health care reform. we certainly welcome ideas from both sides of the out and look forward to working with you do better accomplish economically what we need to with regard to the allocation of health care costs are again i think the main piece missing from this initial bill is the offsets. we look forward to finding out what the offsets are. of course, keep in mind that the first of offsets are paying for a very expensive one page bill. u..

any other taxes or other fees or costs that would be generated other than those that would affect the federal budget and the federal deficit? >> if i may, the cbo and we have had this discussion at great length as we were going through this, the cbo scores the legislation as it sits in front of them. they don't take into account outside considerations. one of the great disagreements that we had during the debate leading up to the bill's passage was that in order for the cbo score to balance in meet the presidents requirements, you had to assume that doctors were going to take a 21% cut in their medicare reimbursement, when every single member of congress knew that wasn't going to happen. and get to get the numbers to balance we had to assume that an cbo had to score it that way even though they knew, as did

every member of congress about what was going to happen. they score and we have talked about them being the judge on the field or the referee on the field. they do a good job of scoring what is in front of them but they do not, nor are they allowed to go and didn't speculate on other things. >> i would just note as well that the budget committee republicans in their analysis, figured it would actually increase the deficit by more than $700 billion over 10 years. and when you look at some of the things that cbo did of course or that the bill did, it increased taxes over 10 years, but most of the benefits don't kick in, except for the six years of that 10 year window. so a better reflection of the the score and he will member the president said he didn't want to do anything if it was going to increase the deficit, instead of

looking at a 10 year window maybe we have to look at a 15 year window or a 20 year window to determine the full cost of the american taxpayer. >> that is really what i wanted to discuss and that is after 10 years, our state, florida, there fmat for medicaid funding goes back to the way it was pretty recession, and in a huge chunk of that cost gets distributed to the state in such a way that it will take a doubling -- we don't have an income tax, we have a sales tax. it will take a doubling of our sales tax just to cover that portion of the bill. that is not in any way, in any part of the cbo's score of a particular piece of legislation so the overall cost to the local and state governments which is going to soar in in gear 11 i assume, is not reflected in any

of this. >> would the senator yield on that point? i thank my friend for yielding and i appreciate his thoughtful remarks. we have obviously in response to the cbo letter that was just received have a response put together by the budget committee pointing to the fact that there is $2.7 trillion, $2.7 trillion in additional spending that is included in this measure and i'm going to ask unanimous consent to place in the record this analysis that has been done because if you look at the added fees and taxes that are imposed, it is very obvious that we are, you know again it is to me and comprehensible to me to believe that somehow this massive expansion of federal government and its mandates dictate is going to end up being a cost savings and i think this study shows that. >> without objection, i am going to place this in the record. is there objection?

would you like to reserve the right to object? so you would like to reserve the right to object and in so doing, i would say -- [inaudible] you reserve the right to object to do that and i will happily give you a copy. there is no objection. it is not the -- the budget committee's report will appear in the record. >> would the gentleman yield for a second? what i find disturbing about this exchange right now is that we are being informed that basically there will be no more neutral budget group of experts any more. the cbo for whatever reason if you don't like it you are going to toss it aside but basically all the budget numbers that we are going to ace legislation on is going to be made up by republicans on the house budget committee. i find it very disturbing. >> would the gentleman yield on that point? if we look at the opening day

rules package offered yesterday one of the things that we have found here is that if you take the six-year versus the 10 year window for consideration of this measure, we have dramatic tax increases and as you go to the out-years it is the reason we made the changes. we want to project and i thank my friend for yielding. we want to project 220 and 30 years beyond so that we we can't all of a sudden say we are going to have savings early on and then have an explosion, an explosion of spending in the out-years and exacerbate the deficit problem. >> putting aside the budget process and i think that is a big mistake. >> i have a question about the fact. >> we are trying to make it more accurate and accountable and i thank my friend for yielding. >> i thank the gentleman from florida, mr. webster. there is a missing point here. we are talking about the scoring in the number 230 or so billion dollars and i know that we have had discussions and previous congress about dynamically scored.

i don't propose to put a number on a dynamically scored impact of this repeal bill but i think it will be significant and tremendous and we are talking about the damage to the freedom and vitality of american tier. i am one who started a business with nothing and i know the psychology of fear and government regulations, primarily that role regulations but also state regulations and if you are looking at obamacare hanging over your head and you are hesitant potential leading entrepreneur you are always less likely to enter into its starting a business if you would be otherwise. is in just a the businesses that come to 49 employees and decide not to expand to 50 or 51. does the businesses that will never be formed if we don't repeal this bill and that is the point that can't be quantified by a cbo score and can be quantified by the judgment of people who have started businesses and written paychex. i thank you and i yield back. >> mr. chairman ali wanted to know was what the score was, and i found out what the score is.

>> thank you very much and he will continue with the score is in years to come and it is always a challenge mr. webster. gentlemen, thank you very much for being here. appreciate your patience and forbearance as we have gone through this process and we look forward to considering this rule on this measure on the house floor. first i would like to call the dean of the house, mr., forward. and i would like to actually call a number of members who are on the energy and commerce committee but i would first like to ask the dean, i know you have been here. we have other members. we have other members, we have other members of the energy and commerce committee here. mr. andrews is here and i would like to have as many members of the energy and commerce committee as we possibly can come forward. if you could pull some seats up to the table. who are the other members of the commerce committee who are here? ms. caps, we are proceeding with the energy and commerce

committee select me just say that what we will do is -- i am sorry? what i would like to do at this point, i would like to call up members of the energy and commerce committee. >> mr. chairman if you would consider our leadership has asked a number of members to introduce the concepts behind these amendments, so the members could speak. >> let me just say we have our witness list in your name is not included on the witness list at all that was submitted to us and a list that was submitted to us has is going to the energy and commerce committee and then to the education and workforce committee. that is the list that has been provided to majority and minority members as well. we have the dean of the house here and when i saw him come and i wanted to go to him first as well as the other members of the committee who are listed here. with all due respect, i want to show deference to the dean of

the house. >> we will certainly be guided by the ranking member. >> i was curious, you say mr. andrews will not be able to testify because we have always let members testify when they came up. >> madam chair i'm not denying any member the opportunity to testify. >> that is what i thought i heard you say. >> let me restate it again. okay mr. slaughter i will state this again. the dean of the house came in and according to the witness list that we have here that was submitted to you before as we put this together, we have committee on energy and commerce. do you see that? the dean of the house john dingell and john dingell is here. what i have said is what we are going to do now is we are going to hear from members of the energy and commerce committee. mr. andrews is not a member of the energy and commerce committee. >> if i make him understand the members have multiple offers for multiple committees and. >> we are going to hear from every single one.

>> let me ask this question. i don't know about yours-- deals with the repeal of protection. >> let me explain the way the rules committee works here. may i tell you how the rules work? may i explain to you how the rules committee is working here and always has? the lead committee of jurisdiction happens to be the energy and commerce committee. john dingell is the dean of the house, chairman emeritus of the energy and commerce committee and i have decided as chairman of this committee that i want to recognize the chairman emeritus of the energy and commerce committee as well as the members of the energy and commerce committee who reported this measure out. we are going to hear from any member of this house who wants to testify on this. now if a request has been made by your leadership to me before the structure is put into place i would have clearly considered that so i would now like to call in mr. dingell, the dean of the house. i am not going to go through the

list. you can consult with a minority leaders. you would consult with the minority members if you would like to see that so i would like to call on mr. dingell and the members of the energy and commerce committee. >> mr. chair i thank you for your consideration. he is one of those who is very active in the authoring of the legislation. as you know mr. chairman i am one who has worked on this for a long time. i am one of the authors of the legislation as was my dad. i found the discussions before this committee to be most interesting and useful. is my hope that they would the replicated on the floor and perhaps replicated in hearings which we could have so that, so that the committees would have a chance to bring their respective expertise and responsibilities under the jurisdiction to bear on the legislation so that we can have a better product. i would note that the committee

on commerce and others have had as many as 79 bipartisan hearings on the legislation which is being repealed by h.r. 2 and testimonies have bettered 181 witnesses and hours and hours and hours of hearings. in contrast i know h.r. 2 was written in the dark of the night without a single committee hearing and without going through proper legislative channels. there is a question as to whether or not it in fact does do the things which have been announced by speaker boehner when he said we need to stop writing bills in the speaker's office and let members of congress be legislators again. he went on to say that process starts in the committee and of course i would love to see that happen because i believe there are many misunderstandings without this legislation which i think proper hearings would correct. the title of the bill shows that there is some misunderstanding of what the legislation being

introduced as h.r. 2 in fact does. it calls it repealing the job-killing health care law act, and yet studies show of us that 4 million more jobs will be created then would be created without reform. that is something that i think we ought to address. the congressional budget office and health care reform reduces the deficit live $143 billion in the first 10 years alone and would reduce the deficit by more than a trillion dollars in the next decade. h.r. 2 wood according to cbo increase the deficit and add to the already troubling task of reducing our skyrocketing deficit as well as addressing the skyrocketing increase in the cost of health care in this country. it would also, h.r. 2 would also return us to the very regrettable situation where we

had a sick and nonfunctioning health care system in this country. of course, one of the interesting things it would abolish some $40 billion in tax cuts to small businesses and provide health care bridge for their employees. tax cuts are being utilized by small businesses across the country. i noticed this violates the taxes in the 112 congress. repealing the affordable care act would put seniors in the position of having to choose between a life leaving -- lifesaving prescription by opening the prescription drug gap. the last time the majority was in charge they created this drug gap forcing thousands of seniors to pay full price for prescription drugs, something which many cannot afford. the affordable care act as already began closing this gap and the first offering a rebate to seniors at the gap by giving people in the cap a 50% discount for brand-name drugs.

because of that statute, the affordable care act the gap will be close completely by the end of this decade. i'd hope that this committee would address some important russians. what is it about health care that the new majority wants to repeal so much? is it preventing insurance companies from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions? is a demanding oversight and accountability the insurance companies premium increases? is a preventing insurance companies from placing arbitrary limits on coverage or perhaps is that allowing young adults to stay on their parents plans until age 26? i would not there are a number of amendments proposed by my colleagues who are here at the table with me and others and i would hope that the majority will keep its promise of openness and will allow not only the offering of these amendments but will allow us to proceed in the regular order by having this kind of legislation of vast complexity and of great

controversy to be heard before the committees in a proper way, subject to whatever necessary limitations may be required to assure the committees act expeditiously to present the legislation to the house for proper consideration after having heard from people who have real concerns with regard to what the legislation will do. and also having a good understanding of what it is the legislation does to people, so that when we go home to answer the questions of our people we will be able to say we have had a responsible consideration of this legislation, something which has enabled us to present the people of this country with not only the best legislation but all of the answers to questions surrounding it. i ask unanimous consent to insert the balance of my statement and the record and i thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you very much mr. dingell.

ms. eshoo. let me just explain that it is my intention to follow regular order for consideration of this measure under the house rules. which is the way would be handled on the house floor by seniority and by committees of jurisdiction. i look forward to hearing from mr. andrews and because we have these different committees of jurisdiction and we have had so many members who have been waiting for a long period of time, mr. is a member of the energy and commerce committee and i'm going to be calling on him to testify and when we are completed with the commerce committee again your name is not on the list as a witness. there was no requests made for you to be a witness. mrs. lauder has inform emit that now there are several amendments that you all have an people want to testify together on that. would like to be flexible and allow you to come and join other members of the structure we have right now and a regular order of the house is for us to hear from members of the energy and commerce can be and then we proceed to the committee on

education and the workforce following that. that is pretty much the list of witnesses we have from those committees. we have mr. conyers. i don't know if he is going to be here on the judiciary committee. that is the intention i have as far as proceeding. we have a full day ahead of us. >> i appreciate your comments, but you know i think the practice over the last four years anyway has been that while we try to follow the witness list in terms of committee jurisdiction, when they're amendments that multiple people people. >> let me say i was happy to yield but let me explain what is happened. you know the room is filled with colleagues of ours who are from the committee of jurisdiction and mr. welch has been here since i arrived at about 9:45 this morning. and i will say that i believe out of respect to the members who have prime jurisdiction and have obviously been waiting to come before this committee, that we should recognize them so does my intention to follow the rules of the house when it comes to

testimony at this juncture and the rules are to recognize by seniority the committees of jurisdiction. i have just done that i beginning with the chairman emeritus of the next ranking member is ms. eshoo. >> thank you mr. chairman and good afternoon everyone. and a special warm welcome to the new members of congress, the new members of this committee. i appreciate the time and the opportunity to speak on a very important amendment that i'm offering to maintain a provision in the patient protection and affordable care act, which protects individuals and families when it comes to caps on our health insurance policies. i have been here since about 10:00 a.m., and what i am struck with in all of this is as painful as it is, coming out of the campaign and the rhetoric that takes place in campaigns,

that when we get here we have to deal with specifics. and not be -- these general issues we all make in a campaign. and the specifics are the very specifics that people deal with in their day-to-day lives. your constituents and mine as well. more than half of all existing private health insurance policies in our country have in place in fine print a lifetime limit on benefits. i first introduce legislation on this issue in 1996, and i named the bill after the wonderfully optimistic christopher reeves, who championed this issue because of what happened in his life and mirrored what happens in the lives of your constituents as well as mine. it was an uphill battle to get people to understand the

harrowing experiences of those who have hit the cap as well as the basic notion that they area in the fine print of health insurance policies was language that essentially cuts people off from benefits once the ceiling was hit. frankly, most people were not aware that this fine print existed in their insurance policies. it was a surprise to them. we all know that medical costs have continued to climb, actually skyrocket over the years and caps on insurance plans basically stayed the same. insurers often set the cap between one, two, up to $3 million, which sounds high, but they not cover the cost of the baby born with a disability, adults with chronic diseases, those who struggle with a sudden illness or as christopher reeves experienced, a tragic accident. it was in a quest in --

equestrian accident that caused his perilous asian. today almost everyone knows about the implications of a lifetime cap. once a patient has the cap they are immediately dropped from their plan, regardless of their medical situation. cancer patients, these are all our constituents, and i don't think there is a congressional district in the country that doesn't have a constituent that has these occurrences in their lives. cancer patients in the middle of chemotherapy or teenage hemophiliacs on expensive blood clotting medications can be released from their insured without any real hope of finding or finding another plan that is going to cover them. that is why this legislation that you are repealing, which contains the removal of this cap is essential for you to address.

we hold in the palm of our hands the lives of every human being in this country. it matters not what their party registration is, and so this is something that we all need to deal with. there was a specific purpose as to why it was placed in the act, and so i am asking a the majority and the minority to see to it that this amendment is made in order. understand that's defective -- effective september 23 of last year, the lifetime caps were eliminated. i think that was a step in the right direction for our country. we all speak of the perfection of this union. go to those patients, your constituents in your districts,

and they will confirm that. it has brought more perfection to their lives. i think we need to move forward and not backwards. i think that we need to pay attention to the details and not just simply the rhetoric that goes on in campaigns. as appropriate as that is in campaigns, we need to deal with that. there is something else that i'm asking the members to keep in mind of the committee. that this not only has overwhelming public support, but it actually saves the government money. medicare and medicaid do not impose caps on the sickest and the most costly patients. they are those that are moved into those programs and they will be if this is repealed, is going to increase the burdens of these public health insurance

programs. when we buy insurance to protect us, and when we buy insurance to protect us when we need it most. not to be dumped when it becomes inconvenient. so this amendment will continue to honor their protection against lifetime caps in the affordable health care act, and i really urge all members, regardless of your party registration, do you think of this as a nonpartisan issue. it is why we put it in the bill, we put it in the bill because of the experience of the lives of our constituents. i thank you for your time and urge you to consider making amendments possible to this bile is a repeal of this, and i didn't hear the chairman and maybe he wants to address this in his list of principles, that

the limit on lifetime caps -- i didn't hear you speak to that and i haven't heard others speak to it either. this is absolutely critical,. >> thank you very much for that. let me just say i appreciate your testimony and i want to hear from the witnesses from the energy and commerce committee but the fact is obviously in a dress mind i am calling for everything to be addressed and you will have an opportunity when it comes to your committee to obviously racist and i hope very much that it is adequately address. ms. schakowsky. >> thank you mr. chairman and -. >> ms. capps and mrs. capps. >> chairman dreier, chairman dreier ranking member slaughter and members of the rules committee and i apologize particularly to the new members who my back is turned to. >> actually most of them have already left.

>> alright. i do appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to support a series of amendments being discussed today with the stronghold that needs to be made with the republican bill to repeal the affordable care act. i strongly support the many efforts of my colleagues who are fighting to retain many important provisions of this law. i want to speak today to endorse a specific group of amendments that will ensure the critical consumer protection included in the health insurance reform will be preserved, even today, critical benefits that this repeal would take away from the millions of americans who need it most and many of whom are already enjoying and having their lives improved dramatically by the passage of the law and the provisions that are already in effect. this includes key provisions of the patients bill of rights that will allow individuals with preexisting conditions to get health insurance. the elimination of lifetime and animal limits on care which my colleague has really endorse so

well, regulations allowing young adults to stay on the parents plan until they are 26, many of our constituents have already taken advantage of that. new provisions allowing for free preventive care for all americans including seniors. cost savings device, taxpayer savings device. most of these provisions are already in effect and now as they mention most of our constituents many of our constituents are enjoying the benefits. across the country and in my own district i've witnessed how parents of nick and thin piece of mind that their children will not be, go in churches because they graduated from high school. seniors have received much needed financial assistance to pay for prescription drugs when they reach the dreaded doughnut hole, saving taxpayer dollars. women no longer need to worry about insurance company abuses considering their gender. a preexisting condition and how all americans are now eligible for preventive screening like

mammograms and colonoscopies for free but also again the savings taxpayer dollars, helping their pocketbook and improving their health. those who are sick have received even more benefits. a diagnosis no longer brings with it the fear that you will be dropped from your plan. lifetime coverage limits, fine print that was explained that can thrust the family into bankruptcy if someone gets cancer or another serious illness. these are now a thing of the past and because the law bans insurance companies from denying those with preexisting conditions and rescissions individuals who need it the most will no longer be dropped from their plants are denied coverage because they are sick and our constituents are realizing this and realizing the benefits. i am here today supporting the specific revisions not just because my background as a nurses shall mean the importance of these critical reforms but to speak or those who did not have a chance to voice their opinions in a single committee hearing on this misguided legislation. perhaps my constituents, and i

will now specify the strong family of santa barbara put it best. when asked what the health insurance reform law means to them this is what they said. it means we no longer have to lose sleep worrying about heading for bankruptcy when they hit the lifetime cap on a health insurance policy and become immediately uninsurable due to our daughter's preexisting terminal illness. to take away the security of the affordable care act has given this particular family without a single committee hearing or markup, without hearing the millions of other stories like fairs across the country is an irresponsible political stunt. of these amendments are critical to day to all americans and i urge you to make them in order for an up-or-down vote on the floor of the house of representatives. thank you and i welcome any questions. >> thank you very much ms. capps. >> i'm here is a proud member of or a the energy and commerce

committee having held the house subcommittee working hard to provide language to provide tools to ensure that health premiums are reasonable and individual consumers and businesses get value for their premium dollar by ensuring that at least 80% of those dollars are actually spent on medical care. i am offering to amendments, one along with representative tierney and another with representative sutton and jackson-lee that are combined importance. they would not permit insurance companies to spend an unlimited amount of creamy and dollars on company profits and nonmedical care like ceo pay or unreasonably increase the families premium without any justification. these provisions are especially critical for illinois. in 25 other states that currently lack authority to review rates, so that is unjustified rates are even required that insurance companies disclose the justification for rates, the

affordable care act for the first time requires transparency in braids and gives the tools needed to help limit annual health-insurance premiums while reducing health care costs for families and small businesses. beginning this year, health plans must rebate the difference between minimum medical loss ratio and actual spending on health care. at the standards have been in place in 2009, six of the largest for-profit insurers would have been required to refund $1.9 billion for spending too much on profit ceo pay and administration. mr. chairman i would like to put all of my -- in the record. thank you. this repeal effort would take away safeguards that protect all americans from insurance company abuses. it would take us back to the time when insurance companies held all the cards, when they decided who they wanted to

ensure, what coverage they would provide into what price. giving insurers that power will help them earn enormous profits but it would be devastating for the rest of america. the biology class at main southbridge class understands the dangers of keeping the insurance industry and control is this repeal bill would do. they wrote me "it isn't fair that currently the different health insurance companies are charging so much for coverage. the companies also charge more depending on age, gender, history of health, preexisting conditions and sometimes they won't cover you at all." all of us have heard from our constituents, families and business owners asking for help in preventing rising and unwarranted premium increases. adrean from will max told me her 63-year-old husband had not met the deductible on his assurance health care policy in the past three years. the policy had a 4000-dollar to dockable and then goes to 50/50

cost-sharing until the next 2500 is met. last year allen paid nearly $3500 a quarter. that is almost 14,000 a year. when he received his renewable notice he learned that its premium would increase to almost $4200 a quarter, almost $17,000 a year. this is an insured person. these are out-of-pocket costs. there is no use for this egregious rate hike. carol who works in the human services resource department for a small firm and chicano shared with me that they receive notice in september that their premiums would increase 18% per employee. she said she spoke with her insurance broker several times about the increase and was told there is no way around it. the small business owner who has blue cross blue shield of illinois for her employees had to cancel it when the premiums got too expensive and john who also has good cross blue shield told me that the train station that his company's premiums are going to increase by 30%.

