scheduled to begin on the house floor tomorrow with the vote in the chamber expected wednesday. live here at the house rules committee. the members will determine how long the house floor debate will be and if there's any amendments allowed. representative david drier is the chairman in the room there. [inaudible conversations] >> we are awaiting mr. pitts and mr. salone. we are one member short of

quorum. is that okay? okay. [inaudible conversations] the rules committee will come to order. we -- i have a quorum happy to see. thank you for joining us. i hope everybody had a wonderful independence day and welcome back. we are in for an action packed week, and we're here for consideration of hr6079, the repeal obamacare agent is what it's entitled, and we are happy to welcome representatives of the energy and commerce committee, the ways and means committee, and the education and the work force committee. why don't we begin in that order. mr. pitts is here on behalf of the chair of the energy and commerce committee, and chairs the subcommittee on health, and we're awaiting mr. palone, i see, the ranking member of the

subcommittee, and we have mr. price and mr. andrews. please join your colleagues at the table here. gentlemen, let me say without objection any prepared statement you have, prepared remarks you have -- looks like you all have beautifully prepared remarks -- without objection, any -- i know they are all prepared, but they are not in writing. anything in writing, i want you to know unless any member here objects, anyone object to having their statements appear in the record? okay. i hear no objections. i want you to know your beautifully prepared remarks will be in the record in entirety. i say ul of that in an effort to encourage brevity and a summation, and so we will begin with the energy and commerce committee, mr. pitts, mr. palone, mr. price, mr. an drews. thank you for joining us.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. since the supreme court has decided to leave obamacare largely in tact, it's now the job of the congress to repeal this law in total. since the law was enacted, the american people have consistently told us one thing. they do not like obamacare. house republicans heard their voice. we pledged to repeal the law and pave the way for real reform lowering health care costs for families and employers across the country. this bill is a reaffirmation of the important promise made two years ago. potentially passed with good intentions, the law will only serve undermind health care quality, increase cost, fuel the nation's debt problem, and worsen an already anemic economic recovery. americans want reform that delivers lower health care costs, and president obama told the country that his reforms would lower family premiums by $2500 by the end of the first term. in 2011, the annual premium for

employer sponsored family plan soared past $15,000, a sharp 9% increase from 2010. premiums only sky rocket as the rest of the law is implemented according to estimates from the cbo. americans worry that a 207 page bill from washington damages the health coverage they have. the president told the country they liked their health care plan. they could keep it. yet surveys of employers say businesses drop coverage for employees in advance of the massive new government exchange program beginning in 2014. not surprisingly, the cbo estimated that up to 20 million americans will lose their employer provided health coverage because of the president's law. i think americans realize too much money is spent in washington, and the president said the bill would cost $900 million, and yet two years

later, the program in a massive medicaid expansion will cost $1.8 trillion over the next decade. by back loaded federal spending, the law didn't cut cost, but hid them from the american people and doubled down on washington's fiscal wrecklessness. americans want a medicare program that will be there for them and for future generations and the president promised to stengthen the medicare program and reform entitlements that are going bankrupt. the medicare program faces 38.9 trillion in unfunded littles, medicare savings should have been used to strengthen a program with shaky finances, yet, the health care law took $575 billion from the medicare program to pay for trillions in new entitlement spending. i can go on about ipab and other promises the president made on individual mandate that it was not a tax. the irs will impose new taxes on

medical devices, prescription drugs, health coverage, health premium plans, and tanning services. the agency proposes limits on dplexble saving accounts, and provide government approve health coverage and surtaxes on investment and in all, $800 billion in taxes will crush americans' poor, middle, and rich with higher tax and medical bills. we know about the religious and first amendment rights issue. arch bishop timothy dolan wrote that under the rules, definition of a religious employer, organizations must stop serving people of all faiths in their ministries or stop providing health coverage to call for for exemptions. promises were made to the american people. the only way to honor and

fulfill promises is to support the repeal of obama care. i urge you report the bill to the floor. i yield back. >> mr. pallone. >> thank you, mr. chairman and members of the rules committee. i'm here to testify in strong opposition to the patients' rights repeal act. i feel like this is an exercise in futility. i don't mean it disrespectfully, but i don't know how many times i've been before here, this committee, or in the energy and commerce committee. it just seems like every other day we have another effort to repeal the same thing over and over again, and in the words of one of your republican colleagues, these votes mean nothing because, quote, "we already passed repeals 16 ways to sunday," and it seems to me it's been more than 16 times it's been repealed before the rules committee and my committee. it's ground holiday here. i'm tired of it.

the american people are tired of it. when i was home over the last 10 days, nobody mentioned the agent other than they liked it and they were glad the supreme court upheld it. it was not the topic of the day. they talked about the economy, asked us to focus on the economy, create jobs, not litigate political battles that are several years old now. i think what's happening is that, you know, the republicans waited before the supreme court, convinced the supreme court was going to overturn the aca, and when that did not happen, now they have to figure they have to go back and repeal it geep. makes no sense to me. we have the battle. the supreme court said it's legitimate, it's constitutional. let's just move on. that's what my constituents tell me. republicans claim that solving the nation's health care problems must begin with repeal of the affordable care act, but once you've done that, then what? what do you have to replace it? i've said to mr. pitts and to

other g.o.p. members of the committee, every time they have another hearing on replacing part of the aca, i never here any proposal to what you replace it with, and what are you going to say to the american children who now get insurance regardless of illnesses? what do you say to the 3.1 million young adults who are uninsuredded and now have insurance under their parents' plan. what do you say to the cancer patient who can continue therapy because the law outlawed annual coverage limits? this is -- what you're saying if you repeal the bill is these people are just out of luck. the republicans are interested in protecting insurance companies' interests rather than protecting parties' rights. the truth is only insurance policy companies gain from repeal. a parties' rights repealed means insurance companies are in charge. they'll again be allowed to deny health coverage to breast cancer patients in remission, but need to restart chemo, or put a cap

on the limit people have or lifetime coverage for people who are desperate. i don't know -- i just don't understand this, and i'm not trying to be disrespectful, but it seems we've done this before. don't continue to do it. don't waste our time. the critical issue before congress is not whether we should go back to the old health care system. we can't go back. the status quo was up sustainable and failed the american public. the issue should be going to accelerate economic growth and adding jobs. that's all people talked to me about over the last 10 days. they want the question to move forward, and you have to stop looking backwards. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. price. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member, members of the committee, i'm honored to represent the ways and means committee in the presentation of this, and i urge the reporting favorably out of this bill. i agree with mr. pallone, the status quo is unacceptable.

as a physician, it doesn't work for patients, doctors, or employers either. the problem is the president's law made it worse. with the supreme court ruling it's constitutional, doesn't mean it's good policy for the country. in fact, the chief justice of the united states supreme court said, and i quote in his opinion, "the court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the affordable care act. under the constitution, that judgment is reserved to the people, and as the people's representatives, it's important to act when the people say they want something addressed." remember what the law does. it removes $500 billion from medicare. $500 billion from medicare. two, puts in place the independent payment advisory board, a member board of unelected bureaucrats to deny payment for services for seniors. sole purpose, deny payment for services for seniors. the president said famously over and over and over again, if you like what you have, you can keep it. well, the people now know if

they like what they have, they probably will not be able to keep it. many have already lost coverage they had before. it's more expensive than anybody ever imagined. original estimates, $900 billion, and now it's 1.7 # 6 trillion for ten years and only going higher. as a physician, again, i tell you it's destructive, destructive of the physician-patient relationship and doctors and parents -- patients are learning that. the ability to innovate in health care is compromised significantly by this bill. what's changed? well, the supreme court ruled, and they ruled that it's paid for by a tax. a tax that very few individuals in this chamber would have allowed to have been adopted had they known, had they known it was going to be a tax. we believe there's a better way. we believe folks back home have personal stories telling us the consequences of the bill. small businesses with 40-45

employees who want to hire more can't do that now because if i go over 50, then i get into the magic number where the federal government comes and forces me to provide health coverage that they want, not that my employees want, but what they want. i had a home health individual health company talk to me two weeks ago saying if this comes to pass, they are going to have to lay you have up to 15 -- layoff up to 15 people as a result of the law. they are destructive not just to you, me, and every american, but destructive to the health of the economy. yes, this is about the economy. this is about jobs. cbo says it destroys 800,000 jobs if we allow this going forward. the new issue, mr. chairman, is that the playing field has changed. the assessment of this law has changed. consequently, it's upon us, the representative of the people, to repeal the law. >> thank you. >> thank you, glad to be here

again. let me just boil it down. you wanted to summarize. made it worse. if you vet to repeal, you turn it back to the insurance companies. made it worse. 17 million kids with pre-existing conditions can no longer be seasonedded coverage. 17 million made it worse. over 100 million americans no longer face lifetime limits. made it worse in terms of rebates for insurance company charges. almost 13 million americans are going to get rebates because of this law coming to more than a billion dollars.

