.. but most are, and then there are ten national programs you can choose among in order to gain coverage in your geographic area. all americans should have this wide variety of choices as well, and the exchanges in the affordable care act create that kind of competitive marketplace.

according to the congressional budget office, the exchanges should reduce individual premiums by 14 to 20%, and if you really believe in competition, then you have to believe it's going to work. i think of the repeal of the act would mean destroying choices for everyone and destroy and lower prices for the middle class. let me say that for ohio we each represent our own region. if the law is repealed, over half a million of how humans would be at risk of losing their health insurance. 35,500 young ohioans would lose their insurance coverage, nearly 1.8 million ohio seniors on medicare will have to pay a co-payment for basic preventive health service and over 109,000 ohioans on medicare would see significantly higher truck cost. let me just quickly mentioned for citizens. lillian smith of toledo, ohio

reaches her allowable medicare part b drug plan coverage in march of every year. she cannot afford to pay for her medicine after that so she never gets out of the so-called doughnut hole to obtain coverage again which means she cannot get and take her prescriptions until the following year, nine months later and guess what happens? she's hospitalized again. repealing the affordable care act would keep the doughnut hole in place for seniors like lily and who face repeated hospitalizations which are growing all across this country. another case, another citizen, cassandra smith of ohio will struggle to access health insurance all over again. she is 12 and has juvenile diabetes since she was a toddler. her parents, who can't afford health insurance, have been unable to cover her until now. what the state will deliver to her family if we do repeal the act a tragic return to huge out

of pocket costs and loss of health care coverage. a third citizen. repeal will mean more tragedy for people like bob and katherine smith of sandusky ohio, who could have benefited from the affordable health care act. married for 53 years and having raised six children, bob cared for catherine as a debilitating disease worse year after year. in the end, the cost of caring for her to up their savings and they had to sell their home. if we've repeal this act, there will be more americans with tragic stories like bob and catherine. finally, david smith of toledo, ohio owns a small business, soda and other family. in 1999 to 2007, his business went from 15 insured employees to three uninsured. david is uninsured and he suffered a heart attack. due to the huge health care bill was seated with this horrible event he had to file bankruptcy. people like david from toledo tell us that repealing the affordable health care act will

cost our economy jobs. it's already cost his job. as it is so hard for businesses to access affordable insurance premiums. my distinguished colleagues, the national academies of science institute of medicine and from 2000 to the ascent 6,137,000 americans died because they lacked health insurance. if you are pro-life or pro-choice you must be concerned about that result in this country. we know 49 million americans currently lack health insurance, and the affordable health care act is aimed at correcting these alarming statistics. but you know what? they are not statistics at all. they represent millions of people whose lives depend on us and very profound ways. the repeal of this law will destroy jobs, profoundly hurt middle class families by denying them to place and affordability in the insurance market and

increase our national deficit at the same time. i urge you to please craft a rule which does not permit the repeal of the affordable care act. i do thank you for your attention and look forward to addressing any questions. >> thank you very much, ms. kaptur. we appreciate your testimony ms. moore. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman, ranking member and members of the committee, and particularly i would like to welcome the new members to this committee. did you know what you were in for? [laughter] >> your testimony has been very lucky [inaudible] [laughter] >> i come in the interest of time, i would like to stray from my written remarks and just speak extemporaneously and briefly. this amendment is the connolly-moore amendment that would ensure the repeal of health reform would not take effect until the director of the

omb, in consultation with the director of the cbo, could certify to the american people that the repeal would not increase taxes for low to meter it delete commodities individual families. you know, mr. chairman, in the last hours of the 111th congress there was a vigorous to date about the wisdom of increasing taxes on any american worker during this recession. even the wealthy it was argued would be hurt by tax increases, and of course democrats were vehemently against increasing taxes on middle class families really opining that there would be a double-dip recession. i want to sort of unwrapped him in my few moments some of the definitions and jargon because everyone loves to talk about the middle class to read and i am talking about the impact of the

tax increases on folks who are 200% to 400% of poverty. and let me tell you, i know many of those folks, folks who are 200% of poverty are neither poor. they just barely are ineligible for stuff like food stamps and school lunches and low-income heating assistance program. these people are very angry as well about not being eligible for the services because they need them. these are parents who are in a tin c when their kids need money for driver said courses there are no longer paid for by the local school district. there is a severe hardship on the family when they have to buy an instrument to get their kids into band or pay for their kids to have a cheerleading uniform. there is a severe strain on them, and with of the repeal of

this bill because the current law says these people who, by the way, we're not talking about freeloaders as i have heard some people refer to folks who are uninsured and would benefit under the spell 95% of the people who are between 200% and 400% of poverty work, and of the 110 billion-dollar tax credits that we are talking about, two-thirds of the people are between 200 to 400% of the poverty level, near-poor people. and i wouldn't necessarily classify them as so-called middle class the people love to fight for a around here. these are near-poor, struggling, straining families and people. and so what we will be doing when we repeal the health care law is we have set to people if

you are working and your employer provides health insurance that is 8% of your paycheck we were going to give you a tax credit and danceable, refundable, but you are now no longer going to receive that tax benefits. and as mr. mcdermott indicated earlier, this would be truly the greatest tax cut in history. let me sort of wind my comments up with my own behavior at the end of the 111th congress. i of course did not vote for the tax package that passed with a bipartisan basis and i didn't even vote for providing for extending the bushehr of tax cuts for those under $250,000.

and mr. chairman, i didn't do that because i thought that there was such a great inequality in disparity and that even those tax cuts that were supposedly geared toward the so-called middle class were so inequitable that it wasn't a worthwhile vote for me to cast. this tax credit that we are providing folks 204 new percent of poverty is worth fighting for because it targets the was people who are desperately in need of tax relief. to say that we are going to extend the busheir tax cuts and we are to do that on a permanent basis we would be about 3.8 trillion, that we would have $3.8 trillion to the deficit. so i don't agree with adding $3.8 trillion to the deficit

with tax cuts, but i do believe in cutting taxes, targeting tax cuts for the most needy and certainly families between 200 to four under% of poverty are people who are struggling near-poor low-income families, and would be very egregious to raise their taxes by repealing this bill. thank you and i yield back and would be happy to answer any questions. >> would go to my california colleague. >> thank you, mr. chairman but in fairness should members who have seniority gophers? i'm happy to -- >> basically, and i've been given seniority and it goes tsongas, heinrich il's wallsten. >> i think mr. lawson has more seniority and ms. tsongas does as well --

>> okay. we are trying to go by the regular order of the house which is seniority so let's go to lou whoever is next senior. >> i'm not going to argue. [laughter] >> mr. larsen. >> knowing full well where we come from its three hours earlier and plenty of time -- plenty of time. but i want to ask the committee to consider my amendment to h.r. two. several people have spoken on that already this amendment would ensure the repeal of the health care law not eliminate health insurance coverage for young adults under 26 who are currently receiving coverage from their parents' health insurance plan. as a result of the health reform law insurance companies are not required to allow young people up to their 2630 including the 26th birthday to remain on their parents' insurance plan. this allows for 20,000 john adults in washington state to

access to affordable health care to their parents' plan. this includes students and graduates of western washington university and bellingham in my district. students from the university of washington, washington state university and i bring this up because these are the young people who are in college or who are just starting out in their careers most likely to have no health care coverage either because they can't afford a yet or they are less likely to be offered coverage for their initial jobs. health care reform allows people to stay on their parents of penchant plan at their parents' choice, their parents' choice, not requiring them to do this. i always tell the college students be nice to your parents now. the parent's choice to be the changes already made a difference in the lives of americans. this includes one of my constituents. 25-year-old matt of mount vernon washington state. matt was without health coverage before the health care reform went into effect. the health care reform that was

on the plan and suffered second-degree burns this fall. his care was covered and he himself didn't have to pay after pocket. recalling this means no people like that will lose their health care coverage and would be devastating to the students at western washington university. it would be devastating to these young college kids just getting out of college looking for that first job and knowing the first job might not include health insurance. he will be graduating this spring looking for work. congress should be focused on making sure the student of the tools they need to find jobs. congress should be focused on making sure the economy turns around so the jobs out there for these folks to find. congress should be focused on expanding access to higher education. congress message should be we are going to be there to invest in new because you were the future of our country. refilling the health care reform all week sends a very different message to these young college

students whose folks are just graduating that we are not interested in investing of besting the future some asking the committee to meet in order of my amendment a chore to to ensure that we can maintain our continued commitment to the college students who are in fact the future of the country. thank you for the devotee. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i want to thank congresswoman kaptur for the modest seniority over her and i appreciate very much the patience of the entire committee as we have had this most serious debate which i know will be an ongoing one. but i'm here this evening to respectfully offer an amendment to preserve two very important aspects of health care reform law, the band on gender reading and prohibition on insurance discrimination for so-called pre-existing conditions which can include a history of

domestic violence of previous or current pregnancy or see sections in childbirth. i also amended because the most egregious insurance industry practices disproportionately impact women and repeal of health care reform would again allow insurance companies to unfairly discriminate against women. i want to start with the story of so many of us have with one of my former colleagues told a group of us when we were debating health care reform last year. prior to being elected to congress, she owned a small business and learned when she moved to hire a woman to join her growing company that because of gender ratings doing so would increase the health care premiums for all of her employees. this was bad in and of itself but it had a compound in effect. the next time she looked to make a hiker, she found herself thinking twice about hiring a woman. a woman business owner thinking

twice about hiring a woman, knowing her health insurance cost new employees that firstly impact the entire company. this story illustrates the manner in which our health care system fails women both through outright discrimination and its more insidious consequences. one can only imagine how many women have not been offered jobs because of the hidden influence of gender ratings. the repeal was once again allow insurance companies to continue this practice in which a woman will on average pay up to 40% more than a man her age for the same coverage and what is more, 79% of the women with an individual market policy do not even have any maternity coverage. in fact, one of my republican colleagues on the budget committee shares with the committee that his wife was dropped from their health care coverage when she became pregnant. while he was fortunate to have the financial means to be a will to afford her medical care out

of pocket not all americans are so able to do so. women are also discriminate against an insurance companies deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. in eight states in the district of columbia before health care reform was passed, it was legal for an insurance company to deny coverage to a woman because she had been a victim of domestic violence. treating her victim status as a pre-existing condition. injures deny coverage to the women assuming that they would be victims again and would need medical care as a consequence. fortunately this is not a problem in my home state of massachusetts where the practice has been banned for some time. however, in too many parts of the country it is still allowed. for example, in santa cruz california, a woman was repeatedly turned down for health insurance. following the review of her medical records that detailed physical abuse by her husband a woman's shelter and rochester minnesota was told that its

employees were considered uninsurable because most of them were survivors of domestic violence and an informal 1994 survey conducted by the senate judiciary committee found that the largest u.s. insurer is admitted using domestic violence as a factor in deciding whether to offer insurance coverage and how much to charge. these practices were explicitly banned by health care reform and repeal of reform will allow this injustice to continue. i respectfully request this amendment be made in order to preserve the ban on the gender reading and the prohibition on insurance practices that discriminate so egregiously against women. thank you. >> [inaudible] [laughter] is it one week? gap. [laughter]

