are about to enter, so help you god? >> i do. >> congratulations. come on up. [inaudible conversations]

>> it is a great day. congratulations. >> where is she? is she coming in? thank you. how old are you? my dad used to say to us -- you

guys are getting old. [inaudible conversations] >> is joe here yet? >> let the service know that. [inaudible conversations]

>> never tried to read photography. >> i have no talent as everyone knows. ..

>> hey, kel. >> kay bailey, come on. [inaudible conversations] >> she can do whatever she wants. >> nice to meet you. >> how old are you, child, 17? oh, 6. big deal, mom, big deal. all right. here we go. mom, you're going to stand right here. senator. and, tad, you're doing -- dad, you're going to be in the middle ear. >> we'll leave this event from yesterday to go live, i now, to capitol hill as the house rules committee is meeting to deliberate the rules for deliberating repeal of the obama administration' health care bill. the house is expected to debate the rule on friday with a final

passage vote set for next wednesday. congressman david dryer has just gaveled the meeting to order. this is live coverage on c-span2. >> and the chairman of the energy and commerce committee, mr. upton. and, gentlemen, let me just say that this legislation has been written and introduced by mr. cantor, the repeal measure, and i've introduced the replace measure in response to a commitment that was made to immediately have an up or down vote on repeal of the health care bill and a very strong commitment that we made to deal with replacing this measure with some of the thoughtful proposals that came forward during debate, many of which are supported by president obama and other democrats as well. so we welcome you here, and whatever remarks you have will be included this their entirety in the record that you have prepared, and we'd welcome summary from you. so why don't we begin with

chairman kline. >> thank you, chairman dreier. good morning to you and members of the committee. many new i members and new seats, kind of an exciting day. i appreciate the opportunity to testify in many support of this legislation that reflects the wishes of the american people and repeals the disastrous government takeover of health care. the educational work force committee's interest in this legislation is primarily found in the provisions affecting employer-provided health care with more than half of all non-elderly americans receiving health care coverage through an employer-provided plan, these elements of the law are among the most consequential for individuals, families and our economy. numerous provisions of the law threaten job creation and economic growth, but few are as visible as the employer mandate. the law requires every employer with more than 50 workers to provide government-approved health care coverage. those who do not or cannot afford to will be slapped with a penalty will have $2,000 per

worker beyond the first 30. the potential for harm is obvious. this law is a job killer. a small business with 50 employees would be penalized to the tune of $42,000 for hiring a 51st worker. one new worker, $42,000 in new costs. if they do not want to pay the penalty, they have the option of providing government-approved health care coverage, a proposition that could cost even more. hiring new workers will be more expensive making it harder for job creators to put americans back to work. the hiring disincentives are particularly strong for small employers hovering near the 50-worker penalty threshold. the law puts pressure on small business with fewer than 50 workers not to grow. and it pressures those with just over 50 workers to actually eliminate jobs. the only way to avoid paying the penalty on workers is to provide government-approved health insurance. not surprisingly, that's easier said than done. president obama famously and repeatedly promised the american

people they could keep their health care if they liked it. unfortunately, the regulators in the his administration seem to have a different plan. in june the administration issued regulations on the so-called grandfather provision, the part of the bill that is supposed to protect current employer plans making them 'em moon to the law's costly mandates and requirements. it will increase employer cost, and the administration's own estimates indicate up to 69% of all employer plans are expected to lose grandfathered status by 2013. the picture is worse for small business with-- businesses,ing up to 80% of which could lose their grandfather status and become subject to the law's costly mandates. some estimates indicate 87 million americans can expect to see changes to their plans thanks to the grandfather rule. if you like what you have, you cannot keep it. instead, you'll have to pay more for something different. we all know that more mandates mean higher costs.

perhaps that is one reason why the congressional budget office estimates three million individuals will end up in the public exchanges or on medicaid. three million is an estimate, but in reality many more americans could be forced into exchanges in the medicaid program. the more difficult we make it for employers to provide affordable coverage, the more likely it will be that plans will disappear, and consumers will have no choice but the government-run medicaid exchanges. as a result, cost for taxpayers will explode. i know that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will talk about a handful of provisions in the law that are more appealing than the employer mandates and eviscerated coverage. they're setting up a false choice trying to convince us and the american people that we cannot improve health care without orchestrating this government takeover. it's just not true. i look forward to casting my vote to repealing this law so we can get to work in our committees to carry out thes of our constituents. >> thank you very much. we're happy to be joined by

mr. king. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and members of the committee. i do appreciate the opportunity to testify in repealing the job act, a bill that is key to help putting americans back to work and actually bringing down health care costs for working families. in trying to secure passage of the controversial health care law, speaker pelosi famously said that the house needed to pass the bill so that we could find out what's in it. well, in the ten months since its passage, the american people have learned what was in the bill, some of it anyway, and they have overwhelmingly rejected it because it does kill jobs and increases costs. our nation's unemployment rate is nearly 10 %. it's over 12%, and it's been so in my home state of michigan for the last three years. this is, flatly, unacceptable. and it underscores the urgency of our efforts to end job-killing policies like obamacare. the government takeover of

health care destroys jobs with a host of tax hikes and costly government mandates. it raises tax on the american people by more than $500 billion. in a time of soaring unemployment, the law alarmingly includes $210 billion in new payroll taxes, $60 billion in new taxes on health plans, $27 billion in taxes on pharmaceuticals that patients need, $20 billion in taxes on common medical devices used by patients like pacemakers and oxygen, $15 billion in increased taxes on people with high medical expenses and $13 billion in taxes by restricting the use of flexible savings accounts for things like over-the-counter drugs including allergy medication. hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes will not only suffocate our economy, it will hurt families at a time when they can least afford it. this is not the american way. and let's not forget the $52

billion employer mandate. according to a study by the nfib, an employer mandate could eliminate 1.6 million jobs by 2014. two-thirds of those job losses could come from small businesses that should be driving our economic recovery. the blair house health care summit last year speaker pelosi claimed that the health care bill would create 400,000 new jobs almost immediately. well, the only new jobs americans are seeing for now are washington bureaucrats writing thousands of pages of regulations even as they hand out waivers because of the law's unworkable mandates. mr. chairman, we must work together to foster a new era of job growth that encourages investment and innovation. we must repeal this job-killing health care bill that raids the pocketbooks of working americans and sends their hard-earned tax dollars to washington to create jobs for bureaucrats who decide what health care the public can have. we need to free our job creators

from the uncertainty of the bill's regulations and taxes so jobs can be created in places like washington township, michigan, not washington d.c. when the health care reform debate began, the president said the goal of reform was to lower costs. in fact, he predicted americans would see their premiums reduced by as much as $2500 a year. however, the cbo now estimates that obamacare will actually raise, not lower, health insurance premiums in the individual market 10-13%. americans are now facing the prospect of a $2100 increase in premium rather than the $2500 decrease that was promised. the president also promised, as mr. kline said, that if americans liked their health insurance, they could keep it. yet the bureaucrats enforcing the new government rules have stated that almost 87 million americans would lose their current coverage. despite the administration's billion dollar taxpayer-funded ad campaign to convince seniors

otherwise, the $575 billion in cuts to medicare to fund new entitlements will hurt the medicare program and its beneficiaries. the administration's chief actuary estimates that a full 50% of participants or seven million seniors will lose access to their medicare advantage plans. the bill cuts hundreds of billions for medicare providers that according to the actuary could force 15% of providers to leave the program. the result would be, and i quote, jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries. and despite claims to the contrary, the cost of obamacare will markedly increase the federal deficit. proponents of the bill understood that the program could not sustain itself, so they used misleading budget gimmicks to hide the true cost. the law as we remember provides six years of benefits provided with ten years of tax increases in medicare cuts. according to a report authored by a former directer of cbo, obamacare will are increase the

federal budget deficit by more than $550 billion in the first ten year of the law and $1.4 trillion in the following ten years. finally, instead of stopping skyrocketing health care costs, obamacare increases them. the administration's chief actuary predicts that the federal government and the country will spend $310 billion more under obamacare than we would have without the new law. even after the bill was signed into law, the republican minority pleaded with the former chairman to hold hearings on the massive overhaul. we asked for hearings to examine how companies will be forced to change or even drop their health care plans leaving the promise that if you liked your insurance, you could keep it as nothing but empty rhetoric. we saw at hearings where the secretary of hhs and other members of the administration bureaucracy now in charge. our calls went unanswered. mr. chairman, things will change now. as the new chair of the energy and commerce committee, we will embark on a number of hearings

in both the health and oversight investigation subcommittees. we will not let go unanswered the call of the american people who spoke loud and clear in november and rejected this massive government expansion be takeover of health care -- and takeover of health care. i yield back. >> thank you very much, mr. upton. appreciate it, and congratulations to you. mr. king. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i very much appreciate the opportunity to testify before the rules committee today. and i'll do so in the favor of legislation to repeal the democrats' deeply-flawed health care bill. the cornerstone of health care law, this bill repeals is individual mandate. that's a mandate that requires all americans to either purchase health insurance or pay a fine. this mandate is clearly outside the scope of the enumerated powers of the constitution grans the federal government. in fact, i find four places that i believe obamacare violates the constitution in my reading of it. specifically, the individual mandate is supported by neither

the commerce clause, nor congress' power to lay and collect taxes. the congress' power only covers commercial or economic activity, and that is the production, distribution or consumption of commodities. an individual decision not to purchase health insurance is not a commercial or economic activity. in fact, it's not an activity, it is a non-economic enacttivity. we're going to punish that? when you think about a man's home being his castle, english common law that we've inherited here, an individual could sit in their house, pay all their taxes and sit there and do nothing and have the federal government impose, levy a fine against them by using the irs? it's astonishing in its reach beyond the scope of the constitution. not even the supreme court's most expansive commerce clause cases have intimated the clause allows congress to regulate non-economic inactivity. thus, the health care bill's