made it worse over 5 million americans on medicare would have saved $4 billion on prescription drugs. made it worse -- by the way, you voted for a similar provision regarding medicare payments twice. made it worse for children, kids, -- not kids anymore. i called my kids when they are not kids. young adults. over 6.5 million who remain on their parents' plan until age 26. you talk about repeal and replace. all we heard is repeal. there's no plan to replace. none. let me close by saying a word about this notion of a mandate

which came from republicans in the first place. this law built on private insurance but reformed was modeled after the massachusetts law proposalled by mitt romney. in so many respects, the mandate and otherwise, obamacare is romneycare. penalty under the tax provisions is held by the supreme court, it's estimated that it will apply to 1.4% of the americans. 1.4%. let me just close this way. i'm on the ways and means committee. there's been bills proposed to help create more jobs in this

country. instead of our coming forth, the ways and means committee, with proposals relating to jobs, we come for the 31st time -- we don't, you do -- with a bill to repeal which is going nowhere. >> thank you very much, mr. levin. >> i thank the chairman and ranking member. i appreciate the opportunity to be here. i serve on the education work force committee and spent 30-plus years practicing medicine. i've been to a health care reform in the state of tennessee with a ten care plan. in my district of tennessee, three out of four people want the bill overturned and replaced with common sense reforms, and in the last two years, i had the privilege to serve with my good friend here, rob andrews, on the health and pension subcommittee, and we held two committees outside of washington. that's a novel idea, go to where

the people are, talk about what they want and how it affects businesses. i've been to indiana and pennsylvania. let me tell you what's going on in these businesses and in my own home community. we have a grocery store chain, 10,000 employees. i spoke to him on friday. he said, phil, he said, i have allowed temporary employees that i hire because the grocery business, people get off from work in the afternoon, you have to have temporary people to work when they come in. i work them 32-33 hours a week. i have to cut those back to the 20s because of what this costs my business. i've talked to restaurant owners in a small community in my state that has five restaurants. he's closing two of them. that's 300 jobs that go away. in my local community hospital, i've been there 35 years in that community. for the first time in 35 years, they've laid off 168 people and didn't fill 90 jobs because their concerns, the uncertainty about this bill, and i also, mr

chairman, am, as a practicing physician, realize that i've read the 2700 page bill, and already, we have 13,000 pages of rules and regulation regulation. now, does anybody in the room believe 13,000 of pages of rules and regulations make it easier as a physician and that patient to see me? there's a simpler way to do it. my colleagues say cost is a major issue. access is an issue. and little. two of the three things we did not touch on. that's the cost. it's going up. nothing to bend the cost curve, and number two, nothing for linnet -- liability that drives the cost. i'm here in support of the bill. >> thank you very much. mr. andrews. >> thank you very much. i appreciate the hours and hours of service so the body can function. we are debating the wrong bill

here today. what i heard time and time and time again from my constituents last week is why don't you ladies and gentlemen work together and why don't you work together to get jobs created back in the u.s. economy. we could have a bill before us today that cuts taxes for small businesses that create jobs, but we do not. we could have a bill before us today that builds on the work we did do ten days ago and puts more americans to work building roads, bridges and transit system, but we're not. we could have a bill before us today that addresses the very real problem that while the private sector has gained 4.2 million jobs since the health care bill was enacted, the public sector lost 600,000. police officers, teachers, fire

fiters, public works employees. we could address that, but we are not. here we are again addressing the repeal of a law there was debated and passed by the congress, signed by the president in 2010, whose constitutionality was upheld by the supreme court about two weeks ago. it's the wrong bill. as we conduct the wrong debate, we ought to have the right record in front of us, and i ask people on both sides to respect the record and use facts that are the case. we heard the rhetoric that that is a job killing -- thank you -- job killing -- that's a first, they turned the microphone on. it's usually the other way around. we heard the rhetoric reiterated this is a job killing health care bill. since the president signed the health care bill, companies in our country have corrected 4.3

million private sector jobs. we've heard that the bill hurts medicare because it withdraws $500 billion from medicare. well, here's how it does that. it tells insurance companies that we're paid 114 #% from the same services that they paid 1%% for. they can't do that anymore. 23 this was such a bad thing, my republican friends voted at least twice in the budget resolutions to do exactly the same reductions in medicare from which i commend them. we heard this is an enormous tax increase on the american people. mr. levin said, the penalties for failure to have health insurance affects 1.4% of the american people. that's the 1.4% who can afford health insurance but who opt not to buy is so when they use an emergency room, their neighbor

pays the bill up stead. the investment surtax that we heard from my friend from pennsylvania, small businesses are troubled. they are troubled by a lack of customers and a lack of credit. as far as this is concerned, if you have 50 or fewer full-time employees, you're obligated to do nothing under the new health care law. finally, we heard this this bill comes between doctors and patients. well, tell that to the breast cancer survivor who can't afford is doctor when the insurance company tells her because of her pre-existing condition she can't have insurance policy anymore. that's coming between the doctor and patient. tell it to the medicare recipient receiving between $600-$800 a year in rates for prescription drugs and will no longer be able to afford their

medicines. that's coming between a doctor and a patient. what's coming between doctors and patients is the poorly considered destruction of these hard earned rights of the american consumer. this is a deal we should not be having. we should be having a cooperative effort to create jobs in our country, but if we must have this debate, let's have it based on facts and not on stale, disproven misrepresentations of two years ago. >> thank you very much. thanks to all of you. i have no questions, but i want to say there's a number of items brought forward. you mentioned the issue, mr. andrews, of taxes on small business. we had a number of measures focused on small businesses. happy the president of the united states signed those, and so, every day, we proceed with items to address both of the issues that mr. pallone and andrews mentioned here because job creation and economic growth is key. the reason i think we're here 1 the court made its decision, and as mr. price pointed out, the

chief justice made it clear. they are not passing an opinion on the legislation itself. they made a determination about the constitutionality. that decision was made, and i think that it showed how important the united states congress as an institution is, and frankly, an issue that i think is important to raise is the tax issue. if, and mr. price eluded to this, if we had had the kind of straightforward approach on the tax issue that the supreme court determined is, in fact, the case, this would not have passed. it would not have passed because we were told it's not a tax. on the issue of no alternative, now, i've consistently argued there's five simple things if we'd done at the outset would have immediately played a role in diminishing the cost of health insurance and health care itself. similar items have been included, and i believe my state of california has a structure in