>> [inaudible] >> mr. chairman, thank you and congratulations, and ranking member souder for her great leadership and to the two members who have joined us on the republican side. last year what we heard over and over again from our colleagues on the republican side was repealed and replaced. and yet the message you are sending today and debating next week is just repealed. we are offering you amendments that will allow you to repeal and replace and we would hope that you would take them under serious consideration i would also like to point out that during the hot summer nights of 2009 when we have all of those town halls, what i heard more often than not was you shouldn't have anything more than i have. and so many of us responded and

said all right, the health insurance for members of congress is not going to be any more or any less than what you are going to be offered in the exchange. now by repealing this measure, what you will be saying to the american people is we still want to have a healthy future. we members of congress want to have our health insurance, but you, the voters, constituents, you are going to have to do it on your own. i would venture to say that in the individual market, not one of us, not one of us would be eligible for health insurance because every one of us, i would venture to say, has a pre-existing condition. if you have bunions, to have a pre-existing condition and can be denied coverage. if you are taking in the prescription drugs, you will be denied coverage. if you have increase in blood

pressure, you have a pre-existing condition. but what i am here to talk about tonight is one thing that we should all be absolutely willing to stand up about it and say no insurance companies no longer can you rescind coverage for a policy member who has been paid their premiums to you who you have accepted, but not because they are sick you are going to dump them and this amendment i am joined by members and colleagues ms. sanchez and mr. owen to preserve the prohibition about what we call recisions. i know about recisions' because in california, mr. chairman, where both of us are from we have a very robust health care system. we have 80% of those who have insurance who are in managed care. we have toward reform in california. tort reform we will never see on the federal level where the only

kind of non-compensating, non-compensating coverage is to hundred $50,000, meaning that over and above your cost, the only amount of money you can receive the standard $50,000 that was a setback in 1975, so if it were indexed to the would be a million. so we've got tort reform and white you, with all those things we have come a managed health care, toward reform, one of the insurers in california today announced over 50 months a 50% increase in premium. and mind you, this is an insurer that is a not-for-profit and this insurer said that without health care reform, these numbers are only going to grow a year in high gear. they are not attributing these increases to the health care reform, just the reverse. it's going to continue to happen at these numbers if we don't

have health care reform. having said that, we just tell you what happens. because we have the department of managed health care people can complain to it in california. ten people, ten former blue cross members including [inaudible] sued the insurer alleging they canceled their coverage retroactively after the had been diagnosed with an expensive disease or condition. the coverage was canceled after she was diagnosed as the age of 46 with breast cancer and the letter rescinding her coverage -- listen to this imagine if you were in the individual market and received this letter. she was denied her coverage because she failed to disclose her exposure to hepatitis b as a child. now if we had to disclose all of the conditions that we had as children, and if we forgot to disclose a certain condition and our policy would be rescinded, wouldn't we be outraged?

what we say that that's fair? another woman had her coverage rescinded when she became pregnant with twins. she became pregnant with twins more than a year after she began to pay those monthly premiums. in response, ever department of managed health care launched the largest rescission investigation in the nation's history. what they felt was indeed staggering. more than 6,000 californians had been the subject to rescissions in a four year period. if you take california experience and you and that we are about 10% of the population we are talking 60,000 americans who have had their insurance over a four year period what time rescinded while they are paying the premiums because they found when they were kids they had some conditions. now in this situation, the

insurance paid have the funds to the dugard but managed health care and 80% of the rescissions stopped taking place in california. but even though that's happened in california, that's only one state and that's connecticut that remains the only state in the nation that requires the insurers to obtain approval before the can rescind, cancel or limit its policy in any way. even worse coming in the least 20 states, state law completely denies patient the opportunity to appeal recisions to a state regulatory authority. it to say the least, before the decision provision was enacted as part of health care reform, the regulatory landscape was grotesque. one energy commerce investigation reveals three of the nation's largest insurance companies that canceled over 20 goals and policies in the five years leading up to the health care reform. these are natural cancellations that took place in this country.

insurers lined their pockets with a staggering $300 million because they had taken the steps to cancel insurance on 20,000 americans. how can we justify that? that's right. insurers were -- furthermore, in addition to all that, they created incentives for their insurance clerks who looked over the request for health care when someone became very sick to see if they could find something in their application that they could do a gotcha so they got a bonanza incentive pay coming and as sick as it is, they were giving money if they not off policyholders who had paid their insurance premiums, dumping them.

i'm not going to go into greater detail because i don't want to take any more of your time. you've been here too long but i am just going to mention a couple other cases very quickly. there are some cases people actually have died because the policies were rescinded and they couldn't get coverage. those are stories that you should hear tonight. there's a texas nurse who lost her coverage after she was by hid most aggressive breast cancer. for failing to disclose that when she was a teenager she had acne. how many women or men in this room could say they didn't have at me as a kid and how many of you think about putting that on an individual's application policy? none of us have to do that because we don't have to be in the individual market because we are in the group market. or the man whose sister testified in front of the energy and commerce committee about how her brother suffered and died from lymphoma after his policy was rescinded for failure to

report a possible aneurysm and gallstones. these are conditions his physician had included his chart had never discussed with the patient. how is the patient supposed to know that? then there is also a man whose coverage was canceled because he was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. in rescinding his policy, his insurance policy -- his insurer claimed he should have known that the headaches that he disclosed on his application would have led him to and ms diagnosis. members, this is an atrocity in the insurance industry. we should not allow it to go on. i urge you to allow this amendment to be in order.

>> thank you and members of the committee, third time is a charm. i've been appear three times and would be able to offer testimony so i am grateful to be here now and mr. chairman, i should have taken you upon your offer because five and half hours later i want that key. [laughter] i'm here this evening to join in expressing about my opposition more about disappointment that we are here just months after we pass the affordable health care act and the new majority is offering to repeal that and i am very passionate as so many are about health care because my own personal experience of being unemployed and with a small child and not having health care and working every single day one

of the millions of americans who've you believe to work every single day and don't have health care, and i remember when i was so sick and i knew i needed to see a doctor and what i did instead if i passed out, in that having to be taken by ambulance to the emergency room like so many people go to in the emergency room when they need care and resulted in thousands and thousands of dollars in health care costs. i almost lost my home even as i was working every day to try to pay back those health care bills. and so for so many millions of americans across this country, what we've done and perhaps one could argue not perfectly is to try to create some floor for people who get up every day and work for a living for people who may be poor and can't afford health care, to be able to take care of themselves and their families. just yesterday i heard from a constituent of mine the key, she lives in a community not far from washington, d.c., the

nation's capital, who expressed her relief because now she can provide health care coverage to her daughter at a cost of about $70 a month. her daughter is a young person in her 20s and got a job right out of college and then like many americans across this country she lost her job and also lost her health care. she was able to pay the cobra amount for a while but then she couldn't afford it and her parents were in a position of having to fork over 400, $500 a month to continue the coverage. needless to say they couldn't do it but on january 1st they were able to add her to their health care plan, and it now makes affordable even as she, like millions of unemployed americans, continue to look for jobs and frankly wonder why it is we are revisiting this instead of helping dickie's tauter find a job with this legislation the law that we have in place americans chris this country have an opportunity for

health care. i've put forward a amendment 26 the kristopher hart of something i think is important for working people, millions of whom actually have health care coverage. some of them it's really expensive, affairs it's not the greatest but it's health care and they see skyrocketing premiums, and we did something three special in the affordable care act. we put in a very small but powerful provision that ensures health insurance commissioners like those in california and across the country have the ability to look at the premium increases and determine whether they are unreasonable or excessive and then say you know that's actually just not fair to consumers in california and colorado remain and other states that have actually used these provisions this is the federal

government looking at the health care that's offered in the state it's the state health insurance commissioner saying maybe this doesn't make sense for our state just as your insurance commissioner has been, mr. chairman in california, and so once offered the accountability for insurance company premium increases amendment, and what it does is it says that the repeal would not take effect unless and until the office of management and budget in consultation with the director of the congressional budget office certifies to congress to repeal affected by the sections will not restore the ability of insurance companies to impose unreasonable premium increases as protected under the law. so important to consumers all across this country. and then finally, as i conclude, i want to share with you, a story a constituent of mine who had to deal with a pretty significant premium hike

increase and it wasn't 59%, but it wasn't affordable for him. was just an additional 20%. 20% or 59% or whatever the percentage is an increase it's actually not even keeping with the pace of inflation and so how could it possibly be justified? and another small town in maryland not very far from here experienced that increase just before the health care reform package was enacted, and now our health insurance commissioner in maryland has the ability to review that and i know that when our constituents are calling my office now i have the ability of chollet to call on our insurance commissioner or refer them to our insurance commissioner who actually has some leverage with which to deal with these unusual and unreasonable rate increases, so i would hope that as we move forward over the next couple of

days and you consider this rule that you wouldn't do what we all know can be treating charness, which is throwing the baby out with the bath water and to look at some of these amendments that have been offered, particularly this one that goes to the heart of middle class working families who have insurance and don't deserve to have big insurance companies stand over top of them and raise their rates on fairly. look at those things as a way to improve the legislation. none of this is perfect. if i could have been in my home are not my table i would have written a completely different bill but that isn't the deal when it comes to legislation. we have to work together, and i urge the new majority to take the spirit of yesterday's into the work of tomorrow and the days coming forward to ask ourselves what makes sense for

working-class americans, what makes sense for middle class americans struggling to take care of themselves and their families. they want jobs, they want to work and in addition they are willing to pay reasonable costs for health care and it is our job to figure out how to make it possible for working families. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chair, for the opportunity to speak tonight and i want to thank all the members of the committee for their patience today. i want to speak to an amendment that i introduced with representative thompson, who you heard from a few minutes ago as well as mr. perlo and her life and still can't testify to earlier today that would prevent the repeal of the patient protection affordable care act unless and until it can be shown that that repeal would not harm the medicare trust fund. specifically the amendment would require the 0 p.m. -- omb and

cbo that the solvency of the trust fund wouldn't be compromised by the repeal legislation and the failure of the test would not take place. i don't hold the view that this was a perfect bill buy any measure. was far from perfect but it was in the redirection. and if nothing else, one of the clear benefits of this legislation was that it extended the solvency of the medicare program that so many of my constituents rely on for 12 years. not only with the repeal reduced solvency in the medicare program that as we learned this morning would also increase the budget deficit by $230 billion over the first ten years over a trillion dollars the second ten years. and i had hoped certainly after an election in which millions of voters expressed their concern over the budget deficits and rightful concern over the federal budget deficit that the

new majority would walk the walk when it comes to reducing the deficit. we took a small step today, one my complete support in reducing our own budget. that is the drop in the bucket in savings compared to the kind of deficit spending that this represents. $240 billion were moving forward on peanuts and we are seeing the big picture move backwards. that's not what our constituents called on us to do. this first major piece of legislation in this 100 of congress will show whether all of us and the new majority is serious about reducing the deficit. with all the campaign rhetoric from all the fuss was serious, whether we were ready to walk the walk or whether it was just talk. additionally, i believe that repeal in the health care reform in its totality as opposed to the repeal and replace approach that we heard so much about

would certainly have serious and by your consequences for many of my constituents in new mexico. a constituent of mine named carmen called my office recently for help with the to and $50 rebate that went to seniors last year under the affordable care act. the rebate was established to help seniors like carmen who were caught in the prescription drug coverage gap, the famous doughnut hole. carmen is chronically ill with a variety of problems including a heart condition and she has had to choose between the medicine that she needs because her costs typically fall into the doughnut hole august and september of each year. for the same reason she and her husband have had to cut back on all of the medicines prescribed by her doctor and live in fear of how the costs and consequences will impact than the next. i don't believe the health care reform bill was perfect but we got some things right and under

the affordable care act, we closed the doughnut hole providing certainty for seniors that they will no longer have to choose between prescription drugs and paying for food and utilities. we provided certainty to seniors for 12 additional year that they can rely on medicare when they get sick. this amendment sponsored by mr. thompson, mr. pallone and myself, what guarantee for those seniors that they can continue to count on medicare. i want to thank you all for your consideration and i will certainly ask that this amendment be ruled in order. >> thank you very much for your testimony and i want to express my appreciation to all of you for your patience, especially ms. edwards, who has pointed out and i may have little difficulty left in there for you afterwards. [inaudible] [laughter] and let me say that i believe that all of you have come forward as have all of the

witnesses today with extraordinarily thoughtful proposals and i want to a sure you know we feel very passionately come as i said in my opening remarks, about the need for us to do everything we possibly can to insure that every single american has access to quality affordable health care and health insurance. i think ms. edwards put it perfectly when she said as we perceive it is essential for us to come together now, and we believe that as this measure is going to be before us, no one wants to throw the baby out with the bathwater. we have in h9 introduced and will be included in this rule a measure i know there is criticism of the basically h. res 2 that doesn't have an amendment, but i can assure you that having talked with the

individual committee chairman, there is a very strong commitment to your right to discuss and foley debate the proposals that you have and to have a vote and i will give you further assurance that as we complete the committee process looking at these proposals before us many of which have been supported by the president. i began by talking about the five things i would like to see and actually we extended it to 12 in h. res minor suite to get costs down so people could afford it, the president indicated an interest in that. in the state of the union message the president talked about the way that meaningful lawsuit abuse reform could in fact play a role in bringing the cost of health insurance down meaning more americans would have access to it.