individual mandate is doubly unprecedented. it's without either an historical or a legal precedent. nor does congress' power to tax save the individual mandate. congress cannot impose and cannot impose a penalty. that's a punishment for failure to act and to simply rename it as a tax, it can be justified -- it cannot be justified under taxing power. as president obama himself made clear, he said, i quote, i actual reject the notion, closed quote, that the individual mandate is a tax. simply put, the individual mandate violates congress' power under both the commerce and taxing clauses of the constitution. if congress had the power to impose the health care bill's individual mandate, its power would be unlimited. it could force americans to engage in any activity it chose from forcing americans to purchase cars from general motors to exercising every day to stay in shape to adjusting our duets, perhaps. -- diets, perhaps. but we would not be living under

a constitution of enumerated powers, we'd be living under a regime of unlimited mandates. this repealed bill will insure that the unconstitutional individual mandate never common deers americans -- commandeers americans into purchasing health care insurance. we can go back to the table to enact meaningful medical malpractice reform and end the costly practice of defensive medicine. it costs taxpayers real money as doctors are forced by the threat of lawsuits to conduct tests and prescribe drugs that aren't medically required. they're just to avoid lawsuits. a survey published in the archives of internal medicine found that the vast majority of doctors practice defensive medicine. according to the survey, 91% of doctors reported believing that physicians order more tests and procedures than needed to protect themselves from malpractice suits. even president obama has acknowledged that excessive defensive medicine reinforces our current system, and that's a quote, excessive defensive

medicine reinforces our current system. and i would point out there are estimates that range between 3.5% as high as 8% of our health care costs in america are attributed to defensive medicine and the litigation that's associated with medical malpractice. it could run as high as $208 billion a year. we have lower estimates, but why then do the democrats' health care bill do nothing to prevent defensive medicine? why did democrats enact a health care law that creates more federal rules for doctors without protecting them from lawsuits? that can only produce more litigation and less effective health care. but there are effective means for ending the practice of of defensive medicine and reducing the increased expenses that lawsuits add to this country's health care costs. according to the congressional budget office, republican-proposed litigation reforms would save at least 54 billion in health care costs. i think it could be substantially more. but doctors ignore -- democrats, excuse me, ignored republican

proposals in enacting their health care law and even encouraged states not to enforce similar malpractice reforms of their own o. of there are some models out there, texas and california come to mind. this is a major reason why we need to repeal the democrats' health care law. we need to go back to the drawing board and enact meaningful malpractice litigation reform to help improve health care, make it more affordable and save taxpayer money while reducing the federal deficit. once repeal of this blatantly unconstitutional law is accomplished, we can move forward with positive health care reforms including health care litigation reform. i suggest that we pull obamacare out by the roots, root and branch, lock, stock and barrel, eradicate it completely and leave not one vest ting of its dna behind because it is a malignant tumor into the spirit of america's vitality and constitutionality. and if it's allowed to have any particle left, it will metastasize like a tumor and

grow back, and it will consume the liberty and the vision boar of the american -- vigor of the american people. we must pull it out by the roots. this congress has been elected to do so. mr. chairman, i intend to fully participate in this. i appreciate your attention, the opportunity to testify, and i'd be happy to yield to any questions. >> thank you very much, mr. king. so where do you guys stand on this issue, i think is the natural question we need to pose here. [laughter] let me say at the outset that, obviously, we want to insure that every single american has access to quality health insurance and health care. the president of the united states indicated in his first press conference following the election that he believed that this bill is flawed. he said that the 1099 provision that was in there that imposes a burden on small businesses in this country needed to be addressed. most recently, judge henry hudson in virginia has

determined that the mandate about which all three of you were speaking is unconstitutional, and so we have the executive, the president of the united states, referring to this as a flawed bill. we have, obviously, a court decision that has been made. and it seems to me that the right thing for us to do is this two-step approach that we are taking. number one, it is our effort to repeal the measure. and be, number two, as i said, the measure i'm introducing, have introduced and have many co-sponsors on which calls for us to get your committees working to insure that every single american has access to quality health insurance and health care. now, i believe that there are five simple steps that need to be taken that would immediately drive the cost of health insurance down. i think that we should expand medical savings accounts, we should have associated health plans, we should have meaningful lawsuit abuse reform, or we should have pooling to deal with

pre-existing conditions, and we should do everything that we possibly can to insure that people can acquire insurance across state lines. those five simple things, most of which are actually supported by president obama, in every one of those instances from his state of the union message where he talked about lawsuit abuse reform to his interest of looking at the purchase of insurance across state lines being made available, there has been interest. and if president hasn't talked about every one of those issues, i know that there are democrats who have. so i believe we have an opportunity to come together in a bipartisan way, and we know that there was not bipartisan support for this measure when we saw it in the 111th congress, but i believe in the 112th congress upon repealing this measure we can come together, democrats and republicans alike working with the president, to insure that every american has access to quality health insurance by driving those costs

down. so i thank you all for your thoughtful remarks, and i will say that you've come forward with some interesting figures that are, obviously, going to be challenged by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. just this notion that 87 million americans, as you said, chairman upton, will lose their health insurance when, in fact, we're hearing that everyone could keep their insurance. the fact that we have this cbo study that has now come out showing that we will see an increase, an increase in the deficit of $145 billion when, in fact, if you look at the gimmickry involved, we're talking about $700 billion in gimmicks and, to me, it is incomprehensible to think that putting into place taxes, mandates and an extraordinarily burdensome structure like this

is going to save taxpayer dollars. we know that the taxes alone in this measure are going to exacerbate the economic downturn through which we are struggling today. so, again, i thank you all very much for your remarks and appreciate the thoughtful approach. and i assume that i have a commitment from all three of you that when we pass my measure that directs your committees to begin work on an effort to put these measures in place that will decrease the cost of health insurance for americans that you're committed to doing that. >> absolutely. i -- without a doubt. we will be embarking on this almost right away, and we will have a product that you will be very proud of, and i would like to think we'll be bipartisan in terms of what we would like to do to help working families and businesses provide benefits for their workers. >> thank you.

both of the other two gentlemen nodded, so i assume -- i know you can't speak for the entire committee, but i feel very sanguine that your colleagues on the judiciary committee and chairman smith will lead the effort there, and i got the great nod from chairman kline. we look forward to working together to insure that we can drive the cost of of health insurance down. mr. sessions. >> thank you very much, chairman. welcome to each of you who are here today. today with great anticipation we here in the rules committee are looking forward to hearing not only what you have to say, but also our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. during the last few years, this has been an active discussion, and i note there are a number of people in the room today who are back to give us discussion including mr. andrews and joe who have given us thoughtful ideas. i'm very pleased to hear what you're going to do is examine,

reopen and make sure that the facts of the case now are better known. i will tell you that the american people recognize as gasoline nears $4 and we've been told $5 a gallon that we recognize or at least a group of people that i hang around with recognize that gasoline at $4 or $5 a gallon combined with the economy that we have that is a drag on jobs and knowing that this health care bill which is a devastator not only for the amount of money it costs, but also the job loss that takes place is slowing our economy. chronic unemployment is what we've now had. but when you look up and see that gasoline is going to this price because of the economic advantages that are taking place in china and india, there are

economies that are booming, and the united states is left out of that because we're embroiled in trying to do health care, cap and trade and all these things which diminish our economic base. so it's my hope that we will think about catching up with the world as the world leader in job creation, innovation. and the last thing i'd like to say is that i hope there will be some focus on pharmaceutical companies that i believe have been diminished greatly in their capacity to provide r&d, the advantages to solve and cure problems that exist in the marketplace today that is the promise of better utilization of our dollars because we can have pharmaceutical industry which can cure problems that maybe some doctors cannot do. so i'm very excited about this new day that has dawned and what it means, and we'll look forward

to hearing not only from my colleagues, the gentleman, mr. andrews, who is back again, but also my colleagues on the rules committee that are democrats about how we're actually going to go look at this issue how we're going to dissect it and move forward. purchase mr. chairman, with great anticipation, i look forward to your leadership. >> thank you very much, vice chairman. we have a quorum call that's just been called on the floor, so i would encourage members to record their presence downstairs, and we're going to continue with the hearing. thank you, mrs. slaughter. >> thank you, mr. dreier. good morning, gentlemen. congratulations on your new posts. i think this is probably one of the first times that i have been able to speak about this. i understand your great determination to root it out, root and branch, run over the ashes and spit on the ground as far as i can tell. america should tremble. you do know that the latest polls show that 56% of americans

really like this bill be, 13% of them think it's not strong enough. and you do understand that the harm you're going to do. but let me ask all three of you what do you think about holding a hearing to do away with this kind of legislation, something of this magnitude that, frankly, america has not done in probably a generation without holding any hearings in your committee? any, i'd like to hear from all of you about that. that we find ourselves this morning with an emergency rules committee to get this done so that next week you can vote to undo this with no hearings and no discussion. >> [inaudible] >> this is not an emergency meeting, a statement was announced -- >> i would just like to say i appreciate the comments from my friend. >> yes. >> and welcome to your new slot as well. i say that in a friendly way. i would just note that our party