place to deal with pre-existing conditions. it's a pooling process, i think is one worthy of consideration because while i don't think someone who is diagnosed with a massive tumor should the next day be able to have millions and millions and millions of dollars in health care provided, i do believe that there can be a structure to deal with the issue of pre-existing conditions. second, the expansion of medical savings accounts is something that has proven to provide an opportunity for people to put dollars aside, to plan for their health care needs. association health plans. now, we've passed out of the house of representatives, we passed out of the house of representatives when my party was in the majority of the past, association health plans allowing small businesses to come together to get lower rates as larger corporations have done. that's been done. we passed it in the house of representatives, and it died in the democratically controlled

senate when the house of representatives did that. we need lawsuit abuse reform. now, you all have mentioned that. the president of the united states stood in the house chamber and argued in behalf of meaningful lawsuit abuse reform, and yet we know that this measure does not do that. the 5th point, which, again,2tje president supported, and that is for us to move in the direction that allows insurance across state lines. those five things a consistently talked about for a number of years, what i believe play a role in immediately bringing the cost down, and, again, i don't have any questions for you, but let me close before i call on mr. sessions by saying the following. we want to repeal this so that we can, in fact, replace. there is a need. we all recognize the need. priority 1 job creation and economic growth, but this is a need that has to be addressed. when we considered it as an institution, it was done under the most closed structure

imaginable for an issue of this magnitude. without dredging up all of those old arguments, i'll tell you that for those who may have forgotten, there was a plan that was in place right up until we considered this that would have allowed us to self-enact this measure, reporting it out of this committee, taking it to the floor, and simply passing a rule which would have passed this measure. what we want to do is what we've done in this congress. very simple. what we want to do is we want to have the kind of process that we have had in dealing with issues. we want to do it on a bipartisan way, we want to make amendments that are minority colleagues that will offer in order as we proceed with this so i think that the notion of what we're trying -- i see your hand up, and i'll recognize you if you want to respond. i'm not asking a question, but stating my response to what i heard in your testimony.

we will -- after we repeal this, get this thing through, we'll do this. some of the things i have mentioned of my five items are items that democrats have supported, and yet, this was not done under the kind of process -- >> mr. chairman, will you yield? >> what the american people deserve. want me to yield before? >> sure. >> i had a question. >> sure. >> all of these areas of commonground that you mentioned, my question is why didn't you enact them when you had the white house -- >> we did. >> when you were in charge of congress. >> let me reclaim the time. i don't know if i can, but i have the gavel. >> you're in charge. >> thank you. we did. we did. i just said that. i don't know if you were listening to me. i don't know if you're familiar with the issue by association health plans. enjoyed bipartisan support here in this chamber. we passed it when our party was

in the majority. we passed it when people were saying that we did nothing to do with the issue. we sent it to the democratic control -- would the gentleman like me to yield? >> they did not been children with pre-existing conditions. >> i never said that we did everything. what i said is i mentioned these five items that would play a role in immediately reducing the cost of health insurance and direct health care costs. we were often told, and it was just said in the testimony here we have no alternative, offered no ideas, there's no proposal whatsoever to replace when the republicans were in majority and the house of representatives last, we passed the plan for association health plans that would have allowed the small businessmen and women whom you regularly talk, to pool together and get lower insurance rates as larger companies do. we passed that plan under the house of representatives.

we sent it to the democratic controlled united states senate, and it died there. okay? so let me first recognize mr. pallone. i didn't ask a question. >> i know. i just wanted to say some of the things -- >> [inaudible] >> what have we done wrong? >> [inaudible] >> am i not allowed to question the witnesses? >> but i -- [inaudible] that's not what we normally do. >> okay. mr. pallone. >> i was going to say what you said are good ideas, and we addressed malpractice and some of those things, and i think that the difference between those five and this comprehensive health care reform is that with the aca, you're basically going to make sure that something like 98% or 99% of americans have health insurance. i think with those items, you

know, they are important, some of them, and in some ways, i would support some of them, and i even have, but i just don't think they make that didn't. i mean, they help a few people here and there on the edge, but they are not going to provide the type of coverage that they are going to get with the aca, and as far as the tax is concerned, you know, right now, i actually think that the aca results in a tax cut because we know in new jersey that people who have insurance now are paying about $1,000 to $1500 a year, their premium, to cover people who don't have insurance. if everybody's covered through a mandate, which u i know you don't like the mandate, it's a tax put for those paying premiums right now because they shouldn't have to pay for the people who are irresponsible in my. >> i'm just stating what the united states supreme court ruled with a majority vote. let me say that i hope this committee -- i'm going to request the committee we make a

great deal amount of time vail on the house floor to engage in debate. that's why i'm not asking questions. everybody knows where we stand on this. i think the opportunity to move to the familiar is something that i really want to see possible. i just was responding to the testimony that i heard, and outlining some of the things that i thought should be responded to. i'd like to recognize mr. sessions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank each of our colleagues who have taken time to be here with us today, and i think i'm going to do the same thing the chairman did, address things the way i see them, and i recognize we are talking past each other to say that this is going to be a tax cut for many people. i never heard the argument before. what i will go immediately to is the supreme court says it's a tax. it's a tax. now that we know this, the supreme court, whether we like what they said or not, they -- as i heard at least once today,

the the law of the nation because of the supreme court, and so is this. what we can't escape is the cost. the cost is times two. i say so you that if we do not repeal the bill, we have to figure out how we double the taxes, and now we go to pay the bill, and we already know, at least one said i wish we could find a way to cut taxes for small business. we are. we're going to repeal the bill. i wish we could do something about roads and bridgesment we are because half of this real cost falls on the states. states are having to pay the cost, and they don't coin money so they are laying off people and they have gone from offering

roads and bridges and services of education to now they are going to get in the health care business. we talked about the loss of ons. oh, my gosh. i'm sorry there's been public sector job losses, but try to say there's been 4.3 million jobs added, yes, but they have lagged behind, tremendously, by about 5 million, 4.3 million created during the period of time in which the bill was signed anemic, and everybody in the room knows that's anemic, and i'm disappointed that somebody tries to say we've done so great. in fact, we're not doing great. someone tried to suggest they had the same bill as republicans with how we treated medicare. that's not true. republicans said anybody 55 and over would not be impacted. rather, we would plan for the

future, and so anybody 54 and below would be impacted by republican bill. today, every person, particularly those that are seniors 80, 90 years old, immediately hit by $500 billion cut in medicare, that is not the same as republicans. it is not okay to say you do it as a republicans because that's not true. medical device tax. spent time with a couple people back in dallas, texas in the break, and granted, perhaps they are not as impacted, necessarily, by the bill. they are in the health care industry, but they are dentists. they are talking about chairs that they will have in their dental practice. they talk about rubber bands they'll put in chirp's -- children's mouth. they are taxed with a medical

device tax. the cost of now not just medicine, but dental care rise substantially. i go back to the point even as a cost of twice as much, would this be a good deal? heck no. because if we did not take care of repealing it, we would have to double the tax. we would take a trillion dollars, not $500 billion, a trillion dollars out of senior care, not the republican side, but people who are 80, 90 years old who are on it today. we would double the cost on states. they are already staggeringly high. we would double the tax on small business. we would double down virtually everything about this bill, and instead of losing 800 million more jobs which is considered the government estimate, private

sector is over a million jobs are going to be lost between now and 2014 so i think the alternatives when looked at, say, that we should repeal the bill and start over. we should go back and look at the original testimony, the gentleman from new york, mr. rangel was in here, and said, mr. sessions, we're going to create millions and millions of additional new jobs by this bill. that's not the way it turned out so i think looking back, we should go back and evaluate what we've done. we should find a way to make better the circumstances, and we should all get together, the president of the united states, the senate, the house, listen to the american people and come up with a better bill, but this is a very complicated mess, and the last point that i would make is -- and i have heard insurance

policy companies say many of the things which we have been told will go back into the dark ages to retrieve again, they've already agreed not, that they will stake with status quo. to argue these cases is, in my opinion, not the right way. i think we need to understand it's either repeal or double down on the taxes because the costs are twice that, and they will be very droughtive if we are not smart enough to do something today. lastly, the american public will have something to say about this. every single person that votes here will be held accountable for their vote. thank god we're to the point where votes matter. i yield back my time. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, yes -- gentlemen, for being here. nice to see you on monday afternoon. mr. pallone, you feel you voted on this 16 times, but tomorrow will be 31.