the insurance companies have increased rates by doubled digit percentages over the last several years. one of the reasons why we needed reform in the first place. these situations are particularly frustrating when there is no justification for increase other than corporate greed. from 2000 to 2008 kenyans for families in employer-sponsored plans rose 97% and 90% for individuals. during the same period private insurers payments to providers rose only 72%. medical inflation by 29% and overall inflation by 21%. clearly the increases are based on costs other than medical inflation, wages are general inflation. the affordable care act forces the insurance industry to report information regarding premiums and expenditures are major medical health insurance plans and requires us to publicly

justify their reason for unreasonable premium increases for all premium increases. gets insurance departments new analytical terms -- tools. improve transparency and provide invaluable information to help educate all of our constituents. repealing health care would mean that illinois and the rest of the state would no longer have access to resources to review, propose health-insurance premium increases and hold insurance companies accountable for accessible -- or excessiveexcessive, and justified or unfairly discriminatory rate increases. bust the reason the amendment that i have had the honor to co-sponsor with several of my colleagues. i thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much ms. schakowsky. let me just announced what is our intention as far as proceeding here because we have so many members who are here. a plan to go through by seniority those members of the energy and commerce committee, as i said and these names are just now coming into us that have been submitted and a couple

of members have added their names to the list. and then we will proceed with the education and workforce committee. we had already heard from the chairman bair, so it is our intention now to proceed and please let me know. we will go to mr. ansley and mr. wiener, mr. matheson, ms. castor and mr. murphy and then mr. welch and then we will proceed with the committee education workforce. mr. ensley. mr. braley is not on the list but we will put your name down by seniority and look forward to hearing from you as well. mr. ensley. >> thank you. this is a new year and i want to have my comments in the spirit of the new year and the new year's resolution that we heard from new speaker boehner yesterday. there a couple of things i would like to have an opportunity to remedy and the pill. one is that this current is

drafted which trips are young people have the ability to be ensured through age 25 in their homes. we know these young people are kids are having a hard time. we have 15% unemployment in this group and we want to keep them insured and is this bill is drafted right now it would strip them of that insurance. second as we learn it would create $230 billion of deficit spending and we want to remedy that. i have two of them is that will remedy both of those issues. i want to ask the rules committee to allow these to go to the floor. is in the spirit of the new year's resolution which some of us make and the new year's resolution i heard from the speaker yesterday is that number one we are going to have a new way of doing business. we are going to be open, not going to have close rules. that is the first in the second as we are not going to do this deficit dusting activity that is hurt the fiscal condition of the united states. and yet within 22 minutes of announcing the speaker's resolutions we hear there is going to be a close rule and we

are going to break the resolution by creating another $230 billion of deficit spending which this bill would do if our amendment is not added to this bill. as far as i could tell that would set a new record for shortness of life of a new year's resolution and american history. it would be 22 minutes. breaking the previous record held by mr. fielding of queens new york who promised not to cheeseburgers and only went 45 minutes. i love queens and i love mr. -- as well. in any event we do hope -- we do hope that we will abide a this new idea of openness and fiscal responsibility and i hope you allow these to be considered and not to fear. i have heard some of the comments that we are going to fix these things later on in some other bill later on but that is kind of like going up to the guy on crutches and kicking the crutches out from underneath him and telling him we will get

you some crutches at some later date that we may or may not do. that is not good enough for the people who need insurance right now. >> mr. weiner. >> thank you mr. chairman. many of my colleagues are offering amendments dealing with the substance of the health care act we passed and the problems that would cause if they were repealed but i want to try to address an amendment that by and mr. van hollen are going to be offering. i think the crux of the agenda of the new congress, and that is the idea that we need to reduce deficits and reduce costs, not only for the federal taxpayer but also for state and local taxpayers and of course for citizens and families. our amendment is a simple one that simply says that the costs that will be incurred have to be paid for in the bill. this is a classic pay pay-as-you-go or cut as you go, whatever you are using this

year. it says that if you want to take an action, whether it is to pass a law, whether it is to change a law, amend the law, that it should be fully paid for. it is something i have heard repeatedly articulated why my republican colleagues and frankly those of us on the democratic side have articulated the form of the pay as we go rules oversight of. i do need to ask unanimous consent that my amendment he amended because this morning the number went from $143 billion that this bill would cost. it went up to $230 billion according to the cbo estimates. and just for my newer colleagues and frankly all of the should be reminded, why repealing this law costs money. first, it cost money to the taxpayers because the uninsured and those that are underinsured wind up getting health care. this is not a bill that provides them with health care. is simply a bill that says how we are going to pay for health care and what the standard shall be. so when people are uninsured and

they go into hospital emergency room to get care it costs all of us a lot more money to pay for those cause because frankly ladies and jumped amend the bill ferry doesn't come in and pay for those cost. we all wind up doing it so the basic structure of this law says you know what? it is actually less expensive for us to provide a subsidy for me uninsured, to buy insurance that it is for us to keep paying for emergency rooms. when you repeal the sacked what you do? he basically said those protections will no longer be there. we are going to reverse paying for people in the hospital emergency room. that cost taxpayers money. this saves money in a different way. when there are more people who are insured, just like an automobile insurance where everyone is insured, to laos insurance companies using free-market principles to aggregate their costs over a greater universe of people. all of our costs come down. that is not me saying it. that is the insurance industry saying it and the cbo saying it so you have got to make up that

cost somewhere. then there's the cost to our states and localities and this is the important thing i think my colleagues need to understand. you can say all you want to/the bill and leave it to the states but winds up happening is someone gets hit via boss who is uninsured and a small town or a big city and the united states and they wind up going to a hospital emergency room. very often those costs fall largely on state and local taxpayers. so this insurance, the structure of our bill, would protect those state and local insurance costs so now a city like mine become the $8 billion we pay for the uninsured and the underinsured. this bill kicks in. that dramatically goes down. it is not me saying it. does the congressional budget office. so what the amendment says is a simple one. it says you may agree with some of my colleagues here about the individual things. you may believe that they are good or they are bad but however you believe you should backup

your vote with an actual pay for to say this is how we are going to pay for the bill. let me say in one concluding thing. i am asking unanimous consent that oman -- line nine, 143 billion struck in 243 be inserted but that is the tip of the iceberg. according to cbo we will save -1/2 of 1% of gdp almost in perpetuity because of the new effectiveness bill. that is $1.2 trillion. $1.2 trillion of savings that are arriving from this bill. i want to make one final point and if i neglected, congratulations to you dreier, congratulations on taking over this committee again. i've heard a lot of talk about the government takeover of health care. lake may make it very clear because i think sometimes we forget what this bill does. this bill takes government taxpayer money and gives it to a private entity, the insurance company. is taking our money and giving it to a subsidy so they can buy

insurance. is the opposite of the government takeover and by the way just the same way medicare is not a government takeover because you still have your individual doctors and your payments. is only a matter of how that money gets processed. so i believe that if you are sincere about cutting costs, you will have to vote for the order to be amended and voted in favor of and by the way it is the reasonable thing to do. $233 billion is what it will cost to repeal this over 10 years. that by the way is to hundred billion dollars more than you have committed to saving this entire congress and i thank the members of my committee particularly mr. sessions. >> thank you very much mr. weiner and i noticed you didn't use the opportunity -- our next witness is mr. matheson. mr. matheson. >> thank you mr. chairman. i know you have a big agenda and

i will be brief. i have an amendment that really adds another item to the list of instructions and h. res mine, the instructions the committees will look at changing. just a few weeks ago, congress voted overwhelmingly in a bipartisan way to avoid a 25% cut in medicare payments. this is the sustainable growth rate issue that we are more than familiar with members of congress over the years. we are also familiar with the problem is congress needs to do one-time fixes that doesn't address the underlying problem which is a flawed formula. that does not reflect the true growth in health care costs of providing health care to people. and so i would, my amendment is very simple and i will just read two sentence description to make sure everyone understands. my amendment simply adds another goal to the instructions of the committees that tells the committees they should also include a permanent fix to what is now the flawed sgr formulas part of any replacement legislation as we move forward.

mr. chairman i told you i would be brief and i think i pretty much explains it and i will yield back my time. >> thank you very much. ms. castor we are very happy to have you back. >> thank you mr. chairman and congratulations to you. having to gavel and i would like to congratulate my new colleague from florida, richard nugent and daniel webster who are new members of the rules committee and of course. >> we are very happy to have them. >> with regards to our dena alcee hastings from florida. i am glad that we have new floridians here, because the affordable care patient protection act is already helping millions of families and seniors in florida and all across this country. as the republican majority worked to repeal these important consumer protections that the health care law provides, today i am offering an amendment that will ensure that americans will not lose these critical

protections created by the affordable care act that and the insurance company discrimination against, based upon a preexisting condition because as you are aware the affordable care act out loud the worst abuses by the health insurance industry, and it instituted the vital consumer protection for families and individuals. specifically, the new health care law says that insurance companies cannot refuse coverage for certain medical services because someone has cancer or they have diabetes or they have asthma or they have some other grave diagnosis. this is the bedrock of our patient bill of rights. ending insurance company discrimination of citizens with preexisting medical conditions and we throw that term out a lot, don't we? preexisting medical condition. but if you all would think for a moment of a family member, a

neighbor, someone that you go to church with that has cancer, that has hiv, that has received a diagnosis may be in the past few weeks, maybe that has had cancer and is in remission but has struggled with those insurance companies to try to get the medical care that they need. in my hometown, i think of a woman that works at the community college named sharon williams. sharon was diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 21, and upon that diagnosis, she went down the list of covered health services and diagnosis for health insurance and you know what? bess cancer was not on. it was on the list even though she had insurance. she said after her diagnosis, show me a list of different types of diseases that the

health insurance company covered but there was no breast cancer. i remember becoming really really angry and i said look, i have something growing inside of me that is going to kill me. somebody help me. she went home, closed her blinds and cried herself to sleep. she felt hopeless with nowhere to turn. she didn't and was only a step away from throwing in the towel. she said no one would cover me. she went on covered with health insurance for 10 years after that breast cancer diagnosis. she fought through it and she is in remission now, but she said she felt like damaged goods. and she looked for another plan to cover her but there was no plan out there that would cover her. she became more frightened of not having insurance comp coverage than the cancer. but after the passage of the affordable care act, share and

cheered. we were together a few days after president obama signed the affordable care act into law and she said in front of a lot of tv cameras, this health care reform bill is very very important. it is dear to my heart because i have a preexisting condition and there are millions of people out there all across america that have existing conditions. they are being denied even as we speak and it is just not right. and you know there are also thousands of children of american children who are childhood cancer survivors or they have other conditions, who now have insurance coverage because of the affordable care act. i ask you all, don't repeal it. don't take away their insurance coverage now. our new law has now outlawed discrimination of the health insurance companies instituted based upon the kids having cancer or asthma or diabetes. one is a student that attends the university of west florida who was dropped after she had

aml leukemia. she lived on her own and completely supports herself, so she said to me of course i panicked after her diagnosis, with going to the oncologist for my blood work and check-ups. i could be charged a time for co-pays and out-of-pocket costs. with me being dropped i feared it wouldn't be able to find another insurance company that would pick me up the tank goes to the new law, my mother's health insurance has accepted me, even with my cancer being a preexisting condition. another student, college student in florida, sarah woodbury says i am a leukemia survivor, a daughter, student and citizen of the united states of america and i have multiple check-ups to make sure i stay free from cancer and because i have several lasting medical conditions from my cancer treatment, my mother was denied

several times of insurance for me when she tried to switch. they did give her the coverage possible to afford, but now with our new law she said i'm very glad to hear the child survivors of cancer are given a chance to stay covered in insurance regardless of their medical history. no person who has fought or is fighting cancer should be denied anything simply because of the cancer. cancer takes so much from so many undeserving people. why should insurance companies have the right to deny them insurance or a chance at an affordable plan? after all no child asked to be plagued by cancer. committee members, before the democratic led congress passed an president obama signed the affordable care act last year if you had a cancer diagnosis or you were in her merchant or have a heart condition believe it or not if you had been a victim of domestic violence in eight

states some insurance companies call that a preexisting condition. if you had any of those conditions you are often denied care. well we finally change that. and i implore this republican majority, don't go back. don't repeal these important consumer protections. our children shouldn't be penalized because they were born with a heart condition or leukemia. they need access to the very best doctors and the very best care and that is what the affordable care asked us for our children and will soon do for all adults. mr. chairman there are people like this all across america. i'm certain you know many of them back home in your district. we need to maintain this vital protection, these vital protections created by the act. if you repeal the affordable care act you will be sanctioning that type of discrimination again. if you repeal the affordable care act he will add to the instability of the workforce

just when we had given them an economic lifeline he will snatch it away through repeal of the affordable care act. if you repeal the affordable care act you will explode the deficit. now we know to the tune of $230 billion. if you repeal the affordable care act you will demonstrate an affinity to the health insurance companies over the interest of the american people and our families. so i urge you to support this amendment that bars insurance company discrimination of people with preexisting medical conditions. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. [inaudible] >> thank you mr. sessions and i appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today. let me associate myself first with with their marks of my good friend ms. castor and her amendment. i think of a story from a gentleman in my district in northwestern connecticut and i

met him some time in the end of 2009. he told me a story that unfortunately is all too familiar. he had gotten injured and due to his injury he was no longer able to work and due to the fact he was no longer able to work he lost his health care. and he was faced with the same situation as countless families are faced with all across the country and all across my district, that the illness they contract then leads to loss of their health care and leads to the devastation of their family. with this family was finally confronted with was a simple choice. they either had to stop making the mortgage payments on the house at the grew up in our they had to go to the one savings account that they had, which was their son's college savings account. they sat down as a family made an awful position than that decision in consultation with their son was to go and exhaust the college savings account. the son decided he would just postpone college, that he would go and work and hopefully someday go and get an education.

that is an awful position from a conscious and respected -- but also from an economic perspective as well. postponing their child's education hurts our economy as well and the fact that situation is replayed over and over and over again leading to lost productivity and lost productivity in our economy speaks to the importance of ms. castor's a minute. the amendment i would like to offer speaks to another problem in our current health care system. unfortunately does not just correcting those that don't address health care. particularly their lack of access to primary care doctors. does portion doesn't talk a lot about the problems that confront that. i am offering an amendment today that would say simply that before this repeal goes forward

that the office of management and budget and -- was certified that the repeal does not undermine access to primary care health care to those families that don't have through no fault of their own once they get help care they have access to doctors. let me briefly describe what is at stake for primary care if this repeal goes forward. first under this law primary care practitioners receive a 10% medicare payment bonus for the next five years and medicaid reimbursement rates go up to medicare levels. this would be a dramatic downward adjustment in reimbursement levels for primary care physicians right now who don't make enough to make ends meet all too often. repealing this law will take $11 billion away from community health care centers that, for years have been supported by both them a credit and republicans and are doing so much to extend primary care to residents in both rural and suburban areas. repealing this health care reform would also take a week critical support from the

national health core one of our successful workforce enhancement to the primary care workforce system including trading and the reallocation of unused residency training and training primary care residents. repealing this law not only takes away the one answer we have for that person in connecticut who was lost everything his family has built up to just try to take care of an injury but it also takes away the one hope that we have to get primary care resources to people who right now have insurance and people we hope will get it. mr. chairman of the committee i hope you would make this amendment in order as well as the others being offered by members of the energy and commerce committee. ..

>> mr. murphy looks like he's about to leave and i want to ask in the question. i apologize for interrupting you. >> i appreciate -- the chair would like to give notice that as result of evidently the gentlemanly thing, that if there are questions for mr. murphy at this time we would extend those very quickly and request from the gentlewoman from north carolina. you know what? if there's somebody that has to

leave and we would like to modify what we're doing at this time, we are trying to take our time, meticulously work through this. i will listen to the gentleman from massachusetts and agree with them. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized for the purpose of discussion with mr. murphy. >> it is not about to leave and going to stay than i'm happy to wait until later. >> the gentleman is going to stay. if i could before recognized mr. welch, i appreciate the gentleman from massachusetts or i would like to acknowledge -- he will follow mr. welch and it will go directly to mr. braley. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's wonderful to be here. i want to acknowledge all of you, but especially you. your team campaign very effectively. now the question, now the challenge is whether you can govern responsibly. this decision that this rules

committee makes its going to set the template for the entire 112th congress. and the question before you were basically three. the first question is whether on the promise of fiscal responsibility and implementation of the rule that is replacing our paygo rule, you apply that when the address from the impartial referee is that repeal your proposal for health care will add $230 million to the deficit. from where i sit the promises that you have made him tell you to come up with an offset for the $230 billion. second, you've made promises after criticizing the way our congress was run, not to will be open rules, that it will be an

allowance for debate on important questions. there is no more important question, more intimate to the american people that how their health care will be delivered and how they will have access to the health care. we are seeking, all of us in the amendment i'm going to propose is cosponsored by 65 of my colleagues, and 65 of us have cosponsored ms. castor's, mr. murphy's. we're going to ask for the opportunity for a yes or no vote, up or down. i listen to mr. woodall and followed your campaign some. i know everything you say. you have the backing obviously of your people. but i campaigned, too, and the people i represent want me to defend some other provisions that are helping the middle class in this legislation. and i believe that my

constituents as your constituents are entitled to know where you stand, where i stand. the way we tell them, the way we are accountable is when the roll is called on specific questions about repealing, access to health care, for people up to age 26, about taking away the lifetime caps, that if you have one opinion and i have another opinion, we state that publicly by our vote, and then our voters are allowed to decide whether they agree with you for that agree with me. that's the way it should work. this is the first opportunity for you to follow through and i'll i was to be accountable to our constituents. the third question is this. is the first bill passed by the republican congress on health care going to take away some specific hard-fought achievement

that -- for the middle class of america. this is not about political rhetoric. it's about the reality of politics. it affects real people as you heard. real families and real businesses. please understand, you have made criticisms, some of your criticisms i think many of us at this table agree with. we do know that this has to be a work in progress. this is a multi-trillion dollar challenge for this country. so anyone who says that we have to improve it is, you have all of us at this table in agreement with you and hoping somehow some way we can find a way to work together to improve it. but why would we in the quest to improve it the story things that are now actively making a difference for people and they are depending on a. i'm going to talk about preventive care. i got off the phone this morning with the ceo of the relevant

community regional medical center. and i said, what does it mean to you -- he was a close call on whether you want this bill to pass. you for my local hospital folks. i pay a lot of attention to him because he was in the real world, not the abstract world. i said what is the implication to you and to the work you are doing, your hospital, if we repeal access to free preventive care cracks and what he said, i'm going to quote, if we are serious about bending the cost curve, we need to prevent disease and we need to manage disease, and we have to have free preventive care in order to do that. people come into that facility with breast cancer because they couldn't afford to get a screening in time. people coming with advanced diabetes because they couldn't get a simple test. now you know this as much as i know this. i'm not telling you anything you

are not aware of but what this congress did last year is we passed legislation to give our citizens the right to get that test. and why, with all of the disagreements among us, with all of the different people that we represent, why would we take away from the rutland regional medical center this tool that they need to make our folks healthy? i spoke to doctor neil hyman, the college university of vermont college of medicine. he told me that colon cancer screenings are absolutely essential to early detection of cancer. again, i'm not telling you anything you don't know, but just this week he saw, this week he saw a 64 year old patient who could not afford to receive regular screenings. by the way, those are free to him now. like many others he was waiting to qualify for medicare, 64, he

needed another year. he waited too long. now instead of catching the disease in its early stages, he is suffering from metastatic colon cancer. this is real. the decisions that you are making israel. this is not campaign rhetoric. you want to campaign. you were effective in your arguments, but you're making a real decision. you are part of the united states congress, and the policies we make are not about campaign rhetoric. it's not about the next election. it's about what's going to happen to the rutland regional medical center, what's going to happen to this man just metastatic cancer, that could have been detected. there are simple things in this bill that are important to the people you represent an important to the people i represent. it is absolutely unnecessary to take those securities away from the middle class of this country. thank you.