leadership with virtually everyone behind it of our members announced last summer, first of all, there was not a single republican -- as i recall -- that voted for the bill last march when it passed by only -- >> that's true. >> -- when it passed by only seven votes despite a margin by speaker pelosi. we announced in the summer if we took the majority, we would look for a full repeal. it was part of our pledge that was publicly unveiled in late september, early october. i would dare say that every one of the new freshman class and many of us that ran for re-election had this as part of our platform. it should come as no surprise -- >> it's no surprise. >> we often said repeal and replace. >> it's no surprise, but you were on the committees, i assume, that held over 100 hours of hearings on this bill. >> we did. >> but how can you say that you had no input? >> well -- >> you attended 100 hours of

hearings. [laughter] >> well, i'll tell you how we had no input -- >> you -- [inaudible conversations] >> would the gentle lady yield? >> i won't right now, but what has really stunned me most is knowing from the very beginning that 100 hours of hearings were held, 83 be hours of committee markup, house heard from 181 witnesses, democrat and republican, 239 amendments were considered in the three committees and 121 adopted. the democrat caucus spent at least four times doing caucuses to go over this bill section by section, hours at a time. and yet despite this and the fact that you were in those meetings with the exception of the democratic caucus meetings, you continue p to say that you had no input on this bill. how can any of the three of you could say that. >> if you would yield for -- >> i'd like to hear from all three of you, certainly. >> chairman waxman had a 36-23 advantage. in the markup that we had last

summer, unlike most markups where the bill is able to be marked up title a, title b, title c, we could only do the third title without doing the first two without any amendments being shown 48-hour or advance and not until we finished title 3 could we go back to title 1 -- >> but can you really say to the people that you represent with a straight face, the three of you, that you had no input on this bill and you didn't know what was in it? >> thank you. >> [inaudible] >> thank you, ms. slaughter. i do find it interesting that in spite of all those hours that you're talking about, hearings, we still have the fascinating occurrence of the speaker saying that we need to pass it and then find out what was in it. i mean, the truth is that americans didn't know what was in this thing, and many be others didn't because this legislation was not written in a bipartisan way.

the input that we had -- >> the hearings were bipartisan. that's what really -- >> i'm sorry, it's not written in a bi-- >> written in the same ways we write bills in the house, and i'm astonished that i think -- but there are other things i want to go on. we won't dwell on that. >> could i make just one quick point? >> yes. >> i read a lot of the bill, and i meant to bring it -- >> well, i hope so. it was up for months. i think eight months. >> on the house floor -- >> uh-huh. >> and i would say to the section that mr. kline testified on with regard to the section 1099, if you read that particular page, page 737 in the enacted bill, you would not have any idea that this was going to require a $600 transaction, filing by every business. >> we can't discuss every jot and -- >> well, did you know that was in the bill before we took it up on the house floor? >> absolutely. i think that was a mistake, and i don't know of a bill that we've ever done through that house that didn't need that.

but for be over 100 years congress has tried to do something about health care in the united states. starting with teddy roosevelt. over 100 years. we didn't take this on because we're masochists. we didn't take it on because we wanted to have town hall meetings where people were throwing rocks and things at us. we did it because 17% of gdp was taken up with health care, rising every day, and something had to be done. and we were the only industrial country on the face of the earth that did not provide health care for its people. and this, believe me, i went through this in the clinton administration, and we went through it now. the eight years that you all were in charge and did absolutely nothing about the cost of health care or any kind of health care bill. >> i -- >> on top of it, jamming down the throat. i don't know what you'd call this and, by the way, this is an emergency session. it was called last night. it comes under the heading of being an emergency meeting. but we're rushing this through,

despite all the plans we were all going to wait forever and read it all and have all this time. but you don't have a cbo estimate, do you, of what it would cost to do what you want to do? >> i'm sorry, my staff was speaking to me. >> is there a cbo estimate on repealing this bill? >> yes. yes, madam -- >> and what is it, please? >> yes, mrs. slaughter, there is, and, in fact, it's in your folder. it is out -- >> 200 -- >> included on page 4 of the letter -- >> 230 billion for the first year, 1.2 trillion for the second year. so you talk about this being a job curl, i don't know how you can -- killer. i don't know how you can arrive at that. 935,000 jobs have been added in the health care sector, 131,000 just since it's been in effect. but once judge henry hudson having been used here.

i really was so happy to hear that because i've done a little work on this one. you know that ten federal judges threw the case out. two federal judges said, absolutely, it's constitutional. you wouldn't read that anywhere. but that's a fact. we get to judge i -- judge hudson. judge hudson is a confirmed republican, says he is. he said he tried several careers before, he says i was just in the right place at the right time, and they made me a judge. he is a co-owner of a republican consulting firm, and one of his clients is the attorney general of the state of virginia who brought the lawsuit. if there was ever a case in this world that cried out for recusal, that was it. and i, because i have respect for all three of you, it really embarrasses me for you that you would use him as your case knowing about the other ten and the two that -- >> if gentle lady would yield.

>> -- that was constitutional. we are rushing through here getting ready to do something pretty devastating, i think -- >> would the gentle lady yield? >> yes, i will, mr. king. >> i just point out that my recollection is that the consulting fee between the firm and the attorney general that you referenced is, i think is part invested by judge hudson was less than $10,000 and that they severed that relationship immediately when they found out -- >> well, i must tell you, mr. king, as far as i'm concerned, a federal judge should not be a part owner in any way, shape or form of a republican consulting firm. but i think, again, our standards have fallen so far. i mean, we even have supreme court justices -- >> to complete your question to the three of us that i would like to respond to. >> yes. >> and that is that there is no significant tort reform in this obamacare health care bill. and it wasn't jurisdiction of the judiciary committee, so we didn't address those massive hundreds of billions of dollars

of costs that are unnecessary in our health care. we can do that in the future. that's one of the reasons why the judiciary committee didn't have a legitimate means to have a voice on this bill. and i'm surprised that you would raise the issue about an emergency rules meeting here on this given how many times that i have seen the language change from a committee before it went on its way to the floor, even some of my own language on different bills -- >> we've never changed the language on bills. no, we did not. >> i'm grateful that we're having a hearing. >> we did not do that. >> i believe we have a unanimous position among republicans and a bipartisan position. when the bill comes to the floor, i believe there'll be significant democrat votes for this. everybody understands this bill. we've debated this for a year. i yield back. >> let me just -- 15 seconds. our committee, we had eight republican passed amendments and somehow they disappeared between coming across the street from independence avenue to here to being part of the debate. >> that has nothing to do with the rules committee. >> well, it wasn't here. [laughter] i don't know what happened.

but they weren't there. the other thing is we tried, actually, in our committee to have a tort reform amendment, something that the president told a number of us one-on-one he wanted tort reform as part of this package. we tried to offer, our side tried to offer that amendment in full committee, and we were denied because of the jurisdiction issue. but, again, it never came back from the judiciary, so it couldn't even be considered on the -- >> well, tort restorm is generally a state issue -- reform is generally a state issue. but there is $50 million, i believe, in this bill -- >> we asked for it. >> are we tried to do that as well. we repealed the ferguson act which, i'm happy to say, almost everybody voted for in the house. it's been around for years, and it's really been inhibiting. it's a great gift to the insurance industry, and we'd like to get that done. we wanted to do the medical malpractice along with it, but we were unable to get that done.

and i would say to you that that really does need attention. the ferguson act really ought to go. i just find myself flummoxed after 20-something years here that, of course, we had this happen with a catastrophic illness bill years ago. heaven knows how much further we would have been if we'd been able to keep that. but there's, i understand -- >> again, if -- [inaudible conversations] when that happened i don't know that mr. kline or mr. king were here then, but that bill passed. >> i wasn't here. >> yes, you were. >> i was here after -- >> you and i were elected in 1986 together. that bill passed, people found what was in it, and a year or two later it was repealed almost overwhelmingly. >> it was. >> and my bet is that you, mr. dreier, mr. upton voted for the bill and then voted to repeal it.

at least that's what i did. >> we weren't here when the bill came up. i can remember -- >> oh, i think we were. >> anyway -- all right. >> i don't know where you were. >> again, we found out what was in it, like the american people have, and wanted it repealed. >> the thing that has been so distressing to me is we had no fingerprints, we knew nothing about this bill which we all know is not true, that we jammed it down the public's throat which we know is not true, and if that was a jamming, i don't know what you're going to call this. you're going to have to come up -- maybe we'll come up with an adjective on our side that will be appropriate to that. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, mrs. slaughter. let me just respond briefly, and then we'll call on ms. fox. first, this is, technically, designated as an emergency meeting for the following reason: we took the oath of office less than 24 hours ago, and the minority was informed of this meeting at the beginning of this week, and today's thursday.

so from my perspective, the noise, clearly, was provided. so that's why i said this is not considered an emergency meeting. and so everyone knew that this was happening, and it has been made very clear. i want to make sure that every member has gone down to record their presence on the quorum call. i have not. i'm going to call on ms. fox now and turn over to vice chairman sessions the gavel. ms. fox. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i heard mrs. slaughter say about the catastrophic health care. i was not here when that passed, but it may be that her memory on that is not as strong as it might be, and i think her memory on what happened p to this legislation may not be as strong as it might be. i've been puzzled9vé constantlt how our colleagues across the

aisle have talked about how many hearings were held, how many amendments were offered. i just, i got the record on the two bills, and i think it's really important that we correct it. i'm not quite sure why my colleagues, the chairmen of the various committees haven't done this. but the bill that passed the house was h.r. 3590. and, indeed, there were hearingsing on that bill -- hearings on that bill, and there were amendments offered on the bill. there were hearings in different committees. however, the bill that finally passed was h.r. 4872 which came from the senate and had nary a single hearing on it. and i think we have to correct the record. and every time our colleagues say this, we've got to correct the record. because that bill had no hearings, not one.