this will end up like the rest, nowhere. we will drag this out for a couple days because we don't have much work to do here because we don't want to do a jobs bill. avoid that at all costs. ic we need -- i think we need reminding here, those on my side who voted for the bill don't, but getting into this, and i i think back to roosevelt had the same thing in mind. health care's approaching 18% of gdp: we can't afford it. we could be heading towards the time where all we can do is war every now and this with where you want to bomb somebody, or improvised health care or little else. i didn't want to do it to have a brick flinged through the garbage window or threaten children by telling us they could take us down in 50 yards. that was not what i was here for to try to do. there's been more talk about this bill by more people who

know nothing very much about what's in it than anything i've ever seen, and i bet you, sorry i have not had time to read the debate, but i bet you that the debate over medicare and social security were about the same, end of america as we know it. everybody will stop work. world coming to an end. goodness sakes, we have to provide health care. we're the only industrial country on the face of the earth that puts this burden on employers. why can't we try to stop and get to the point where need to be to have the single payer bill which we wanted to do in the first place. we watered it down. we backed it off, and now we have today. i'm proud of it, frankly. for the life of me, i don't know why it's causing lost jobs and people shut down restaurants if they have fewer than 50 employees, they are not involved in the bill. if they have more than that, even as a small business, they get deductions, tax deductions.

mr. andrews can make that clear, for providing health insurance coverage, and exchanges are provided for people who can want afford to do it. it's -- this is a way to save money. i'm trying -- seems to me $23 billion from the cbo said over 10 years we could save with this bill in effect. remember, it hasn't, so all the dark things everybody's talking about is just conjecture, but i believe that was the cost. now, this has not been scored by cbo, this bill here, what it does to get rid of it. we don't know what changes would be made, but we did know that it was going to be very costly to do away with it. am i right? you all remember it that way? all of you, all six? all difficult to do away with because of the cost, but more than that, what is astonishing to me -- well, before i finish here, somebody's got to speak up for women in the country because you repeal this bill, and women

will continue as they have from the beginning. i don't even know if all women know this. we pay, single women, particularly, pay more money with the same insurance a man has because they are female. you know that? you want to go back to that? more war on women's health. please, that's something i got to say. one other thing is as far as i'm concerned i think this ought to be called the rom-obama care. this is the massachusetts health care plan written large, and massachusetts people love it, and very few people pays taxes of the mandate or penalty or whatever you want to call it, but it's absolutely true that all issues we've been paying for health care, we pay at least a thousand dollars, i think more, because that was the figure we heard ten years ago, because of people who do not have care to help pay for uncompensated care.

my family would love to save that money. i'd love for my chirp's families to save the money and pay for their own health care, but not pay for people who simply don't want to do it. i thought in a moment of madness really if all people decided not to have health care would also say i will never go to the doctor, or no matter what happens i'm not going to the hospital, we should let them have that choice, but we know they are not going to do that. we're not the kind of people who allows them to do that because that's not the way this country goes. i'd like to know, and let me ask anybody who can tell me, what's going to happen to the seniors now who already gotten their care they get with no co-payment? what happens to the donut hole? what will happen to all the children, i think 360,000 at least, you may have a better figure, who are on health care because they are on their parents' health care, but there's no jobs for them out of

college or they can't afford health care. what's going to happen to all the children? all the children. when are we going to do this? who have preexisting conditions, the way they were born, and they are not ensureble. if you have a critical head injury, you can use up your yearly limit in almost no time, and you're uninsurable for the rest of your life in the united states of america. you go over your yearly limit, and you may not have more insurance no matter what happens to you until the following year. is this what we want? that's what we go. who wants to go back to that? what i want -- i see hands going up here -- let me get off my high horse here, but this is the second time i've gone through this, and if american people don't want health care, i want to promise you in my years in congress, not a living soul ever

said to me, gee, i love my health care. oh, i sure do hope it -- that you all won't ever do anything about it. people, i would -- well, we know already, 46.6 people opposed and people against. i think you are biting off an awful lot to chew. frappingly, i have too much for you on the republican side. none of you voted for it, but i want to save you from yourselves because people are going to like this bill, and you're going to have to pay a price of fighting it like this. reconsider. close up and go home. get something else to do this week to fill the time. what do you say? answer the question on what happens to the people already taking advantage of the health care bill who will lose it. mr. andrews. >> certainly can't speak for the authors of the bill, but speak for themselves, read their bill. thawfng. >> [inaudible] >> i'm not an author of the

repeal bill, that's for sure. >> yeah. >> one of the things i find astonishing about this is that the congressional budget office has not yet scored this bill. >> right. >> so no one can say whether the repeal of this bill will add to or sub -- tract from the deficit. we know the first time of the 31 that there was an attempt to repeal the bill that the congressional budget office said repeal of the bill would add far in excess of $200 billion to the receive sit. now, there have been changes since then regarding the class act and medicaid provisions. i don't know whether repeal of the bill adds to or sub tracts from the deficit, but neither does anyone else. i said in the matter of prudence, put off consideration of the repeal billion until the office says what it costs or adds to the deficit. >> we almost always do. >> i can't think of a mar joy

piece of legislation -- major piece of legislation ever been brought to the house floor while i was here where the congressional budget has not given us a score. i'm curious it's done here. >> i think i figured that out. a senate might think having all gone debates in 2010, that replacing, that we would have some idea now of what we replace it with, so a senate might think probably nothing that we go back to what we had before, but this -- we're not making law here. what we are doing here is making political points. i think "politico" pointed that out that's what we can expect in the rest of the session. >> can i briefly -- >> yes. >> what would happen is a lot of rhetoric and that will be it. you know, as you look back, the republican party had decades to

come up with a comprehensive health plan. decades. >> well president nixon did. >> there's never been a plan proposed by the republicans, and now the democrats have passed it, and so essentially we have been sniping at it. that's the answer. >> i just -- i won't take personal offense of republicans not offering a plan because we had a comprehensive plan we offered prior to the president's law. hr3000. i will go over it with you lock, stock, and barrel. >> [inaudible] >> actually, we get 30-50 million folks insured #. we saw the insurance challenges of port the, pre-existing ways that allow individuals to have the health coverage they want, not that the government dictates to them, and we save hundreds of billions of dollars, but i want to address the issue that you talk about because extremely

important. you can't have it both ways saying the law has not taken effect and had any effect, but what are we going to do about the folks that -- >> small portions have. >> there are significant portions. to address the issue of pre-existing is incredibly important because you don't ever hear about folks being challenged with a pre-existing illness or injury who are in the self-insured market, the wal-marts, the home depots, coca-colas. those folks are not challenged. you hear the challenge in the individual and small group market, about 18 million. >> and for the uninsured. >> right. >> i know you have, women who have been diagnosed with breast cancer, but there's no treatment for them. that happens. >> exactly, and that's why i would like to address, and if i may talk about breast cancer because you recall what the united states path loming calg task force did, the utspf did is

women under the age of age 50 didn't need a screening mammogram. it took an act of congress for us to say, oh, yes, they do. >> right. >> that decision should be between a party and physician. what this law does is make that decision between the two cannot occur unless there's an act of congress. >> what we did there, i'll point if i may reclaim time for a second. that's the women of the congress of the united states, we said, oh, no, you're not treating us. we had to do that -- >> it was all of us, as a matter of fact. >> under medicare, and the opposition to it, 2k3w0 back to that. >> if i may -- >> let's hear -- >> in terms of pre-existing illnesses and injuries, the fact of the matter is it's 18 million folks challenged with that. they are. it needs to be address. the way to address it -- >> until this bill. >> the way to address it is to make certain those individuals have access to the same pooling