>> mr. walsh, thank you very much. earlier in the days when we began around 7:00 there was a big discussion of exactly that. and, in fact, mr. chairman, or the representatives who are here this morning said the purpose of this bill is to also been make sure that we work through these issues very carefully. this is literally a one page bill, starts with a process, we intend to do that. i, just like ms. castor, has noted, i am not unlike any other member here, or even the people who are attending this hearing today, i have a down syndrome son and i'm very aware, the need we have, whether intellectual or mental disability or physical disability, that we do the right thing.

i am sure united because i know you well, we will have a full hearing on this. i hope that there will be as what was suggested an up or down vote, my hope that that will happen. i believe as a part of this majority, senior member, i will insist upon that also. i appreciate the gentleman being here. going i respect your testimony today. i appreciate that very much. i now would like to recognize the gentleman, mr. braley. et which used to come and find a chair. i'm sorry. ought not. >> you are? sometimes i enjoy listening to myself. but very rarely do i want to take back something i said. you are recognized.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you to the members. we have some new members. i said to some of them before i did know whether i should congratulate the new members are pay my condolences. but in any case, welcome to the committee. i can say that. i wanted to address the issue of medicare solvency with the amendment that i brought before you today. i think this bill is so important because of patient protections, because of the universal coverage, because of the fact that we are significantly cutting the deficit, so many reasons which i'm sure you've heard from today about why it should be repealed. but another reason is the solvency issue. many of you, we here in the media and we know in fact that the life of the medicare trust fund, the ability to pay out is limited. one of the things that bill does is it extends the life of the trust fund.

and extends, it postpones the day of reckoning when we would face the solvency issue. and it does that primarily by basically doing things more efficiently. if i could mention specifically some of the members of the energy and commerce committee, mr. welsh, mr. braley, ms. castor, and others. i know specifically that there were many provisions put in that bill, in terms of not only helping people but also in terms of saving money. so what we have is according to the medicare actuary, the affordable care act gave at 12 years of solvency to the trust there under if you repeal it i think it is irresponsible because it accelerates the insolvencsolvency of the medicare trust fund to 2017, just six years away. the problem is, if that deadline moves closer which would under repeal, what would you do?

my fee would be of course that you would end up having to cut services to seniors and benefits to seniors which is the last thing that i think should happen, given the promise and the contract that we made with the seniors when we started the medicare program, had to start paying into the when they would much, when they were much younger. so basically if you look at my amendment, it guarantees that repeal cannot go forward unless the office of management and budget in consultation with congressional budget office certifies that repeal will not shorten the life of the medicare trust fund. if omb reports back to repeal would shorten the life of the trust fund this amendment would stop repeal from happening. i think it's very important. i think the solvency issue is a very important issue. i would ask if i could ask unanimous consent to enter into the record of the are from the leadership council of aging organizations, the coalition representing nearly 16 million

seniors. >> without objection the letter will be included. >> that also addresses of the solvency issue as well as some of the other issues. i would urge you really cannot go head with this repeal for so many reasons, but certainly the medicare solvency is one of the major issues that the repeal would make worse. thank you. >> mr. poe, thank you very much and i appreciate you once again testified before the rules committee. i get used to your testimony throughout the years on this issue and i appreciate you. i would now like to find a way to make room for the gentleman from ottawa, mr. braley on this energy and commerce. [inaudible] spent if you get on the bottom. i'm sure they don't mind stepping on you. but i appreciate, the gentleman, mr. braley is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate all the comments

that it may today. i also want to spend some time to put a human face on the repeal of the health care legislation that was passed and talk about what the consequences are without addressing consumer protection provisions included in the admin if we talk about where i want you all to take a look at this picture. this is a young man named tucker right who lives in malcolm, i will. he is the face of health care repeal bill. because tucker is four years old in this picture but two years ago he was diagnosed with liver cancer before his second birthday. he had two-thirds of his liver removed, and he faces a lifetime of uncertain medical care. what makes tucker the pollster child for health care repeal is that his parents of teen related over $30,000 in uninsured medical expenses, even though they had the best health insurance they could get in the state of iowa. both of his parents working full-time. his parents have had to hold fundraisers to pay off those

uninsured expenses. was more of a problem is tucker's father, brent, just order a brand-new job. that's him here right here in this picture. he couldn't start a job until january 1 of this year, because if he had and had applied for insurance with his new employer, tucker would have been denied coverage because of preexisting conditions. what will happen is if you repeal the health care bill that we passed without addressing these concerns, and then you defer until later addressing the problems we have been talking about, here's what's going to happen. his current insurance company will send out a letter every station because there is no longer any justification for keeping him on that policy once the ban a preexisting condition is removed. which will happen when the repeal becomes law. that recession practice is also prohibited by health care bill that we passed. because of widespread abuses of insurance companies terminating

peoples coverage without any legitimate legal basis. that's why we help multiple hearings on the house subcommittee. we talked about this earlier. eight days of hearings, 90 witnesses, five days of markups with amendments offered on both sides, and accepted in just one subcommittee. so to suggest that this process was not transparent when it was the most debated, discussed, talked about, written about bill probably in the last 25 years of this congress, is not an accurate reflection of what happened. when you think about voting on these amendments, remember tucker right and what's going to happen to him and his family because that is the practical face of what we're talking about. i appreciate the chairman's comments about his son. we've had very many conversations about that, and i hope you and your family had a wonderful holidays. >> thank you very much. we not wish you the story but for bring this beautiful picture of this family. i appreciate that a lot.

my opinion clears out what i would call the energy and commerce committee, if you want to stay for questions that would be fine. if you want to take a seat. we would now like to take ourselves to these questions. >> i had just a couple of questions for mr. murphy. in the conversation, or in the testimony that you gave, you talked about the family running out of money to pay for their insurance, except that they have a savings account, which they went into. what would've been the the alternative, mr. murphy, or who would have paid for the insurance if they hadn't had that savings account? who do you think should have paid for their insurance if --

at that stage? should they not have used their savings account to pay their legitimate expenses? >> well, the idea of insurance is that we all bear some responsibility to help people who have gotten injured or contracted a disease, like cancer or something and even potentially more expensive. and so the idea that insurance is conceived upon is that whether it be through a government-sponsored program like medicare or three private program through an insurance company, that we all pay the cost of someone who has gotten sick or someone who's gotten injured. whether they were able to get a potentially subsidize insurance plan for the government, whether they were able to qualify for programs like medicaid, the concept i think that we have developed in this nation is we all bear some communal responsibility to take care of our neighbors when they get sick or injured.

[inaudible] >> no, thank you. >> i get that a lot. [laughter] >> now, now, you are newly married. you were treated well at home young man. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just, i've been struck all morning by the use of the term free. free preventive care, free test, free this and free that. and your comment about communal responsibility, i do think we bear responsibility for our neighbors. i have always felt that way. and certainly i do feel that way. and we've shared others, many of us, that we understand the faces of health care and the challenges that are there for

us. i'm a member of my family who has had very serious cancer twice. i know how important it is to stay on the insurance that person has. it's critical in this day and time. by do think it's very important that we understand ourselves that somebody pays. you may say that things are free, yes, there's free preventive care. yes, there's free test design in this legislation. but somebody's pay for that, and so my choice is being made here, and in a family that you described they have access. and yet you implied that they should have used their assets to pay for their own responsibility and that someone else shouldn't pay for that. i just wanted to point out that

as long as we have access, that we have accrued individually, i see that as our responsibility. that's what i think is that our government great and our country great. is that we understand individual responsibility, and we do not rely on the government to take care of us when we have the wherewithal to do that. that's all i wanted to point out, mr. murphy. i think again the implication that we don't have individual responsibility is something that is very concerning to me as a member of congress, to hear someone in this congress promote that idea, that we don't have individual responsibility. so i just wanted to make it clear whether you were implying that it was somebody else's responsibility to pay their insurance, or whether it was

there -- >> this is a much broader philosophical debate to have, representative foxx. but i have responsibly of what i have control over. i certainly accept the premise of individual responsibly so far as i can control my actions in order to control the ramifications of those actions. in this case, in the case of all of the instances you have heard today, those families had no control. they had no control over whether they contracted a disease or had an injury. the idea of personal responsibility or illness is something that is very different than the traditional notion of personal responsibility for finances were for individual decisions that a lot of our constituents think about. maybe our constituents disagree on this. my constituents don't believe that she should have to exhaust all of your assets, your college savings account, your home, everything that you have accumulated over your life, in

order to take care of a sick loved one. if that's not personal responsibility to them, no ability to control whether or not they got into, no ability to decide whether or not their child got cancer, and so i don't think there's anything dirty or pejorative about it, the word camille in the sense that when one of our loved ones, our neighbor get sick that we should have some responsibility to take care of. that's what insurance is. that's what i think this legislation builds upon. my last point, ms. lux, the first place they would go would be that college savings account. that wouldn't cover all of their costs. eventually they would go on to the public's confidence would they would show up at the emergency room with no money once they went to the savings account, once they sold the house, once they're out on the street. eventually they would chew up to the emergency room with no way to pay. then it's all of our costs. that's a result that repeal would have that has consequences, not just --

>> the chair would like to remind members that we are on a one vote at this time, and we're going to continue with this evening. there may be those among you who have not spoken yet who would wish to go down and vote, knowing that we will quickly get to you. at this time i would wish to recognize the gentleman, mr. polis. >> you answer my question before it has to, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. bright minds sometimes exist in the same room. the gentleman, mr. mcgovern is recognized. >> i just want to clarify something. i'm sorry dr. foxx left but i'm talking about anything for here. people pay their health care premiums so we're not talking about free but what we are talking but is limiting copayments and deductibles from preventative care so that if we utilize preventative care more often, more regularly, my wife

works at the cancer canada foundation. she always says no one should ever die of colon cancer in this country. but we should encourage people to get their checkups because if some is caught early then it can be dealt with. quite frankly it's not only a benefit to the person come it cheaper. it doesn't cost as much to get a colonoscopy versus full-blown colon cancer. we are all pretty lucky here in congress. we all have health care and we get to take advantage of preventative care, regular checkups. i went for a regular checkup in september. they found an nodule on my thyroid it turned out to be thyroid cancer. i went and got it taken care of, prognosis excellent. but if i had neglected that, if i did know for the radio checkup and i waited until i felt some terrible pain, it might of been a lot more complicated. so i think it's important that when we clarify, we're not

talking about giving people nothing for nothing. or we're not saying people shouldn't take responsibility. i think mr. murphy explained it really quite well. i also want to thank this panel for talking about real people, but when you repeal the stuff it's not, this is not rendered. is real people that are behind all of these words. i was looking through some of my e-mails. i think mother from massachusetts who writes thanks for health care bill. my son is covered by the insurance for the cancer he got when he graduated right after college. he would not have been covered if the bill had not been passed at how is that a bad thing? i appreciate mr. dreier's press release of ability put together, not a replacement, just concept. but if you vote for this repeal you were voting to repeal the provisions that than insurance

coverage and discriminate against people from preexisting conditions. you are voting against allowing parents to keep their kids on the insurance until they're 26. you are voting against all the preventative care measures. people are going to be impacted by this. the whole issue of the donut hole, i've cost of letters from senior citizens who are benefiting from the doughnut hole. you're going to thrust a new tax on senior citizens. if all of my friends on a public inside, we are for all of that. if you're for all that they don't repeal it. the specifics in the bill he don't like, go after those. but the wholesale repeal, i think using the backward. midwinter, you are about to -- >> i just think, ms. foxx, and we made a point that many of us often forget. the senator that mr. murphy describer people of personal savings and spend it is why we have nearly as many bankruptcies even as the economy a trivial to health care costs and arty people losing their jobs. the scenario is ms. foxx lays

out a should they pay their own money? that's happening of such element one rate in this country, people going into bankruptcy. confusing insurance with health care. what happens if someone does have health care or becomes bankrupt and goes into mr. murphy's center where they wind up in hospital emergency, ms. foxx is constituents pay the bill. mr. nugent's constituents pay the bill. that's who we're talking about. it's not a function of, kind of like buddhism. is not whether we'll have changed but what kind of change. it's not whether we'll have health care cost. it's how we keep them as low as possible, give people as much coverage in a private insurance market to aggregate the cost. because of the choice is mr. murphy's family goes into a hospital emergency room, to have a daughter who doesn't have the care, and we pay the bill. it is not as if we will stop providing health care once you repeal as health care reform

act. we're just going to be passing the bill at much higher rates according to the cbo than we were before to all of our constituents. i don't see that particularly bat, which is why by the way we have my new freshman colleagues were on the federal benefit plan, or and make care, and you got to do, whenever the unmedicated but who probably will when they become senior citizens that need nursing home care. i think we have to get out of this idea that somehow as i said earlier it will come down and pay these bills it was i repeal this. it will be all of our constituents with the state and local taxes, federal taxes and out-of-pocket expenses who will pay these. >> i appreciate that because i think a lot of people don't realize that the cost of uncompensated care in our system adds considerably to the overall care. i appreciate very much a comment and appreciate you all being

here. >> thank the telephone is questioning. >> -- thank the gentleman for his questioning. >> ideal to the gentleman. >> you are doing great. i hope you voted. you did. mr. nugent is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to thank all of you for your input today, as a new member of congress, and particularly as a non-legislator up to this point, it is different and i will tell you refreshing to hear arguments on both sides. that's really what the american people have been clamoring for, one of the reasons i got elected. people want to hear from the

representatives about what they want out of this congress. i think that the republican majority that is in place is here because of the mandate of the public. that's all left out whether rightly so or not, perception is that things were done in congress with the exclusion of the american people. i will tell you that i represent almost wondering people within my district. almost a quarter of them are retirees. but across the board of what i heard in the a+ counties that i cover was that they were upset with the fact that the federal government was mandating things within their life that they felt they were very comfortable and have the ability to take care of on their own.

i believe they are concerned about, his all time, time, about federal intrusion into their lives or to hear from businesses. you know, i listen to the issues that come up, particularly some of the amendments that have been put in place where you're asking to be put in place. i don't think that you have heard that this agreement on the republican side in regards to existing, preexisting conditions. i have a niece that has preexisting conditions. who was happy to find out she was pregnant. two weeks later she found that she had breast cancer. if she leaves her employment that's going to be issued for her as a preexisting condition. so i will tell you from the republican side, at least for this person, is that it is important to us. you know, we are not demons.

we really care just as you do about the american public. i think we just have dead giveaways may be to get to the same location. so what i ask is that i support the repeal. because i believe that we do need to start with a fresh piece of paper. and all of us get together in regards to what's important to us and to the people that we represent. a clear mandate that the people want us to repeal this. i truly believe that what they really want, not only the repeal but they really want to see replace that something that has been thoughtfully, thoughtfully brought to the table to help more people, particularly in instances where they feel like they have some input into the process. >> would the gentleman yield? >> i will. >> you made a very good point about your experience running and the feedback you got. we heard a lot of expression

today on the republican side about support for some of the amendment topics that we're submitting today which are already in the existing bill. are you aware of any efforts made by the republicans in congress between 2000-2006 when they controlled the house, the senate and the white house to address these conditions? >> i am not. >> so i guess that's why some of us are skeptical about the level of commitment if we repeal this bill today, or next week when it comes up on the floor for a vote, that it will be the same level of commitment to address these any meaningful way. >> i can't speak for everyone. i can we speak for myself. to me, the issues are clear. we have an issue in america regards to affordable health care. as an employer i will tell you this that what i will pay for insurance to give through my employer, not to the house, will be almost, it will cost me $9000 more a year. but i'm going to remain with

that because i believe it's the right thing to do. because i think that when you have americans that are struggling, why should i, why should i get a cost savings because i just got elected to the united states house of representatives? that's the reality of it. so when we talk about reducing health care costs i think we need to talk about reducing health care costs. when i talked to physicians throughout my district and we talked about him, you know, i said you guys were for this bill because dna -- the ama was behind. the physicians look at me and said they only represent less than 15% of the current positions in america. they don't represent the physicians on health care as relates to doctors every day. and so i look at those and i listen to them and i listened to

the constituents that elected me, that have an overwhelming desire to repeal this health care bill. but all i can tell you, i want to do the right thing. iran on that and i truly believe doing the right thing is looking at those things that were presented in chairman dreier's bill are the right steps in the right direction. >> will the gentleman yield? i just wanted to go back to what you said at the beginning, and i think you sounded raise the when you said there are certain patient protections and other things that you guys are bring up in your eminence that i think a good. what i'm hearing from my constituents is we had two years of this debate. and now that this bill unfold. some of the patient protections kicked him on january 1, like the 50% will benefit under

prescription drugs, if you fall into the donut hole. what they're basically saying is let it run its course. we conserve have hearings. i chaired the house subcommittee in the last congress. we have so many hearings. we can have hearings but we talk about the various issues as they unfolded if changes need to be made on a bipartisan basis we can do that. that problem is if you repeal it outright you have eliminate all the things that we are mentioning today that are important i think it makes a lot more sense, this is what i'm hearing, they would rather this bill moves forward because there's a lot of good things in it. then we had the oversight hearings. we can meet in energy and commerce and how subcommittee and talk about how it's going, whether the regulations, what they're supposed to be. seems to me that's a lot more reasonable approach and to say repeal that everybody loses all of these patient protections and everything else and then we start from the beginning.

[inaudible] >> thank you, mr. chairman. i wish to make it very clear to my fellow floridians, mr. nugent, that i don't question it at all, the reports that he just identified from his physician, friend or friends, and his constituents and his judgment, majority opposed to the present law. i was born -- 74 years ago. like the job you hold, i have

become friends with democrats and republicans in broward county that we share, including a now sheriff whose republican. among the more critical things along that they had to deal with. was that the increased employees in there is capacities from the jails to line officers, what they found was health insurance was a particularly significant issue. i want to go back just briefly because many of our colleagues were not in here when i get this previous. i asked the question of the person that were seated in the room at the time, and i repeat, unless you increase your deductible or chose to not have

certain measures provided in your insurance policy, is there anyone in here that has had insurance for two decades or more that have ever had their insurance go down in cost? if so, raise your hand. the simple fact of the matter is nobody has had the cost to go down. now, we have as congressman nugent said, a series of affordable health problem, health care problem. health care delivery problem. there's no question about that. i have different friends and then you evidently that our physicians. almost universally, and i could call names that won't bother, but almost universally my friends, hospital officials,

nurses, people in the technical fields that are training, the people at the teaching hospitals at jackson and florida atlantic university, all of them favor this measure. and all of them felt that we didn't go far enough. and therein lies a part of the bug. >> will yield for just one second? >> of course. >> is confusion going on in a bit icy there are a number of members coming in. obviously, this is been a management challenge for us. we are going by the standard rules of the house in our proceedings here. and that is we're going, by committee, and recognizing members by seniority. i believe that is the fairest way for us to deal with this. the names have been submitted to us, and now we continue to have lots of people coming into the room. my friend ms. edwards is not on the list at all here. everyone we recognize that i

want to make it clear that we want to hear from every member, but i just will say that it's our intention when we complete the members of the energy and commerce committees testimony, the witnesses we have listed here, and please contact our staff if you're in the room and we don't have it right. george miller, rob andrews, john tierney, paul toggle are the names on the list, the committee on education and workforce. and then we will go to the committee on the judiciary committee. we've heard from mr. king for mr. condit and his jackson-lee on that list. and from the committee on ways and means we have mr. levens name. we're just been submitted, which is gotten several other names here of members who would like to testify. so after we go through those committees, then we will get to -- we have bill owens, shelley,

susan davis i guess, larsen, baldwin, insley. we heard from insley already. maybe want to come back. sanchez, spear and and all in, peters, courtney, bishop, heinrich, thompson, danny davis, ron clark, so that's the list that has been submitted to us. hasn't been submitted to the rules committee, what we do is we proceed, especially when we have a group like this, we want everyone will be able to be heard but i'm just telling you that we go i committee, and by seniority on the committee, which is a standard operating procedures of the rules of the house. if i've not called you an income if your staff, staff will be in touch with you and will put you on list to make sure that every

single member has an opportunity to be heard at excuse me and thank you for using. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent that a statement i made speed without objection. >> thank you very much. returning to my colleague, mr. nugent who says that it would be helpful if we have a fresh piece of paper, his words, and that we start over again. there are many things in this measure to like and dislike. and it would seem to me that the speedy answer on my republican friends, constituents who they feel wanting to address is at least ignoring certain aspects of what true transpire if we were to take the time to hear from people who have benefited, to hear from the folks who are

providing the regulations, to hear from the administration as to whether or not any of their views have changed, all of these things could be done. and yet we proceed to have a $230 billion measure, if there were to be made law, already in a hole blown budget. and i find that and just can't understand how it is that we are in the position we're in. let me quote three people. one, and they do not know two of them, timothy jost who is a professor at washington and lee university says of course the republicans cowardly hold hearings on what repeal would mean for the american people. but even though americans are

often misinformed by the republican media, they are not stupid. the republicans will come to regret this political void. another professor from calvin college. i quote what is attributed to him. house republicans should be kept, if house democrats lost their majority in november 2010 by passing health care reform, rather than focusing on jobs and the economy, it doesn't really make sense for house republicans to mirror their obsession with health care. it seems more like pity politics, taking away the favorite quote toy, unquote of your adversary rather than focusing on the key issues of the moment, which are still the economy and the budget. now the other one i take up

because he is my good friend. and he, too, is quoted in this same law journal. and that's congressman robert andrews from new jersey. he may say this inward similar, but i've taken the prerogative of saying what he said. the republicans are working on the wrong problem. the public wants the economy to be fixed and focused on job creation. repeal of health reform is a diversion. it is a political symbol rather than a legitimate effort to solve a problem. i have two criticisms. won, that working on the wrong problem people want employment. second, they are casting a symbolic vote. then they're going to start thinking about what to do about health care, and that is headed in the wrong direction. i agree thoroughly with robert,

and the proof is in the pudding. if i were to put the question to any of our republican colleagues here, wind as it, they say we are going to hold some hearings? don't worry about that. lifetime of benefits, we are going to get to that. the question is when? and why now do what it is that you are doing? and also, all of us enrolled in a federal employees health insurance program, i am. and doesn't the government pay a large portion of our health insurance, or at the answer to that is just. maybe mr. pallone are some of you will talk about maybe some of your members of congress publicly disclosing this act so voters will understand the hypocrisy of our republicans on health care. there's a whole lot of hypocrisy that has been in progress during this election. not the least of which to come