that bill was not allowed to be -- well, excuse me, there was one hearing in the rules committee. it did not go -- mr. mcgovern, if you can show me the record, i'm not going to yield time, but when it comes time, i invite you to bring to the record the dates and times of those hearings. i would really like to know about those. because i have the timeline on that bill, but there were no hearings on it. and it is deceptive of our colleagues to continue to say that. and i think the record has to be clarified on that. and i would like to ask us all to do that, and i think mr. upton wants to add to my comment. >> well, i do, and i thank you for your comments. it was the senate bill that passed. you'll recall when it passed on christmas eve morning there were

actually a number of senate democrats who said, don't worry, we know that this is not a perfect bill, it's going to be fixed when it goes to conference. it never even went to conference. they took the senate-passed bill -- how it got an h.r. number, i don't know. but they then took the senate-passed bill, and that was it. no amendments at all when we passed it on the sunday afternoon a couple of months later. as it reflects from our committee -- and i did not serve then on the health subcommittee -- it's my understanding that there was one legislative hearing on the house, ended up being the house-passed bill, not the senate bill. and the secretary at the time said something along the lines of we're not permitted to answer direct questions on this bill because we've not read it. i'm getting nods from my staff that, in fact, that did transpire. so at the end of the day it was the senate bill, not the

house -- >> correct. >> and, really, all of the efforts, and there were hearings on health care, but on the legislative hearing there was only one. it was, in essence, all for naught because the house-passed package which was passed in the fall of '09 was not part of the final bill that was enacted in march of last year. >> well, again, i think we have to make sure the american people understand that our friends on the other side of the aisle are mixing up apples and oranges. and i want to ask in the future if we can do that, that when comments are made about what bill had hearings, that our colleagues be very explicit that it was h.r. 3590 on which hearings were held and not on the bill which passed which was

h.r. 6872. -- 4872. i do think that's clear. i really am pleased that the american people are paying a lot more attention to what's going on in this congress. we've always said over the years that process is dull and nobody wants to hear about the process, but in this case process is extremely important because it's the process that made the difference in the way this was done. so i'm glad to be able to get this in the record that, as mr. upton, you say there was one hearing -- >> one legislative hearing on the bill. >> when one legislative hearing. the rules committee did deal with the bill here, but, mr. kline, were there any hearings in the education committee? >> not, not on the senate bill, no. >> not on the senate bill that is the bail that passed. that is the bill that passed. mr. king, would you like to add anything to that? >> we didn't have jurisdiction,

so there were no hearings in the jewish dish recommittee. we would have liked to have had jurisdiction to have been approved in final policy. >> well, mr. chairman, i just want to say to back up what you and chairman dreier have said, republicans are very concerned that we have affordable health insurance and affordable health care in this country. what passed in this congress does not provide that to the american people. in fact, what it does is give government control over insurance and health care for the american people. that is not what this republic is about. we are not to give our lives to the government. we don't live in a nanny state. and this repeal needs to be done so that we can get on with putting in common sense reforms related to health insurance and the health care.

and i look forward to this action and to what is going to happen after that. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you, mrs. foxx. i would like to, once again, the chair would like to thank each of the members that are here and the gentlewoman, mrs. foxx. we are not in a rush. we are here to openly, forthrightly discuss this subject, and i appreciate you taking the time as necessary, mrs. foxx. the gentleman, mr. mcgovern's recognized. >> thank you. not a single hearing has been held on this repeal package. not a single one. we are meeting here today, and you haven't held a single hearing in either of your committees about what you want to do today. i mean, people who are watching this are probably saying to themselves, well, why don't you hold hearings, figure out what the impact is. you might not agree with everything in the democratic bill that passed, but there may be some things that you do.

why not do this in a way that makes sense? instead, we're coming here and rushing something to the floor. i mean, this is not a -- whether we do it today or monday, you know, or next thursday or a week from thursday doesn't make much difference. not a single hearing has been held. and i have a question for the vice chair of the committee because we've been talking a lot about process. and i just want him to correct the record on something that i've read, a statement from the majority leader, mr. cantor, who has said at a press conference that this package that's going to come to the floor next week might come to the floor under a restrictive rule or closed rule. given what mr. boehner said yesterday, begin what mr. dreier has said here, i would like the assurance to the vice chair that this will come to the floor under an open rule. or at least tell me mr. cantor misspoke.

that would be helpful. >> what i would say to the gentleman is that what we're attempting to do is not a surprise to the american public, nor to any member of congress that has been reading about the expectations of performance. this was a promise that was made during the campaign and the election where people would decide who they would want to be their member of congress. i believe that the gentleman, mr. cantor, the majority leader of the united states congress, has forthrightly said that he beliefs that we're -- believes that we're going to schedule a hearing today, which we are doing. he believes that we will then have a vote on the rule, and he believes on or about wednesday allowing the time for dissemination, discussion and a full vetting of the process for there to be a vote where the american people understood what this is about, and every member of congress knew what they were doing. as it relates to whether this

will be an open or closed rule, i think the gentleman knows that at the end of this hearing before we vote on the rule, there will be a discussion about that, and then we will decide that. >> so mr. cantor spoke prematurely. >> you know what? i believe that the gentleman is entitled to an opinion about what he believes, and i will let -- >> thank you very much. let me ask the three gentlemen here, would you support an open rule for the discussion of this next week? yes, mr. kline. >> yeah, i thank the gentleman. i think that we have been very clear as a party, the majority leader we were just talking about. we believe we owe the american people an up or down vote on this law. and so i would not support an open rule in this case. >> i would say that the way, as i understand the bill, the bill is repeal and replace. this is the first step. it then directs the proper committees to come back and talk

about how we want to replace it. that work has not been done, that's where we're going to have the hearings, we're going to have the markups whether it be in the oversight and investigation subcommittee, whether it be in the health subcommittee, and that will be when the time is taken to thoughtfully put together a piece of legislation that, in fact, replaces the repeal bill. but on repeal it ought to be yes or no. knowing that -- >> so no open rule. no process to amend. >> i don't think we need an open rule on this now. we'll let the committees then take the action to -- >> mr. king? >> -- replace it. >> mr. mcgovern, i'd suggest there's nothing to amend. this is either repeal it or not repeal it. and as i said, pull it all out by the roots, and i think there's something that's completely left unsaid here, and that is there's a piece of legislation, h.r. 4872, that passed without hearings -- >> i am stunned. >> -- could not have passed the house with a legitimate

approach. >> i am stunned. i am stunned in light of what mr. boehner has said and what mr. dreier has said and others about open process. all three of you here are saying that we should have a closed rule. i mean, that just -- it is really, it is really stunning. and, no, i don't think it is as simple as an up or down vote, and that's one of the reasons why this is kind of a travesty here is that, you know, it is a complicated issue. and, quite frankly, you know, i'm looking at -- i was just looking at a kaiser poll that just came out where, quite frankly, when people realize what is in the bill, you know, more and more people do not want it repealed. in fact, only 24% of the people they polled wanted a total repeal. and there are things in this bill that i would think even republicans would agree. so this notion that we're going to go in, we're going to throw everything out and start over again without caring about a cbo score, i mean, no one's -- all of a sudden the campaign's all

about reducing deficits and lowering the debt, and yet we have a preliminary cbo score saying this is going to cost a great deal of money to repeal, but that doesn't matter. and no hearings, no hearings. there's no -- this is not a thoughtful process. and then you're all telling me that you want a closed rule. bring it to the floor, no amendments, no input. so much for the open process. there's none. there's none. >> mr. mcgovern, i might note as i have looked at some of the questions by not maybe specifically the kaiser poll that you're citing now, but other polls that would suggest this is probably the case for the kaiser poll, when you look at a number of different individual elements, there is strong support for them. no pre-existing conditions can we allow for discrimination, allow for insurance across state lines, take the president's promise. if you like your health insurance, you can keep it. i think those things most americans would support. and i would bet that at the end

of the day when we come back with a charge whether it be the education and labor committee, whether it be the energy and commerce committee, where it be the ways and means committee, hopefully, perhaps, the judiciary committee as it relates to tort reform, something that the president supports himself, those will be common-ground issues that republicans and democrats can support. >> but you vice president -- >> something in the process -- >> this is all backwards. you should do the hearings first, you know? and then figure out what makes sense and then do the legislation. what you're doing is the legislation and then saying, oh, don't worry, we'll do hearings. and then you issue not an alternative, you issue a press relesion, a -- release, a statement of principles, quite frankly, which are already taken care of in the bill that has already been passed. so, i mean, it just strikes me as, you know, as unbelievable that after all we heard about openness and about full discussion that we are rushing this to the floor in an

emergency rules committee meeting where this is going to be brought to the floor, and the majority leader is saying under a closed process, and you're all agreeing it should be a closed process. so where's the openness and where's the discussion? let me just say one -- let me ask you a specific question. you know, some of the health care provisions have already kicked in. you know, i have a lot of senior citizens in my district who have fallen victims of the doughnut hole. you remember you guys shoved through a medicaid prescription drug bill that wasn't paid for that added incredibly to the def sit, and then they allowed this doughnut hole o so that people have to pay out-of-pocket expenses. that is being reduced, and i can't tell you how many senior citizens have told me, you know, i really appreciate that because it is a real burden, this doughnut hole. i look at the statement of principles, and there's no mention of the doughnut hole, the medicare prescription drug bill, any of that kind of stuff.

but if you got your way and we repealed the bill today, it became law tomorrow, what happens to those senior citizens who are beginning to get relief from the doughnut hole? do they get a tax increase? >> two things i'd like to say. first of all, if repeal bill does pass next week, it's not effective immediately because the senate hasn't taken it up, and neither has the president signed it. so we have a good number of time between when we can actually come back and report a bill that allows it to be replaced. second, and i don't know the massachusetts plan as i do know the michigan plan -- >> i can -- >> -- but from the start the michigan plan had at least michigan seniors had at least three plans among the 30 some that they could pick and choose from. remember, it was individual choice. where there was no doughnut hole. and in addition, seniors -- low-income seniors -- did not have a doughnut hole. there were provisions in the

medicare part d program when it passed that provided the subsidies so that they did not have a doughnut hole. >> well, there were a lot of people -- >> so as one that is concerned about the cost -- >> the doughnut hole is a real issue, and you're going to repeal it. >> that'll be something that we take up and consider as we look at the replacement part of the bill down the road. >> well, look, i appreciate you being here, and at first when i heard about all this, i was kind of, i thought it was unbelievable that this was the first item that you would take up, and that you would do it in such a closed and restrictive way. but on the other hand, i've been thinking about it, and you know what? it's actually a good thing that you're here, and it's actually a good thing that you're bringing this issue up because i think the american people will have an opportunity right at the outset of this new congress to see the clear differences between democrats and republicans. >> would the gentleman yield? >> if i i could finish my statement, mr. chairman.