associated health plans. we've all been talking about small businesses today, and we know the opportunity for them to come together to get lower rates from the insurance companies is something that again enjoys bipartisan support to deal with pre-existing conditions obviously we want to ensure people don't have the kind of act me story that jackie shared with us and the other stories you have shared from your constituents. we want to ensure that does not happen, and something i actually first introduced back in 1987, and that is the first bill calling for medical savings accounts and that is providing an incentive for people to put dollars aside to pay directly for health care costs or for health insurance and so i think it's important for us as we move ahead to make it very clear that ensuring that every single american has access to quality health care and that insurance is our shared goal democrats and

republicans alike want that to happen and i just want you all to know that and i will make a commitment to you that if you don't feel that your proposals as you proceed with the process have been adequately considered, please come to me here in the rules committee and i will do everything it possibly can to ensure that your proposal as we move ahead gets a full airing an opportunity to be considered. thank you very much. >> we will find out of the few minutes how well considered they are because we are going to put your amend them up for votes but i want to thank you all for coming and your work. door patience was long way and as i said to the earlier panel, it shows and testifies really kind of what trying to be done and certainly the fact we are

going to make such a hole in the deficit was one of the overriding factors. we must do everything we can to try to make sure $230 billion more is and added to this deficit in any way in budgets so thank you all for coming. i appreciate your work and patience and we will see you all tomorrow. >> [inaudible] >> i also want to thank all of you being here and i disagree with the chairman i don't think we are coming together think we are coming apart, and we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater if you vote for this repeal bill you're basically eliminating all the things that you talked about. ms. tsongas talked of gender reading and discrimination against women when insurance

companies define a pre-existing condition as domestic violence. in this bill we change that. voting for the repeal and not allowing the amendments like the ones that you have offered to be voted on the sickly you are, you are eliminating everything, all the protections, and i appreciate the fact that my colleagues on the other side of the leal we all wanted ready to be happy. we want everybody to have healthcare, but time and time and time again when the opportunity arises to increase consumer protection and expand health care coverage for people the vote against it, so, you know, this is not a coming together moment and why all i appreciate the chairman's visiones if you have any problems you can come to him and he will go and talk to them, i think a better way to deal with this would be to allow your amendments to be made in order or better quite frankly to do

hearing's first, you know come and go through the committee process and then come back and recommend an alternative replacement, not a press release which is the state of principles, but a real bill, so i wish we would have taken this first day of the new congress and focused on jobs and how to put people back to work we are having this ideological battle here on health care i think it is not at all helpful but i appreciate your patience and we all certainly share your views on the amendment and you raised. thank you. >> i have a question for ms. spier but thank you, mr. chairman. when will the committee be considered in house resolution nine? >> we are going to consider house resolution nine when we complete this panel. this is going to be part of the bill, and that will be part of the debate next week.

tomorrow and next week. we will consider this in the rule tomorrow and then next week on the house floor along with a chart to. >> a single rule for both. >> a rule tomorrow that will deal with a charge to which is the repeal measure and h. res nine of that is the litany of items we've been discussing throughout the day that reaffirm our commitment to addressing those concerns to ensure we can get the cost of insurance down for every american. >> i will hold my remarks but ms. spear mentioned something and i want to ask some questions about it but i think as you said, currently members of congress are going to be coming into the exchange like other americans. if this bill passes members of congress will get this gold-plated federal health care instead of going into the same exchange as other americans; is that right?

>> that's correct. >> and supporting each for ii, people are saying members of congress shouldn't have to get their insurance the way other americans to in this exchange but it automatically this federal program of insurance? >> that's correct. >> and that's what i thought i heard and you know, i think we've all heard back in our districts and if any of you want to comment on this, i see constituents who fought this health care reform was somehow in exempting congress to we have any of you heard that from your constituents once or twice? does anybody have any ideas how that misconception might have gotten started? >> [inaudible] stand i don't know either but regardless of just wanted to take the opportunity to make sure that in fact under the current health care the past members of congress would get our insurance in the exchange however if h.r. two passes, there will be some truth to what some of our constituents were

worried about manly that members of congress will have a special program one that they can buy into, one that our constituents can choose and that is i think a major concern about h.r. two, that makes and available to the rest of america the insurance that members of congress have and that is something i heard from a lot of constituents, and i hope i don't have to go back to them and say that the current congress, the 112 comco satchel we chose to get congress its own special health insurance program that's different than the one that they get to choose, and i fear very much that is the way we are headed. thank you for raising that, and i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. tincal evening we wanted to move this along, the last comment is simply got to be responded to. i have blue cross blue shield. i don't know what gold-plated insurance policy you have that's

provided by the congress but i pay a premium to blue cross blue shield, that is my congressional health care plan, if you have a gold-plated plan, you have something different -- >> will you yelled for a moment? >> yes. >> my constituents have often come across information that leads them to believe members of congress have had a gold-plated plans and i respond that we have the federal employee insurance plan. you have to be honest that's a good plan. i think we have decent insurance and it's better than what many americans in the private sector have to estimate what the gentleman yield? >> excuse me. the plan is the same plan that every federal employee has. it is not a separate plan from other federal employees. we are simply federal and please and that's the plan that we have. i have blue cross blue shield because it is what is used in

north carolina. other people may have something slightly different, but we are considered for all employees just like everybody else who works appear. >> [inaudible] >> could i, mr. chairman? i think it's very important point out that 72% of the premium that is paid to lacrosse bushfield is paid by the taxpayers of this country on your behalf and anybody who is in the federal employee health insurance fund. you are not paying the actual going price of that premium. you're premiums subsidized about 72% and your coverage is never going to be subject to recision, it's never going to be subject to pre-existing conditions, it is never going to be subject to gender discrimination because it is a group policy and everyone in the individual market -- and that is most small businesses, are in the individual market

where they are paying the entire premium and subject to all of these different forms of discrimination. >> mr. chairman? let me just say that the way the entrance is handled for members of congress is no different than it's handled for every state employee across this country. >> that's not true. >> any state and anybody that is any group plan you are trying to make it look like our plan is different from anybody who is any group plan and this is simply not true. >> mr. chairman, may i respond? without belaboring the point, the group plans are different and negotiated between the office of personnel for the state and for the federal government and the office of personnel for the local trusten. many cities do not have any coverage and the have to negotiate individually. the amount of subsidization is

determined by in this case congress in california by the state legislature and in various the premium subsidization is different than different states and with the federal government, but we must be forthright in telling the american people the premiums we paid for subsidized by them to to 72%. >> let me just say as it relates to h. res mine this exchange we had is a very clear indication of the fact that we will have an interesting and the ongoing debate that will proceed on this and we obviously will have a chance to get a resolution on this. anyone else want to make any comments? >> mr. chairman, thinking about that last discussion, is the amendment going to be before us to abolish -- i mean, was the

topic -- >> we will be getting in the markup whatever amendments but marking of the rule we will have the chance. >> i would be interested in participating in that if you're looking for a partner on that. >> i look forward to it. >> thank you very much for being here and we will say the hearing began at 10:00 this morning so we are approaching 11 hours and counting, but the hearing portion will be closed if there are any members who wish to submit statements for the record we will allow members to do that, but again, think you all very much. go in there and see if there is anything left. we are expecting about ten to 15 minutes we will have the world ready so we are going to recess for ten to 15 minutes and as soon as we have it, we will look forward anxiously to the markup on the rule.

ten to 15 minutes -- 20 minutes is what was said. we will stand in recess for 20 minutes. [inaudible conversations] amol conversations [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] taking a break here in the house rules committee you can see they've been working all evening throughout the day as well working on this rule for the floor debate tomorrow we expect a debate tomorrow on the floor of the house and we will have that over on c-span. we are told by congressman dreier, the congressman of the rules committee they are going to take a 20 minute break so while we wait will bring in event from early to become house speaker john boehner and new majority leader eric cantor speaking about the republican agenda in the house.

they talk about efforts to repeal the health care law with of the rule about this debate on the health care law as well as the new gop budget. good morning, everyone. the house is already at work listening to the american people and addressing their concerns and i am pleased the house acted yesterday to approve a new set of reforms that will fundamentally change the way congress works. gone are the days when the bills will be written in the speaker's office and rushed to the floor in a matter of hours. gone are the days when the constitution will be ignored. in this congress, we are making all the bills publicly available online for three days before a vote, and in this congress there will be clear constitutional

authority required for the members' bills. today, we are reading the constitution on the floor for the first time in our history. .. and that's why retaking these

first steps to repeal the job killing health care love that was passed last year over the objections of the american people. you've often heard me say that i believe that this level were the best health care system in the world. and what families and small businesses are worried about right now is about how this will affect the likelihood. that's why today we are releasing a root port that examines the health care laws impact on our economy and our budget. and the evidence is overwhelming , that this health care law, by raising taxes, imposing new mandates and increasing uncertainty is already destroying jobs in our country. it will continue to destroy jobs in america unless we do something about it. the report shows how the law is making it harder to end the job killing that threatens our children's future. when you look at a dollar by dollar, you can tell the numbers just don't add up.