in here without a score, knowing full well that is going to be an increase in the deficit, and yet be the deficit they claim. somewhere along the line the robber has to hit the road. all of us as i said yesterday need to understand the dynamic of sacrifice. and everybody in here, every one of our constituents, no matter their persuade your are going to have to sacrifice in order for us to achieve what is necessary in this economy. i can't tell you all on that side how many times some of us argue to our leadership that we are letting health care suck up all the air out of this place. and that we should be talking about jobs. we spent time on it over and over and over again. on the task force. joe, you were there. a couple people we met regularly

about jobs, jobs, jobs. and we still got our hat handed to us but i should american public must be awfully confused. they thought that we had at least put some of this to rest and would try to fix what the problems may exist. and he we are back here again at the outset of these proceedings, the second day of the 112th congress, and what is sucking up the air? health care. something is wrong with this picture. mr. pallone, did you have her reactions because i'm just going to say what i said to mr. nugent before, which is what i mean for my constituents is exactly that. what you should be focusing on, jobs and the economy. that's what i said to mr. nugent before, look, there's a reason to do this now. as the base provisions unfold over the next two years we can certainly have some hearings on

it. just like we do oversight on any bill. if there have to be some changes, then we can do it on a bipartisan basis. but to start off the congress with repeal of health care, people want us to move on. that's exactly what i hear from my constituents. i heard mr. nugent, i hope i'm not misunderstanding, but i think you said you're not taking the federal health insurance. did i misunderstand? >> that's correct. >> that's commendable if that's what you want to do. i assume you will vote for repeal. i would agree with you mr. hastings, i think anyone who goes for repeal should also follow mr. nugent's example and not take the health insurance themselves. one of the purposes of the legislation was to provide near universal health care and to cover everyone. the way the bill is written members of congress will go into the exchange. i was also in the bill. we will not be treated any differently. if you want to repeal and you

want to throw this thing out, then you should be fully prepared not to take health insurance yourself and not have the federal government pay for it, in my opinion. the other thing as going to say was when you talk about jobs, i do want to focus on that because i don't think we should be dealing with this review at all, the bottom line is this legislation to repeal creates a lot of jobs. as you cover everyone and everyone has to get, goes and sees their own doctor or to a clinic, you are creating a lot of jobs in the health profession itself. not just doctors at home health aides, money going to community health centers, new centers are being built. i dare use the word because i know republicans don't like used the word stimulus. but this bill is, even though it saves money, it has a tremendous stimulus impact on a comment. i don't think we should forget that. the repeal in this case is going to not only take away from the discussion of the issue but

eliminate jobs which is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. i yield back to the gentlemen. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> one of the fastest growing areas that we can be assured of in our economy is the health care peace. those of us from florida that have as many seniors as we have, it is impossible to believe that seniors don't understand the dynamic, to have medicare, medicaid associated, sustainability of their life

circumstances. and no, every one of them is not living -- [inaudible] and are barely holding on. i think that's ludicrous for a great country like ours to have anybody, anywhere in this country in the position of having to choose between medicine and food. i yield back. >> thank you very much, mr. hastings. let me just say that mr. martinez joined us. if you could briefly, we would again, we are getting with a bit of a challenge. i was reminded that since democrats haven't even put a committee structure yet, we have members here, not even sure which committees they set their mr. markey, if you would like to offer your thoughts. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i've been on the energy and commerce committee for 35 years.

>> so are you qualified to be your? >> i think so. >> no rumor of your removal from the committee? >> i remember karl albert and gerald ford whose names will mention this one time in this room. so i can astonish my longevity. i want to also make it relevant today. i would like to recognize and thank you, mr. chairman, for recognizing the. i would like to recognize congressman deutsch and congressman boswell for joining with me and introducing this important amendment. and also cosponsored by representatives conyers, jackson, doyle, ellison, dan allen, baldwin and johnson. as americans continue to struggle through the worst economy since the great depression our seniors are among the hardest hit. medicare is a promise to our seniors that says essentially that in retirement after years of hard work, you'll have access

to high quality health care. and the medications you need to stay healthy. there is currently a gaping hole in that promise to the so-called doughnut hole that leaves millions of seniors paying thousands of dollars in out of pocket costs for their prescription drugs. seniors who reach this coverage gap are often forced into debt wrenching choices, which prescription to fill, which bills to cut in half over to skip altogether. we afford real life accounts from seniors across the country who find themselves unable today for the prescription drug they depend upon to live. to help kill -- health care law in place is already helping the seniors afford their medication and stay out of the hospital, in proving quality of life and saving medicare money. our amendment is quite simple. it preserves the provision of the new health care law that

closes the coverage gap in medicare for grandma. so that she can have a affordable prescription drugs that's all we are really asking is to protect grandma here. from repealing a provision that is now providing her with help for prescription drug i think that's the least we can do for grandma is to carve out an exception for her to this bill that you're going to repeal. it preserves those provisions that provide grandma free preventive care, like cancer screening as well. to the seniors, to the grandma as she's getting old so she can go into get those free screens. don't take that away. she is going to use it. please don't vote to not allow at least an amendment to preserve those for her. and it also preserves the provisions that fight fraud and

abuse. last year as a result of this part of the health care law over 50,000 medicare beneficiaries in massachusetts, and for mortgage -- 4 million more across america preceded $250 rebate in or to help pay for their prescription drugs. that went to grandma. i don't think we should repeal it. last las..

e >> our amendment would ensure that an effective lifeline that is already working for our seniors is not severed. i ask you make this amendment in order to debate it on the house floor. i thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> thank you. i appreciate it, and let's put it in the session. [inaudible] >> i'll yield my time. >> first i have two unanimous consent requests. first unanimous request is from jerri conley from virginia. >> without objection. >> second is striking line 9 replacing 143 million with 230.

>> without objection. >> i wanted to congratulate mr. webster on the fastest every asession to the chair committee. he did get the chair of the rules committee for a period of time. >> when i walked in the room, i was a little stunned. i noticed everyone was still here, and he's been here for less than 24 hours. >> as you know, i occupied that very seat for two years, and i never got to chair the rules committee, and i have to say i'm professionally jealous of mr. webster. i think it's something for the history books, and i want to congratulate mr. webster on that floor. i'll yield for a moment, sure. >> by the way, he was shocked and stunned for a moment also. >> i'm sure he was. i wanted to briefly talk about the preexisting condition

piece. there has been general sympathy from both sides of the aisle about what do we do for people for whom it's not their own fault and denied insurance whether it's cancer or some other condition. clearly getting them into the risk and enabling insurance is a goal of health insurance reform and a goal of health care reform. it's a reason there's a mandate on the other side. if you don't have a mandate and you prevent discrimination of preexisting conditions, many people would rationally wait until they are ill and then acquire insurance. i wanted to ask is that, you see that as part and partial, or is it possible to complsh this preexisting piece without the mandate? >> i think that's an important point, and it also goes what i wanted to respond to ms. fox, and i know she had to go vote, but, you know, we found having

hearings and spending time in the commerce on the floor that this is one package. in other words, you can't really start taking out the individual pieces of it otherwise to some extent, it falls a part, and a lot goes to the funding. in other words when she talked about preventive services being free, and i don't want to misinterpret what you said, but the whole point was that the reason why we got rid of the copay for services was because we knew there were seniors who would not go see a doctor if they had to pay 20%, and if they would see the doctor and it would cost the government 20%, we would save money because we have to pay for their emergency room care. the same is true here. in other words, you start taking, if you don't have the mandate and everybody in the insurance pool, we know that the cost of premiums goes down as

the pool gets larger, and the reason companies discriminate and don't want people with preexisting conditions is because they cost more. the point is if you put everybody in, the cost comes down for the person, you know, who has the preexisting condition, and, you know, you get preventive care so hopefully you don't get sick and end up with a bad health condition. >> it's one whole. you're saying if we just did the preexisting piece and i'm healthy, i would just wait until i got sick for insurance? >> exactly, and my point is that if you -- you have to include everyone. that's why you have the mandate. the whole concept of the insurance is the more people you include, the more likely the cost goes down for the individual, and, you know, the government is already paying. go back to what was said before, government is already paying for medicare and medicaid and veteran's care and other things. it's not like we are covered

privately, and so we in the bill came up with ways for saving money for government programs whether it's medicare like the thing on the copaysment we're trying to save money. when i talk about solvency, that's why we are postponing the day of reckoning and when we become insol vent into the future because we are saving money, and we're doing that across the board. i don't think you can separate these things. gla thank you, and -- >> thank you, and also i want to talk about the fiscal responsibility piece and failing some sort of certification process that this won't increase the deficit, it would be great to see what the offsetting costs are, and i know chairman responded, well, they're work on some and come before us, but everything we decide in policy is a matter of tradeoffs. we would all love to have our cake and eat it too, and have

health care and no taxes quite frankly. when you have a bill of $230 million, you have to weigh that against where the cuts or tax increases are coming from and with the party in the majority, i understand there's cuts, but let's see what the $230 billion in cuts would be and wave them with the desire to repeal a bill that they happen to find undesirable. i would be assuming this bill, if it does pass the house, this one page $230 million spending bill, i look for ideas to offset these cuts that are located by the majority party. i consider as having effectively paid for the very first legislative move of the party which is to enact a one page, $230 million spending bill, and we'll look forward to the tradeoffs. once we have the other side, and i hob it just takes weeks or months, not years, and then we can have a discussion this is

what the tradeoff is, and do we want to have repeals on health care reform and enacted $230 million and deficit spending in the process or make the cuts to other programs like defense or education or medicare or wherever else the money is found. #eu look forward to having that discussion and weighing those when the facts are presented to us. i wish that was now, but i will expect them as soon as possible. >> i just want to make a point. i appreciate mr. markey coming and talking about an important provision which is the provision that closes the donor hole. a lot of seniors get caught in that, and if they can't afford it, they sometimes go without, and this bill not only would repeal that provision, but in the statement of principles that br. dreier introduced of all the things to have hearings on, this

is not mentioned. none of the committees are instructed to look into the issue. you repeal it, it's gone. based on the statement of principles, they have no intention to bring it up. i wanted to make that point because i think, you know, this idea that, you know, we'll fix everything in the future doesn't have a lot of merit when even their own set of principles don't mention this issue which is a big issue. i thank you, gentlemen. >> let my finish by saying again i think this full repeal is an overreaction because there are many elements of what have been passed. again, going back to the preexisting condition piece, i think it was mentioned in the chairman's opening remarks that large risk pools are a way of dealing with it. that's where we are today. at the very least, why isn't it just a repeal of the next

stage. why are you also abolishing this bill today's high risk pool which we saw as an intermediary step, but why repeal it all together. if you believe it's the final step, make it the final step rather than go backwards in time than make it harder for any preexisting insurance and i'd like to yield back. >> i appreciate the yes pmen just to answer the question of the leadership of this house. the facts of the case the gentleman spoke of certain areas have a huge impact on other areas, and it is embedded throughout the bill, and it is a very intricate process, and the republican does understand that, and that is why what we're trying to suggest and then do is that what we will do is come and meticulously work through this bill to where we can make sure

as you heard the gentleman, mr. dreier talk about that there are still priorities that the republican party does have that are consensus ideas. it was what we felt like was impossible to come in and dissect certain areas out because there were sections that were embedded together. the gentleman does make good points. we're attempting to thoughtfully as we are today to take as much time as necessary recognizing we've been in since ten o'clock a.m. this morning, that we will take the time to dissect this, and i thank the gentleman. the gentlewoman is recognized. >> thank you for letting me go out of turn. i wanted to talk to the gentlemen from energy and commercement i think we were all here for the clinton health care, were we not? that was the first time i ever

became aware of the fact that you had a lifetime cap. i think at that time it was $1 million. i hope it's gone up since then, and once you reach that gap, you are not insurable again in the united states of america, and it occurred to me, the same thing of course mentioned this morning with cancer. you can be covered once with cancer, but don't get it again because you're not insurable. it occurs to me while we have a huge number of uninsured persons in the united states, and we just lump them in all together as uninsured, if there would be any way to quantify how many of those were persons who simply reached their arbitrary cap and kept them from ever even having insurance again. i certainly in my lifetime have known many people who reached the cap and simply could not -- had amputations, a head injury,

you use the $1 million up in three months, and the arbitrariness of that and what we did to family structures, spending the rest of their lives trying to make up that money, if there was no other rational and heaven knows there were plenty for us to do this bill, what we could do to relieve that kind of burden. i think it affected people's effectiveness, the kinds of jobs they could have. if they had insurance, they knew they could not leave that job or move up. do you -- does that make any end rows or sense to you on we really simply don't know how many people were denied insurance because they were sick or had been sick? >> i'm sure we can find out, but what the gentlewoman raises, and i think this goes again to the larger issue. you know, who is going to benefit from the repeal? the only person or the only

group in my opinion that benefits from the repeal are the insurance companies because they keep raising premiums. >> or costing you if you are sick. >> right. the reason they have the preexisting practices or the annual caps is for them to save money so they can make up a larger profit, and, you know, and, of course, who is going to pay? they are going to make profits. their shareholders are going to make money with the repeal, but who is going to end up paying? the government. when a person doesn't have insurance and you have another cancer and you go back to the hospital and you're in the ranks of the uninsured, and you pay for it any way at the state or federal level. the health care reform saved the federal government money. there's no question about it. >> oh, it does. >> and the repeal in my opinion not only costs money because it drives us further into debt, but remains with a status closed

system. the only person who benefits is not the insurance company. maybe the republicans don't railed that, but they are benefits the insurance companies, and that's what the lifetime cap is all about. >> another important thing was the med calculate loss ratio that said 80%-85% has to be spent on health care. i'm not sure people know about that as well. instead of going into overhead or big bonuses or salaries, the money you paid in goes to provide health care. that, again, should save the government is great deal of money. >> exactly. >> thank you, thank you. >> i thank the gentlewoman, and am always pleased to extend time to the gentlewoman for questions. >> i appreciate that very much, thank you. >> at this time i recognize that i believe all the members of the minority have asked questions that they would wish of the panel, and i choose to go down to my republican members and ask them if they --

because we have been coming and going, and folks if you have questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to make one comment, and then put something in the record if i might. it was just said and it troubles me a lot that it was said again and it's been said often in the room today, and that is the government pays. you know, i think in the last few years especially people in this country have heard that said so much that they think somehow or another the government has manna from heaven and money that comes down to the government that is just "free" as that term has been used. i think we should not use the term "government" because it's

other. it's taxpayer money. the government has only that money which is gets from us as taxpayers and that that it borrows, so i think we must be very careful that we don't continue this myth this gets per pep waited by some of our colleagues that there's something called government money which again is like manna from heaven. i'm going to do that in the future when that is said. the other thing i'd like to -- the thing i'd like to put in the record, mr. chairman, is the roll call votes on the medicare prescription drug on modernization act. our colleagues are very enamored of closing the donut hole, but i note that those people all voted against this bill when it was passed, and i've heard on many occasions up until the point

where the job killing health care bill was passed last year. i heard my colleagues over and over and over again condemn this bill, and yet suddenly they are embracing a part of it, and so i would like to into the record -- >> without objection. >> who voted against the bill -- >> will the gentlewoman yield for a second? >> for a question or comment? >> i guess a little bit of both. >> well, i wasn't here when -- >> no, but because you talked to us about how we vote on the medicare prescription drug bill. we had an alternative approach we voted for that didn't have a donut hole, and the republicans rasmed through that bill in the middle of the night early into the morning. they had the roll call open for three hours to twist arms. it was not paid for. what we are saying here is do

what we originally wanted to do is provide seniors a prescription drug bill without a donut hole. >> could i ask you to yield on the first point? i agree with you when you talk about the government it means the taxpayers. we're in total agreement on that. my only point was that if a person as was described reaches their lifetime cap, and then cancer reoccurs, and they have no insurance, they go to the hospital; right? it play not be -- it may not be the federal government, but in my case the emergency room hospital take them, and then it's unexpense sate the care. in new jersey, the state legislature had to come up with new taxes as a way of funding that uncompensated carement i mean, it happens so many times in the state legislature. you're right. the government is the taxpayer, but my point is if you repeal this bill and go back to the situation where more and more

people don't have insurance, yes, the government's going to pay more and the taxpayers will pay more, but that's what we are trying to avoid. i don't disagree with your premise that the taxpayers and government is the same. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i agree with what you just said that what we saw in the health care bill in many instances was the replacement of what would have been state and local responsibilities for those very same things. maybe it's a cost saver or raiser, but replacing one level of government with another. i know we have one of your colleagues from the energy and commerce committee now as the new governor in the great state of georgia to be inaugurated next week. we're proud to have him. what we can do in georgia is what you struggled with in new jersey. we are preempted by this bill

and there's new burdens added that were not there before. there's no free lumpleg for folks who -- lunch ifs folks who think they are saving money. it's going to get paid for one way or the other. what i heard from constituents and continue to hear and since you established your credentials as the senior member here, you might be able to educate me. throughout the entire health care debate, and you were talking bout the donut hole fix, but i find it in all bills there's things linked in guarantee issues and some of the amendments we see today are things that are not linked, things we could deal with one-on-one. with reference to the donut hole fix, you believe we could go to the floor tad with a markettedly more conservative congress we

had last summer, and markettedly more conservative senate than last summer. why didn't we do that last summer as a stand alone bill? i'm tremendously proud coming out the gate, the republican leadership is bringing a bill to the floor and give us an up or down vote to have a single way to speak to the issue. why didn't the energy and commerce commission move that bill alone, preventative screenings alone, insurance for young people alone, so on, and so on, and so on. >> that's a very good question, and of course, it begs the question if why we just had an election, and there was objection to the way in this that process occurred that the majority now, the new majority doesn't take all of those things and create a bill, and bring it out, and not be rushed to get

something done within one week. this is a very important subject. the health care of grandma, you know? as mrs. foxx raised the question, it's true, it is the government, but medicare is the government, and we decided long ago we were going to provide for grandma. if the majority wants to, they can oppose something. that's an alternative. take their time. put it together, but what we fear is that the real plan is just to repeal this entire bill, and not having in something as a substitute. >> we only ended up in this circumstance because the outrage of the passage of the giant bill. ms. slaughter referenced 1994, the first time the senate changed hands over a single bill in trying to push something through. here we are doing that one more time. what was the decision last summer among the committee chairman like yourself and democratic leadership not to

move the ideas that you find so compelling that they can pass on their own merits. why can't you move them on their own merits? >> well, because, honestly, we're positive we are inclined and moving as well, and there have pretty uniform opposition on the part of the republicans then in the minority to us moving, and so at the certain point and because of the inability to put together a bipartisan coalition on the legislation, we had to move in that direction, and you saw what happened in the senate as well. basically turned it into a process where people over there were saying nothing is beginning to move at all, and so that's the unfortunate part. what you have is an opportunity now to take all of the things that you do believe in, if you do believe in filling the donut hole and free screening for grandma for cancer and rooting out the medicare fraud and if you do believe and do believe

and do believe, i think that is what you should do first. tell the american people what you do support. what you do here is say we oppose this entirety almost as an entity without any component parts to it except that it's the job killing health care bill without substituting something that is intelligent to the american people as you promised to them which we have not heard yet. we are afraid that this is really a plan to kill all of it and all the programs that help kids, that help grandma, that are in there without you're teasing out rhetorically the things that you will support. when i hear mrs. foxx talk about the government, i conclude she doesn't want to build in the programs for grandma, and that's kind of what you're left with as a conclusion as you listen to the rhetoric, and so i think if you gave yourself more time, said to the health committees,

put something together, try to work with the democrats which is what you wanted, and this will be the bipartisan substitute, but instead we get the feeling we're all done next tuesday with health care. >> i'm tremendously pleased within 24 hours i have found areas of agreement, and i couldn't agree with you more. what we are doing today is the right thing to do, but my great hope is coming out of your committee very soon are exactly those alternatives that we believe not all in a lump sum as suggested, but one by one by one so we can have the up or down votes. i thank you both for your testimony. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> we heard several times today that the cost of insurance is simply not going down. does anyone in here believe the cost of ?urns is going up? i certainly do. the cost of insurance is certainly going up, by changing who pays for it, does that cost

go down? the answer obviously is not. it does not go down because you change who pays for the cost of health care. second thing i heard several times today is this bill saves money and reducing the deficit. my question then would be any bill that actually has tax increases in it that exceeds the cost the bill would in fact reduce the deficit. that makes sense if you raise taxes or not, you reduce the deficit if the cost for it goes down. third thing i heard several times is the individual mandate is in fact a necessity to make this whole thing work. the question is if the individual mandate is unconstitutional and found to be true by our stream court sometime in the future, than the whole ponzi scheme falls apart. we have ten years of revenue to pay for six years of benefit. it's not paying for itself. i wonder what's happening in the

second decade. last thing is the whole concept of lifetime benefits being exceeded. the question is what is the actual cost of the benefits being exceeded and shift the cost the to the government to include another layer of bureaucracy to help account for that. next thing i ask is that the question relating to the private center responding to the needs of folks who have not the access to health care is addressed all across the country. doctors in my community are starting projectcare providing a private sector alternative to the health care plan allowing for a group of physicians to provide health care in the private sector at a cost that is pennys on the dollar to what we see today in this national health care move. i would suggest that the recent poll on monday said 60% of the likely vetters want this thing

repealed. there's a reason for that and that's the six points i just made. i enjoy the passion we have about creating more access to health care. the real question is who pays for it? the answer is if the government pays for it, it simply costs extraordinarily more. when i look down the road a decade or two, when we look at the intergenerational effect of taking on another entitlement on this back of our government, when we simply have a $70 trillion plus hole, how do we say to ourselves the day will not come when all of us are facing the same crisis of other nations on the cost of health care. it costs too much. those in the private sector who do nothing but health care cannot make it work without increasing the annual cost of insurance, how do we do so as a government? >> i don't know that i can address everything or even remember all the points, but let

me just say this in response. first much all, i would stress that although we have government programs like medicare and medicaid, there is some expansion of medicaid in the bill certainly, but for the most part, we're talking private sector. once the changes get up and going in 2014, people are still buying private insurance through those exchanges. now, they will get some sort of a subsidy if they are lower income, you know ring through tax credits, but it's still private insurance. i wanted to sell the myth that's out there. i'm not saying you're saying, but there's a myth out there this is a a big entitlement and this is paid for by the government. most are buying private insurance through the exchange. the other thing i would say is that, you know, all we can do is go by cbo. over the two years in putting this together, i personally many times before this committee actually said, look, i don't know why we are looking at cbo

because i think once everybody has a doctor and gets regular care you're going to save so much money because you're doing all this prevention and wellness that, you know, the government's going to save trillions of dollars. why are we using cbo scores? cbo would not score that preventative care in any way. i'm sure some of you remember say me saying not to look at cbo because of the tremendous savings. >> can i ask you a question? >> sure. >> when cbo scored this bill with the added trillion dollars of expenses and raise taxes to pay for it and raise taxes in excess of the cost of the bill and the cost only addresses 60% of the benefit and that's how we make a balance is not having 10 years of benefits. i questioned the scoring first, and second question i have is

that how does cbo presume upon the american people lifestyle choices that some could be making now, but are not making as far as presentive care. >> it's not really taxes. it wasn't tax increases. essentially, the cost of this is primarily two-fold. first, expanding medicaid because people at higher income levels would be eligible for medicaid, and secondly the tax credits for people who are on the exchange who are in that category who say from 25-80,000 for a family of four who get a subsidy when they brought the insurance policy on the exchange privately. that's where the costs were. the savings to make up for that were primarily various, but a big part was cuts to providers. as you know, the drug industry agreed to a certain amount of cuts and hospitals agreed to a certain amount of cuts.