mechanisms that exist for folks in the large group and the self-insured arena so that they can select insurance they want, not what the government wants for them. that's key. >> that's the changes. they have a choice. we're not going to debate the bill, but what you guys are going to say, and like i said, i have affection for you, you know that. i just feel badly for you when you get home and women realize they are going to have to be paying more and all the other people who have no access to health care because something happened to them, and they are no longer insurable. i don't want you to have to face that. >> if i could just say one thing you mentioned. i know that everybody, that a lot of republicans give the impression that if this was repealed all these discriminatory practices, pre-existing conditions, all of those things will continue. fact of the matter is that they will not continue. don't believe the insurance companies when they tell you that they will. the insurance companies bought

into this and supported this bill knowing that everyone would be covered and they would have a lot more people paying into the system, and therefore didn't have to worry about pre-existing conditions and lifetime benefits and rescissions and all of that. once they get to the appointment where these people who are going to have coverage under the bill don't because the bills repealed, those practices go back into place because that's the way they keep and make money, you see? again, no disrespect, while the insurance companies keep protections in place, get -- they are not going to. they may say it initially, but six months down the road, a year down the road, they go back to them again because that's the only way they make money ab sent all additional people in the insurance pool under the aca. >> all right. i yield back. >> thank you very much. i'll say it's approaching six o'clock. we've gone through a couple of

members of the rules committee, and, again, i'm hoping this committee makes an order a lot of time for debate on the house floor, and then we're going to have a vote on this issue. these are interesting issues we brought forward, but i look forward to having it expanded on the house floor. well, we want to go through. it's true. we have other witnesses, and i know that we have votes coming in just a little while on the floor, but i want to recognize ms. fox. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i do want to associate myself very strongly with your comments and the comments of mr. sessions. i won't repeat the things you said, but, and i'm not asking questions either, but i think some comments that have been made need to be responded to. i say this often on the floor and occasionally in the rules committee, but i want to say to nip who has not read the book, "1984", who have not read it in

a long time, that i would really like to urge people to read the book because i think we're, in many ways, living through that experience described in that book, and you talk about things being rewritten and it's just sort of fascinating to hear the comments made here. i think mr. pallone in particular gives a great example of some of the things talked about in 1984. you say only insurance policy companies gain from the repeal, but the reason the insurance companies and why obamacare is a great handout to insurance companies from my perspective is you want to make us look like we're supporting the insurance companies, but it was you all who went hand-in-hand with the insurance companies setting it up so they couldn't lose.

you made them regulated utilities. they are guaranteed a profit every year as a result of the individual mandate, and so it's the democrats who are helping the insurance companies, and that point has not been made, yet you talk out of both sides of your mouth, and that's such a perfect example, again, of what goes on in the book "1984". allowing them to do that, allowing them to create a regulated utility helps the insurance companies, and then you say only they gain from the repeal. no, mr. pallone, the american people gape from the repeal of this. we gain our freedom again. the difference between the liberals in this country and the conservatives is the issue of freedom. you and your colleagues want the government to control every aspect of our lives. we do not believe in that.

we want this to continue to be the greatest country in the world, and what makes us the greatest country in the world? the rule of law and the freedom that we have along with our judeo-christian beliefs and capitalistic system, and obamacare is an assault on all of those things. you know, the president said in 2008 that this is the greatest country in the world, now help me change it. i just thought that should have been played over and over and over again because i think that's the attitude that many of you who side with the president on everything feel. i also feel you encourage us to stop looking backwards. i hope you give that advice to president obama because he continues to blame president bush for everything that's negative in this country.

if you want us to stop looking backwards, i hope you will talk about that. i will say to mr. andrews i appreciate the fact that you've said companies have created 4 million jobs in this country in the last few years. thank you for not being like other witnesses have been who've come to this committee who've said "i or we have created these jobs". the administration has not done that, but it's the private sector who have created the jobs. the other thing that's important to talk about is the fact that somebody mentioned 98% of americans get insurance under this bill; however, before obamacare was passed, there were only about 10 million americans who wanted health insurance who couldn't afford health insurance. it was somewhere around that

number, a we could have taken care of that with the things that our colleagues have talked about and republicans did do that. comprehensive health care. i love that expression you all use when you want, again, a government takeover of some issue. let it be comprehensive, and that's the code word, i think, for that. my colleague from new york mentioned that college grads need to be covered by obamacare because they can't get jobs. republicans sent over 30 bills to the senate that would help create an environment for creating jobs. we, on the republican side, know the government doesn't create jobs, but we happy create an environment so we need to look at not the symptoms, but we need

to look at the causes and the causes that are creating -- that are forcing so many young people not to be able to get jobs after their college education is that the economy is in such bad shape, and we're spending so much money at the federal level. .. some democrats who will vote to repeal it. when we vote to repeal it. i'm sure my colleagues aren't

going to impugn their motives or their integrity what they do that. because i don't do that. i think they're people who understand the difference between freedom and lack of freedom in what we do when we give the government so much control. and our colleague, mr. price, has pointed out, we want patient-centered health care. we want patients and doctors to make decisions not a fifteen-member unelectedded unaccountable board of people to be deciding who is going to be getting health care in this country. and that's what you have when you have obamacare. that is the kind of thing that we want to get rid of. all these other problems with dealt with and dealt as my colleague from california

stated. in many cases they are being taken care of. hsa were in existence and yet obamacare does everything poibl to destroy them. it doesn't allow for association health plans, doesn't aplay for real liability reform, it doesn't allow for purchase across state lines. so there are many things, i also hear my colleagues talking about both sides of their mouth on the prescription drug plan. many of them have lambasted that program on one day they'll scream about how it's not paid for. on the other hand they say, we have to close the doughnut hole. what is it, guys? you voted against it when it came up before, and i may -- i probably would have voted against it too because i don't like more government programs. but come on, you're being hip karat call when you say we have

to fill the doughnut hole when you lam best it in many cays. i think that again, even my colleagues probably need to read the book 1984 and maybe they'll see a little bit of themselves in the things that are in there in terms of how you rewrite history and how you make things sound great that aren't great. a loss of freedom in this country is really putting us at risk long-term. and that is my greatest concern about this bill and the taking away from individuals the ability to make decisions about their health care, and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> boy, you know, dr. fox it's

funny to hear you about impugning motives. just now i'm pretty sure i've been called a big brother totaltarian who wants to take everybody's freedom away. i think we ought to be careful about some of the rhetoric we use, and i would urge my colleague to maybe to replay some of her speeches, because it was pretty harsh. my colleague, talked about taxes. well let me say for the record, that my constituents in massachusetts are stick and tired paying for people in texas who can afford coverage but choose not to get it. we end up paying for that. before the health care act provides my constituents with a tax cut. and so -- i should also point out to my colleagues on the oh side. your standard barrier romney who is the coauthority of massachusetts health care plan

last week said it was not tax. this week he changed his mind. but, you know, whatever. you own him. he's yours. gook luck. he'll be all over the place by the time his campaign is over. the bottom line is the notion of making sure everybody has the freedom of having access to good, quality health care is something that motivated me to vote for the bill. because everybody in this country doesn't have the freedom to be able to afford good health care. the status quo was unacceptable. it was bad. now i'm glad to hear we don't have worry about anything on the insurance companies are all have our best interest at heart. so we can repeal all these requirements that ban discriminate nation against children who have preexisting conditions as my colleague pointed out the provision that forbids insurance companies from