with 10% unemployment and massive debt, the american people want to focus on cutting spending and growing our economy. that's what repealing the health care lot is all about. i hope the house next week to repeal the jobs killing health care was to get started on replacing the commonsense reforms that would reduce the cost of health insurance in america. >> good morning. republicans have come to our new majority with a clear determination to fix what's wrong here in washington. in so doing, we hope to be able to deliver results for the american people and get this economy going again so more people can get back to work. we believe that a significant impediment to show growth in this country has been in existence at the obama kerala as a result of the passage of the bill last session. that's why we are taking action and next week will see a

resolution to repeal the job killing obamacare bill -- obama kerala so that we can demonstrate that we are dead serious about cutting the disincentives in this town to job growth across this country and begin to once again grow this economy so more people can get back to work. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> listen, i promised a more open process. i didn't promise every single bill is going to be an open bill or as i said yesterday, we went to a whole congress, two years

without one open rule. as i said yesterday, there will be many open the congress and just watch. secondly it you know when it comes to repealing health care, we made it clear going back to last spring after the bill is passed, that this ought to be repealed and replaced with commonsense reform to lower the cost of health insurance. we outlined on september 24 when we put the pledge to america out there. our commitment to the american people that would repeal this job killing bill. the american people understand this bill. the members of congress all get a chance. they've all got too debated turning their elections. they've all had a chance to discuss it. and the fact is the committees are not constituted yet we want to be connection. so i believe that it's fair. when it comes to spending, you remember that we called for a 2008 spending level to be enacted, going back to august in

a speech that i gave in cleveland, ohio. on september 24, we made clear in a pledge we want to go back to 2008 spending loans. and if we been able to move on september 24, would've been able to go back to 2008 spending while. we're halfway through the year. i will say this. we will meet our commitment to the pledge in this calendar year. there's no disk, and so that's about it. feedback mr. boehner, one thing is the gop role seems to be an allowance for paul ryan are represented at the budget chairman that said the budget level for the next fiscal year. talk to joe smith and ready no idea why it's okay for one person to set the budget level for entire congress do not have a democratic vote on that. >> as you are all aware, the democrats in the house last year did not pass a budget, did not pass any of the appropriations bills, which has left us in a position where there is no

spending limits under the loan. and so between now and the time that a new budget is in a decrepit house, someone has decided a spending limit. and under our rules, we decided the chairman of the budget committee was in the best position to do that. but it's only an effect until the new budget -- a new budget is in the lead. >> you put out a statement. could you give be a little more specific -- could you envision the house voting for the next year? >> as you're aware, the debt limit issue is out there. the reason we have to increase the debt limit is because washington continues to spend more money then we bring in. at the house is going to move an increase of the debt limit, i think we have a responsibility to cut spending and to make

changes in the process by which we spend the american people's money. i think it would be irresponsible to try and deal with the debt limit without taking corrective action so that we're not facing this each and every year. [inaudible] >> it is no surprise to you and it should be no surprise to our democratic colleagues or to the american people that we want to repeal the health care law. this is a job killing bill that is in the way of what the american people want and that's a better chance at getting a job. >> what is your timetable, legislation and will it include

a ban on insurance companies? >> we have called for the repeal of the health care law and replace it with commonsense reform that will bring down the cost of health insurance. we'll do with the resolution next week, instructing the committees of jurisdiction to come back with their ideas about what those replacements are to look like. >> the votes in the house to repeal the health care law. in the senate, it's pretty clear that you don't and you have to take up the bill, even if somehow the point is going to the process. >> we made a commitment to the american people. they want this bill repealed them we are going to repeal it and we're going to do everything we can over the course of however long it takes to stop

this because it will ruin the best health care system. it will bankrupt our nation and it will ruin our economy. [inaudible] >> no, i do not. i believe it's our responsibility to do what we say we're going to do. it's pretty clear to the american people at the best health care system in the world will go down the drain if we don't act. >> the congressional budget office announced today replan the health care bill at $230 billion by 2021. are you worried about the signal it sends when he vowed to cut the debt that the first major legislative action you take will increase that? >> i do not believe that repealing, job killing health care law will increase the deficit. cbo is entitled to their opinion, but they are locked within constraints of the 1974 budget act. listen, even the actuaries for medicare and medicaid have made

clear that this bill will not see the kind of money that was predicted earlier. >> what should the world expect for this congress? will this be returned to partisanship or bickering at the beginning of the 2012 race or will it be more productive than that? >> i'm very hopeful that our parties that have listened to the voters and if everyone in washington is in fact listening to the american people, i think there's an awful lot we can accomplish. the american people said i would hope the senate and the white house heard the same message. secondly, the american people said we want our economy fixed. we no spending hurts our economy, job killing her spare economy. these are the kinds of things the american people expect of us. >> uses cbo is entitled to their own opinion. how do you move forward with

legislation of your own in this congress if you don't trust with the cbo says. that is sort of the nonpartisan -- >> cbo can only provide a score based on the assumptions that are given to them. if you go back and look at the health care bill and the assumptions that were given to them, you see all of the double counting that went on. you see the fact that the type turks wasn't even part of the bill. this is why cms has made clear that they do not believe that the passage of this law will in fact have receiving to the american people. [inaudible]

>> if you believed that repealing obamacare is going to raise the deficit, then you would have to have some way to offset that spending. but i don't think anybody in this town believes that repealing obamacare is going to increase the deficit. last one. >> whatever bill you use to replace obamacare, will it be universal health care or his universal health care a goal? >> rule that the committees do their work on how we should replace this with commonsense reform will be. they'll have hearings. it will be a bipartisan process. we'll see what they come back with. thank you all. [inaudible conversations]

>> backlight with the house rules committee. members taken a little break. members working on a debate for the repeal of the health care legislation passed by the last congress. here we are in the second day now of this congress. a vote on the full repeal action is likely next wednesday were told. congressional budget office today estimating the repeal of the health care law would increase the deficit by some $230 billion by 2021 although speaker boehner has said he disagrees with that. senate majority leader, harry reid says democrats will push ahead with the plan to reform the filibuster rules and he had a chance to speak with reporters. we'll watch as much as we can why wait for the house rules committee to get back in session. [inaudible conversations]

>> happy new year, everybody. i personally -- would be good here. the lame duck showed that we could work together, reject extremism and really accomplish a lot for the american people. but i do get concerned when i hear my republican colleagues say they want to focus on winning a deficit while taking things away from the middle class. and that's really been proven that's what they want to do the last few days for sure. but let's take health care for example. this morning's cbo came out with their score, that the republicans doing what they are talking about doing would increase the debt by $230 billion in the second 10 years by well over $1 trillion.

and just from running up the deficit, republicans plan just as it relates to health care. and i'm only going to mention a few things would take away free preventive care, wellness program for seniors, would take away the 50% reduction in health care costs for seniors to continue filling the doughnut hole. it would take away the tax cuts for businesses that have health insurance for their employees and he would give the insurance company is a right refuse coverage for those people who would preexisting disabilities. some have said over there that they have to take a whack of social security. but they certainly believe that our wall street reform bill was drawn. they cited than with wall street and are obviously doing it again. the republicans aren't stopping there. they are even threatening to shut down government, to have

the united states of america default on its bill. you can imagine as well as i can the economic crisis that this would cause. and not only what we do internationally, but what do we do at home. social security checks, troops would get their checks, veterans would get their checks. border security, fbi, all of it. we are focused as democrats and creating jobs by investing in education so our kids can compete in the new international economy we have everyone to move out oil, which is now approaching $100 a barrel. we need to give americans the tools they need to get ahead, not take benefits away from them, opportunities away from them. okay, first question of the

year. [inaudible] >> mr. boehner said you were spending cut. are you rejecting the idea or are you willing to entertain some of this -- >> papago system we had an effect desires. we believe spending has to be cut. we believe if you can have new programs you have to pay for them either by cutting spending or increase in revenue. the one thing i would agree with, the new speaker and this is his quote, we're going to have to deal with that as adults, talking about the downtime and. whether we like it or not, the federal government has obligations and we have obligations on our part. that's a direct quote from boehner. [inaudible]

[inaudible] >> i do believe the country is right for tax reform. chairman baucus has this as one of his first priorities. so to answer your question, yes 100 times. our tax system is broken and needs to be fixed. i'm tired of the left. let's go to the right. >> senator mccain has suggested that every appropriation bill has been house to include language specifically prohibiting the funding of the health care law. if the house does that and sends those bills to the senate, defunding any funds for the implementation of the health care law, would you be willing to shut down the government to save the health care load? >> the republicans have to

understand, but the health care bill is not going to be repealed. news commentators, not editorial writers, not pundits, the people who report the news recognize it's not going to be repealed. i've mentioned just a few other things that we have going now with the new health care bill. it's really good for the american people to show how misguided the republicans are. for a long, long time, anything that was done that had any money connected to a type to have a cbo score. they rejected that. is it no longer will be be bound by that. that's why these numbers we got from cbo, repealing health care is not going to save money. it's going to create huge amounts of money. so are we seeing the health care bill is perfect? of course not. but by the 1090 nines works on a

bipartisan basis to fix some of those things. we are willing to work in any way that could start of a nature to improve the health care, the liberty system for our country. but repealing health care, they should get a new lease on life and talk about something else. >> senator reid, there's been a lot of talk about the city government having fiscal troubles and it's possible for congressional bailout. what is the mood here in congress for a possible congressional bailout would you be willing to support one box >> i don't think we have to worry about that right now. which is passed a lot a matter of the weeks ago, that gives state and local government significant relief. that's what the compromises about. there was extension of the tax cuts in exchange for that. we have a lot of programs that do many, many things to help local government, state government, people who are down

and out, including unemployment compensation. so i think it's a little early to talk about bailout now. >> how likely is it -- [inaudible] >> we just had a very, very good car case. 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. we're going to work toward that. we hope that the republicans see the light of day and are willing to work with us. if not, we'll have to do something on their own. [inaudible] >> well, i'm not going to get into specifics. we have lots of support to change the rules. >> we talk about the jobs bill?

>> we are not ready yet to talk about different jobs, things are going to do. as indicated in my statement here, we really are fixated on doing something to help the beleaguered economy. i'm terribly disappointed at what we've done today in the house or late last night to buy you leave really a public trust, a trust fund, a highway trust fund. they have said the fire was found. those monies when you go buy gasoline to pump, part of what you pay goes to a trust fund. the trust fund is to go to highways, bridges, roads. it also goes to mass transit. if they know, we're not going to do that. we're going to use that for the purposes. the chamber of commerce says what is wrong with it?

are they out of their minds? we have stopped, a construction company that sent it down today. this is irresponsible to violate a law that created a trust fund for the american people. we're just going to eye that. >> what about the repeal of the health care bill? [inaudible] >> this is the session's resolution. amber backlight of the house rules committee. ec chairman david dreier on your right to his right and on the left of our screen is ranking member louise slaughter of new york. live coverage here on c-span 2. >> we are trying right now to ensure that i've there any other items that we do have the flexibility to address them.

mr. hastings very correctly race an issue. and as i said at the outset, i would here any recommendations you have on how we can address this, but have the opportunity to do that to make the motion in order that will allow that to happen. so i appreciate that. what will do now is for going to proceed with the original jurisdiction markup of h. read nine, which is the measure that i introduced, calling for the committees to proceed with their work on replacements. so that mccaw from north carolina, ms. fox for a notion. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i moved to a trust nine, instructing certain committees to report legislation replacing the job killing health care law with a favorable recommendation. >> thank you very much, ms. fox. any discussion on that amendment? the >> i know members on the site do

want to discuss href nine. >> did you not want to offer -- any comments on it? i'll ask mr. mcgovern. >> you know, i would just say as i've said repeatedly all day, basically what you are doing is replacing real protections for people with a piece of paper. that's what this bill is. that's what this resolution is is a piece of paper. it doesn't give anybody anything. in fact, it's a press release and i strongly oppose it. >> anyone else seek recognition? >> yeah, certainly the language and manner says that the various committees shelley's report to the house legislation. i'm not quite sure what the penalty is to say that they must do that. certainly many of the ideas are

ones that have broad bipartisan support. there are a few that are probably debatable, but the vast majority have broad support. i think the issue that mr. mcgovern raised a night tend to agree for that reason. i'll be opposing house resolution nine, is that it does noncancer to date we had with regard to the bill that's in place. we certainly wish these committees while unaccomplished in things you we all know the legislative process. we all know they may not see the same thing in our committee and we worry about this because there's realized being impacted. >> the gentleman is absolutely correct. and i agree with the assessment. we know that there are lives at stake here and it is critically important that we do everything we can to ensure every american has access to quality health insurance. i would say this. i have had discussions with the new chairs of these committees. mr. camp, the new chairman of the ways and means committee,

mr. smith who is the chairman of judiciary committee. we have before us today mr. upton and mr. klein, the nature of the education and workforce committee. there is been a very strong commitment made by the speaker. i have made up by authoring this legislation -- this resolution that we will insist that the committees proceed with their reaction. we have is the seeking a pre-determined the outcome. but as you see, i have made and we have a record of commitment to ensure that committees adequately address those issues that have come forward. i can say that it's not a press release. this will be resolution passed by the united states representatives as we move forward. and i urge the adoption of h. is benign. if there is no further discussion, the thought occurs. does that favor say aye ko. the supposed no.