that's how it was balanced and still actually saves money and reduces the deficit over the course of the 10 years. >> another question again. when we look at the fact that the hospital association of america joined on to the health care plan. i understand that. under president reagan the emergency room had to take on all patients, hence the necessity of the individual mandate, so if that is in fact found to be unconstitutional to find ourselves in the hospitals where they rethink they're positions because it's not cost effective for them to continue forward. perhaps -- >> i don't think that will happen. i think that the constitution, you know, in other words, one judge said the mandate was unconstitutional, and others said it is. ultimately, i think it will be found constitutional. if the mandate is thrown out, it presents a problem. the fat of the matter is by having everybody in the insurance pool, that's a way to reduce cost for individuals because everybody is covered, so

hopefully that won't happen. i don't think it will. yes, sir? >> on the six years of benefits, ten years of revenue and looking at the effect this bill has on future americans, how do we quantify that impact and how do we qualify the fact that this bill in fact pays for itself even with the tax increases? >> i'm going to say the same thing i said before. i just think once everybody's covered under the bill and the exchanges are in place in 2014, once everybody gets to see a doctor on a regular basis, doesn't go to an emergency room or get sicker because you have an america that's healthier, this savings will be tremendous. we used the cbo numbers, ended up with savings, and we do we deuce the deficit, but i don't think the actual savings to the actual system of the whole is so much great r i don't --

greater, i don't even want to emphasize. >> one more question. i think we're on the same page of the necessity of may want nans issue to the extent people have have lifestyle decisions early on and we can save in the health care industry. i would suggest that the government telling us that we have to have mammograms or a type of checkup doesn't work. i think if we allow ourselves as individuals to make those decisions that -- i do not necessarily believe that consistently that the only factor that makes that lifestyle decision necessary for us is the cost of it. as i suggested even to my community in south carolina, we are having small networks of positions providing high levels of care in the private sector at a cost that is pennys on the dollar. >> i look forward to working -- i'm glad you reminded me that you mentioned that. actually, earlier when i was talking about my colleagues on energy and commerce, there were a lot of provisions in here that

probably haven't had much attention today that actually provide for pilot programs very similar, i think, to what you are proposing -- >> yes, sir. >> in trying to achieve efficiency, and that's one the things that's beginning to kick in, so these kinds of pilot programs or demonstrations are built into the system, and those doctors can probably -- i mean, we can look into it further if you'd like, but those probably apply to be certified to do that kind of demonstration, and if it works, expand it in some way. i think i understand what you were saying. >> before i yield on this positive dialogue is the issue of medicare reimbursement rates. my thought is the medicare reimbursement rates are low enough now. when we factor that into the actual cost of the bill and what it creates which is a lack of access to more health care for

folks who are on medicaid, i think that the number would score differently long term. >> well, you have both if i understand your question. you have higher eligibility under medicaid based on income. you also have a higher reembarrassment rate for doctors on medicaid because a lot of physicians don't take medicaid now. we bring that reimbursement rate for primary care physicians up to the medicare level only for primary care physicians. >> now, i would suggest that the doctor that seems to be necessary to get the medicare rates to the place where it needs to be is still in the works. >> well, that's -- we did that with legislation in the lame duck, you know. we eliminated the cuts under medicare for doctor's reimbursement rates for the next year until the end of this year, 2011, but the health care reform bill actually brings medicaid rates for primary care doctors up to medicare levels exactly to encourage them to take medicaid

patients and so that they get primary preventative care. >> the paradox of prevention, and by the way, we don't mandate that a senior has to get cancer screenings. we just make it free as an encourage. . you should go. it's free. it will save us money. it's the same paradox of research. if we double the budget for alzheimer's research today knowing that 80% of people get al -- alzheimer's, it spends millions in the long run. otherwise they're in nursing homes all draining the federal government. there's a paradox with prevention and research that it looks like it costs money up front, but in the end we know from a common sense perspective that you save a lot of money, so right now we don't have a health care system. we have a sick care system, and what the bill tried to do is change the orientation more

towards prevention and research so that we -- 50 years ago 5% went into research and prevention. in 2010, it's still 5% in research and prevention. we want to flip that to deal with the exploding issues that get seniors with al himmers. it will bankrupt the entire system. that's what we are trying to do in the bill. >> i just want to make three quick points. >> i think we're out of time -- >> i yield, sir. >> okay, sorry. >> one is that you talk about forced mandated. as mr. marx you know ey pointed out, they are not forced to get mammograms. it's important to reflect that the important cbo score says

that the affordable care act is fully paid for and reduces deficit by $143 billion. next 10 years it's 1.2 trillion. >> mr. mcgovern -- >> i would suggest to you that if you increase taxes enough, of course, you can pay for anything at any time. the question really is how do you do that? number one, number two, i'm learning, still a rookie here. give me some time. i suggest that the second key unless we have a crystal ball and not a cbo, it's difficult to tell me what the actual cost of health care will be because facts be told if the actuary reimbursements are the best in the world will not estimate the cost of health care long term, it's difficult for me to believe

that. >> where do we get cost estimates? >> it is true that you can increase taxes on paper until you get to the point where you don't have taxpayers who do just that. >> i guess my question to you is who do you rely on to get cost estimates for anything? do we rely on, you know, a political process whoever is in power makes up the numbers? i mean, i'm trying to figure out if you don't trust cbo -- >> here's what i suggest. if, in fact, the cost of medical insurance or health care itself is outpacing inflation in a way we can't articulate, it's hard to put a definitive cost on anything. to add a trillion dollars of spending in a decade knowing that spending increases in the second decade and $2 trillion saves you? i just don't buy it. >> i think the rational behind this is if you require people to

get insurance, you know, you expand the pool, control the cost because we're -- those of us on insurance are not paying for the people who don't have insurance. that's why health care is going up rapidly because the uncompensated care pool. we need to address that, and that's what this bill does. >> serving on the board of a hospital for four years, working in the health care business for a little while, i have an appreciation in the energy that the fact access to health care is a necessity. how we get there is the problem. i suggest having the government being that provider of creating access and managing the health care of all americans will break the most trusted relationship between a patient and a physician. i find that challenging. finally i say this that if, in fact, we look down the road and think that the government is in fact the answer to all that ails

us, that they will come as our chairman has so elegantly stated quickly and concisely, that there won't be anyone to pay it. we will be bankrupt as a country. i don't understand how we continue to dig a hole and continue to think it's the way out. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i say i apologize for breaking with the precedent being set in the rules committee on not being brief. let's -- >> there is a -- mr. webster, any comments? >> okay. thank you both for being here. we appreciate that. now, as i said, we look forward to having aning the of the exact number of witnesses we had today. let me explain how we are going to proceed. i believe that we have completed now all the members of the energy and commerce committee who is been here and so we will now move to the committee on

education and the work force. let me read the biseniority. george miller 1 not in the room, but i'll go down the list as it's presented herement john tearny, paul tonko, russ holtz. i think you were bumped down in seniority there, rush. we're going by seniority which is the standard procedure for rules of the house, so i guess, i guess this is not quite right then? mr. holt comes after tyranny? okay. we'll take your word for it. tonko -- >> no. >> excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, okay, and then we're going to go holt and then

davis okay, then davis, okay? then holt and davis. okay, then i have tonko? >> courteney. >> okay. courteney then, and then tonko? is that right? >> yeah. >> okay, and then we got, you know clark and tim bisp and we don't have chu's name on here. please, we have a seat over here for you, judy. right over here. yes, we do. we got it now. we're going by seniority. i don't know where i started. who starts? lynn? line woolsley.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. >> this is unusual to have this many witnesses, but we certainly welcoming. thanks for all of you for being so patient. >> you're welcome, and thank you for acknowledging our importance here because we know that we are. mr. chairman, we achieved historic reform with the passage of the health care bill last march. this legislation was a strong first step to create a framework upon which health care can be built and continually improved. repealing the affordable care act would not only reverse this progress, it would add $230 billion in the federal debt by the year 2021. that is according to the analysis released today by the nonpartisan congressional budget office. the cost to millions of americans would be even greater since repealing the health care law would eliminate their access

to affordable health care. my amendment today would control the damages. it has two sections. the first section guarantees that repeals cannot be enacted also the office of management and budget, omb, and cbo certify that repeal will not reduce the affordability of health care traces. if they report back that access to primary care would in fact be undermind, this amendment would stop repeal from happening. the second action of the amendment would enact is public health insurance option to compete among private health insurance plans within the health insurance exchanges. my legislation, the public office deficit reduction algt, hr191 was reintroduced yesterday, and it is projected according to cbo to save the federal government $68 billion

over a 7 year period, $68 billion. this, madam chairwoman, this $68 billion is money that the government could use to make coverage more affordable or to pay down our deficit. the public option was also cited by the commission on fiscal responsibility and reform as a viable means to control health care costs since it provides affordable alternatives to private plans. madam chairwoman, right now is a perfect moment for the public option in a way for the new congressional leadership to show how they really care about this deficit, and they can do this by supporting this amendment. rather than adding billions of dollars to the budget deficit by trying to take apart the health care reform law. with that, i'm available for

question. >> i commend her and join her on the idea about the public option. losing that was pretty devastating, i think, and i believe that pretty much all of us support it and will continue to support it and see it through if we can. i think it was a very important component. i won't bother all of you with this, but i thank you for the hard work you put into the amendments, and they they are thoughtful, and i hope we can get them made in order. >> thank you. >> would you like to come up to the table? thank you. i'm going by the order that mr. dreier put here and according to his order in seniority, mr. tierney is next.

>> actually, mr. andrews. >> thank you, i'm older, but not as wise. thank you for the members of the committee who -- >> mr. andrews, i'm very sorry to stop you, but we need to take a recess. >> sure. thank you. >> do you have any idea on the length of the recess? i withdrawal my thanking of you then. [laughter] >> i am sorry i don't know an answer to your question. we'll make it as short as possible. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

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

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> so we continue our live coverage here in the lives committee. they are setting up the framework for debate if they finish the work here today. that floor debate takes place tomorrow, and we'll have that on c-span. a final vote is likely next wednesday on the health care repeal. the congressional budget office is saying a repeal of the health care law would increase the deficit by $230 billion by

2021. senate democrats say they don't plan to take up the repeal. in the house earlier today one vote on the floor of the house on a measure to reduce the operating expenses of the house. some of the committees and staff by some 5%, some $35 million. >> if i could have everyone's attention to explain this recess. we all know that yesterday was an exciting day for members of the house floor, families were with us, and obviously just as today's we have a lot of people here. apparently, accidently mr. sections was not on the floor when the oath was administered to all of us when we had to raise our right hand. he offered a motion to this committee and is here now as a dually sworn member of -- >> he looks different -- [laughter]

>> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> he was just sworn in for having accidently been off the floor, so what we are trying to do is figure out exactly how we pick up where we left off and our staff director is going to walk out of the room, and when he comes back, we look forward to resuming this wonderfully important hearing. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> start over again? [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> all right, so, as we watch this house rules committee, you can see congressman dreier making the announcement that pete sessions from the 32 pkd district in texas wasn't on the floor when the house members were sworn in yesterday. he had to make up that official swearing in to make sure he's constitutionally in office, and they are trying to figure out if this affects how the rule's committee moves forward at this point. there's parliamentary issues being resolved, and we'll keep you posted as this unfolds on c-span2. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> as we wait for the rules committee to get back underway, we'll take you live to the other side of the capitol where harry reed is talking. live coverage here on c-span2. >> it would give insurance companies the right to refuse coverage for those people who

have preexisting disabilities. some have said over there they have to take a whack at social security, that they certainly believe that our wall street reform bill was wrong. they cited then with wall street and obviously they are doing it again. republicans are not stopping there. they are even threatening to shut down government, to have the united states of america default on its bills. you can imagine as well as i can the economic crisis that this would cause, and not only what we're doing internationally, but what we're doing at home. no more social security checks. the troops would not get their checks. veterans would not get their checks. border security, fbi, all of it. we are focused as democrats on

creating jobs by investing in education so our kids can compete in this new international economy that we have, and we want to move off oil which is now approaching $is 100 a -- $100 a barrel, and we need to give the middle class americans the tools to get ahead and not take opportunities away from them. okay, first question of the year, yeah? >> [inaudible] >> mr. boehner said you want spending cuts, are you rejecting that idea or willing to entertain something like that? >> the payroll system we had in effect was ours. we believe that spending has to be cut. we believe that if you're going to have new programs, you have to pay for them either by cutting spending or increasing

revenue. the one thing i would agree with the new speaker and this is his quote, "we're going to have to deal with it as adults," talking about the debt limit, "whether we like it or not they have obligations on our part. that's a direct quote from boehner. ..

it's going to create huge amounts of money. so are we saying the health care bill is perfect? of course not. that's why the 1099 we have on a bipartisan is to fix some of those things. we are willing to work in any way that's the nature to improve the health care delivery for a country, but repealing health care they should get a new lease on life, talk about something else. >> senator reid, there is a nevada talk about having fiscal troubles and some experts you've been talking about a crisis of a

possible congressional bailout. what is the mood in congress for a possible congressional bill that would you be able to work when not if they can do that? >> well, i don't think we have to worry about that right now. we just passed a lot a matter matter of weeks ago they give state and local government significant relief. that's what compromises about. remember, there's extension of the tax cuts in exchange for that we have a lot of programs that do many, many things to help local governments and state government, people who are down and out including unemployment compensation. so i think it's a little early to start talking about bailouts now. [inaudible] >> which is headed very,, very good caucus. it's very clear that democrats want to change the rules. they believe, as i believe the

rules have been abused as i said in my opening statement yesterday and we're going to work towards that. we believe the republicans see the light of day are willing to work with us or if not, will likely do something on her own. [inaudible] >> well, i'm not going to get into specifics. we have lots and lots of support to change the rules. [inaudible] >> yeah, we are not ready yet to talk about different jobs, things that were going to do. as i indicated in my store here, we are trying to help the beleaguered economy. i was terribly disappointed in what was done today in the house or late last night to violate really a public trust, a trust fund, a highway trust fund. they've set the the firewall is down.

those monies that you buy gasoline, the pump, part of what you pay for the trust fund. the trust fund is to go to highways, bridges, roads. it also goes and they say no, we're going to use that for other purposes. as a result of that, the chamber of commerce, the labor organization says what's wrong with them quite are they out of their minds? we have the stock. this easier is possible to violate a law that created a trust fund for the american people to say we're going to ignore that as well as cbo scores. [inaudible]

>> so there is senator harry reid, senate majority outside the ohio clock in the capital and the remainder of the senate not back until january 25. we will show you the house rules committee. you can see waiting to get back underway here. members are setting up the framework for a floor debate on the repeal of health care law, the health care reforms in the goodbye to congress. we'll see that live on the house floor tomorrow we believe if they initially work in the rules committee. the debate moves to the house floor and will have the rear and c-span. holed holdup right now turns up congressman pete sessions missed the swearing-in yesterday, had to be swearing in to get constitutional muster. rowley made whether or not that has to kind of be redone or do they need to backup, they're working on the parliamentary procedure at this point. congressman dreier tells us that once they saw that, delegate

that will have that for your life. in the meantime, the house budget committee has a new paul ryan and they took part in a conversation on the economy today. he was questioned by a reporter from "the wall street journal." this is not just a candle to wait for the rules committee to get back underway. [inaudible conversations] >> let me ask you to take your seats and i'll do a two-minute introduction and turn it over to the two poles. from wisconsin come in the first half of the session will be on the packers prospects on saturday and wisconsin's unfortunate defeat culminating the weekend for the big ten.

i believe the last five games out of five, but at least wisconsin made it competitive. anyway, let them do that. i'm bill kristol and i added the weekly standard but i'm here to be on the organizations of this event is looking forward to. one of them at the manhattan institute. from the relatively in a given useless boardmember that fine institution and also relatively not to boardmember piece 21, other sponsoring institutions, so i get to do the introduction here and leave. listen i should say. of course. listen attentively. mani institute a very think tank in new york who is best known for the policy ideas implemented in the mid-90s that took a lead on in the 90s. the institute has done terrific work better.

also on the fiscal crisis, the financial crisis, so i'm institute is happy to be a sponsor of this institute as this piece 21 come a smaller and younger think tank that were dedicated to the 21st century and economic policy. both websites i should say it really worth going to each morning and you can even sign up and get an e-mail from them to save yourself from having to go find them each morning. manhattan institute you can search for their website. it's well-known and east 21's website, economic 21 website.org. you can keep up on the economic debate. both the state level and federal level, budget debate, fiscal policy, monetary policy, really worthwhile. on behalf of both organizations,

we are really pleased for going to have a series of conversations with major public figures that will be moderated by, led by another major public figure. this is really a terrific one. will have mitch daniels and other members. other senators and other political leaders have consented to do this. it's really terrific to kick it off with paul ryan, the two poles from wisconsin. in my opinion, the best column from 1998 to 2001 and "the wall street journal" and then went to new york to us in the editorship of the editorial page where he has been an equally excellent job. paul ryan came to washington in 1998 as a 7-year-old. [laughter] pecan is a very young,

28-year-old. this is his seventh term as a republican member of the house from wisconsin. now chairman of the budget committee and is a crucial physician. he is already crucial for his intellectual leadership and his delusionally as well and will happen over the next few years and fiscal and budgetary policy. so i will turn it over to paul ryan. thank you for coming. >> is a great pleasure for me to be here. i thank you all for coming. it's a pleasure to be here with congressman ryan. so the plan today is the two of us will talk for about 40 minutes and then we'll open it up to all of you for questions later on. let me start before we get into some of the details of the budget and the debate, let me ask you to think ahead two years to 2012, when new york will have their second super bowl ring by

then. but you're running for reelection. you want to present to the voters what you've accomplished. thinking ahead, what is it you want to deal with to the voters that you have done in these two years. it's the most important question may appear at what i hope we will have done is we will have been responsible. we will have conducted ourselves with humility. we will have worked with president obama on occasion, where we can find some common ground on some issues to get things done for the country. at the end of the day and 2012, i think there are just large chasms of difference of opinion, of governing philosophies that will be bridged. and so i feel we owe it to the country to give them a choice, an alternative future for the country. and so by 2012, americans will have in front of them a very

clear choice to make him a choice of two futures. i'm the one hand would be the future we have in front of us right now. based upon the current trajectory we are on, based upon all the government creates in the last two years and everything proceeded not condescend both political parties, which is putting us on a path of debris went, which is putting this on a path of becoming more like a european democracy social workers stay. that's the path where i'm today. hopefully we will give country a choice of the future where we reclaim the american idea, where we embrace american exceptionalism, were checked this managed decline and we apply those principles that founded this country. we show the country a future of a deformation and, as a nation with a prosperous growing economy and an opportunity society with the safety net versus a great welfare. give the country that choice. i believe for one that we would

win that referendum and therefore have the moral authority and then the opportunity in 2013 to make good on that vision, to reapply these principles and fix these things. i also think it's important that they see us as a party of growth and opportunity, not the party of crony capitalism, which we have fallen into that trap before. >> as republicans. >> yeah, and both parties do this. we believe in being pro-market, not necessarily pro-business that every congressman needs to learn. and so, what we believe in is a system and a society where everybody has chance to make their lives and that we have a prosperous and growing economy and people cannot a bright future. cbo tells us this over and over, we're getting the next generation. living standards are going down

in america, facing the future we have now which has created two open-ended title meant on top of other once we have. we are to the country to show them a different path or one that will give them higher living standards. and that's what i hope we can present. >> i think it's interesting in your answer you didn't have any specific legislative achievement thursday. he suggested the main goal is to present the choice. do you think -- as he looked at two years from now, do you think there's anything legislatively that you really want to have done? so, i think in order for that i'm a what i just had to take place, we have to define ourselves with our action, so we'll have to draft and pass legislation through the house to frame that choice your accomplishments we want to have back then. it's difficult to answer because not knowing what the president will sign into law or not it's has to say. that's why started our same person teams. the way i hope this goes as the president and i anything

triangulation or whatever we want to call it is the foregoing obligation. he has to come to get some house republicans. he'll say to a sunday, b. and c. i agree with the republicans, let's do those things. traits and other things. hopefully some spending cuts, some spending reforms and then will do those things. don't ask, why in the, repeal of the south carolina and replacing with the consumer directed by bill think is going to work on this. and so we will still advance legislation to end the ask why and thinks about the end of the two-year period in 2012, the voters of this country, people of this country will have a real clear choice. but you have to pass a budget. you have to take care of the rest of fiscal 2011 and that you have to pass a budget resolution for 2012. you're taking over the budget committee with spending as a share of gdp is about 25%.

the deficit is what 10% roughly? and the deficit itself is about $1.2 trillion. do you have any numerical targets of where you want to take those three for example at the end of two years, where you can say this is actually tangible progress that we succeeded in? >> i will when we get our new baseline. i don't mean to be evasive, but we don't get our numbers from cbo and the first crunch, the end of this month at the president cements its budget which will be a week or so late. that delays as a member to get another set of numbers from cbo and march probably. by december we see where we are and what kind of deficits we can fix. so yes, i expected this spring, probably in april, that's when the deadline usually if it aired in april, we will have a budget resolution, which will map out how we would do things differently, what our fiscal prescription for the future of

this country, containing, controlling, cutting, spending a growing the economy. progrowth economic forms to get opportunity, spurred verity and jobs in the economy. we'll put those in in our budget resolution, the technical part of the budget resolution and it's necessary you mention it fy 2012 discretionary spending. that's what the government samara shutdowns come into play. we're going to have a low number. i will do that within what the president has. and then over the course of the summer and into the fall, will have two negotiate, just like we have to emerge. will have to negotiate a resulting number that comes out of that for discretionary spending to continue. >> so first of all you've got to deal with fiscal 2011. there's already a lot of talk in the press. you've heard some democrats criticize you for backtracking on the promise of $100 billion reduction. can you respond to that charge?