>> oh, okay. >> democrats believe insurance companies shouldn't be able to discriminate on the basis of -- republicans do not. >> so would the gentleman yield? that's simply not true. >> you posed a bill -- >> it was in our alternatives. >> we should close the doughnut hole and reduce prescription prices for our seniors, republicans do not. democrats believe young people should be allowed to remain on their parents' health insurance until they're 26, republicans do not. i can't tell you how many parents have come up to me and said how grateful they are that they can keep their kids on their insurance until they're 26. it is a big deal. it is a big deal for a lot of parents all throughout this country. democrats believe that we should provide tax breaks to small businesses and subsidies to low-income americans to help them pay for health insurance for their workers and families'. republicans do not. you know, for 80 years americans of both political parties have talked about the need to address health care. in the last congress we actually

did it. we held dozens of hearings and markups, and to dr. foxx's issue that she raised, you know, the fact that the bill that we voted on here was not exactly the same bill that we introduced at the outset in the house, i mean, that's the way the legislative process works. i mean, when a bill goes to a conference committee and comes back, it's different from the original we voted on here. we actually did something. we listened to hundreds of witnesses, expert witnesses in the congress. we considered hundreds of amendments. the bill was passed. notwithstanding incredible obstructionism by the republicans on the floor of the house and the senate. and now in the first order of legislative business, the republicans want to take that work and just toss it in the trash. and how many hearings have you held on the impact of repeal? zero. how many markups have you had? zero. and, you know, and most shockingly to me given all the

rhetoric that we have heard, again, from the new speaker, from the majority leader, we've heard about this new open process, how many amendments are we going to be able to consider on the floor, and you're all telling me zero. that's what you're advocating. you know, look, instead of a thoughtful, reasoned legislative language to address this, you provide us with a press release. these are our goals, you know? let's take care of everybody. but no details, no details. you fought the patients' bill of rights. the republicans fought the enactment of the patients' bill of rights for as long as identify been here. of all the -- i've been here. of all the issues that protect consumers, you've been on the other side. and here we are, you know, i mean, i'm sure the insurance companies are thrilled that you're here talking for repeal. but i think, i think this is, i think this issue here defines the differences between the two parties, and i -- so on one hand

as frustrated as i am that you're drying to undo something that helps a lot of my constituents and people across the cup, i'm actually kind of glad you're showing your hand up front. there is a clear difference here. and i look forward to fighting you on this. because i think you're on the wrong side of history. i yield -- >> i thank my friend for yielding. i wonder if my friend was here when i offered my opening remarks? >> um, i think i may have been a little bit late. >> okay. i think that you were here, actually, when i offered my opening remarks during which i spoke specifically about our commitment to five specific proposals that would deal with the issue of driving the cost of health insurance down. and they included a number of the provisions that my friend has made in his written statement that he has there. and i also think it's important to note as we talk about this process that last summer, as mr. upton said, there was a commitment that was made.

that commitment was made was that we would immediately have an up or down vote on repeal of the measure that was signed in march. that commitment was made last summer before the election. and so it should come as absolutely no surprise. now, let me -- >> it does. >> let me say about the process. it was very clear, also, that we said that if we were to come to majority, we would have a more open process. it has been less than 24 hours since we've taken the oath of office. we indicated this measure would be considered immediately, and i have introduced h. rez 9 which calls on these committees that have jurisdiction to immediately proceed with dealing with the five issues that we've talked about and other ways to insure that the needs we all share must be met are, in fact, met. and so i will just say that the gentleman points to a number of issues that we want to deal with in a bipartisan way which was not done in the 11th congress.

and i thank my friend for yielding. >> i thank the gentleman for his comments. first of all, yeah, it's been less than 24 hours, and it's been pretty restrictive. you know, emergency rules committee meeting -- >> i don't know if you heard what i said on that. t at the beginning of this week, at the beginning of this week we informed the membership of this committee, minority and majority, that we would, in fact, be holding this meeting, and we are acting as expeditiously as possible because we believe of that this issue needs to be addressed. >> thank you. and we have the three gentlemen before us advocating for a piece of legislation that has had no. ..

>> how do you see this working? >> mr. mcgovern, having drafted the legislation to repeal obamacare in the dawn in the middle of the night after it passed that night on march 21, whatever that it was, i complicated a lot of things as i was gathering signatures on the discharge petition that reached 173. a lot of questions came up and that was one of them. drafting is one of them on how it does affect those things that would come to a halt. as chairman upton said it can't be anticipated because of the timing of the repeal it be predicted but what the legislation contemplates as i

understand as i looked into it is when and if the president should sign the repeal legislation, then things come to a halt as of that moment. >> we can't do that. >> there wouldn't be in my view a call to go back and gather any of those funds that have been distributed. >> that would also meet the way the bill is written for relief, the doughnut hole gets bigger and bigger as years go by so the relief would stop. >> the bill is written so i'll think stop at the moment of its enactment. >> that would stop. >> that doesn't mean it would be replacements. >> as unlucky, your press release on the statement of principles it doesn't mention anything about the doughnut hole. just curious. you mention other things but you don't mention that. why? >> mr. mcgovern, you identified about four popular components that can be potentially defended within this entire 2500 page bill.

that's where the focus of this discussion has been. i would just suggest in summary rather than putting an agenda before republicans, i would say republicans support a constitutional bill that is fiscally responsible that protects the patient's rights, patients relationships with the doctors and it allows for free market, constitutional. not an unconstitutional socialize medical bill. >> i appreciate your comments but basically which have given me sounds like, -- sound bites. we don't have a replacement. trust us, asking you to look into this. there's no replacement. no specifics. nothing. so here we are. at the beginning of the process, close process, and i think if you got your wish a lot of people would be hurt by it. >> would the gentleman yield? thank you. this is another argument i made for a long time. i have resisted the idea of putting repeal and replace

together because if you do that, that interrupts the process of adding them clean process were on their as others congress can wait and. if legislation present a replacement bill that was attached at the hip like a siamese twin to the repeal bill, then that list of components that mr. dreier listed, they will be members in this congress that would say there are five things i mr. dreier's proposal. i don't like one of them, or i want another one. let's get so long you end up with another backroom deal. we want to dupe replacement to the gentleman's committee so that actually legislation can be built with the wisdom of the new freshman class coupled with the experience of the members of this congress. that's why replacement can't be a part of it. >> i will close by saying this is not a legitimate process. this is an illegitimate process. no hearings, nothing. that's not the way they should be done. i yield back my time. >> mr. nugent? mr. hastings.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank you and our colleagues on the committee for your patience with regard to time. i especially am grateful for witnesses and our colleagues that are here to testify. and apologize to them if in the next few minutes i spend time inordinate with what some might consider to be particularly important, because all of our matters are important, and they have just as important things to say. i associate myself with remarks of ms. slaughter. and i associate myself with the remarks of mr. mcgovern. i do believe that we are

embarking down a path that will ultimately not only to our detriment. i wish to correct just a few things along the way. mr. king, obviously uni our friends, and ideological opposites. have fundamental disagreements of what can and should be done, footnote right there. ms. slaughter pointed out something to me last night that you'll need to get rid of, in my judgment. she didn't say that. i'm saying in my judgment something you need to get rid up. every member in this chamber right now was elected. and the constitution immediately establishes a congress made up of a house and a senate. i don't they need any other provision of event i got elected

to legislate. and so when you all start, and i will be among the first rats to test you in court, when you start down the path that you're not going to receive my proposed legislation because i didn't cite to a specific amendment in the united states constitution, which i revere and you revere, then i'm going to tell you that i cite to the fact that i got elected and i'm going to move on and then we'll go to court and see whether or not this junk you all are talking about is going to stand up. but that's for another day. if i heard you correctly, mr. king, then it is that we probably shouldn't have legislative health care in the first place because we did have the constitutional power to do so. i don't want to put words in your mouth. you tell me what you meant. >> mr. hastings, i believe that this bill that is the law the land today that is set before

us, proposed to be repealed completely, violates the constitution and probably for different category. the most obvious one is, it violates the commerce clause your there have always been babies born, the interstate commerce. there have always been babies born within the states who live, breathe, and i without crossing state lines and without accessing any health care whatsoever let alone purchasing health insurance. they would be compelled to buy a insurance underneath his policy, expanding the commerce clause to point beyond imagination of the founding fathers or any legitimate reading of the commerce clause. and so under those conditions this violation of the commerce clause if it's allowed to stand does allow the federal government to direct every activity of our lives. that's the most egregious violation. i believe it also violate the equal protection clauses of the constitution, as far as i know has not been litigated at this point. florida would be a state that is