discriminating against women because it used to be being a female was a preexisting condition. that's been banned. if we lift all of these requirements of the affordable health care act and take away all these requirements on insurance companies to actually behave responsibly, they will just do that. one of the reasons why we need to do this is because insurance companies haven't behaved responsibly throughout the years. and too many of our citizens have paid a heavy price for that. young i wanted to begin my comments by saying enough already. i mean, this is our 31st sometime we're repealing some part of or all of the affordable health care act. it's one of the first things you did when you came to power. you got it all on record. if it's all about politics, reading "politico" today the g.o.p. recess plan, that's all this is about. you have -- how many times you

want us to be on record for this. the fact of the matter is, you know, you already have -- if this is a campaign issue for you, fine. it you and romney want to run on the platform of saying we're going leave it up to stake for insurance companies to decide whether or not it's okay to discriminate against kids, the preexisting conditions, if you run a platform by saying we're going to stop closing that doughnut hole and increase the cost of prescription drugs on senior citizens. that the insurance companies are individuals decide whether or not women should be disimented against. if that's your platform, go at it. you know, i welcome that debate, quite frankly. the fact of the matter is, and i appreciate that the chairman rules give you lots of time on this. i don't want lots of time. i want lots of time on a jobs bill. you stalled and stalled on the transportation bill. we finally got that zone, i mean, that should have been

passed months ago. it would have put tens of thousanding of people to work. you know, we should be spending hours tomorrow on debating the president's jobs proposals or your jobs proposals, but seven hours or eighth hours on this, i mean, you know, it's going nowhere. the senate is not taking up the. the president is not going to sign it to law. it's not going to happen. >> the lecture about -- george or well, i think my friend from north carolina was exactly right in referencing george. i can think of no finer example of or well began rhetoric than the use of the -- when the bill was adopted. the misrepresentation that there was some provision in the bill that there would be a committee who meets and decide who gets a

heart transplant and who doesn't. it is false, it will always be fallings. i'm saddened about my friend from north carolina yielded back before she took any comments, but i respect her very much and i know the sincerity of her views. but i -- it was hurtful to her refer to the president of the united states, as quote, the poor president when speak together democratic members. i would say this to you, that i don't agree with hardly anything he did. but george w. bush was my president and i never voted for him. but ronald reagan was my president. and i degreed with him most of him but george h. w. bush was my president. i'm saddened by the fact that we've reach the point we don't have one president who represents all of us. i think we should get beyond that kind of rhetoric and this bill to talk about what matters in this country which is jobs, as you said.

>> being amazed of how much congressman fox and i have in common. actually, i have been reading 1984 rather recently. i think the thing that bhotterses me about what she said is the notion of freedom, in other words my idea of freedom is freedom of speech, freedom of religious. it's not the freedom not to have health care. and the problem is, i really look at it from a responsibility point of view, which is what the republicans often talk about. in other words, it's not fair if you will, that people not take responsibility for their own lives. and why should some of us be paying these large premiums and bills for people who don't decide to have health care? and i also, health insurance but i also think that the other something a this you said that i don't degree with. there are a lot of people throughout that want health insurance, millions of millions, probably 30 or 40 million and can't get it because they can't

afford it. and i others are under ensured because they can't buy a decent benefit package. we're not only talking about the 40 million people who have health insurance around the affordable care act but maybe 40 million who are underinsured who can't did get it. they have a basic benefit package and buy affordable insurance and the benefits that are provided under the aca. with regard to the insurance company when i say that you repeal the insurance companies are the only ones who are going to benefit. i say it because they'll go back to what i said before. they'll go back to discriminate story practices. preexisting conditions, lifetime limits. all those other things. not because they're evil, necessarily, i'm not suggesting that. it if you don't take in everybody and guarantee everybody has insurance because

you have a larger pool, we're almost forced to go back to the old ways in order to make a profit. it's not a question of who is evil. it's just, what i'm saying is you would allow us to go back to the old system where all the practices take place and that's how the insurance companies make money. not because they're bad people, but because they're that's the only way they can make money over the old system. the new way is by covering everyone when is the perfect responsible thing to do. i yield back. >> let me say this to conclude. i've been here a few years, and i say this respectfully to dr. fox, i think her comment in using 1984, which i read some years ago, illustrates how very difficult it is to get anything

done. when you frame the issue in terms of 1984, it is so misguided and so totally polarizing, and if that's the mind set of this republican party, we'll never get anything done. >> i appreciate that. i mean, look, i just conclude with a couple of observations. one has been january 20th, we voted on the first repeal. you know, we were promised, you know, that the republican majority here in the house which runs the floor have a bill that preserve the patient ability to keep his or her health plan if they like it with the preexisting condition and increase the number of uninsured americans. we vbts seen it. you repealed but you haven't brought anything on the floor to replace. other thing is, you know, dr. fox mentioned that the

president of united states rightfully said it's the greatest country on the planet. i think we agree with that. that somehow you can't try to make the greatest country in the world even better is a little bit stunning to me. i mean, we all got elected because we want to improve the quality of life for the people we represent. that's what we're here for. that's what the president of the united states is supposed to do. we're all supposed to do. a improve the quality of life for people. this is the greatest country in the world. if we can guarantee everybody in this country the right to good, quality health care. i think it makes us greater. and this finally, again, i understand what's going on here the hot button issues. i request you give us a little less time. you want the votes for the campaign commercials so the super pacs with humble us, fine. but we should be spending more time on jobs, a little less time on hot button issues. i yield back my time.

>> thank you. i don't intent on going true the philosophy of this event this particular bill. with one caveat, i served in the state legislature before i came here. i'm perhaps different than the rest of my delegation who perhaps the way we do things in washington in washington is way it ought to be done. i appreciate the comments that have been made here. i didn't realize how incompetent i was as a state legislature how much i didn't care about issues and that only once i read the -- nobility i was able to make the decisions. the fact that utah required 26 -- [inaudible] i guess it's app rigs of our inability of doing things. however, i do have a specific question simply because i have

never received an answer for it. i don't know who wants to claim credit for the program, but if everyone can do that. now we know it is a tax. the tax will be collected by the irs. i have a center in think district, they're good people who do a good job. they are pressed to the max right now. if this program were to go through, who would be actually -- how are you going to handle the process of having the tax very fied through the irs program and having people exam those types of things. will you indeed outsource this program as been done in other programs bots the present irs capacity to handle it is not there. there are some who suggested it would be between -- i have to admit there is historical reference to that. when our tax program went from a tax to a mass tax in world to war ii. we tripled the number of irs agents that had to handle it.

the same thing in world war ii when it went up 75% and the bottom rate went up. there was a significant increase in the number of individuals. i p i know the irs employees who did do a good job cannot handle the increase that will be mandated by the particular program. is it purpose and is it the process or plan simply to outsource the jobs, to a private sector or is it to increase the number of irs employees? >> it will be handledded responsibly. we'll have the intelligence within the body to make sure that the law is implemented effectively. >> that means obviously you had a plan ahead of time. what was the purpose or plan in discussing . >> no. we don't talk about conjuring up symptom master plan. there's enough intelligence in this body to rise to the occasion. >> well, then, let me ask the question. >> are you going to -- is the

process here the plan is to outsource this work or are we going hire more people inside? that's a legitimate question. >> the anxious answer is that will be determined. i don't think there's any plan to outsource. there's a lot of outsources being done. it's not being contemplated. >> we will increase increase the number of irs agents. >> it may be so, mr.s bishop, we don't need to conjure up strong people. we'll handle that. there's enough intelligence in this body to respond to that. don't sell us short. >> i'm asking what the plan ask. if you don't have a plan say you don't have a plan. if the plan is to outsource, say it's to outsource. it's not the 4eu6d ,000 question. >> the answer is there will be implementation. some are not in place. some are. you want to repeal what is in place. that's what you want to get rid

of. >> so . >> and so now you conjure what will happen with some of the provisions that haven't yesterday beenism ploymented yesterday. the subsidizes provisions and others haven't been implemented. others haven't yet been. but you can't dpub the very purpose and that is for you to repeal what is already in place. >> mr. anders can you me give an answer. >> i don't know how it'll implement. here's how it works from the taxpayers' point of view. when a person files their 1040 the w2 we flect the fact if they have health insurance. if a person does not have a w2, they will have to file a schedule to indicates they have health insurance. pretty much the same way you make mortgage payments. if the person doesn't have that, will be a penalty assessed as part of the federal tax.