>> if people think were for it is cutting $100 billion, they've got another thing coming. this is just the beginning. they're going to meet that target. what this is as when we put out our target, which was brings down to a late level, in october when we put that over with that scored it $100 billion. what happened since then? well, ecr occurred that came down below the president's number. continuing resolution. and so, two things have happened since then. the cr eight south outspending down and help the fiscal year spending has gone out the window. so having the spending target that we pledge to hit in our pledge to america now scores at around 60 billion, not $100 billion. so the savings estimate of our policy in october's $100 billion. half the money is already out the door because of this cr.

so it's not a backtrack of policy. the republican policies stay the same. as a saving estimate of the republican policy is changed. >> from your point of view is it fair to say the 100 billion, whether it's 6100 is just a down payment. we totally do her budget resolution, wait till we do our fiscal year 2012, were going to keep going. >> you mention discretionary accounts. you think you can get a lot out of that. does that include national security? >> outcome of the way look at these things must lower the captain of a fight on the caps. the chapters $700 billion at a government agency cannot expect what is occur. so you would reduce the cap on different departments, including defense. >> i would reduce the entire discretionary cap and then defense five with education. and like i try to do is i don't try to do the job of the appropriations committee. they are pretty guarded about

their jurisdiction. so, the way i look at defense spending is number one, let me say something that probably counters what you thought is going to say. everybody wants to have a peace dividend budget, but were not appeased. you can't have a peace dividend budget when we have two wars going on. number two, there is waste at the pentagon and we have to go after that. we had to save money in the dod budget. >> you have any specific examples? >> i'm accounts. there's lots of waste and operation. and procurement as well. >> any particular programs you have in mind? >> i'll let the appropriators answer the questions. i do have opinions but i'll keep to myself right now. but i would like to do is go after race in the pentagon, get savings and re-plow that back into higher priority defense spending to prevent us from having to do up the

supplementals. but we typically do is pass the defense appropriations bill and then we pass the 100 plus bill and top as this is an emergency that we don't know where in afghanistan. so i'd rather see savings occur from within the pentagon budget by cleaning up the books of the pentagon and falling back into the pentagon to reduce the new country and need to have supplemental. that to me is the better way to go. when it comes to treasury spending, bringing the entire cap down and force government to prioritize within. and when your prayer for saying, let's recognize we can't have a peace dividend budget at a time when not appeased. >> what kind of magnitudes are you talking? is the 2008 targets to your -- >> were going to 2008. >> you're talking about even lower? >> i'm talking about war savings coming in the budget. i can't even number because i don't know my yardstick yet. i don't have the cbo baseline to give you a member yet, but we are going to continue paring back spending after this current

fiscal year expires. >> okay. now the other question, the question if you reduce spending for entitlement accounts, medicare, medicaid, social security predominately. are you going to include those and reduction in those, reforming those as part of your budget? >> i don't know the answer. my roadmap is the answer to my preferences fire. but everybody seems to think these days is gosh, and the chairman alan i can make my roadmap budget resolution. that's not how it works. i wrote the roadmap in 2008 in 2010 to reach the consensus of 1%, myself. i now have to write a budget resolution to meet the consensus of 118 people, majority of the republican caucus. so it difficult to say what's that going to be him especially since they don't have her baseline that. or we cannot ignore entitlements. we have to do with entitlements. and what we're going to do -- i

just came from a meeting of ways and means, we are launching lots of hearings on entitlement policy ways and means. lots of entitlements and budget committees. commerce committee is going to do hearings on entitlement reform. were going to bring governors have to tell us about the reforms they've done. were going to look at medicaid solutions. going to look at all parts of the federal budget. nothing is going to be immune from oversight and from hearing so we can go out and get the best ideas to try and figure out how to get this thing turned around. ultimately you can't fix the preemptive debt crisis without to it with entitlements. and we have to take some sizable steps in that direction. >> your argument inside the republican conference will be, we must do something about medicaid, medicare and social security in this two-year timeframe, despite the fact the president is a democrat in the senate. >> i wouldn't lump the three of those in the same sentence. for instance, in the deck

commission, which is serve as a member of, social security reform should not be a function of deficit reduction or debt reduction. social security reform should be to fix and reform social security. whether or not reduce social security reform, i don't know the answer. i would love to see if the president wants to engage in a dialogue. if he doesn't, i don't know the answer to that question. >> would you recommend it to your conference? >> the last budget i wrote in the minority as i put some reforms and they appeared after the orszag plan he wrote at brookings and put some of his things then. we did talk running medicaid to the states. >> would you like to see that? >> yes, i would. i think that is one of the policy options we should consider, given the fact states are so different from one another. it's crushing state budgets, leading to state insolvency and a contributing factor their fiscal problems. >> what you think the factors arafat happening?

>> in the interim i think that one holds the best promise. social security medicare reform will take a much longer time to achieve just because i don't think those issues are very a because of the divided government we have. >> medicare is obviously the most politically difficult. >> i'm familiar that. notwithstanding and not only because of the difficult politics generally, but because your party ran against in the last election but medicare cuts as part of the health care reform. so does that complicate your task this year? >> well, if you look at what we said -- some people have dropped the last sentence in this. we were against taking $522 billion in medicare money to create another government program and it didn't do anything to contribute toward solvency. you look at rick foster's appendix, he spells this out

pretty clearly. a lot of republicans drop that last sentence. and they were just at cutting $522 billion for medicare. >> imagine that. for taking $522 billion, reading $522 billion to create another entitlement was a really bad idea. medicare is going broke. the biggest fiscal problem of oliphant. so i do believe waiting to make the down payment on medicare reform in this two-year period. i think we need to start talking about this. i'm going to have hearings in the budget committee on this. so i don't know whether or not we've consensus. i just don't know the answer to your question, whether or not for going to be moving legislation comes up with a good witty to consider and talk about. >> let me ask you about the politics more broadly because you are young, but you're still all just remember 1995 and 1996, when he returns to the republicans, i think you were an

aide at the time. >> u.s.a. -- the speaker of the time pushed dramatic reforms in entitlements. medicare and medicaid in particular. and there were parties undoing politically or at least that is -- >> that's the historical view right now i would say. >> and a lot of members of your party think that. >> that's right. >> if you ask bob dole, i think he would concur with that. so the question is, what is different politically now been banned to make you think you could make the same kind for similar reforms and survive politically? because the economic day of reckoning is right around the corner. >> because the tens of trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities are right up there in front of us. medicare is going insolvent

later in the decade and medicare is the greatest cause of our debt problems. and because baby boomers start retiring this year. we are going from approximately 40 million retirees to approximately 80 million. we are increasing the benefit consuming generation, but only increasing tax paying and so we have looming insolvency. gao -- if we look at gao liability figure, it's basically a measurement. >> general accountability office. >> it was a $62.9 trillion figure. acd $.6 trillion this year. so we are going that much deeper into our whole, that much faster. after that 1996 medicare political football issue, john breaux, bob kerrey and others have this medicare commission,

this bipartisan commission and not recommended some innovative reforms to medicare that would've put it on a path toward solvency. alice rivlin and i am commissioned co-authors of reforms that are innovative, that put medicare on the way toward solvency. she and pete domenici and their other -- i forgot what they call that thing, the domenici of rivlin commission, they advocated medicare reforms imposed on the list of solvent b. let me just tell you what the malpractice on medicare. i'm not suggesting congress is going to propose this, what people like me have been saying is let's guarantee current seniors are going to get medicare benefits the coming to town. people near retirement as well. my bill says 55 and about here in the is currently designed. but if you're under 55 or so, it's not going to be there for you. you will have the severely and deeply rationed medicare seniors at that time if we keep this

program going as it is in the new law puts a lot of these rationing mechanisms in place. >> my guess would be if you put a question to the american public that even today, with all of those facts about the looming crisis which are real and if they were under dead, which you favor reductions in medicare spending in the future, you would get 60, 65% against? don't you have a significant education? >> we do. and you can begin to make down payments without having to get medicare, but we'll never fully fix our budget situation at that address. whether we do at this year and next i don't know the answer to that question, but it is not something we should ignore. we've got to keep talking about this. whether we pass legislation, i don't know, but we can't stop talking about it. my question would be is this the kind of major change that you

need presidential support for? >> i think so. either party. >> so if the president has don't touch medicare, we just took 500 billion out of it cheaper to health care, then the republicans, should they march right into the 6:00 a.m. that's politically? >> company sponsors do have? >> i haven't reintroduced it. i wasn't looking for cosponsors. i can't tell you whether we are going to go comprehensive medicare reform in our budget or not, but we are going to be talking about comprehensive medicare reform and be during hearings and i'm still going to be personally advocating my own personal legislation outside of my role as a teacher.

>> let me ask you about the president because i find you and i talked, it was in november after the election and you're pretty pessimistic about the degree of pessimism as they move forward on their agenda. since then he's had the tax deal, which is something you supported and passed with it maturities over the houses. the fat negotiation leave you to think that perhaps the president really is going to move more dramatically than you thought on more items, where you can actually get things done in the studio. >> though, that joe doesn't lead me to think that because that is something you have to do. he didn't have a choice. because the votes in the day. the tax increase was happening. anybody, whether you're a keynesian or classical economists were arguing at the time it will do damage to the economy. and so, you have to do this,

plus most of the votes, the votes just went there for his school of thought. so we had to do that. i don't look at that tax deal as necessarily a sign of things to come with respect to cooperation. i do believe, i'd like to think we are going to have some confirmation on those issues come to that will be more the exception than the rule. >> you mention trade. what other areas? >> hopefully in spending reforms. >> spending reforms like gramm-rudman? automatic view exceeds accounts, budget limits, budget budget cuts, some budget reforms. there is a bill that was back when i have, hopefully things like that. >> you want to push that? >> that's among the things i'll be pushing. >> does the leadership support that? >> they always have. >> world to think you can get some agreement with the president? >> i'm curious to see what he'll

do on immigration reform, it'll try and get somethings done on that. to to use a long time but doing nothing. obviously our high priority is getting the border under control, but we also have these other issues and immigration the period and so, that's also for economic reasons. so i wonder alpaugh -- i was talking to john mccain about this yesterday. he seems to think there's a shot at this. i do know is possible or not. energy policy as well. i would like to think that somewhere there's a chance this administration will allow and i'd like to think we have a shot at that. >> and 50 more natural gas than oil, but i think i'm intermountain region and natural gas, i think that the cleaner burning energy supply, i think there's probably something their nuclear. i think there's probably some opportunity they are, so

hopefully on some energy legislation we have a shot at something. >> is the price for that which you have to give the president more clean energy, jean energy subsidy, so-called clean energy? >> not in my opinion. >> with verdict on enough of that stuff. >> so you are going after is part of your -- >> that falls in that category. >> said you still think he might compromise compromise on energy? >> i don't know, but i think there's a chance of it. >> what about tax reform? i mean, you've talked about this for a long time. even charlie wrangle supported in the last congress that tax rate from 35.two i think 30. so the president -- and they've hinted, tim geithner hinted at

this, is this something you might think you will be able to get it? >> that's basically the other piece. we'll see that in the state of the union address. i do think so. most people who have been involved in tax reform have causes for a long time. but they all involve broadening the base and lowering the weight. so how you do that matters greatly, but i would like to think we can get consensus on broadening the base and lowering the rates to make our tax code more competitive. so i do hold out some hope that there is a shot at some actually maybe not wholesale fundamental fundamental -- and the flat tax cut myself. hopefully a good step in the right direction to make our tax code more internationally competitive. >> so would you support a more narrow flat tax then say you want to just attack a corporate tax structure, lower the corporate tax rate and reduce

the impulse. >> i do feel that goes in the republican caucus, is that something -- >> i think generally speaking, pretty well. i am tax reform does that. and the budget i bought from the ford last time, last session brought down 25%. investor pays broad measures. so if rd gone for that in the house republican caucus. we have to confront the tax expenditure copy. i've been on ways and means for 10 years, the tax expenditure latte has an interest in this. they succeeded pretty well and protecting those interests for those political parties. we've got to confront that. and if in 2012 we do our job right, we're looking out for the american people. when looking for the american economy, not the snare special interest as a piece of the tax code carbajal, which serves

against their competitors. we want growth. we want real competition. we want a lower entry. we want a haven for capital formation to be this country, not some other country. a fundamental tax reform is one of the key ways to get there. >> all right, there is debate i want to ask about right now going on the republican party about how to handle the debt ceiling. i think the president today submitted his formal request that the debt ceiling be raised. it's going to have to happen sometime this spring or the timing people disagree about. there's a lot of republicans. jim demint is one of them. michele bachmann, and other making almost any moral issue that i will refuse to vote for the debt ceiling increase without major spending reforms. >> they might've said. , that's right. >> i'm in the major spending reform camp. >> the cameo -- what do you

think about that? >> well, just for using the vote for it, i don't think that's really a strategy. i believe i don't want to rubberstamp the government and raising the debt to ceiling. want to see the nation to follow? no, but i want to make sure we get substantial spending and custom controls in exchange for the debt ceiling. that is related. it's not an unrelated item. and so i believe before going to do this, which obviously you can't default, we need to have several fiscal fixes in order to do that. this is very serious. it's something we care a lot about and were not going to turn the fiscal shift around overnight, but we want to point it in right direction. the debt ceiling is not telling with current spending. it's old spending. >> fiscal recklessness of the

past. and so will the debt ceiling be raised or does it have to be raised? just come you cannot raise the debt ceiling. default is the unworkable solution for the alternative. but we do not want to just have some debt ceiling increase. we want to have real fiscal controls, real spending cuts that go with this in order to see that. >> the former senator, phil graham once told me that one of his political rules was never to take a political hostage are not not prepared to shoot. you have to pass a debt ceiling increase. that is a hostage or not prepared to shoot. so how is that a winning strategy? >> how long do we raise the debt ceiling for? two years, one year? there's different ways of doing a debt ceiling increase that can speak to her strategy. i don't like negotiating on how

were going to approach this issue, but i can tell you one thing. people aren't interested in the debt relief. >> you want something in return -- >> in conjunction. what you want remains to be negotiated at >> are talking to ourselves. >> the president refuses and says you guys are irresponsible. >> you are risking the faith and credit of the united states not irresponsible. that habit in 1996. it would be responsible to president refuses to sign a bill. >> okay. >> you think you can win up the bully pulpit? >> look what we are right here stage right now. i'm a lowly journalist. he's got the bully pulpit. nobody likes brinksmanship, but what we really don't like his

runaway spending that is bankrupting this country. and we want to see the fiscal direction of this country changed. the debt ceiling is a symptom of the fact at our fiscal policy is way off track. we want to do some things that get us pointed in the right direction as this debt ceiling increase the curbs. he says this morning march 31st, so there is a time. and nobody really knows the answer. treasury has some local room for sure. >> they do and it seems like this better unforeseen. >> another issue that's likely to come up is the fiscal progression of the states. you have a lot of them in major states that are in very tough fiscal positions. big deficits. and there's a prospect that one or more may come to you and say we cannot avoid truly awful cuts

on services without another help from the federal government. what is your response? >> we cannot do a bailout. if we bail out one state, then all of the debt of all of the states is not just implied. it's almost explicitly put on the books of the federal government. the federal debt will go from here to here than the amount of federal debt. there seems to be some kind of an implicit belief that these are federally backed. they are not. and so, i think that's important. i'm a supporter of debra nunes locomotives asking for a clear accounting. if you want to enjoy the tax expenditure of tax free bonds at the state municipality, give us a clear accounting of your liabilities. they used discount rate to something like 80% in many states to measure the pension liability, which is just not reality. and so, let's get some clear accounting and pete, let's have lots of hearings on the route

i'm going to do saturates myself. i know we need to learn more about what states are in what situations, what are the timing of these things and what is the proper response? and i've been working on something myself and what i think would be the proper federal response, but we are not interested in a bailout. >> so this is a flat no, don't even bring it up here because you're not going to get a hearing. >> would've some states say we are in danger of the fall? >> they are already telling us that. so take it somewhere else. >> should taxpayers and purple states be bailing out taxpayers and profligate states? should wisconsinites, we're going to become a further state, but we haven't anyway. should taxpayers in indiana who have paid their bills on time, should they be bailing out californians who have their? no, that's a moral hazard we are

not interested in creating. >> you probably heard some democrats say that in the repeal of the health care bill is going to give a big hit to the deficit increase the deficit. what do you think of that argument and why did you exempt repeal from the new budget rules that make it impossible under the rules to increased as? >> were not interested in turning that into our budget rules. the only reason why anybody suggest anything close to this deficit is because the books have been booked. >> it's not cbo. if democrats who wrote the bill. they gave the cbo -- cbo has to score what you put in front of him. if you put a bill in front of them that ignores discretionary cost of the $115 million in me

to run the obamacare program, that double counts the medicare savings. that double counts the cossack revenues. that double acts of social security revenues. that does not count the toxics. you have that stuff up and were talking about a $701 billion hole dataset. so if you do real account accounting, getaway smoke and mirrors, this thing is a huge deficit increase. and so were not interested in enshrining and endorsing and accepting all the budget cannot the democrats have used a grimacing throughout. art by words, this thing could not reduce the deficit. i'm very confident in saying that. neither piece of paper that they contorted pass. >> are you going to seek a rescored? >> we got one yesterday or today, this morning, which is it

is about the same that it was before. about $145 billion. >> essentially you're going to ignore cbo as you push for repeal. >> we are going to ignore these budget gimmicks and push for repeal. the press has been sort of hedging of thomas, bringing it up under a closed road this week. we promise the american people were going to do this. i just have this notion, maybe because it's from wisconsin. if you say you're going to do something in a campaign, you do it when you're in office. and push for america, we said we would bring up a straight up or down vote to repeal the south carolina. what are we doing? that's what we're doing in office. so that is why we are doing it this week under these circumstances with these procedures because we don't think we should be paying for the repeal of a lot that we believe will increase the budget deficit by a minimum of $700 billion over the next 10 years. >> i get a little animated.