aware of that. there were special permission set up under the medicare advantage that allowed some people to keep their advantage policies and so i would argue that that violates the equal protection clause in the same way that the formerly in the bill "cornhusker kickback" violated the equal protection clause. i would argue that is not enumerated powers to grant congress the authority to pass legislation like this and i believe that it violates the 10th amendment of the constitution. this is a states rights issue. that's where i stand and i hope we can resolve this through the litigation process but i wouldn't leave the resolution of this to the courts because in the end as you know the constitution you have in your hand puts the power in the people. >> whether you leave it to the courts or not, the simple fact of the matter is to the united states supreme court. and certain provisions whether you're repeal were to be successful or not, and certain provisions as they exist are likely to be tested in court,

the chair referred to the judge's decision. there are two other federal decisions that are in this agreement, but judge hudson's decision and the cheers notably did not reference those decisions. so the courts are going to be in conflict in their interpretation just as you and i are. i don't think this violates the commerce clause at all. i don't think it violates article 1, section 8 of the constitution. and i do read the mean when you say promote the general well there -- general welfare that matters of this consequence, comes under that heading. and, therefore, i can be ignored of some facts. let me turn to speak with the gentleman yield? i just think it's important we understand the language and the constitution that says promote the general welfare means the general welfare of the united

states, not the general welfare of the individual population within the united states. >> when the phone is derived from in the constitution, the people. >> indeed. but the general welfare of the united states is the condition by which we can achieve our own success and happiness, not impose it upon us the federal government. >> we will conduct our law school seminar -- >> and i would also ask if you'd be willing to respond to the point that are made about interstate commerce, about a baby born within a state that accesses bill health care, crosses no state lines, lives and dies. how would they be covered under interstate commerce clause of the federal government? >> i think legislation as proposed exactly what you said, and that is to look out for all americans. that would be that child that didn't cross state lines as well. what you would have the commerce clause be read to mean that insurance companies, for example, can cross state lines.

that's all one of your mantras so that they can sell across state lines. it would lead a state like mine and a district like mine, and dan webster's and knew just a district where we have high incidence of retired persons, people, lots of them are in my district over 80 would be left uninsured, because we have seen it on automobile insurance. we have seen it on wind insurance when we had hurricanes, the insurance companies go elsewhere. i'm not mad with it. they have a right to pursue their bottom line. but they will cherry-pick and therein lies another commerce clause -- >> commerce clause -- >> would the gentleman yield? >> i am not going to yield now because i have a number of questions and i don't want to take all of the questions of my college. last night eight -- someone, that kathy castor knows well, and i don't know, my colleagues,

mr. webster and mr. nugent new catherine kelly. but catherine died last month. she supported me in 1992, and she did so for the reason that i made a speech in west palm beach that she attended. and i advocated universal health care. and she came up to me. i didn't know her from anybody, and she said, do you know something young men? i'm going to support you because i believe in universal health care, too. among the in this is that i thought of in 1992 have to do with the establishing of universal health care, and i had as a subset the great need that we had and have in this nation of, for people to live in adequate housing. followed closely of course as all of us do by the need to educate our children.

catherine had health care, because she was wealthy. her husband had good health insurance. for the same reasons. she labored in nursing care, and a variety of forms, for the last two years of for life. i last communicated with her six months of those which she had undergone inhalation therapy. i don't know what her medical bills were, and it's not my business. i'm pretty sure that they were rather considerable. but i do know this. that catherine would have given her last time to ensure that the least of us in this great america would have the same opportunities that she did as she exited life. and thought that income that's just a slight memorial to the loss of a great american, as many of us have had, who advocated for more than what we

did in the measure that was passed in the last session of congress. now been, for 48 years i've had good health insurance. began my practice with the lawyer that allow the both of us understood that one of us could die and we wanted the other end his or her family to be protected. so what we did was we got a buy and sell agreement and had insurance specialists come in and said that even in our days, plans for the. i went on to become a state judge and i had to cross blue shield in florida. good health care. i would ought to be a federal judge. i had good health care. thrown off the federal bench and i had enough money to buy blue cross blue shield again. and then came here and guess what? i still have blue cross blue shield of florida, and i have good health care. i come at this from the

standpoint of i'm all right. i'm -- my mom had good health care, not because of what she could afford, but she had an only son who could afford to provide for her, as i did before she died. yet medicare and medicare health helped an awful lot but it doesn't pay the thousands of dollars of bills for home health care and a number of other measures along those lines. some of our colleagues, specifically a couple of them are in the room, representative welch, issue, ms. capps. i didn't see her yet. jane harman, jan schakowsky, i saw her over there, bruce braley and several of us are cosponsors of legislation that they have offered that would include the elimination of lifetime limits, the coverage of individuals up

to 26, the requirement that individuals not be denied preexisting conditions, and the requirement that preventive care be provided free of charge, including the provision that recently took effect, providing preventive services. mr. upton, do you deem it unreasonable that that measure could go forward and then the things that you and the resolution is offered by the chair could be undertaken? >> let me just say, particularly as i looked at the very talented and thoughtful members on energy and commerce committee, many of them who you just cited. and i consider as my dear friends. as we look at a bill to replace the repeal of this bill, that that certainly would be considered in the full and open debate, not only the health subcommittee, but the subcommittee as well. something that i would note did not happen in the passage of the

house bill because they skipped the health subcommittee. it went directly to the full committee. but i would think that ms. capps who is -- you haven't decided actually, ranking member waxman i don't think has decided yet the ranking member is for the membership of that subcommittee. we are in the process of doing that now on the republican side. but i would think under the fair and open process if we're going to have it that would be an amendment that would be offered and we will see what happens. they will be debate. >> do you think -- >> in committee, absolutely. that's going to happen. >> we have that opportunity. >> i would note that a number if not all of those provisions, at least most of them were in fact in chairman dreier's statement of things that he would support it as a basis of how we would replace this bill, i think that those certainly are building blocks that most of those if not

all -- >> i reclaim my time. where is the data that you'll have reflecting at what has passed and what is the law of the land as we continue to debate on repeal. engine installed on your repeal measure sort of a stab at the legislature, you call it job killing. i forget the exact name, but it's the repeal of patient protection and affordable -- what is it called -- job killing. but the job killing part continues to stick out at me. where have the jobs been killed? where did you see -- >> we'll be glad to get you that evidence for the record before the day is out. >> all right then, do that. we also get for me the jobs that were made as result -- >> i would note that in my testimony i talk about the

nearly 400,000 jobs that speaker pelosi said would come out, come about almost automatically. i noted the 15,000 jobs that are in the bill for the irs. i don't think have come yet, but i have not seen a great number of jobs in the 400,000. >> the big number lost a you a true health care, you said when this bill passed this guy would come falling. it didn't. and we still are alive and well. you talk in here as if the american public, all of them in agreement with everything that you say. there are many things not to like in this bill and there are things to light in this bill. there are many people in america who like a lot of this bill, and determine who likes it the most and who likes it the least is something that i gather that all of us can do. but let's go to the neutral, and i ask about this and last night's rules committee hearing, the neutral cbo process. mr. chairman, i'm going to ask

that the january 6 reference from dr. elmendorf of the congressional budget office be made a part of this record. thank you mr. kerry. i wish to read one paragraph. cbl has not yet developed a detailed estimate of the budgetary impact of repealing that legislation. that's the question that i raised last night by going forward without having a cbo score. although it is working with the step of the joint committee on taxation to complete such an estimate in the near future, because congressional deliberations on h.r. two could begin very soon, cbo is providing in this letter a less detailed preliminary analysis of that legislation. cbl and jcc estimated that the march 10 health care legislation would reduce budget deficit over

the 2010-2019 period, and in subsequent years. consequently, we expect that repealing that legislation would increase budget deficit. now, a lot of talk goes on director about budget deficit. do you all agree that the repeal of this legislation will increase budget deficit? mr. king. >> you don't? cdo is wrong? >> would the gentleman yield? i just am starting others and i've only begun to have gone through legislation as the legislation that is set to be repeal before that the 112th congress, of which i think this guy actually did fall for people here, as tax increases in the dark output into the funding that you're discussing. it has a $532 billion cut to

measure serves in the country that's also calculated. i don't know all of the assumptions of cbo. i know those two things i think that needs to be taken into account rather than just the way the paper. >> so you on the 10 year tax benefit, six years, tax hike, six years benefit that can't or wrongly asserts. and if you look at the charge that cbo utilizes you will find that estimate is wrong. again, to show you what you're getting ready to do, and while you should listen to mr. mcgovern and ms. slaughter andy and others, i'm sure he talks, let's tell you what you're getting ready to do. in my state. i will let mr. webster and mr. nugent to pay particular attention. without this affordable health care act, what we will have its 83,300 young adults will lose

their insurance coverage. more than 8.7 million residents in florida with private insurance coverage would suddenly find themselves vulnerable again having lifetime limits placed on how much insurance companies will spend on their health. nearly 1.1 million people in florida alone are at risk of losing their insurance. nearly 1 million residents of florida would not know if they are receiving value for their health insurance premium dollars as in shooters in the state would no longer be required to spend at least 80-85% of premium dollars on health care rather than ceo salaries, bonuses and corporate profits. no interest i would no longer be required to cover recommended preventive services like mammograms and flu shots without cost shooting. nearly 3.3. you million seniors

in florida would have medicare coverage by be forced to enter co-pay or nearly 3.2 million seniors in florida that medicare coverage would have to pay extra if they want to stay healthy by getting checkups regularly. 182000, 672 medicare patients would see significantly higher prescription drug costs that you all stand accused of repeatedly not filling the donut hole, this legislation starts by telling 50% of it and could benefit those persons who are my constituents that are in that donut hole, and now you would repeal it and say we start all over again but i don't know we needed you propose, so put it back where it is now, but i gather you do intend. florida would not receive additional resources to crack down on unreasonable insurance premium increases or florida would not receive additional plans for health insurance exchange.