the eyes have it. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] >> the clerk will report the total. [inaudible] and the motion is agreed to. and now we will proceed to consideration of the rules that will allow us to consider both h.r. two as well as h. res nine and the chair recognizes the gentleman from grandfather community for motion. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i provide consideration us h.r. chief repealing the job killing health care law at. the roadways all points of order against consideration.

the amendment imparted this report shall be considered as a.zip. the rule provides that bill is amended should be read. the rule with all points of order as amended. the rule provides seven hours of debate or 30 minutes, equally divided and divided by the majority leader and minority leader for their respective designees. ninety minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee of education and the workforce. ninety minutes equally divided and controlled by the ranking majority member of the committee on energy and commerce. ninety minutes equally divided in controlling by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means. forty minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the budget. forty minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary.

and 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on small business. the rule provides for motion to recommit h.r. 2 with or without instructions. the third of the rule provides for consideration of h. res nine to commit legislation, replacing the job killing health care law under a structure rule. the rule provides that h. res 9 shall be considered as read. the book provides a one-hour debate on that h. res 9, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on polls for their respective designees. will nixon ordered the amendment to h. res 9 printed in part b of the report is offered by representative matheson of utah or his designee. it shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by their proponents and an opponent.

the roadways all points of order against the amendment printed in part b of the report. lastly, the rule provides for consideration of a resolution is offered by the majority leader or his designee, relating to the status of certain actions, taken by members select under a closed roof. the rule provides for minutes of debate, equally divided and controlled at the majority leader and minority leader for their respective designees. >> you for the motion of the chumbawamba and from grandfather community. i may just provide a little explanation here. as you know, we last summer began making a commitment that there would be a straight up or down vote on the issue of repeal. and when it comes to h. res 9, we have made in order, democratic amendment, mr. matheson's amendment to add a provision dealing with the

toxics, the so-called toxics, which would be adding item number 13. there will be a debate on that. so we do provide an opportunity for him to be heard on that. and the other provision as to when dealing with the issue that led us to reassess earlier today. so either any amendments to the motion of the gentlewoman, mrs. slaughter? >> i think i can speak for the four of us, that after a dozen people, poor holiday over 12 hours, that would be serious sensitive to many amendments, the repeal bill. you are self-executing, a doctor without separate vote the amendment by mr. kitcher who did not testify today in support of this proposal. ..

and not the reason the of chosen to make an order so we are going to urge colleagues to vote no on the amendment. >> he made perfectly clear the danger here passed yesterday in the rules of the house and this will compound it and i think again if i can speak for all of us, the idea that we would even contemplate putting $230 billion worth of deficit, tying it away somewhere is abhorrent to all of

us. >> those and favors a aye. opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes has it. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] the clerk will report the totals. >> thank you, mr. chair. i move that we report an open rule for the consideration of h.r. two and h. res. mind. >> you heard the motion. any further discussion? if not the vote occurs. those in favor aye. opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the clerk will call the role to

become roll. [roll call] the clerk will report the total. the motion is not agreed to. mr. slaughter? >> i move to amend the rule in the appropriate waiver amendment number 15 by ms. tsongas of massachusetts to ensure that repeal of the affordable care act shall not take effect until the date upon which the cbo certifies that retial will not permit insurance companies to discriminate against women. >> you heard the motion of the gentleman. any further discussion? >> yes. mr. hastings of course. >> mr. chairman, there are a lot of things all of us have said to dislike in this measure. when i began today, i used the

opportunity and i thank my colleagues for letting me do so to briefly realize an exemplary america that died last night, kathryn kelley. catherine was passionate but she had an unwavering support for civil rights and women's rights, gay rights and progress of undertaking. i showed a moment ago recent information that i received from her family the reflected her desire that contributions be

made to the naacp and the national organization for women. i raise that for the provision that ms. spear from florida has authored that i fully support. deals with one of society's most egregious discriminatory measures and that is discrimination of women, and for the life of me, i don't understand how the insurance company would deny a woman's coverage and women's relatives that have been touched by the disease of breast cancer. my cousin and that i was with at christmas time had a double mastectomy and it wasn't continue to be heart-rending to all of us and i don't understand

how an insurance company could say if a woman had a cesarean section, c-section dearth, and i proudly announced my first grandchild she notified me yesterday the sonogram affected is going to be a girl and i'm delighted about that. but how can any of you sit here knowing what we've done in this society in discriminating against women including in beginning in this great founding of the country by excluding them from the opportunity to participate in activities that were routine for men and to then vote on something and vote no

that it's okay when we have fixed some of it it's okay to repeal and i hear you when i say, and i know you said to her we will take it up in the process as we go forward on house resolution nine and the committee process and what have you, but i bet you for general purposes we will be right here with this discussion and we shouldn't be having this discussion we should all be lifting up. we traveled to societies where women have to walk behind men. you and i were in iraq and we saw women with our eyes standing together, women having to go behind different undertakings and walking miles to come to the city's that you lead an

undertaking all sorts of things around the world. america ought to be way ahead of everybody else in the world when it comes to protecting women's rights. so i strongly support this measure, and i simply don't believe that you would want to repeal something that is going to cause women to pay 40% more in premium costs than men. catherine would be opposed to that, and my mom would be raising hell. >> thank you very much and what is it the gentleman is absolutely right. we don't want to do anything to undermine women's rights and we are absolutely committed to that, and my condolences to you with a loss and congratulations about soon to become a grandfather and i think that is terrific, but you were right in a very much appreciate the gentleman recognizing that this

would be one of those issues that we hope very much and it's a full airing and consideration and i can assure you that it will but we also will have an opportunity to discuss it here in this committee. so i am not going to be voting no against women's rights, i am going to be voting yes for us to ensure that the committee process has an opportunity to address this and ensure that women's rights are recognized. >> mr. mcgovern. >> i find it a little bit puzzling that on the one hand you are saying we all care about this issue that mr. hastings talked eloquently about, but yet we are about to move forward on a bill the would repeal. we've already had hearings on this and a full airing on this issue. i think the consensus >> i would like to think even with the new majority is that we shouldn't go backwards, we should make sure women's rights are protected in the process and people don't get discriminated

against for the peak in pre-existing conditions because victims of domestic violence. so if we are all together on this lawyer we going to repeal? we have had the hearings. it's over. we decided this issue now or repealing it. it's just a little bit of a puzzle on this side of the aisle why on the one hand you say you care about the issue and share our views on these issues but here we are repealing it. i think mr. hastings made very important points. >> and mr. hastings made very important point as well and i am committed to an everything we can to address the issue and we are repealing -- we are repealing the $2.7 trillion measure that passed, and there was a very strong up -- and we obviously don't want to do anything to undermine the rights of women and we are determined to ensure that and so i am going to urge no vote on the slaughter

and that. yes, mr. hastings. >> [inaudible] i think we've wasted 12 hours. >> wasted 12 hours? >> yes. >> i don't believe we have wasted 12 hours. >> this will never become law of the land, the repeal [inaudible] >> how you know that? >> largely for reasons that you do and the president who has the undertaking that he has put forward is more likely than not that repealing this measure and all of us in the house of representatives would vote to uphold. that said the main flight of that, the minute that if it were to become law we and what you are saying is you want it to become law so if it became law

and if you are hoping i'm right that it doesn't, then the women will be in the position immediately and your desire all you have to do is just step this out and let it go forward. i feel more about this pmi to any measure in this whole health care and i didn't even talk on the date or the rules were talking and the general debate but i find it obnoxious that we would go forward on this measure and i would give careful consideration to what you're doing in carrying out our country. >> [inaudible] >> i want to recognize you. >> thank you. let me assure all of you that the women in this country know about this, your daughters, wives, mothers, everybody is guinn to know that you are trying to push them back in a place can be beaten to a pulp

and not be given the entrance to have that taken care of and all women are going to know that you have decided that they can pay 40% more for the premiums. how are all of these women going to know? because we are going to take them. so repealed or not, the fact that this discussion is taking place again to put women back down in the second class situation isn't going to go unnoticed in this country, and i would like to say to you those of us that have fought 1970 charging to move ahead the right to the women in the united states of america and try to reach bills attained by women and other countries aren't going to let this so take that to the bank with you, women in america will know about it. islamic those in favor of the slaughter amendment, aye. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. >> roll call. >> the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]

are there further amendments? missed slaughter. >> [inaudible] >> the motion is not agreed to. >> i move to amend the will to make it in order appropriately for number 16 by mr. sanchez of california the repeal of the affordable care act shall not take effect until the date upon which cbo certifies that repeal will not permit insurance companies to rescind an individual health coverage due to illness or impose annual and lifetime limits as prohibited under the affordable care act. >> any further discussion if not, those in favor will say aye to be the post, no. the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to.

>> [roll call] the clerk will report the total. the motion is not agreed to. are there further amendments? >> mr. chairman i move to amend the rules to make an order with appropriate waivers number 26 by ms. edwards of maryland to insure repealing the patient protection affordable care act shall not take effect unless and until the turn victor of the office of management and budget in consultation with the director of the congressional budget office certifies to congress that the repeals affected by such section will not restore the ability of insurance companies to impose unreasonable premium increases has protected against under the protection of portable c.a.r.e.. islamic you heard the motion. the gentleman, those in favor will say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. [roll call] baquero will report the total. the motion is not agreed to. >> i move general to make an order with a pre-waiters amendment number 27 by mr. tierney of massachusetts. to ensure the repeal of the affordable care act shall not take effect unless and until the date upon which cbo certifies that repeal will not restore the ability of insurance companies to divert premium dollars from patients and insurance company profits and executive perks as provided under section 1,001 of the affordable care act. some keefer of the motion of the gentleman. any discussion? if not, the vote occurs. those an agreement, aye. opposed, no. >> i asked for a roll call. >> [roll call]

the clerk will report the total. to further amendment. >> i move to amend the rules to make an order with appropriately first amendment number 14 by ms. castor florida to ensure their repeal of the affordable care act shall not take effect until the date the cbo said it was the cbo will not permit insurance companies to deny coverage to individuals due to a pre-existing condition has prohibited under the affordable care act. >> any further discussion? those in favor will say aye. opposed, no. >> i ask for your local. >> the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] >> the clerk will report the total.