you mentioned early on that you want to have a growth agenda. yet a lot of the things that are a necessity, you have to do as a budget chairman archiving, reducing this, reducing now. and the danger i suppose politically is that she's become is a party, get the reputation forestier. the president takes a high ground and sometimes a growth guy. they are cutting. we need the spending for investments for growth and i'm the growth candidate. and you begin to look small and austere and with the national accounts essentially. how do you avoid that? >> obviously rather as a party that, apart from rhetoric, what do you have a policy to be able to avoid that austerity of a

bowl. >> a lot of policies go beyond the budget itself. let's focus on the foundation we need for economic growth. i'm not one of these people who think you can drop some big hill with a magic silver bullet to turn the economy around. with focus on the macroeconomic. that's something we can do in a budget resolution. >> you can put a tax -- >> in your budget resolution your matches whatever you have going forward. so tax reform is number one. low tax rates are a key ingredient to economic growth in on this 21st century international competitiveness. and that's not something you do in a budget, but something you do it on the budget committees we have, which is renewed regulatory certainty. we need businesses to understand , but we need fair regulations as well. we need fair, accountable regulations. so that a second thing we have to address. we also need some money. and that's not something you put

in a fiscal policy document. we need to become the party of sound money. our money has to be honest, it reliables value and we have to do with the fact that with we at the federal reserve and a monetary policy that is anything but sound. >> i suggest -- that implies that you're going to bring up chairman bernanke talk about monetary policy. >> i'm sure ron paul has a few plans of his own. >> are you going to push her bill for the single mandate? you are going to push that? you want to speak about in this congress? >> yeah, i'm going to introduce this bill. >> it's not my choice to decide, but i hope to do that. >> so we need to focus. we need many like tort reform. we need to do the things that are important to get growth in this economy, get business certainty and make ourselves are

internationally competitive and trade as well. we need to have a growth agenda. low tax rates, sound money, sound regulations, those are the building blocks we need to have an economic prosperity china to make us internationally competitive. some of these things or other bills will have to pass. i would also tack on top of that in energy policy that creates jobs here at home. that lowers commodity prices, that lowers fuel prices. these are the kinds of things we need to do. we need to cut spending. but let me just close with this as i can tell somebody is waving at you. >> well, we want to open up to questions. >> it is important that we are the growth party. cutting spending no is really not paying and root canal. wait until we don't do that and what happens later. the question we have for ourselves in this country is, do we reform government, reform our entitlement programs, get these

programs were written in the 20th century, to work in the 21st century and have progrowth policies that help our businesses come and make us internationally competitive, that's growth. what austerity is, what is too enough income is staying on the path we're on and have era debt crisis in her own european kind of a six but we are cutting seniors to slow us down in managing our decline. so the question which we still can answer is do we have a progrowth policy that gets is growing again. because of that economic growth come you can't fix this budget problem. or do we manage, metal, so stagnant growth, watches took over to a debt crisis that we manage our decline even further into a grateful first-rate. morality also has to be adjusted. i know you want me to wind it down, but were coming to a country where we are getting more and more takers than makers

in america. we need to have more makers unless takers. if we have more takers, we are denying people to make most of our lives. we don't want to turn into a hammock that most people of complacency and drains them of their will to make most of their lives. and that is the outcome of these policies were discussing. hot [applause] >> all right. we want to open it to the fore. first of outcome we do have mics, so please identify yourself when you ask a question. we've got the gentleman in the far corner. >> thanks, mr. chairman. john ward at the daily collier. on the issue as entitlements, you mentioned that is basically the basic area where you think you'd like to create a contrast with the obama administration. >> is the budget itself i would say. i wouldn't say all the

entitlements. though it failed the budget come discretionary entitlement. >> entitlements is the biggest piece -- biggest part of the problem. you also said you need to pass legislation to create the contrast. but judging from the last energy talk about the roadmap of the budget now versus a-alpha the likelihood. there also seems to be less willingness to put spending cuts out they are before state of the union. so are republicans kind of backing up the willingness to really go first on this? >> we have a spending cut on the floor today. for cutting congresses or budget. were putting the session builds on the floor. i can't speak to the timing of before or after, but we're going to bring spending cuts to the floor repeatedly all first-quarter long. i'm not suggesting the budget is going to be over. i don't know what the budget resolution will do. i don't know the answer to the question because i don't have a baseline that. b., it's a collaborative process that is driven and we have a country that.

and we haven't done our committee hearings. we haven't done the kind of research we intend to do to help formulate good public policy. it's not as if we wound up in the majority and have everything figured out. if you haven't notice, congress hasn't done a lot of oversight in the last two years. both parties are to blame for this. we need to do some oversight to make it into policy. we want to bring innovative policymakers and to discuss how best to achieve these goals of keeping america exceptional and preempting this debt crisis. we haven't done all of this yet, so it's impossible for me to tell you what the budget resolution is going to look like. [inaudible] >> the question is since the mic was turned off, do i want myself and the roadmap budget? i never intended when i wrote the word out that this was going to be the budget for the platform for the republican party. what i intended on doing was creating a debate, creamy discussion, getting in the pool

and encouraging people to jump in with me so we can discuss how to fix these problems the country. i want to show on the roadmap you can still have the american dream. we can still have the american idea. we can still keep our economy free. it's not too late given her circumstances. i think i've achieved that. or what to do is advance the discussion to an adult level. it's not quite get there, but it getting closer. the commission helped, but it's getting closer. when i wrote the roadmap, that was not the same here's exactly how to do it and this is the only way i'm going to go, far from it. what i was trying to do a show here is one way of doing it and here's how i personally think is a better way to go. i want other people to bring their ideas to the table to get the best outcome. an hour in the process of getting other people to bring their ideas to the table so we can get the best outcome. we have completed that process yet, so i can't tell you with the budget is going to look like. we got sworn in yesterday. give us a break. >> we've got a mike appear at the front.

>> thanks, matt miller, the "washington post." in the spirit of the adult conversation, the roadmap according to the cbo letter had doesn't balance the budget until after 2050 and still has trillions of dollars to the debt in the interim. now that you're in the majority, what year do you think the budget should be balanced? >> i don't have the answer. >> you know were at about a chilling dollar step to say. >> i think it should be balanced this year. >> that you don't really. the roadmap which is considered a fiscally conservative progressive plan has a 40 or 50 or planned to balance the budget. and the majority, that can't suffice. >> said that she shows you how awful the numbers have become. as she shows you how deep of a fiscal hole we've got. we are not measuring our budget deficits and millions anywhere. we are measuring and chileans

now. and it also shows you the demographic shift that has occurred in this country. the baby boomers are now busy are starting to retire at full retirement. so what budget people call on the chart graph is a in the pipeline. it is the big demographic bulge that is moving numbers to the system. if you choose to grandfather the grandparents, which is what the roadmap does, that does require more spending or borrowing to finance entitlements for people who are currently on them, giving more people are retiring because of baby boomers. so does she shows you how tough this is. history shows you how you're not going to balance the budget in a couple of years. and so what do i want to do? onto ballots as quickly as possible. i can tell you one thing. a well-balanced and if we don't grow this economy. if we don't get jobs and economic growth, turn back on this country, we're not going to balance the budget anytime soon. that's got to be a focus. they don't really measure that status.

we need progrowth economic prosperity. that combined with spending reductions in spending reforms is how we're going to balance sooner than down the road. .. >> job that i always wanted is taking by gunning aaron rodgers. i probably never going to get that job. first, again, i'd pry not to do the appropriators job. they don't like it when i do try

to do that. what i do is the budget chairman is i set the spending limits. what i'll do is set the spending limits, very low, and then the appropriations committee after the oversight hearings to come up with the specific list of spending cuts. so i'm going to have to -- i'm not trying to pass the buck. but that's their job. they are going to be doing the hearings and coming up with a list of spending cuts needed to achieve the spending limit that i will have -- we will have put in place and given to the appropriations committee. as far as 2012, i'm not thinking about 2012. i'm thinking about right now, and the budget, and through the budget season, i'll think about other things. it's not even on my mind. >> gentleman in the white shirt right here. >> sure. matt cover with cnnnews.com. seems to be the elephant in the room is funding for the health

care reform law. you know, i think everyone expects that the repeal bill will pass the house and then either not pass the senate or certainly not get signed by the president. will -- in your budget will there be any funding for the -- for that? >> obviously, we plan on repealing it and our budget should reflect the repeal of the health care law. we will do that. the real question that i think you are trying to get at is defunding this law. that occurs in the appropriations process. so what the budget does is it sends the numbers, the cap, to the appropriators, they write the spending bills, and inside of those spending bills is where we do plan on pursuing other mechanisms of trying to repeal this law. red shirt. right in the back here on the inside. >> hi, jonathan nicholson with dna. just to get back to something

brought up earlier about defense and need for an adult conversation. some the deficits group -- >> what? >> some of the deficits groups note that nonsecurity spending which is like nondefense plus va homeland is only about 15% overall federal spending. to what extent -- you have have been focusing on that, but what extent can a make a decent size in the budget without going after defense and va and homeland? >> because that category went up 20% over the last two years. if you count the stimulus, that went up 84%. it was a gusher of spending in the government. we want to bring the gusher back, that's why. it got a huge increase which contributes to a much higher spending base. and by the way, all of that spending was supposed to keep our unemployment rate from getting above 8%. and it didn't work.

those of us who aren't -- we were suggesting that at a time. now we are about $1 trillion out the door when it's all said and done with the boring cost. -- borrowing cost. we have a hangover because it. we want to take the spending back. >> second row on the far corner there. right -- there you go. >> mr. chairman, i'm from george mason university. i hate to put you on the spot nor your party. but i'm going to do it anyway. >> you always do it anyway. >> i know. there's nothing really -- i mean -- i trust you entirely which is very unnatural for me. [laughter] >> but there's nothing in the -- >> we weren't trained -- >> there's nothing in the party that signals to me all of the mistakes of the past ten years and all of the big government mentality is gone. can you reassure me? i have actually an easy question. which is you were talking about, you know, lowering these budget

caps. what are the budget reforms and the budget process reform that you are going to put in place in order to make sure that actually these budget rules -- because right now they don't. emergency spending and. >> okay. to assure you, the only thing we can do to assure that the current republican majority won't go the way of the last majority republican is to define ourselves through our own actions. look at the rules package we just put out yesterday. we have cutgo. cutting spending to pay for other spending. if you are going to actually cut spending and appropriations, save that money for deficit reduction. we changed the constitutional bias against taxes and spending and in favor of cutting spend. now we have to go and change the policy by us in favor of relimiting government and promoting free enterprise. those are things that are going to dominate our action as this year and this session goes on. the only thing i can tell you,

you want to watch us and hold us accountable. if you think that we believe we were validated, this was the election that gave the republicans the majority, we don't think that. we are very humbled by what just happened. it was a repudiation, it's repudiation of the direction that the president and party took the country. it's not a validation of us. we have to earn this trust and support of the american people by being who we say we are. that's the mistake the last majority made, last republican majority. they said they were conservative, fiscally conservative, they didn't govern like that. what kinds of fiscal controls, we want read binding, i call it the belts and suspenders. >> exceed the budget resolution limit, then you have an automatic slice and dice. >> yes. >> cutting across the board.

>> yeah. so the belts and suspenders approach. those of us -- jeff and i having toiling in the vineyards of budget process reform for many, many years. please no that we fully intend on moving forward with these kinds of packages. >> all right. last question. in the brown shirt. >> i'm from investment news, i'm mark. can you expand on the tax spending gauntlet. do you believe there's a majority in the house to eliminate tax execution for the retirement plans and tax deferred status and life insurance plans? >> i'm not going to get into this tax or that tax expenditure. we haven't done hearings. we are going to start on the ways and means, and the efficacy of tax reform and what's the best way to go about rate lowering. do i believe that -- that the

majority -- that there's a majority within the majority for tax reform? yes, i do. we have to figure out how best to achieve that. i can't answer that question yet because we haven't even begun to do our hearings and research on these things. >> one quick thing. the woman asked are you going to run for president in 2012? >> she just asked me that. >> you didn't answer. >> i haven't given thought. i'm focused on the budget season. when the budget is over, i'll think of these then. >> and my freudian slip on the president. >> yes, no. >> thank you for being here. thank you e21, and thanks to the manhattan institute and a very lively session. thanks so much. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> live picture from the house rules committee. we've been covering them all day. members trying to set up framework on the floor repeal of health care. we'll have the floor debate on the house floor tomorrow assuming the rules committee finishing their work and the delay is representative pete sessions of the texas republican apparently missed being sworn in on the floor of the house yesterday and was not sworn in constitutionally, officially, while he started work with the committee. he had to get sworn in. now they are trying to figure out if there's a parliamentary procedure that the committee is going to follow. they will try to straighten that out and when they do, we'll have live coverage. always more on the web site, by the way, c-span.org. senate democratic leaders today criticizing new rules passed yesterday by the republican house majority. the new rules will have the affect of greatly increasing the

federal budget deficit. the technical note, the first few minutes had a technical problem. we'll pick up where we can and show you as much as we can as we wait for the rules committee to get back underway. >> republicans are serious about wanting to balance the budget, they should work on real bipartisan solutions. because one thing voters rejected this november was the amount of red ink spent on the wrong priorities. now i want to introduce my colleague, dick durbin who has done work on trying to get the deficit down as witnessed by his leadership on the budget -- on the bowles-simpson deficit reduction commission. >> some of us remember it wasn't that long ago when vice president cheney and president bush said definites don't count. they said when they wanted to pay for the war and not be held

accountable. at the end of their eight years, the national debt of america had increased from $5 trillion to $12 trillion. on their watch. the spur -- surplus they inherited turned into the worst annual deficit the nation has seen. we are learning the republican leadership is replacing pay as you go as pretend as you go. because what they have basically said to us is that there are certain things that won't be counted towards the deficit. i sat last year on the deficit commission. the bipartisan, which included paul ryan of wisconsin, a person whom i respect very much.

what did we learn in 10 months? we learned on a number of things. we learned we have a terrible deficit that has to be addressed. we learned that addressing it too soon might make it worse. then we focused on something that people don't talk about a lot on capitol hill. each year we lose $1.1 trillion from our treasury for tax expenditures. tax deductions, and credits, exclusions, and earmarks. money that doesn't go into the treasury because of the tax code. so what do the republicans of the house of representatives do on the first day? they say we won't count tax expenditures, completely ignoring with the bowles-simpson deficit established. if we are going to move forwarded balanced, it includes not only spending cuts but an honest look at tax cuts, tax

exclusions, and the list of things that they have said should be exempt when it comes to the deficit. as chuck schumer said, permanent cut for multimillionaires, $308 million, they don't want to cut that. tax cuts for the wealthy, $506 billion. they don't want to count it. tax for income on businesses, another $50 billion. they don't want to count it. it adds up. time and again during the debate on health care reform, we waited sometimes for days, sometimes for weeks for the congressional budget office to score the things we did. the president told us before we went into that debate i want health care reform, you want health care reform, do not add to the deficit in the process. and so the cbo came back to us and said in the first ten years with health care reform, you will reduce the deficit by $143 billion. this morning, at 9:30, just an hour ago, the cbo updated that

figure to $145 billion to be saved in the first year on health care reform. now we have a situation where the republicans say we want to repeal health care reform and we want to ignore it's deficit's impact. that to me is -- they are living in the world of dick cheney and deficits don't count. we are back into that all over again. not only would repeal of health care reform add to our deficit, it would dump more than 30 million americans from coverage who will be protected by our new health care reform act. so more than 50 million americans won't have the protection of health insurance. that's a personal family tragedy, even beyond our discussion of the deficit. the republicans would rather add a trillion dollars to the deficit as senator schumer said and let the debt ceilings collapse than deal in honest terms. i took some hate from the

deficit commission. a lot of people were surprised by it. i honestly think that bowles-simpson got it right. we have a problem that has to be faced honestly on a bipartisan basis. the first day of the new house republican leadership across the rotunda did not demonstrate the honesty and kind of bipartisan that we need to solve these problems. >> let me thank senator schumer and senator durbin for their leadership and emphasize again. here they go again. some might call this voodoo economics. and it demonstrates who's side the house republicans are on and what their values and priorities are. they are willing to add over $1 trillion to the national debt in order to protect the tax breaks of millionaires and billionaires. while at same time, adding cost to seniors that want to stay in their homes, have a bright future, and security and just want help with their medicine costs. so they are willing to double

this year the cost of brand name drugs for senior, but at same time, they are willing to add other $1 trillion to the national deficit to protect millionaires and billionaires. they are willing to add to the cost for families for their children who just want to talk to the doctor when the kids get sick instead of fighting with the insurance companies. they are willing to take away that freedom and the security of knowing that they are going to get what they need for their children. and at the same time, they are willing to raise the national deficit by over $1 trillion. it is very clear what is going on here. this is the same old same old. it's what happened in the bush administration when the republicans were in charge. it got us into the deficit that they were in today. and i would simply say that we would ask the faithful to focus

on jobs and the economy, because that is the real way we are going to turn around this deficit. we will never get out of deficit with over 15 million americans out of work. and so rather than just protecting their wealthy friends, and focusing on extreme ideology, we would ask them to join with us and putting people back to work in the country and getting us out of debt. >> senator schumer? >> taking on this subject. >> we are talking about the house paygo rule. when you pass $850 billion tax and spending bill. that includes exemptions for millionaires and estate tax provision that could not get even 50 votes in the senate. why are you making claims about how much money to save by restoring that rule? >> the bottom is that as we read, it's the first day on the

job. they said the reason they came into power is reduce the deficit. that's what they claimed. they are not going along, period. we believe getting the economy going was important. we believe there are lots of different values. our focus today is on deficit reduction. that's their mantra. whether you increase the deficit on tax breaks or spending more, it doesn't matter. the deficit goes up. and we are calling them on what they campaigned on as opposed to what they are doing on the first. >> on the topic of my question, do you think the paygo rule has been effective? >> i think the paygo rule hasn't been completely effective. it's been somewhat effective. they are blowing holes through it. >> yes. you said it's reckless fiscal responsibility will be debt on arrival of the senate. you mean if the house passes the

permanent extension of the tax cuts or the estate tax that the senate refused to -- >> we are going to be much more responsible fiscally. when the public says to america, reduce the deficit. we are not just going to talk about the way they are. we are going to do it. we've begun to show that already. democrats, surprising to most, supported the sessions- mccaskill limits on spending. we are trying to be careful in every way. and they are not. i'm not going to comment on any specific plan. we are going to actually put our money where our mouth is and reduce the deficit. not just talk about and think they can get away with increasing it. >> just to add to that point, just to remind everyone, under the former administration, when the republicans were in charge of the house and senate, they did away with the basic principals, pay as you go. pay for you what do.

we have restored it now. there's challenging as we go forward, yes. but we have made the commitment to restore the rules that were put in place by democrats under president clinton that got us out of deficit and into a surplus. they do a lot of talking about it. but we are actually seeing now what they really believe in by what they are doing. >> so tax cuts would have to be on step for the senate? >> focus have been on what is this new republican senate going to do. we say watch what they do, not what they say. this is what they do. >> those caps are expected to be lower than the senate-proposed spending. how would you -- >> look, as i said, we're going to be very serious about deficit reduction in a real way. i'm not going to get into what the senate is going to do right

now. the house reveals how they were going to change things down by shrinking government and reducing the deficit. we are saying we are not. we are saying we'll do better. watch us. >> house republicans have talked about $100 billion this year. maybe that's lower, i think. but what -- what is the realistic number for state democrats if >> again, i'm not going to talk about what we are going to do other than to say watch us. we're going to be responsible, and we're actually going to get things done. what we are talking about today, and the focus of what we are saying is again they say one thing and do another. if we did what they said, the deficit would go up $ 1 trillion. that's more than the stimulus

which they complained about over the last two years. >> let's stick with this one. >> when you commit to introducing a budget. >> we are going to be fiscally responsible, and we are going to try to both reduce government spending and reduce the deficit. we are. we understand that. we heard the message of the people. but beare actually going to do it. >> but to my question, are you actually going to present a budget? >> again, we're not going -- today our focus is on them. you can watch us over the next few weeks. yesterday, there was a whole lot of hoopla about how the republicans in the house are changing things. this is how they are changing things. okay. next topic. >> are you guys going to wait about two weeks for the rules changes or decide what you are going to do on rules changes. what are the chances between now and then given that you guys are

going to be going home that you will have things for bipartisan compromise? >> look, my hope is we can come to a bipartisan compromise. we met last night and we had good discussions. i would dill lute anyone to say we are there. we've had good discussions. at the same time, we are making the point clear that there are certain things that would -- it would seem are beyond dispute. that if you are going to filibuster, you should have to talk. not just one person get up and object. we are working on two paths. one to build support for the principals that we believe in, and second to find work out of compromise with the republicans if we can. that would be our pressure. >> do you have more meetings scheduled? >> yeah, telephonically. i'll be here. >> you said deal with the principals. let me -- is it okay to have an agreement without actually having to change the rules that there's an agreement?