maybe they won't have to. they just will have lost the money that was provided if you decide not to have one. florida would not receive arms to support her grams and 190 employers, 190 employers would not be receiving health from the early retiree insurance. don't stop there. let's go nationwide. 142000, again, in the donut hole in my state. 293 already signed up preexisting conditions. the 1 million-dollar crackdown that i pointed out to you, that has already been set forth. let's talk about grants. in the state of florida alone, and this is true in all of your states, let's just talk about grants. already, already 26 million plus dollars in a therapeutic discovery project programs and tax credit grants have been allocated. other grants, 1.79 for

demonstration projects to address health professionals workforce needs. 3.4 million for early child, this is already done. 500,000 for disability resources. medicare improvements for patients and providers. 2.1 million to strengthen public health infrastructure to improve health. 5.4 million in communities putting prevention to work grants awarded mr. chairman, i'm so glad you put that in the rules or. 600,000, i will get that word right, laboratory and health information system capacity. 1.3 million very much needed in florida for hiv prevention and public health fund activities where we have already seen cutoffs that are causing people not to be able to get drugs to keep them alive. $3 million to ever let the

national background check program for long-term health workers. $6.7 million for the primary care residents expansion program. 2.1 voting for advanced nursing education. 600,000 to expand physician assistant train. 14.5 million to support capital development and health center. 1.4 million for medicare improvements. i will spare you the national detail suffice it to say that they mirror what's happening in florida. but what i want you to tell me is if you are successful, and you're not going to be, but if you were successful, other than passing it here in the house of representatives, which is your prerogative, and he goes to the senate, and if you are fortunate enough to get senators crazy enough to sign on to this incident to the president, and he caved, what would you say to all of those people, and how will we get that money back, and how will that not be a loss to the federal government?

>> again, as mr. king said earlier, no one is talking about taking away money that is already been, the czechs have been already do. >> i hope that means -- >> we are committed, all of us here as well as dave camp, chairman of the ways and means committee, to come back with a plan that replaces the repeal. most members of congress to support reform of health care. the question is, you want to reform the past without amendment which just took the senate bill last year was ramrodded down our throats, or do you want to come back and look at an open process where we can look at common ground that actually makes improvements to the criticism as chairman dreier indicated in his opening statement. that's what those of us here at the table today stand ready and prepared to move forward.

>> i think he will repeal in a manner that will hurt america come intimate millions of american jobs in spite of what you say, and i believe that it explodes the federal deficit. it certainly does but announced and already cbo score that leaves $143 billion, and i believe that there will be millions of people that would be affected by this. i would like to at this time yield for the ranking member. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. i thought that you asked very interesting, important questions earlier in your enlightening testimony about how many jobs this created. since this health care bill went into effect. private employers have added 935,000 jobs to their payroll, and in health care sector sector is at 100 additional thousand

jobs. that for a job killer bill is not doing its job very well, is it? >> thank you, madam president slaughter. for the young people in this audience, as you heard me say, those of you who are in the room, or would it years i've had good insurance. i don't know how many of you have had good, bad or indifferent insurance. but i would ask any member in here who has had insurance in the last 20 years, and if you have had it continuously for the last 20 years, as i have and as the chairman has and others in the room may have, if you have had insurance and you did not choose to increase your deductible or choose to have extracted from it benefits that you may have derived, one that

they didn't get straight into recently, for example, dental care, one that they need to get on with is long-term and therapeutic care for individua individuals. but in the last 20 years, how many of you have had your insurance, health insurance, go down? ratio hands. the point i wish to make is health insurance is going up before this measure, but i rather suspect that if we're not careful health insurance will continue to go up if we let the insurance companies banded. and you tell them that's what i said they are, get away with it. >> does the gentleman yield back? >> thank you very much, mr. hastings. mr. woodall. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the opportunity to

be here today. this was a discussion that i had throughout the past year, in the spirit of full disclosure i'm a cosponsor of h.r. two, proud cosponsor of h.r. two. down in the southern district of georgia before march 30 of 2010, we used to talk about solutions. we were talking about the health care costs rising as they have been over decades. we would talk about health care access. we were talking about some of the solutions that republicans put in place in 1996 at the federal level for federal plans. but the moment obamacare past, on march 30, 2010, that discussion stop. no more were we talking about solutions. we're talking about repeal. my constituents were so alarmed, so disturbed by to take we have freedoms they had, their health care decisions, that take away the increase in tax dollars they were expanding. the entire anti-discussion of productive solutions was

completely subsumed by this new discussion of repeal and trying to get back to a level of status quo that we could again begin to find solutions from. i would like to ask, i think i heard you say that you are committed to going back to that place where we were, that earnest search for solutions, whether the medical malpractice solution or whether the access solutions, or whether it be further for reforms that is that an accurate reflection of your commitment here today, not just her hope and dream butcher commitment you're getting? >> that's a commitment from all of us. we made that clear from the beginning. as the debate went on for months and months and went through the campaign, it became clear i think he was here and we certainly were hearing from the constituents in our districts and for people throwing rocks at town hall meetings and so forth that ms. slaughter brought up, that they didn't like this legislation but it's not that they didn't want the old status

quo. they wanted to prove us. but they didn't like what we are calling obamacare. this job killed legislation. i talked to small businesses in roundtables and one on one and they told me they're not making decisions to hire. they are looking at this law. they're looking at the provisions i outlined in my opening comments were if you're sitting around 50 employees, you're making decisions to not hire. those are not the kind of decisions that we want our business to be making. we want to put americans back to work. so we believe that you can get a better solution if you can clean the table of this job killing law to legislation, and then go forward and start taking steps, some of which have been outlined, discussed here today that will help lower the cost of health care and allow people to have insurance. we have a commitment, and i think chairman dreier has a resolution that will, in fact, address, direct us to take that up. >> i very much appreciate that.

mr. king. >> thank you, mr. whittle. in response to that i wanted to express how we do this before but i think it's universal among republicans that we want to make improvements in health care policy once we get into the foundation that you referenced in your statement. and i was one of a number of authors to join together to draft and establish a declaration of health care independence. put it right on a document that looks like the declaration of independence. it has a lease 100 signatures other members of the 111th congress. we read it alongside mr. dreier's resolution. it's consistent with mr. dreier's resolution. so not only do we intend to file down through those lines, we have 100 members of the 111th congress that signed the document consistent with it. i would submit, i do think it's necessary for us to go forward with a comprehensive reform or repeal and replace bill. i think we do all of these changes individual one at a time

standalones so the american people can hear the debate, weigh in on and not have to make a decision on a long package. that would be decision made by others by want to make that point thank you. >> one of my commitments was to work to bring the simplest bill as possible to the fore. and i'm thankful to the chairman of the rules committee for bringing this very simple one line, one page piece of legislation to the floor. i was taught by mr. hastings list of all the things that the obamacare legislation is going to do for florida. i confessed even though we are neighbors across the border, mr. hastings, i'm not aware of what all does in florida. we in georgia are involved in a lawsuit to overturn obamacare as a strong states rights proponent good we are not giving up on health care in georgia. we have tremendous solutions going on in our state legislature. tremendous programs. but our state has decided that this piece of legislation is

restricted as opposed to something that encourages oversight. do you all see what your solutions that will come forward down the road as something that we in a states rights location, where we think we've our own good idea would encourage us? do you see more federal solutions instore? >> i know as we look at the replacement side of health care, as well as looking at the many individual troublespots in existing bill that did pass last winter, i'm going to be asking the governors to be very actively engage with our committee, and subcommittee. that they come and tell us precisely what is happening in their state of georgia or florida or michigan, or california or new jersey, new york, et cetera. i want the governors to weigh in in terms of how they will pay for the additional cost. one of the things that has not been mentioned today of course

is the requirement states take up or expand the medicaid rolls up to 133%. though i don't know tremendous about your background, i know that states like mine which has a big deficit issue and does not and will not raise taxes, all of a sudden because medicaid is a plan that has always been shared between the federal government and the states, how are the states going to cover these additional costs during these very difficult economic times? in my state, 12, 13, 14% unemployment over the last three years. how are we going to do that? i want to get others to tell us exactly what these new burdens are going to do to their state. and one that also supports states rights, i think that's a very important integral part of what this congress goes in terms of looking at legislation to replace the bill that i do

predict will be repealed, at least in the house next week. >> did your research, i won't go into the litany that i did, just the health care law, 3005 agenda does in georgia will lose their insurance? 5 million residents in georgia be vulnerable again, 387,000 people in georgia, are at risk of losing their insurance. and 380,000 residents, george would not know if they are receiving value because of those provisions. >> reclaiming my time. i'm grateful for that and i don't doubt those figures in the least. that's one of the things that's great about coming from the great state of georgia. i've talked to some other junk people who are now getting free insurance on their parents policies. that was insurance that was paid

for two years ago that they are now getting for today. there are smart folks in georgia. i set want to hire the best and brightest georgia and i can find. they don't want to come here because they want to stay in georgia. they know when they get added to the paris policy they're not getting something for free. they are getting something they pay for two years ago. i've got to tell you for all the distinctions we met in this country, georgia doesn't want to ride on the backs of anybody. we can solve our health care problems all by ourselves, with all due respect to the very bright minds here at this table. we are looking to them to help governor deal solve these problems, not mandate solutions upon us. >> look at that specific provision, i would note that within the republican proposal that most republicans voted for in the last congress, the idea that children up to the age of 25, would qualify and their parents plan.