are there further amendments? >> i move to amend the rule in order to make an order with appropriate beavers amendment number 17 by mr. lawson of washington to ensure the repeal of the affordable care act shall not take effect until the date upon which cbo certified as the repeal will not eliminate health insurance coverage for the down adults under 26 who are otherwise eligible for coverage under their parents' plan as a result of the affordable care act. smd heard the motion of the gentleman. >> mr. chairman, i can't tell you how many people have told me how much they appreciate this particular provision, how many parents have come up to me whose children are in college or just got out of college, can't find a job, and they can still enjoy the security of good health insurance if their parents so desire. i read an earlier letter from a woman in my district in massachusetts who talked about

this provision in the context of her son who graduated from college and was diagnosed with cancer and because of a pre-existing condition he probably won't be able to get health care but yet because of this provision and as well as the provisions that have been discrimination of pre-existing conditions, he has health care. you know, there are millions of people impacted by this, and i would like to think that the spirit of the coming together as you mentioned before that we could actually agree on some of this stuff. we've had hearings on this. we have aired this. i mean, i don't think this is a terribly controversial why in the world would you want to repeal? so i would urge a yes vote on this amendment and i hope my colleagues will join with us. islamic this is an issue that is going to be addressed as we move

on resolution nine. >> but you could ila miniet and maybe a committee chair will deal with it. >> any further discussion? if not the vote occurs on the mcgovern amendment. opposed, no. [roll call] >> of the motion is not agreed to. mr. hastings? >> thank you very much. i would like to put a question in the spirit of trying to have the clarity and the transparency that you have advocated through the years. h. res. nine in my judgment doesn't require the constitution provision notation that goes to

the record and correctly h. res. to is in the record. >> this isn't a bad question it's just a suggestion. i didn't have the time nor did i direct the staff and i could have to go to the record to make sure the constitution provides was noted and to understand as it did, but as we go forward particularly here, it wouldn't be unwarranted for the majority and minority staff to provide us with the constitutional provision. >> i appreciate the gentleman's comments and i would say it does apply to h.r. two but simple resolutions as h. res. nine are not included in the provision

but i appreciate -- >> i ask right now what is the constitutional provision that leaves six of us in here that don't know? mr. chairman, i move to amend the rules to make an order with appropriate waivers amendment number 23 offered by mr. thompson of mississippi to ensure the repeal when the patient protection and affordable care act shall not take effect unless and until the director of the office of management and budget in consultation with the director of the congressional budget office certifies to the congress that the repeals are affected by such sanctions, if a device sanctions will not undermine the primary care. >> three brief discussion. mr. chairman, repeal this act will support community health centers which are critical sources of care for millions of

americans in every state and territory. in my lifetime, almost every president has addressed at some point the need for people in america to have access and the community health centers were in awe when we heard the eloquent testimony from mr. davis who pointed to the fact that some of them either were employees of health centers or in some measure that on a and perhaps others of you and some of us come from a district that might represent the is urban and rural, and i suffer with my friends to believe that this kind of program will not

continue. now i didn't know if you repeal this you take away medical students and primary care providers, loan payments so that they can work in some of those underserved communities and blades for example and certain other areas. and the impact of eight would eliminate $11 billion in health centers over the next five years and would eliminate $1.5 billion in spending for national service. whenever we ultimately get it all together we are going to need more doctors, we are going to need for the nurses, more home health care people and it just doesn't make sense to me, and nobody here today has made it makes sense to me that under the law as it prez a presently

exists, all of us in this room as taxpayers have already provided $320 million in grants. if you are in a program and you just got yourself 400,000-dollar grant, in some cases are cited in florida as much as $7.2 million you have made contracts and you have done other things you are getting ready to be impacted and i just know you all don't mean that, i know you don't mean to fix should be eliminated for private primary care for providers so i'm going to rely on what call vote recitation mr. chairman to the effect we are going to take care of this later. we took care of it in the last session of congress and there is no reason for us to take care of

it. >> any for the discussion? is not the voters all these things and to read the was an agreement will see aye, opposed, no. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] >> the clerk will report the totals. mr. hastings? >> i move to the medieval with appropriate waivers amendment number 30 offered by mr. connolly of virginia to ensure the repeal of the affordable care act shall not take effect upon the date which certifies the repeal will not be increased taxes moderate income were low-income individuals of the families including of tax credits or health care premiums as provided under the affordable care act and i do have three brief comments.

>> garrard of the motion. any further discussion? >> yes. >> you've been recognized. >> so further discussion? >> and i will be more than brief on this regard. ms. moore from wisconsin was here, and i can't imagine a more eloquent statement in support of it as she put it near poor people who were working regularly. i shall not go further into it, mr. chairman. i would ask anyone who's interested that the reference to testimony of the plan -- dwindling moore and that the support of moore was more than worthy of being made an order by this committee. >> and for the discussion? if not the voters on the

hastings amendment. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it and them notion is not agreed to. mr. hastings? >> that's why in a that is why will be with you for two years with a contract. >> loving every minute of it. >> i know you are. i move to amend the rules of making order appropriate orders under 20 offered by my colleague of florida to ensure that the repeal of the affordable care act shall not take effect until the date upon which the ase certified repeal will not in peril medicare and raise costs on seniors and specifically that repeal will not raise drug costs to seniors and people with disabilities by reopening the medicare prescription doughnut hole and eliminate free or preventive health coverage and see, increase the incidence of fraud and abuse.

.. i live with them. i am one, so i certainly understand the plate. and without, mr. chairman, let's don't repeal all of this bean and allowing increase of waste, fraud and abuse. >> and i would just add that i'm not very concerned with the

chairman's promise somehow these committees are going to remake all this for, but this piece of paper and there is no mention of protecting seniors with regard to the donut hole. i don't see any mention of all of that. and i will tell you that night and i think many others here who back in the districts have talked to a lot of senior citizens. many of whom have benefited from at least the beginning close of that on the whole. and so i would -- i would urge a strong yes vote on mr. hastings amendment because this is always begun. why in the world would you repeal it? by what you essentially raise taxes on senior citizens? so i support mr. hastings

amendment. >> i think the gentleman for his comments. i would just say again, if this see the consideration of its america is a schedule in house floor and have the seven-hour debate next week, i am absolutely convinced that the gentleman who had just spoken as well as others will raise a wide range of issues. and i can assure you that the agenda that committees will face is not limited to these items that are included here and that's one of the reasons why we have added in this resolution, and high-resolution that mr. matheson has. so i look forward to debate on this issue. i'd be happy to yield to my friend. be like the fact is some included is not a priority. there is no mention of protecting senior citizens who fall through the donut hole. >> let me just say again that i know there'll be a full discussion on this and will have an opportunity to have committee

chairman discuss their agenda and items that they will address. and obviously as they proceed with the committee process, these numbers to oasis and deliberation and committees. however no vote on the amendment. those in favor say aye. the nose habit. mr. hastings would like a roll call. [roll call] [roll call] >> ester hastings. >> now that we are here in 12 hours, i compliment all of our colleagues and i say to the new members of this distinguished committee that you no longer have time to get out of here.

i asked you earlier today to tell you two don't start. and you haven't seen the pain yet. >> would the gentleman yield? >> of cortisol yield. >> yesterday began my fourth decade of service in the united states house of representatives. and i have never in the years that i served here know that they shearing to extend for this amount of time. i've never seen this many witnesses as we've had today. i say that because while the gentleman seems to think that he's able to buy his words, directories for new members to not consider leaving, i offer my comments to assure them that you will never again, you will never again, you'll never again, gentlemen, experience a day like you have over the past 12 years. >> want to make a bet on that?

>> i know that that is best i've played down the carpet in the challenge. i can tell you that there were three republican witnesses today who came before us and i have yet to count the number of democrats who have testified. twenty-five classics >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. the reason for the interest in this is based in enormous bill. it may be short, but it is probably the biggest bill will vote on in this congress and i appreciate his taking the the tangier from other members that wanted to speak on this and i think it is very reasonable they did, given this is a multi-trillion dollars bill that affects almost every american. so this is a bill of immense magnitude, let not the brevity of them are disguised. >> that is the reason we are writing seven followers of

debate. an hour for consideration on the mobile half an hour of h. res 9 as well. excuse me? >> no amendments. >> what amendment? >> again, h. res 9 does provide an assurance that we'll see the committees proceed with their action and i can tell you that in fact will have it. further amendment? >> let me get to my amendment. i hadn't finished my comment, but i yield to you -- >> please proceed. >> mr. chairman, i also commented earlier today that over the course of time, a lawyer and judge, particularly when i was a juvenile judge, i advocated in the liaison on the supreme court of television, i

begin the day by saying overtime of abuse i begin to feel and feel very strongly there should not be cameras in the courtroom. the memory good reasons that i won't go into. i think your intent by having cameras in the rules committee is as pure as the driven snow. i spoke earlier with staff, names aren't necessary. she knows that i spoke to her about them. your intent is transparent. and i believe that to be the case. but i also witnessed here today and this is why i know we will have more 12 hour hearing in more witnesses who have seen here today. we were the only game in town

today and senators be in the senate. they won't be back until the 24th. so we were on cnn some time today and we were on c-span 2 or three or maybe both. and for that reason, what you saw here today, including yours truly, if we are going to be fair-minded, what you sow with people that know that we're on television. there are people that came here and testify, that would not have been here and for the fact that we're a television. i do write to be here. many of them carried on and this is the committee where it encourages persons to speak for slightly no time limitations. i think it's the only committee although i served on the intelligence committee and we have great latitude there as well, but not the latitude we

have at the rules committee. you're going to see some more. not that he should be concerned. it's an honor and privilege to serve on this committee. you'll see more of the substantive legislation. you come to know more of your colleagues than almost anybody as fast as he will they came here with you that are another committees. but i assure you that it didn't take me but one day to conclude that i saw people coming here. and i can tell you that that's going to happen more and more and more, whether they had a right to or not, is what's getting ready to become the rule of thumb. and it may come under the heading of transparency and i agree that the chairman's intent. but in the final analysis, what it's going to do is call for an awful lot of people just to come up here just so they can be seen

and tweeted and whatever it is that modern people do. acer chairman, i am moved to amend the rule, make the rules that the amendment number 18 by mr. van holland of maryland, to ensure the repeal of the affordable care act shall not take effect until the date upon which cbo certifies that the repeal will not increase the deficit by eliminating the appropriate amount, be it the 143 billion for the preliminary analysis of 230 billion is offered by ceo and 1.2 trillion over 20 years in deficit savings achieved by the affordable care act. >> you've are the channel since motion. mr. mcgovern. >> i would just fate as mr. van holland said i think very clearly, were at a dangerous point here if were going to start politicized the budget process.

and if we don't pay attention to the congressional budget office says we've been under republican and democratic controlled congress, as long as i know. and you know, you guys are in control right now and you can do whatever you want to do. but i don't think if we were in control you would want the chairman of the budget committee to come up with the numbers on his or her own. you know, this is a process -- this is a natural -- cbo is natural and they are the professionals. and we shouldn't shout down the road of it going cbo and leaving it to the budget committee to make whatever decisions they want to make in terms of a just cause. it's very dangerous road going down. >> any further discussion? those in favor say aye. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call]

>> the clerk will report the total. the most is not agreed to. mr. polis. >> thank you commend mr. chairman. i like to introduce my brother who is in the room. the numbers have met up with the committee. >> has he been here all 12 hours? >> he came down to see me sworn in, which i did accomplish on the floor of the house and i'm very proud of that. yes, very proud. and i'm very happy he's got to see a typical day of the rules committee. with that, mr. chairman can move to amend the rules with the member number may tame by mr. peterson of michigan to assure that peel of the health track shall not take effect to the date upon which cbo certifies and not increase taxes on small businesses with health insurance including through tax credit is a prorated and will not increase cost for employers

offering retiree benefits and assistance provided under the affordable care act to help maintain retiree health care benefits. mr. chairman, while there are elements in this bill but i'm sure people on both sides disagree on, i do worry that repealing the health care bill and the passes of h.r. 2 will pass and a recession. this will be a job killing aspect of the repeal. there may be other reasons and other aspects that the majority desires to repeal, but specifically the small business tax credit covers up to 35% of health care premiums, which will eventually increase to up to 50%. already up to 4 million small businesses are eligible for the credit and are receiving this credit now. so the repeal of h.r. 2 would

lead to a large tax increase on our small businesses. this amendment would simply ensure that we don't allow the job killing measure to be implemented without a certification that the repeal would not increase taxes on small businesses, which i think is a critical value that we have on both sides of the isle with regard to ensuring whatever we do with health care reform, that is good for small businesses, which are the bad of america and may therefore make that motion. >> the gentleman is absolutely right. and obviously i addressed to the outset, small businesses are a priority and i look very much under h. res 9 to see this address. i'm going to urge a no vote. >> those in favor say aye, those opposed, no. you'd like a roll call vote? we will call the roll.