>> well, there are lots of different ways to look at this cap. we're going to look at every one of them. the goal is to make the senate function better. the goal is that one person can't just stop everything from happening and at minimum, seems to me, and i think my colleagues would agree with me, that if you want to hold the senate up because you want the right to debate, then you have to debate. not just stay there and stand up and say i object. >> senator, another topic. >> okay. this will be the last question. >> do you think the fcc will get an increase -- >> here's the man who has some say on it. >> with that, you know, the word is the republicans are really trying to do a back door gutting of the budget. do you fear that? >> i'm worried about that. we have dramatically increased the number of people working from the security exchange as well as the futures trading condition to make sure we have

people on the beat with the appropriate oversight and investigative authority so that the transactions on chicago and all across the united states are adequately monitored. we've seen a dramatic increase in the number of transactions covered by both of these agencies. and we've tried to keep pace with that by increasing the number of personnel. now there are many republicans who did not support wall street reform who believed they could starve the fcc into commission by refusing to put enough people, lawyers and accountants and others. that to me is extremely short sided. the thing that the united states has going for it -- for us in the global economy is the rule of law and transparency. and we have exchanges that are successful, more successful than others around the world. because of those two factors. if the republicans started the fcc and cftc out of the funds they need to properly oversee the activities on wall street and other exchanges, it's going to diminish our reputation in

the world. so i will fight that. but i understand i'm up against big odds in the house of representatives. >> what's your expectations for the fcc? >> let me just say if they want to go to 2008 spending levels, take a look at funding at the fcc in 2008. we have added hundreds of people after bernie madoff, after the concerns of the mushrooming growth and derivatives and activities and other exchange activity. those would be on the chopping block. and they would be at risk if the republicans had their way. >> we are going to make -- >> one last question. >> they are going to rule the day they cut enforcement. if you talk to people in the new york and chicago, they want a strong fcc so the bad guys don't dominate, but the people that obey the rules and treat people fairly do. >> one last. you keep saying watch them,

watch them, what they say and what they do. >> watch us too. >> because voters if they don't have jobs and health care. they don't see you us and them. they see congress. >> we'd like to have some bipartisan agreements on how to deal with this issues. but when they open up on a day like this, they don't seem to be doing much in terms of bipartisanship. we will have concrete plans very soon on jobs, on the economy, on reducing the deficit, and making america grow. and we will -- we will talk about those shortly. thanks, everybody. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] that'd >> -- >> and we are still waiting for the ways and means committee.

pete sessions wasn't on the floor yesterday when everybody took the oath and was sworn in. he had to be sworn in today to make it official. the question apparently is whether or not he participated in the part of the rules committee before he was sworn in and if so, what to do that. that's the discussion going on out of our camera range. we'll let you know what we find out. the point on the meeting is the house rules is to set up a framework on the floor debate for the repeal of health care, the health care legislation, reform legislation passed by the last congress. we expect the vote on that to be next wednesday in the house. the congressional budget office estimated the repeal would increase the deficit by $230 billion by 2021. aap, associated press story, reported that republicans dispute that figure. as we wait, we'll bring you a discussion from the u.s. house. our guest talked about the

g.o.p. proposals for cuts, government spending, the influence of the tea party, and the relationship between house republicans and the obama white house. we'll show you as much as we can as we wait for the rules committee to get back under way. >> greg walden joins us, republican from oregon's second district. thank you for being here. >> guest: good morning. thank you for having me. >> host: the constitution on the house floor. what's the value in it? >> guest: i think it's really valuable. it's unprecedented. second, i think it really speaks to one the messages from the american people in this election. they felt like the government in washington had strayed from the underpinnings of our country and the constitution is clearly that underpinning that gives us all of the freedoms and rights whether it's the first amendment that gives us the right to be here and have this discussion or any of the others. i think it's important as a reminder to legislators that everything that we do here is only -- restricted or granted by

the constitution. and that it is a document that preserves the people's rights, the people's freedoms, and limits the power to the government. i think that's a good reminder. >> we had one comment on twitter today, asking how do you make that come into the play as you legislate over the coming months, rather than a symbolic moment. >> it's actually a very good question. part of the transition and developing the rules package which we approved yesterday is a requirement that all legislation coming to the floor have a reference to it's source of author through the constitution. this is a new requirement. some members are complaining about having to do that. we'll read the constitution on the floor. get you started. everybody has a copy. this is, i think, a very important part of reforming how congress operates and for some of us who believe that federal

government has over stepped it's balance. this is a reminder to make sure that you are living within the constitution. >> as you mentioned, you are the chairman of the house republican transition team. tell us about the work that you have done coming in here. you actually had a commentary here on politico just yesterday talking about how you organized a team of 22 lawmakers to rewrite the rules and scour capitol hill. >> guest: we found a few. this is part of new speak's john boehner, he asked me to do this job and then he cut me lose. this is what you will see as the committees get organize and function. we believes in the strong committee process. he asked me to lead the transition, work on reforming the house based on his visions and the principals that we wanted to see and heard from the american people. to the end of that point, figure out how to run your own shop

with accountability. we assembled 22 members from a broad cross section of our conference. but beyond that, in an unprecedented move, we reached out to then speaker pelosi, and asked members who wouldn't be on the g.o.p. transition, but with whom we could interact. that's never been done before. we also surveyed every single member of the house, every single chief of staff, and their office managers, if you will, whatever the title is in the office. having been a small business owner from 22 years, i brought to this job that experience which taught me that if i got down and understood and talked to the people that are online doing the work, i would find from them great ideas on how to do things better. so i brought this principals to this. we also provided an online ability for all americans to weigh in. we have more than 2,000

suggestions from americans on things we should look at. we had a lot of internal suggestions from staff people on the hill ways to cut cost. that will be an ongoing process. but first and foremost today, we are going to start with ourselves. leaders need to lead. this place is bloated. we have a resolution that i'm sponsoring that will reduce our spending by 5% right off of the top. this is just a starting point. so the leadership office, every member of congress' budget, and the committee budget will be ruled by 5%. if you are on the appropriations committee, they came forward with the ability to reduce 9%. we'll save $35 million from the getgo. that's just a start. there are other things that we will find, that the house committee will pursue in coordination of our leaders on the entities on the hill to manage the security, that manage

the operations where we think we can find additional savings. >> host: how do you make sure that you pay your employees sufficiently? how do you make sure that you can really in these tough economic times make sure that everyone from the capitol hill police police officers that protect you that the staffers get paid enough? >> guest: that's not been an issue. i think if you are not paying enough, nobody shows up to get a job. and i will tell you from a district like mine, where we have well over 10% unemployment, some counties 15 or 20% unemployment, i don't think the average taxpayer is worrying too much that staff and members of congress are under paid. and, in fact, we are not. although our salaries having frozen. and will continue to be. when you have a deficit that's averaging in the last couple of years well over $1 trillion added to the debt, this whole paradigm has to change. that was really -- i think the two messages out of this

election were cut spending and start with yourselves. get this government back into an affordable position that really deals with the issues and problems that are paramount to citizens. these are huge challenges, create jobs. they have been to be done or we begin to look like the countries in europe on a perilless course to debt and over commitment by the government and politicians that they can no longer keep. >> host: join the conversation. democrats, republicans, and independent callers -- this story just in from the ap regarding the new congress and deficits.

>> the exemptions include a bill to include last year's health, as well as g.o.p. backed proposals extending tax cuts for upper income filers. what's your response? >> guest: yeah, it's predictable. and they still don't get the message. here's what i would say. there's a philosophical difference between republicans and democrats. this doesn't apply to every single republican or democrat. unbalanced. that is this notion that you have to off set tax cuts. our view as republicans is it's not the government's money. it's the people's money. i was a small business owner with my wife for 22 years, i've been out in the private sector. you know, day and night, you are trying to figure out how to keep the business going and comply with the rules and regulations, and it's hard. especially in this economy. so i come to this position with that experience and philosophy that says wait a minute. this isn't the government's

money to decide how much i get to keep. it's my money as a taxpayer as a earner and i should be able to decide how much the government gets. so i think that's the philosophical rub here. if you listen to the debate when we extended the current tax code at the end of the last session, there were some on the other side of the aislewh o felt pretty srongly that it w really the govnmens decion, first to ecde how much mo you get todeep f -- ke of your mon. it's a whole dfferen attitude and philosophy. both sides have the supporters that believe one or the other. i happen to come from the side, no, no, it's your money first. we need to constrain the growth of government spending. it's not a lack of revenue, it's a lack of will in the congress by both parties frankly to get back to where -- a government that we can afford. that's about spending. every american family out there today is having to say what can i cut back to survive?

many of them are losing their homes, they lost their jobs, and look up the street and see somebody that looks like me is that was in the same circumstances and last everything. they are having to pair back and cut back. government has to cut back. >> host: representative greg walden representing oregon's second district. he was elected to the seventh term in november. as we've been talking about he's chaired the house transition team, the republican house transition, and he's also involved with the national republican campaign committee where he serves as deputy chairman. back on the energy and commerce committee. >> guest: back on, yeah. >> host: do you want to talk about is that? let's first go to the phones. the republican caller in illinois rather, or is it indiana. where are you calling from, bud? >> caller: i'm calling from bloomington, indiana. >> host: good morning. >> caller: good morning. greg, we have a problem with the

g.o.p. we are supporting legislation that benefits global corporations and those corporations are taking the profits and investing in foreign countries. and countries that often don't share our values. it's as if -- it's as if they are using the united states as a milk cow that they don't want to feed. now where are we going with that? why with are doing that? >> guest: bud, i'm not sure i agree with your premise. let's take the issue of what we face internationally. we're in a very competitive environment worldwide. there was a day when we kind of called all of the shots and -- in the economy of the world. we were -- we alone had incredible superiority. we are still strong. we are multiples of china's economy. but the world has gone globe. and so have our companies. and what i want to do is have a structure that tries to encage

-- encourages them to say here and grow and compete internationally. put borders up, can't do it here. you double tax, they leave, or the jobs go. and what we've got to look at, how do we make them so competitive here that they want to stay and bring things back here and do more here? and that's effective by tax rates, we have one the highest corporate tax rates in the world. and so it tends to push money off shore to other countries. you look at here in illinois. look at caterpillar, which is a huge employer in illinois and also a very big global player, you know, that creates jobs not only here but elsewhere, but does a lot of sales outside of here. my home state of oregon, headquarters for nike, the sportswear, as well as columbia sportswear. they do a lot of their business internationally. they get into very complex issues in terms of tax policy

and all. what we want to do is create the high value jobs here. so we got to work to get a code in place that does that. >> host: rob, democratic line in maryland. good morning. >> caller: hi, good morning. i can't recall but your guest there, congressman walden, when you were talks talking about thp that you solicited from the other party across the aisle what was the word that you used to describe them? >> guest: i don't recall that i used a word. what i did was -- i can tell you a couple of things. first of all we reached out to speaker pelosi. she identified two members, mr. andrews and mr. brady, to the the point connection people for us that that there was a formal connection. i sat down with mike from massachusetts who did their transition when they went back into the majority in 2006/'07. we went to lunch, we had a great

conversation. what would you do over, what would you do differently? what should we do? very open and frank. i sat down with brian bear from washington state. we met on a number of occasions with ideas about how we can reform congress. then we surveyed every republican and democrat and had the ability for the staff. >> caller: you just used it again. you know, here's one thing that i've noticed in terms of the terminology and the -- >> guest: what did i use again? >> host: yeah, what word are you talking about, rob? >> caller: i've noticed that many of the republic party members come on c-span and refer to their members as the democratic party. >> guest: democratic party members, i'm sorry. >> host: rob, tell us -- can you please share with us how that's important to you? sounds like it's something you are really concerned about. what's the distinction? >> caller: for me, the

distinction that this is something that you hear on fox or on limbaugh, or any of these other guys. instead of indicating that there's a willingness to work with the other side, there's a description of the other side by the term that the republic party would refer to call the other party. and it's more of like a dig, you know? >> guest: no actually -- >> caller: it's like a burr under the saddle. i think if you truly are looking to solicit ideas from all americans and not all of the american people which is another term that i just -- it sounds very -- it sounds very totalitarian to me to refer to americans as the american people. >> guest: really? >> caller: yeah. i think americans -- i'm an american. i'm not an american person, i'm an american. american citizen if anything. >> guest: right. >> caller: but listen to the

-- listen to and watch the news reels from the '30s, and those totalitarian dictators across the atlantic, and, you know, they continue to use things like the deutsch folk or russian people. >> guest: i don't spend much time watching news people from the '30s. i certainly met no offense. democratic party, republican party, those are not issues that i've focused on. >> host: some democrats take offense when it's the democratic party. >> guest: it is the democratic party. i met no offend. i don't get in the petty level of discussion. not adding the icing. so. >> host: moving on to rick, independ caller in arizona. good morning. >> caller: good morning. the name, it's greg, but it's easy to be confused sometimes.

representative walden. con garage legislations on your victory in the house and everything. now that the ball in your court, what do you plan on doing with it? why don't you forego the salary, turn it back to the government, and help with the deficit. it's not that money to you guys. you have special interest groups that help you out. it could be on a merit system. you are asking a lot from the public. >> guest: no, you make a good point. the ethics rule preclude us from taking special interest money for personal gain. that's illegal. federal offense. you go to jail. second, we are starting with our own expenditures here on capitol hill. i have the resolution that will save $35.1 billion by cutting expenses across the capitol. this will save at least $35

million. if you roll the savings forward, it will turn out to be much more. we recognize there's a long way to go. but folks we have to go there. because when you are facing $1 trillion, $1.5 trillion deficit increase, or $9 billion of the year added that's prosected, we go broke. this is not the right thing to do to this great country of ours. and it is not the thing that we are going to let happen. i tell you it is going to be controversial and not easy work. i would tell you that i've never had anybody come into my office and say cut my budget. i don't mean mine, we're going to do that. but cut their spending program. we all see waste in somebody else's spending but not on our own. as americans, we're going to have to figure out and everything is going to have to share and we're going to get back to what are the main priorities? we can't keep doing everything that we are doing, without

ending up with huge deficits and enormous debts. a couple of things we need to do, cut the deficit. one the things we changed in the rules, we got rid of the op gephardt rule named after the former leader of the house that automatically you increase the debt limit for the country if you pass the budget. now this congress, under speaker pelosi failed to pass the budget. we never even have the vote on the house floor. there was a vote on the debt limit. we have changed the rules to say regardless, you are going to have an up or down vote on the debt limit. this is all part of getting to a more transparent, accountable congress. nobody is going to want to vote. it's not a popular thing to do. but it's time to come clean and be honest with the american people that absent a debt limit, you shutdown the government, you bankrupt the government, you end up looking really, really bad out there. it happened, i think, in 1841. the number of states ended up

bankrupting themselves. so it is a serious, serious issue. >> that you would vote to raise it? > guest: let's see what we can do. eventually, you are going to have to. the long and short, you cannot function as a government because you default on all of their securities? >> host: that's going to be hard to get the tea party and folks that said this is important. i don't want to see that happen. >> guest: the issue is leading up to that is our work to get at the deficit reduction. in order to earn the vote, we are going to have to make sure that we put this country on a new path that cuts the deficit spending, gets it to waste, that's why we were moving rapidly starting with ourselves and why we have to go forward on a path that gets us back down to a manageable debt and gets us back to, i hope, where we were in the early 2000s and pay down the debt.

it's improvive when we were paying off the debt. there were stories about we don't want to pay off all of the debt. the bond market and all of that. i thought wow is that a change. we've sure come a long way since then. we have to get the economy going to reduce the revenue through private as we work to cut out government waste and abuse and cost and get the government back to an affordable size. >> host: respect of oregon, greg walden, chairman of the transition team of the house of republicans. including a member of the energy and commerce committee, and chairman of the subcommittee on communications and technology. let's go to vancouver, washington, where ethan joins us, republican lines. >> caller: hello. >> guest: good morning. you are up early this morning. >> caller: yes, i am. thanks for letting me take a moment of your time. >> guest: yes. >> caller: as a young republican, i was wondering how and where the republican party is hoping to place us in maybe ten years from now as we hear on

the tv, merging markets and globalization and wanted to get your views on where we may stand after that, especially coming out of a dip of a recession and where our global outlook and performance would measure us in those years to come? >> guest: sure. thanks. i'm really enjoying serving with your new member of congress, jamie harare, delighted to have our, replacing brian baird, who was a good friend of mine in washington. where are we as a republican party. i'll try to speak from my perspective of it. i'm not the chairman. but i think our goal and our vision that america would be the place for entrepreneurs, innovators, and really continue and grow and expand our ability to be on the leading edge of creating new technologies and doing what we do best. now how do we end up in that positive position?

because people had the ability under the government was structured to take a risk, to get a reward, and few didn't succeed, you failed. we kind of got away from that in recent years. it seems like we prop everything up that probably shouldn't be propped up times and we've made the whole system so complex with rules and regulations, a lot of which are coming out of this administration right now in the a real job killing way. we need to reverse that. now -- and i think you are going to see the republicans in congress in the house, especially where we have the majority now really lead an effort to look at oversight of policies that are coming out of the administration and their affect on jobs in the real world outside of washington, washingt. it is essential that we do that. we got to get back on track creates private sector jobbing and being competitive globally and getting america back on it's feet and back to work. that's our position.

we look for the input of the american people as i did on the transition people where we had 2,000 people weigh in. here's some ideas. as we've tried to do through the pledge of america. if you want to know about where we are headed, look at the pledge to america, which you can find online and you get a blueprint how we are going to govern. >> host: story from "the new york times" talking about how to cut spending. it says if republicans vote for the size and range of required cuts in education -- >> guest: well, libby, as i said earlier, nobody has ever walked in my door in congress and said cut my budget. this is not going to be easy. but it has to be done. and -- but we have to do it in a

thoughtful and open and transparent way. i think most americans get it. that this government of ours is spending more than it takes in by enormous amount even when you had the paygo rule that said you got to offset tax cuts or whatever. they still were spending. we put the government on the wrong path. we're going to have to change that. i think americans are ready for that. as i get out around my district in oregon, i hear it from people that just say -- just stop the spending. and i heard it two years ago in pandoor. we have to get back to where we are sustainable locally and stop turning to washington to solve all of our problems. and, you know, i thought he really summed if up right. this was -- it stopped going to salem, oregon, stop going to washington to get your money. the sugar daddies are gone. and we've changed the appropriations process, where there will be no more earmarks coming out of the house. we are trying to reform how we

operate, and how the congress itself functions to put the taxpayer first, not the spending first. but it's going to be tough. these are going to be hard decisions. and you see what happens in europe when they try to adjust their retirement age by a year or two. they had literally riots in the street and prince charles gets attacked in your car because tuition might go up in their universities. folks, the option is even worse if you look out far enough. and i think, you know, we've got to be more statesman and less politician here and stop trying to get the quick political gain of the -- of what happens in six months or a year and focus on what happens in five years or ten years if we don't take action now. if you think the pain now is tough. go out ten years and look. it is brutal. >> host: story of usa "today"

-- >> host: especially as the reauthorization of no one left behind. what goes there? >> guest: 90% of education funding comes from where? not here. it's local. it's local. property taxes and state government. federal government is about 9 or 10%. i don't know the exact percentage. it's in their range. discussions with school boards and administrators and teachers out in oregon, they will tell you 90% of the regulations and the testing and all of these new requirements come out of the federal government and it eats up a lot of their time in the classroom to try to comply with federal rules and regulations and they don't get much money for it. they get a lot of opportunity to rewrite circumstance almost and

do all of things from the federal government. and yet not much money flows with it. tell me we can't come with more simplified that would free up their time. what does take for a teacher to have more time in the classroom to teach? >> host: ron, independent in new york. good morning. >> caller: good morning. >> guest: morning, ron. >> caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i'm trying to find a consistent philosophy in the republican party. i don't see one. what i see is that the republicans are -- have been for the last 30, 40 years fighting the class war. during that time, middle class wages have delined, while the wealth in the top 1% has increased dramatically. and to say that the government is evil, i take great offend at that. i'm a u.s. citizen.

and this is my government. every decision made by the government is supposed to be made by my representatives for the benefit of the country. it appears that the republicans rather than acting for the benefit of the country are acting for the benefit of their special interest groups. rather than have a consistent philosophy. make decisions on a case by case bases using as a criteria, only what will help their special interest. >> host: we'll leave it there. >> guest: i don't know where you are going with all of that. let me just tell you having -- you know, growing up with depression -- parents who survived the depression, having paid my own way through college through working weekends, nights, took seven years to do it. worked day and night, sometimes serve days a week with my wife to -- >> we're going to break away from this recorded portion of this morning's "washington

journal" to take you back to the rules committee. republican calls the committee back into session. live coverage here on c-span2. >> to find the oath that we all had yesterday. but i have just learned that under the standard of collegiality, within jefferson's manual, one is to be within the proximity of the speaker of the house. these two gentleman were in the capitol visitors center before the television addressing 600 people and when mr. boehner was on the screen administering the oath, they took the oath. but they were obviously not actually in the chamber. even though they both signed the oath and took the oath. and that is obviously raised concern. and so for that reason, we are going to -- when we report out of this rule, we are going to

take the steps to say whatever votes were cast by the two members yesterday on the house floor that would obviously not have been in order by virtue of the fact that they were not standing in the chamber and where, you know, in the next room, so to speak in the capitol's visitor center. that's what the problem has consistented of. i think we have this resolution and i think that the cleanest way to deal with it is for us to address it in the rule rather than going through any kind of agreement here. we are working with all of those experts who address questions like this. and so madame chair -- mrs. lauter. >> thank you. i'd like to comment. this is something that's taken us by surprise. we've been very cooperative. we know it has to be cleaned up. we want to help to clean it up. we feel though