add it on the enforced heck fifm. whether it requires more employees or not, i don't know. i know, that the treasury department has presented a budget that assumes this will be the law and. >> how many employees did they increase? >> i don't know. i'd be happy to check the record the appropriations request free from the department. i'm certain the commission of irs has taken it into account. and again . >> that's the way it works in the release world. >> i appreciate that. i realize in the real world the irs is maxed out. they were outsourced in the program. some of the programs didn't work. >> i certainly join. i'm not opposing any outsource. >> if it's indeed what you started to say and backtracked. if the goal is not outsource. that was red result of my

question. that's a legislate mate question. i appreciate that. it. >> i said that. it's true. >> i do recognize historically, every time there has been an increase in the role of the irs there have been increase in the number of agents who need to do that kind of work. i don't think that -- that cannot be -- it will not be done. >> when the mortgage interest deduction was added was there a spike in irs agent? >> there was an outsources. that's one of the problems. >> when the mortgage interest deduction ? i mean there was a spike in irs agents? why i'm making assumption there was because that's what i think it is. i may be inaccurate. >> look, we have a whole lunch of people no better than i. have tried to read the bill there are 17,000 new irs agents that are authorize did the health care bill. there are 17,000 new agents that were authorized to meet the

components of the bill. i know that mr. wrangle was the chairman at the time. good god, you're here as a subject matter experts you should understand and answer the questions. 17,000 new irs agents are authorized as early as last week, the white house indicated they're going to begin that hiring process right now. >> thank you. i yield back. i appreciate you my question was is approachial. people have asked me the question. i didn't know the specific answer where we were going. i'll get babbling on. >> let me say the gentleman began to -- what was the last position that was held by the gentleman in the utah state legislature? >> i walked out under my own power. [laughter] they called me speaker at the time. >> thank you. >> mr. hastings, history -- during the same period of time, mr. chairman, i would like to

with anonymous unanimous consent with the statement of the -- >> without on section. >> i might add, mr. chairman, this one does not say, as many have in the past, that our staff would recommend all to the president it be vetoed if the president are were presented with hr6079. he would veto it. >> i hope you have a copy it to the gentleman to the right so he can understand between the staff recommendation and the statement. i think it's clear the president would if handed this bill would repeal it. he would -- i'll let you take care of it. thank you, mr. chairman. 17 months ago the house took the step of adopting a resolution instructing house committees to do some very specific things regarding our health care. and since that time, as been mentioned here several times, we

voted thirty times, tomorrow will be thirty one to repeal our measures having to do with the affordable care act. i wonder how well the committees have followed those instructions -- and i ask any of you as your committee reported a bill that will increase the number of uninsured americans? i gather by no response that you have not. i'm talking the committee now, i'm not talking about you as individuals or what have you. >> someone yield for a second. >> it looks as if he has to leave. >> i wanted to see if anyone has any questions specifically of him before we allow him to leave as mr. genachowski can take his place. >> no questions in particular for him. thank you very much.

>> let me go. >> i thank my friend for yielding. >> let me go to the next question has your committee reported a bill that would provide for a permanent. the house instructed do you do. >> if i may. >> yes. >> the committee has held tens of hearings on the this legislation and others in an effort to try to garner the kind of information that will aus to brick forth a piece of legislation. we look forward to doing that. we'd like to do it in bipartisanship fashion. >> i take it as a no. >> let me answer -- excuse me. will you finish. >> apparently the individual doesn't want an answer. >> i took your answer as a no as i put it, levin. >> it can be said that the

committee is considering, is studying the truth of the matter is, no legislation is passed through the committee. if would make any considerable dent in the number of uninsured. >> that would be true, also of all measures having to do with preexisting conditions. >> there's been no legislation that has passed except the affordable care act. >> let me go in another direction, and -- as a lawyer and as a former judge, i want to say something to you all that may benefit all of us here. as congressperson to be a great deal more respectful of the nine members of the united states supreme court. what i also, in the media and i

might add, aid logically, i agree with some of them. and i disagree with some. and i don't have to put my history on the record, i went to the supreme court as individual on two occasions and i thought they were wrong in their rulings, but i accepted that. and i went about my business. i shudder to think that we continue as one senator said that two members of the supreme court are changing their position does not make it the law of the lands. the senate is wrong. today it is the law of the land. we have rights and we have responsibility that are to those rights. among the rights is to continue as we so desire here in institution to seek to repeal as you are attempting do in this case, and or to do as some of us

would be helpful any ideas to continue about the business following the law as exist and try to do what we can to make it better. many of the things that you speak of, the cross state-state insurance matters folks like me support. i advocated there should be collective opportunities for business persons to have associate health matters for the time i came here. since i came here. and i came here, like pointed out, seeking -- single -- and a public option. i have advocated universal health care before i ever heard president obama's names. and all you obamacare it doesn't mean anything. i had something to do with it before he did. and the simple fact of the matter is, you used it for

politics. that's fine. tell dr. fox when she comes back that most of us read george or well's 1984 and some of us read the brave new world. the way we're acting, comes on more inline with the decline fall of the roman empire if she want to muddy the two volumes and see the parallels that exist. among them is the fact that the people began to disrespect themselves. and i personally apologize for those that have disrespected justice roberts or i thought, as a lawyer, and i have read about a half of the opinion at this point, read the cliff notes and i can do good with that kind of thing. i thought that he had in many respects, a stroke of gene yous accomplishing it as the roberts

court at this point. and he did divide the baby. and left all of us, when a state court judge and i would handle divorces and the husband and wife would leave the courtroom and both of them would be mad. my bailiff would look at me and say you made another good decision. i think that's what happened here. all the business. the tax on whom? when you say a tax, a tax test on whom? among the people are you talking about and our question and i yield to you to tell me who is being taxed under this? >> i appreciate the gentleman asking the people court justice mr. roberts outlined that he believed that the essence of this was that it was a tax. we could have called it anything we wanted. >> i don't say the essence . >> i believe you did. >> what he said was that because it could not travel under the commerce clause, in fact, it was

a tax. you can name it anything you want to. what i name it in the final analysis and what we know less than 1% of the people in the united states will be affected by this penalty tax whatever you wish to call. it's not everybody. and so you run out and say the word tax. and that's the polls then calls everybody to shudder. if means i'm taxed $1,000 so that the people that communities center of that get turned away are the people that wind up at emergency hospitals will have them and let me stick a footnote right there. emergency facilities are -- where most of the people wind up. we wind up having to pay for that. we need to figure out a better way. other nations do better for us. our cost for insurance alone is more. now i ask all of you and everyone of us one, two, three, four, fiver, six, seven, eight,

nine, ten. tell me the day your ?urntion insurance went down in the year. yeah, raise your hand. you paid $5,000 in one year and then you paid none. are you on the plan? you worked here 16 years before you came to the rules committee. did you have insurance during that period of time? yeah. fine. you had a savings account plan have gone done the other insurance you're referring to had. >> i'm talking florida blue and omaha and all of those. every one of them has gone up. everybody knows that. not a single year. they went up affordable health care act. i have news. whatever we do here, they're going go up anyhow. long entitlement unless we go to the american public and say that social security and the present form is not sustainable, medicare in the present form, i