[roll call] >> mr. polis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to learn by mr. heinrich to make sure they affordable health care act shall not take effect until the office of management and budget in consultation with director of the commercial budget office certifies congress repeals affected by subsection will match where the life of the federal hostile insurance trust fund which the patient protection and affordable health care act extended by 12 years. mr. chairman counted mr. heinrich made an excellent case before it aired i also think in the interest of producing fiscal responsibility, we want to extend the federal hostile insurance trust fund cannot effectively allow that to run a for health care with the

seniors at risk and i hope the committee chooses to make this amendment in order. >> any further discussion? if not, those in favor will say aye, the nose habit. the motion is agreed to. >> roll call vote, mr. chairman. >> we will call the roll. brahma is >> emotion is not agreed to. are there further amendments? >> with the appropriate waivers of number 21 to ensure the repeal of affordable health track shall not take effect until cbo certifies the repeal will not increase cost sharing or otherwise reduce access to preventative health benefits such as mammograms, colonoscopies and diabetes screenings, including such benefits offered by private health wins are by minister of 1004 and 4104 of the affordable

health care. mr. chairman, these are cost saving measures, making sure that americans have access to early identification of these conditions have been proven to reduce costs over time, not to mention the lies that can be saved and prolonged. the cost of later diagnosis is once these conditions become symptomatic are much greater to bear for the private sector for taxpayers, whoever's rmn and i hope this amendment has made an order. >> the gentleman's motion. any further discussion? those in favor will say hi. opposed, no. the clerk will call the roll. bro mack [roll call] [roll call] >> if not, the vote occurs on

the motion of the gentlewoman from grandfather community. as available say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. [roll call] >> and the motion is agreed to. let me before we close just ask all of my colleagues who have served here longer than two days to extend a round of applause to the four new members will join us on the rules committee and say how much we appreciate their forbearance and the hard work and their dedication by sticking with us and to say that as i said throughout this entire 12 hour. plus now, we obviously share the

goal of ensuring that every single american has access to quality, affordable health insurance and were determined to do every weekend to make sure that that does happen and were going to have a rigorous debate beginning tomorrow morning, first thing. and then i will proceed with the three-day layover into next week and i will be managing this rule on the floor tomorrow. [inaudible] >> we've got one roll. >> we've got a growing role to be considering for next week will have h. res 9 that will be considered from our original jurisdiction. [inaudible]

>> as the notes i made a structure renewal. in a closed rule is the straight up or down vote as was the provision that allows for the addressing the issue that we recessed on earlier today. [inaudible] >> thank you all very much. without objection, the committee stands adjourned. thank you. [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 it ended a daylong house

rules committee meeting. members of the committee approve any rule so the house can take up the repeal of the health care luck tomorrow. under the rules come up to seven hours of floor debate are allowed on the repeal measure. a final vote is scheduled for next wednesday. but january 12. we'll have live coverage of the house tomorrow when members gather in to marilyn c-span. >> senate minority leader mitch mcconnell said today the upcoming debate on raising the federal government spurring limit is an opportunity to confront the national debt as a whole. he also said while republicans are opposed to changing senate

filibuster rules, discussions with democrats on at issue are continuing. this is about 15 minutes. >> as you know, we just finished our annual meeting over at the library of congress. i'm going to ask our congress chair, senator alexander to make some observations about what we were discussing today and then we're going to call in one of our freshmen, one of the new members, senator kelley from new hampshire to make some observations of them will close it. one of the things we obviously talked about today, secretary of the treasury called me and he also called speaker boehner about the debt ceiling issue. we're obviously all familiar with that challenge that will be laying ahead of us in the next couple of months. and i think there's a widespread feeling that it's an opportunity actually for us to come together and make some significant

strides toward beginning to reduce their spending and debt, which we know in addition to the issue of joblessness is the single biggest thing on the minds of the american people that were going to begin to get art mind in order after the spending spree we've been on the last couple of years. we have a lot of discussions about the debt ceiling, about the cr, which will explore on march 4 and the opportunity that provides for both sides to step up and do something significant to address the most significant issues confronting the country. senator alexander. this was the annual meeting of the republican senators, to plan or agenda for the rest of the year. it wasn't hard for us to do because it was their agenda last year as well. we find ourselves absolutely

united on what we believe are the two greatest issues facing our country and issues that unite most americans good one is jobs, the other is spending and debt. an article is to help make it easier and cheaper to create private-sector jobs, number one. and number two, to reduce spending, find a way over the short-term and long-term to reduce spending and do it ruinous that it is causing us today to borrow 42, 43 cents out of every single dollar the federal government spends. this was mainly a day of senators talking with senators, not bringing in posters, not bringing in experts. i mean, we know what we think. we know what the american people think that we have ideas about how to do with it. there was one word i could use to sum up the feeling in the room today about jobs and that

it was urgency, a sense of urgency about dealing both with high unemployment and with the ruinous debt of the federal government. >> i certainly appreciate appreciate it as a new senator, the newly elected senator from new hampshire that getting together with my new republican colleagues, that on behalf of the 13 new republican senators, we are focused on the very same issues. and we heard from voters across the country. they want smaller government, not bigger government. and as the mother of two small children to join me yesterday in the swearing-in of the 6-year-old and a 3-year-old, i can tell you that as republicans, we are so concerned and i'm deeply can turned about the nearly $14 trillion debt that we have right now. and that is going to be the focus in the coming year to make sure that we are ready to fight for budget discipline in the

republican conference. and then also to make sure that we get our economy going through small business growth. i'm a member of a small business family. my husband has a small business and i deeply appreciate it's not the government that create jobs. it's a small owners and entrepreneurs and that's a big part of the discussion stage. not only debt and deficit, but getting it under control will help grow our economy, creating a positive economy for small businesses cut into the red tape that we've seen to regulations in washington and the mandates that are coming down and our small businesses. that will be the priority in the coming congress. i'm looking forward to working with leader mcconnell and the other senators. i know the elected senators as well as many other 12 new colleagues to look forward to rolling up our sleeves and getting to work on behalf of the american people. >> i'll take questions if there are any.

[inaudible] adrianna >> do you think legislation like that could get through and how we make sure whatever comes over it -- >> at the risk of being redundant, i view it as an opportunity. an opportunity for both sides to come together and feature the american people, we understand that the spending on this debt is out of control. them are going to do something significant about it. and use that moment to underscore that we're going to begin to get this country's fiscal house in order. so we welcome that opportunity. advocates a good chance to begin to do something important on a bipartisan basis, to get it loose ending and debt.

>> presumably republicans a one-day control this chamber again. >> thank you. sounds good to me. that has a certain ring to it. >> i'm not supposed to speculate. at some point it will probably happen. are there any proposed changes, any of them and the utah proposal and the democrat proposal for filibuster changes he would like to have when you're in the majority at some point in the future, or you could live with when you're in the majority quite >> we have this opportunity in 1995 at that time the most successful republican national election in 100 years. and senator harkin offered on the first day and opportunity to lower the threshold of 51. in all 52 of the new republican majority is that voted against that. we don't think the senate rules are broken. and what we think is going on here is an opportunity -- and not for to try and nullify the

results of the election. we saw the lengths they went to last year to chancery partisan agenda with no votes to spare. now there are reaction to having had an fat election is to change the rules. you know, they went from 60 down to 53 and now they want to change the rules. we are willing to discuss it. senator alexander is involved in discussions with senator schumer about what changes might be appropriate. but i think anything that begins to move the senate into the direction of becoming the house of representatives would be an appropriate. >> person changes that are appropriate. >> were going to discuss over the next few weeks what changes, if any, might be appropriate. if we reach an agreement coming up in the first to know. >> are you up and having senators go to the florid

filibuster? >> as i said, if we reach an agreement, you will be among the first to know. [inaudible] >> i hope so. you know, the president has met with the group of business leaders a few weeks ago to talk about the corporate tax rate, outrageous corporate tax or we have in this country, which really hurts our international competitiveness. and it seems to be open to reducing the corporate tax rate. if his interest in something like that, i think most of my neighbors are interest in discussing it with him. beyond that, i think we all know the tax code is a disaster. and any effort to simplify the tax code, to get the rates down, to make it more fair, i think we'd be open to discussing now.

in addition to that, i'm hoping that the administration may be open to some entitlement reform. i've made it clear to them and i'll say again, entitlement reform will it be done a bipartisan basis. so we're waiting for sameness and the president president as to whether or not it is a discussion he's willing to have. if he has come at the discussion we are willing to engage in. >> what are you hoping to say on the entitlement for quick >> look, it's his speech. it's this opportunity to lay out to the american people but it's been done. i think you all have a sense of the kinds of things we're interested in doing this he is. he says he's for trade agreement. so are we. he says he's for nuclear power, so are we. he's for clean technology, so are we. to the extent he is open to corporate or individual tax reform or both, that is something worth talking about. and we are interested in doing

something about long-term unfunded liability, the entitlements. i made it perfectly clear in the past and today that will not be done on a bipartisan base come on to become a bipartisan basis. those are the among the things i think the house and senate would like to hear part of his state of the union speech. >> and i spent the day discussing your agenda what you want to get done. what to extent are you going to be simply in a reactive mode, either for majority democrats in the white house or from the house with the majority will be able to pass the blood of things that will send over here. >> i think will be in a proactive place. we anticipate the house of representatives will pass about of legislation that virtually all of my members will be in the siesta cabal. i think how many of the 23 democrats are going to be more interested in cooperating with us in training to advance an agenda that's going to come out of the house of representatives

that we think will be largely favored by the american people. so we don't serve the notion will be on defense. we start with the notion we may well be on offense. >> we are proactively push for repeal of health care reform on the floor? >> yes. >> what you think would happen with democrats? again a sense of how many of them might be able or willing to go with you i'm not quite >> were going to find out, or the? at the fundamental question. we'll see. i don't want to take all the questions. anybody want to ask? >> on the question of entitlement, democrats ran on the roadmap criticizing social security. campaigns ran out medicare and health care reform bill. do you think were a little bit

of fault for moving forward? >> regardless of what's happened the past, let me make it perfectly with happen in the future. there'll be no entitlement reform without the president's embrace. >> now you're samual knew if it happens at those sites come together and talk about it behind closed doors before anything. >> i don't know whether it will be indoors or outdoors, but the point i'm trying to make, in case anybody missed it is entitlement reform will only be done a bipartisan basis. in these the president must embrace that. and to the extent that he's willing to do that kind of thing, that we've got something to talk about. [inaudible] >> the secretary of defense himself has indicated a number of different productions he's interested in making and i think most of my members don't think any department should necessarily be off-limits. that would certainly be willing