>> i tremendously appreciate that commitment, and of all the things i've heard of health care over the past nine months today has been the most encouraging. i think you all and i yield ba back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate her initial outline of the five areas for improvement i think there's ample ground for bipartisan cooperation on some of those. certainly with regard to the 1099 fix. we did bring that forward last july on a suspension. i supported it unfortunately. it did die with insufficient support from the other side of the aisle. we are glad to see that now there is support for the. i know that was an issue of how to pay for. with regard to elements of bill that could be conceived as destroying jobs, i think that's a critical piece to fix. the present is on board fixing that. i have consisted competition across state lines, and hopeful their mighty opportunity to work together with regard to that, i understand having heard why this

is coming so quickly, i think there was a commitment made they should happen soon up on the start of the new congress. maybe that's a week or two weeks or three weeks. it's probably not a month or two months or three months, but it's sometime soon. i'm glad we're able to receive a preliminary congressional budget office score. there's a bit of a leap of trust you when you're telling us don't worry, some of the good things, we'll find a way to do. i'll get into house resolution nine in a moment. the one piece that i think, i'm shocked and surprised is not part of this because even if we act quickly, is the offset for the $230 billion this would increase the deficit over 10 years. my question is first, why does this not include offsets? this is a deficit neutral bill. do we have your commitment in this bill passes for your committee to identify where the $230 million is coming from so that this is not increase the

deficit? >> let me answer the second part of that. i know that our committee is going to be looking at, as i sat down with a couple of members of the administration in the new year, and as i've talked to them about the budget they will be proposing out in mid-february, we are going to be looking in every department and agency to look for savings. i thought that the president's proposal is very reasonable in terms of the pay freeze for all, colin freeze i should say for all federal employees over the next two years. i think maybe in the past some of those proposals may have been offered as a former member of the republican administration who worked at omb. often i know it's an budget request to come up, particularly when it's a different party would be dead on arrival. we are going to be looking at

all of the president's proposals to save money. i've instructed members on my side to go visit the agency to see what we can find budget savings and we will see where they total up. >> i welcome that. those of us who care about the deficit welcome that. i worry that as an initial out of the gate bill we have what is really the most expensive one page bill in the history of congress. we have a $230 billion bill as a one page bill. the first $230 billion to identify and savings. i'm hopeful and wish you well. we will come up with ideas, too. the money about that will go to reduce deficit and fund any of the programs that you're looking to find. we certainly wish you well in that regard. i just wish that is part of this initial effort consistent with can't go and consistent with rules package there wasn't offset with regard to this. we will wish you well and, of course, just keep in mind the

first $230 billion in cuts to come up with is simply to pay for this one page bill above and beyond that, we have to make a dent in the deficit. i also want to bring up what we are going to replace this with. i was just looking at house resolution nine, and i guess there's a number of things in there that have broad bipartisan support. providing people with pre-existing condition access to affordable health care coverage, something we accomplished in this bill and we look for two of the ways of publishing that, preserving patient's ability keep their health care plan. when we feel very strongly about is increasing the number of insured americans. i'm happy that's in there. that's something we feel very strongly about. one of the shortcomings, i will address us to our chairman, wide these are all four conditions rather than and conditions.

so the worry is that what one oe precipice protecting doctor-patient relationships are technically they say we protected doctor-patient relationships. >> let me just explain. i think my friend, as you see we have three committees represented. there is a fourth committee, the ways and means to be. many these items are under the jurisdiction of many committees. that's the reason the word or was used. so that's the reason that or is there. so it is assumed that all these items are going to be addressed, and any other proposal. in introducing h.r. nine it was michael to ensure that we explore every possible way to ensure that we could drive the

cost of health insurance down for every american. i thank my friend for you think. >> i would simply suggest an alternate instructions i gave the appropriate areas of jurisdiction instruction to the proper committee. it would be possible to accomplish that, which would give more peace of mind, and i think let people know a little more explicitly than these were and conditions rather than just one of the above. >> the first paragraph actually says house legislation proposing changes to existing law within each committee's jurisdiction, provisions that. that part is fun. the problem is they are all or, or, or. >> and that is because items all within the jurisdiction of different committees. that's the reason. obviously, the issues that are as i said tort reform is not going to be addressed by

mr. fiennes committee. >> we look forward to seeing the legislative result of instructions which is where the rubber meets the road. >> commonsense or prevails and in no my friend speedy's i was just, if i might interject, i would note that chairman emeritus of dingell from energy and commerce, we would be glad of that jurisdiction with energy and commerce. >> a key element is there respectively each committee will do all -- >> would the gentleman -- let me just say that this is the language of the parliament time provided to us in drafting h.r. nine, and it's clearly understood that these are all items to be addressed. >> thank you for clarifying that. with regard, it's been tossed around, the language job killing. and i think in the opening remarks i think both mr. kline and mr. upton addressed it. >> is it that the title of the bill? >> it is. i think both of you hit upon it.

the employer mandate, which one of you refer to that? i think was mr. kline. -we all value intellectual consistency and honesty. my question with regard to employment it, mr. kline, is the employer mandate so high as to discourage employment, or is it in fact so low as to encourage companies to drop coverage? >> it's going to be -- your posting the question actually corrected but it's going to be jointly businesses will look at the example i can talk about is your a small business in at 49 of 50, you're going to look at the costs of going from 50 to 51, and there the costs are very high to do that. it will cost you over $40,000. you make a decision to not hire the additional person. that is a job killing decision. >> most companies already have benefits. i was a small business before he

came here, countries have seven people, 12 people, 15 people. they had that to begin with. so you are referring to come present a 49 people and don't provide benefits to their employees that are affected on the margin. with regard to companies that are 70 people, 80 people, 100 people -- >> and may not be provided the entrance exactly as dictated by the health care law. we have seen already the examples of where you have these mini med programs that part of the 222 waivers, as secretary sebelius has already had to give to businesses. >> to be clear again not at levels exactly indicated by law that rather minimal levels indicated by law. that is a minimal package that would be required in most benefits. it's not just checking a box and saying by the way, we provide you 50 bucks of coverage and that is in no means meaningful form of the coverage. what all this is about is reducing cost shifting which is

very inefficient with regard to how we pay for health care. this is not a principle but in any way, shape, or form contrary to the free market. what it is is a way of correcting for a market failure, and that is mainly the problem of people mooching off of others. me making a personal decision, i think was mr. king saying why is it anyone else's business, i'm in my castle or house and i choose not to of health care. why does that impact anybody else? it does because if you have a heart attack and call 911, you are picked up by a good, they bring you to the hospital, they operate on you if you need to come and guess what? somebody pays for the. the cost of treating you are hoisted onto somebody else and, therefore, becomes someone else's business. that other person to pay more for the other person. if you truly had a system we didn't have that, if you let that person died at the hospital or not even be picked up that would be one thing. we don't have that.

we have laws that require that if you have an emergency condition, the hospital is required to treat that. i would ask mr. king, you know, why this isn't consistent with this concept. >> the answer is because my state is consistent with the constitution. i'm making the point, and i since specifically there've always been and likely always be babies that were born, lived and died within the jurisdiction of the individual states who never cross a state line access to health care, and, therefore, do not impact interstate commerce, therefore compel someone who fits that category to buy an insurance policy and not be defined as within the confines of the interstate commerce clause. mr. hastings didn't answer the. >> my challenge, -- >> i am only simplex.

>> every human being in this country has access to health or even those who have religious objections to sort out health care still access health care. it is impossible to live without access to health care. >> it happens all the time. >> once that? >> it's happened all the time. it has happened in every country in the world. >> you find a baby that was not born in a hospital or with a midwife, did not receive inoculations, you find a baby and identify them and i will be happy to -- >> i hate to tell you that the bishop in garbage cans across this country. >> i sure hope not. show me, show me where somebody and we will continue that discussion. i wanted to get back to the so-called job killing beast with regard to the employer mandate and my discussion with mr. kline. i asked initially because i'd heard again, arduous of both

sides of people's mouths that the employer mandate is so onerous that will discourage employment, and that it is so marginal and a lot of people just drop coverage. i ask you to clarify, which one of those are two? you didn't answer that directly but you pointed to companies on the margin. i ask, is your concern about the job killing focused exclusively been in a small set of copies at 47, 4849 people, or are you also, do you also have concerns about the 100, 200 person company. and if so, i revise my initial question about whether you think it is too high or too little spirit it's not so much a question too high or too low. we use a voluntary system in this country for providing health care for employers. something they choose to do. they choose to provide health care as an incentive to hire, retain employees. we believe that that is their choice and out to be able to

choose to provide health care or not provide health care based on what is best in the business and not because congress mandated that they had to provide the coverage. >> and again this is my answer to that, and i will be completing my remarks after this as well. similar to my initial answer to mr. king and my discussion with mr. king, it's not a decision made in isolation. effectively have companies, companies of grace i said provide health care benefits to employees. they are passing the burden onto others. sometimes onto kenny's and states. sometimes on to other private employers who have to pay more for the insurance premiums for their employees because the cost of shifting for the uncovered has been shifted onto them. this is simply a matter of finding the proper cost allocation in an economy for everybody pays their fair share. icon set of individual responsibly that i think is asnsistent with republican ideas