to take a look at what the rep that. [inaudible] >> i frankly think it's kind of a hopeful sign. he has a business background. you know, i used to say the last two years i don't know whether it's technically true or not, but there is no one at the white house would even ever run a lemonade stand. they were all college professors and former let officials. this is a guy who's been the private sector can of been a part of business. frankly my first reaction is complicated idea. >> house republicans have cut their office budgets and committee budgets by 5% as a sign of them and did you support something similar? >> sounds a good idea to me. as a kind of thing will be looking at on a bipartisan basis. >> either a 2008 economic crisis today? to think that's a legitimate

warning? >> i think rather than sending a scary letters, what we had to look at is the opportunity and a bipartisan basis to address spending and debt. the american people want us to. it's an opportunity to do it. we don't need to send out any scary letters. we just need get-together do something about the biggest part in the country other than joblessness. i'm going to take one more for myself or any of these folks behind me. i [inaudible] >> frankly i don't know enough about that to comment on it. i don't know if anybody else does. thanks, everybody. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> senate majority leader harry reid also talked with reporters, saying he will go for the change in the senate filibuster rules, even if republicans decide not to support it. he spoke us that the senate chamber in the u.s. capital for about 10 minutes. >> happy new year, everybody. i personally am just sober enough for mine. the lame.show that we could work together, reject extremism and really accomplish a lot for the american people. what i do get concerned when i hear my republican colleagues say they want to focus on running up the deficit by taking things away from the middle class. and that's really been proven that that's what they want to do in the last few days for sure. but let's take out here for example. this morning cbo came out with

their score, that the republicans doing with your talking about doing would increase the debt page $230 billion in the second 10 years by well over a trillion dollars. in addition to running up the deficit and the republicans planned, just as it relates to health care. i'm only going to mention a few things to take away preventive care, wellness program for seniors, to take away the 50% reduction in health care costs for seniors, to continue filling the donut hole. it would take away tax cuts for businesses that have health insurance for their employees. and it would give the insurance companies the right to refuse coverage for those people who have preexisting disabilities. some have said over there that they have to take a whack at social security, that they

certainly believe that they are wall street reform bill was wrong. they decided than what wall street and are obviously doing it again. the republicans aren't stopping there. if 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 as well as i can the economic crisis this would cause. and not only what it would do internationally, but what it would do at home. no more social security checks. the troops would get their checks. veterans wouldn't get their checks. border security, fbi, all of it. we're focused, as democrats, on creating jobs when investing in education so our kids can compete in this new international economy that we have.

we want to move out of oil, which is now approaching $100 a barrel. and we need to give the middle class americans the tools they need to get ahead, not take them if it's away from them -- opportunities away from them. okay, first question of the year. [inaudible] >> mr. boehner said that she went spending time. are you rejecting that idea are you willing to entertain in order to get the extent? >> to paygo system that we had in effect was ours. we believe that spending has to be cut. we believe the deep enough to programs you have to pay for them either by cutting spending for increasing revenue. one thing i would agree with the new speaker, and this is his quote, we're going to have to do with it as adults, talking about the debt limit.

whether we like it or not, the federal government has obligations that we have obligations on our part. that's a direct quote from boehner. [inaudible] >> yeah, i do believe that the country is right for tax reform. chairman baucus has this as one of his first priorities and he's going to hold hearings on that starting very commit very soon. so to answer your question, yes 100 times. our tax system is broken and needs to be fixed. i'm tired of the left. let's go to the right. >> represented the shiny has suggested that every appropriation bill should be included language specifically prohibiting the funding of the health care law. if the house does that and sends

those bills to the senate committee funding any funds for the implementation of the health care law, would you be willing to shut down the government to save health care? >> the republicans have to understand that the health care bill is not going to be repealed. news commentators, not editorial writers, not pundits, but people who report the news recognize it's not going to be repealed. i've mentioned just a few of the things we have going now, with the new health care bill. it's really good for the american people. to show how misguided the new house republicans are, for a long, long time, anything done that had any money connected with it had to have a cbo scored. they rejected that. they said no longer will we be bound by that.

that's why these numbers we got from cbo, repealing health care is not going to save money. it's going to create huge amounts of money. so where we say in the health care bill is perfect? of course not. that's where the 1099 we have worked on a bipartisan basis to fix some of those things. we willing to work in any way that's constructive in nature to improve the health care delivery for a country. but repealing health care committee should get a new lease on life and talk about something else. >> senator reid, there's been a lot of talk about city governments having fiscal troubles and cemex was even talking about how they possible congressional bailout. what is the move here and would you be able to support it? >> i don't think we have to worry about that right now. we just passed a law a matter of weeks ago that gives state and

local governments significant relief. that's what compromises about. remember there was extension of the tax cuts in exchange for that. we have a lot of programs that do many, many things to help local government, state government, people who are down and out, including unemployment compensation. i think it's a little early to start talking about bailouts now. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> we just had a very, very good caucus. it is very clear that democrats want to change the rules. they believe, as i believe, the rules have been abused as my opening opening statement yesterday. we're going to work toward that. we hope that the republicans see the light of day and are willing to work with us. if not, we'll have to do something on her own.

[inaudible] >> well, i'm not going to get into specifics, but we have lots and lots of support to change the rules. [inaudible] >> at, we're not ready yet to talk about different chunks in things that we're going to do. as i indicated in a statement here, we really are fixated on doing something to help the beleaguered economy. i'm terribly disappointed in what we have done today in the house in late last night to violate really a public trust, a trust fund, highway trust fund. those monies when you go by gasoline at the pump, part of what you pay goes to a trust fund. a trust fund is to go to

highways, bridges, roads. they say no, we're not going to do that. we're going to use that for the purposes. as a result of that, the chamber of commerce, the weaver organization said in the what's wrong with that? are they out of their mind? we had stopped the construction company down today. this is irresponsible to violate a law that created a trust fund for the american people to say we're just going to ignore that. the same is ignoring cbo scores. [inaudible] [inaudible conversations]

>> i think news organizations have adapted. is it great that overall news organizations probably aren't doing much for me as an doing what domestic news? the public bears some responsibility, too. the public bears responsibility of keeping themselves informed. >> the defense department will cut its budget over the next five years, including a reduction of up to. 47,000 troops in the army andths marine corps. the largest defense secretary robert gates and joint chiefs of staff admiral mike mullen briefed reporters on the plan. this is an hour and 10 minutes.

>> the chairman brought a book with them.lp [laughter] >> gets to read along. >> good afternoon. first, i want to take a moment to announce that i'm recommending to the president, thgee nomination of martin dempy to be the new chief of staff to replace general george casey. general dempsey is presently the commander of army trainmen the undock turned command and previously was acting commandern the ntral command history of this great nation. it will be worth $110 billion that they will take away from the middle class. now, a few weeks ago we passed a tax bill out of here and we had to give tax cuts to people who make millions and millions of dollars. millions. they said, if you don't give the

tax cuts to the rich, we are not going to give them to the middle class. the entire republican caucus voted against tax cuts. unless millionaires got it. well, we should have learned from that that this repeal will be just more of the same. take $110 billion away from the middle class by taking a repeal of this law. you don't have to take it from by the service leadership. third, i want this tribe i will follow through to completion it will make it to protect the sides cannot reach and fighting strength despite a declining rate of growth and eventually flattening the defense budget over the next five, years. n t is important tothat will beo present all these interconnected changes in full and in context. so my opening remarks will be long. and i want to thank you and wor

abnormal and for your patience in advance. and copies of the stain that will be passed out following the briefing. at the outset, i want to emphasize that while america is at war and confronts a range of th uture security threats, it is important not to repeat mistakes of the past by making drastic and ill-conceived cuts to the overall defense budget. pointint at the same time, it is imperative for the department to eliminate bracewell, excessive and unneeded spending, to do everything we can to make every defense dollarss count. as a reminder over the last two defense budget submitted by president obama, we have reformed and rebalanced thespeae department spending habits and my priorities, curtailing or canceling troubles or accessmont programs that would've cost moro than $300 billion have seen through to completion.an, the g at the same time, we increased investments and proven capabilities, most relevant into the most likely and lethal future threats.

this follows the overall approach to budgeting for by the president. he is precious taxpayer dollars to invest in key priority is criticalaf to mission, while cutting or reforming programs that are outdated, duplicate it for an affect. at this point, i should note the failure of the congress to pass the defense appropriations bill for fiscal years 2011.1.1 trilli operating significantly reduce funny novels under continuing full year would cause this. department of your problems.to . likely requiring us to curtail critical activities needed to support our national security mission. last spring, in recognition ofh the fiscal pressures the country is facing, we launched a campa comprehensive effort to reduce w the department's overhead expenditures. the goal was, and is, to sustain the u.s. military's size and strength of the long-term bydin reinvesting those efficiency

savings and force structure and other key combat b capabilities the military services were instructed to find at least $100 billion in savings thatk of they could keep n in shape to higher priority programs. lymentalretary ash carter, also launched an effort to get bettey value in the contracting arenaae for defense goods and services.t in august i announced a set ofeu initiatives aimed at reducing overhead costs and improvingr, e whatnc defense do supportingel bureaucracies that said the foreign military services. first, the military g department ratings.ti to achieve the savings target that last year, the uniformed service leadership conducted it were an vigorous scrub of our military is bureaucratic structures, business practices, modernization programs, civilians and military personnel levels and associate overhead pass. identifying savingths are totald approximately $100 million over five years.ewe

the air force proposed efficiency measures that will total some $34 billiones over fs years. among those proposals are wouldq consolidating to her operation centers in theui urenited datesd two in europe, consolidating three numbered air force has, reducing00 million by y to unction with ocemair mobility command, improving data and supply chaing business processes to sustain weapon systems is improving readiness of lower-cost and reducing the cost of communications infrastructure b 25%. fe army proposed $29 billion in savings over the five years.r these include reducing manning by more than 1000 civilian and military positions come by eliminating unnecessary tax versus in consolidating its installation management command center for. saving one point or billion dollars in military construction cost by sustaining existing

facilities and begin in of consolidating the services e-mail infrastructure and data centers, which should save $500 million over five years.the the department of the navy proposed savings of more than $35 billio,n over five years.n e some of their measures include e ducing manpower and reassign 6000 personnel to operational tosions at sea, he is a multiyear procurement to save more than $1.3 billion on they purchase of new airborne surveillance, jamie and fightern aircraft. disestablish and stats for submarine, patrol, aircraft and th -us, the staff when carrier strike group. the navy also proposes to disestablish the headquarters second fleet in norfolk. during the cold war, thisployee command had distinct and significant operational currenty responsibilities. responsibility u training and mission preparation, a function that will be transferred to the

navy's fleet forces command. this change would affect tha approximate 16t0 military positions and no ships will depart in norfolk as a result.n now we turn to dod wide savings. ills.so examined how the department has stopped, organized and operated as a pasd ole. special attention was paid to those dod headquarters administration in support of limits outside the fouric majort services. the office of the secretary of defense joint staff, combatant commands and the defense agencies and feel that dvds, all of which has seen significant growth and budget staff and contractors over the decade.ar this effort, combined with the governmentwide freeze on civilian salaries have yieldedtn about $54 billion in additional savings over the next five if years. ..y if they are for our veteran military. madam speaker, in conclusion while these may seem le