don't care, you came up with this particular measure, i think i heard you say, dr. takes $5 00 million out of medicare. who cares. what we need to do is get busy here. among ourselves, they had a right. there's enough intelligence in the institution for us to be able to modify this plan going forward. i want to say one other thing about dr. fox she keeps going around saying these things and what we're doing. and with beare doing to the supreme court is has been degrading. and just like mcgovernor in the final analysis -- i was thinking last night, that if there was a right-wing university, then there are a whole lot of my republican colleagues and some of democratic colleagues that would be eligible to be the dean of

the colleges of hypocrisy. we carry on as if there's an real world out here and everybody knows how difficult and complex this issue is. we've seen it in more ways than one. we don't have enough nurses or doctors. you see all the business about jobs. let me tell you something about jobs 66,000 new health care jobs have been created since and before the affordable health care act came into existence. the third highest profession is health care delivery for the young people who don't have a job. what you're saying is there's a new normal. you said you had a health savings account. there are people who have no savings because they have no job and they won't get one any time soon. at the rate we're going, somebody needs to tell the american people the truth aside from malpractice reform and cross state, you don't have a

plan. all you want to do is go out to the november election and say that you repeal something. repeal it then and i think you will find that when the deal goes down, the american people aren't as crazy as some of us think. but the most important thing that i want you to do is start disrespecting the supreme court, way you people using i had using their skills to go out and scare people and make the the court, i would imagine having been a judge justice roberts probably has no fear for his life. but the kind of decision that he made rankled some many people in this country that the martials will provide and i know they know how to the the additional requirements for his safeties. that's what you do. that's when my granddaughter says. she says stop it.

you tell the governor of my state to stop it. he won't implement the health exchange programs. there aren't going to be any any house. the federal government would implement it. it would be about where we come from. anyway, mr. chairman, i can't imagine that we are here with all of the pain in it country, with all of the misery that exists with all of us knowing the sitting number of people, you said there were 10 million people uninsured that want insurance. i will tell you 42 million when i came here. it must be at least 50 and yes, it includes some people who too poor to even beginning to think about trying to any insurance. wake up, people! start telling people the truth. get out of this back and forth mum bow jumbo that we go through here going toward an election. i hope a lot of lose and i hope i win. [laughter] >> thank you. >> we have a series of votes to

taking place on the house floor. and these panel lists have sat here very patiently for a long period of time. it was my hope that we might be able to report out the rule that allow for a debate on the house floor. before we begin votes with it doesn't work out that. and having said that, i recognize this man. >> thank you. i think it would be unreasonable to listen to him and not have a few comments. after that done. say that you u.s. news and world reports that 81 new irs workers will be hired solely to deal with the tax to make sure that the tanning tax implemented properly among the rest of the folks. he started off saying my constituents said we should move on. i want to ask, i know mr. andrews was here when we passed hipaa bill back in '96 which deal with all the issues at federal level. the plans that were federally regulated.

mr. levin was here at the time. i think you all voted no when it was on the house and voted yes when it dame came back. he voted no too. there was an effort to deal with the issue in the bipartisanship way passed 100-0 out of the senate. only two votes against it. those were two democrats. it was done the bipartisanship way. the folks can't move on it was not done in a bipartisan way. my friend in new york said, i want to make sure i get it right. people are going to like this bill. people have been looking at this bill for two years and the folks in my district still don't like it. i want to ask mr. price represents and area next door to mine. why don't we just move on? the reason i don't move on is because i have 90,000 constituents that tell me to get rid of it. i'm asking what the experience is in my your district. >> mine is similar. people say you have to do away it.

it's not patience. it's employers who say we don't know what to do. all we can figure out how to do get through to the bill is lay people off. not hire and as a physician, i can tell you that my physician colleagues, my age 57, 58 are saying, if this really comes through to all it's glory, that's it. that's the final straw. we're out of here. and god help us for the work force challenging we're going have. the appropriate thing is with to do is to proceed and repeal this bill and begin again so we can move forward with patient-centered health care. romney is associated with proposals of this type. he was associated with it as a governor. who implemented it in his home state. i'm glad it worked for you all. when kentucky tried something similar. it was a failure. it went from 43 insurers down in two. they had repeal it and start over. i was not here when you passed this bill. but, you know? georgia, it's the folks we think

about most often of the hole dollar family, what are you going to tell the kinds who had health insurance under the bill and going to repeal it and get it. in georgia, our experience is. the grandparent, they have ten grand kids, there was a young woman under the charge. her parents couldn't take care of her. they became her guardian and adopted her. they had the misfortune of adopting her around the time the present health care went into action. and when they went to the state insurance commissioner to say where can i get to get insurance from my child. i heard there was a great new bill passed guarantees preexisting conditions applied. we had insurance companies in the companies that would write the policy last year, because what congress passed and the president signed every single insurance writer for policy in the state of georgia have left the state.

not one child can get insurance in georgia today a child-only policy. those policies are gone. i adopt believe for a moment one of you who supported that intended that consequence. i don't believe it for a moment. but the laws of unintended consequences run rabid. we're supposed to be here to improve the quality of life for the people back home. i think we're supposed ton here to protect are the freedom and the speaker of the house, we argue about the -- constitutionality. we argue about the constitutionality. and every single reform in this bill could be implemented by the state of georgia or the state of utah or the state of massachusetts and not one constitution challenge would have stood because the power of states to regulated this is plenty. it's the power of the congress legislate in this area that becomes of the question of why it is. that folks who have hearts in the right place. i know, they are.

feel like passing that national solution that ends up preventing the the newly adopted 6-year-old from having any access to insurance where she would have before the bill passed. what that arrogance of knowing that we have the answer when other folks don't. sky you, is the state legislature in back home working at all in this area or are they completely dependent on us finding finding that. >> we vnd heard it let. let me tell you in the 2700 page bill, in 13,000 pages of rules and writing as of today, we could have provided. we had the hhs secretary in front of our committee this year and i asked here how many people will you expand coverage to. she said we think about 30 million. i said well, i can do that in two paragraphs. that's the 26-year-old and expand medicaid already and the

problem with medicaid it's not the great story that's never told is, it doesn't pay for the cost of the care. that cost gets shifted it just expanded a program that hasn't worked in tennessee let me give you an example. 1993 reformed our medicaid program. we're spending $2.5 billion a year on the program. in ten years, our democratic governor had to close it out and cut the rolls because we had tripled the amount of money that was spend on that program. it almost bankrupted our state. we right now, added anything in higher education in twenty years because the money is gone do the program. in the medicare we talk about estimates and cbo and all that. medicare came out in 1965 as a $3 billion program. the government estimated at that time 65, there was no cpo said it would be a $12 billion program. the real answer $1 10 billion.

did you vote for medicare part d. when it came out in 2003? >> did you vote? >> i know the answer to that, then. i came here to be involved in health care reformat. that's why i ran for congress. and we weren't -- the republicans weren't even included in debate. i yield back. >> mr. chairman, that's the best place for me to leave. is involved in the issues. there's not a single person in this room that cares more about the health care georgia begans that dr. price and i. >> let me say on the panel here that we have other members who have aa right to ask you questions. we have the series of votes on the floor. i'd ask all of you to come back as the other members of the rules committee are looking forward. oh -- okay. mr. levin was leaving my gosh he has so much to offer. i inferred from his standing up we were about to miss the vote.

so -- yeah. well, i mean. >> i'll be brief. >> let me say if there are 300 people who haven't voted. mr. mac govern is going to guarantee that not one of us miss the vote. >> thank you. the first question for mr. levin. how much would this increase the deficit by? this bill? the repeal the affordable care act? how much does it increase the deficit by? [inaudible] >> we don't have a recent figure. the figure was it would be substantial. as mr. andrews said the committee proceeding without having that answer. >> so e do we have a ballpark? mr. ankers did do you have a ballpark? >> no. we don't because the congressional budget officer is analyzing the effect of two changes the first is the decision by the administration not to enforce the class act. and the second is, the supreme

court decision about whrorchtd whether or not states will enroll the medicaid expansion. in january of 2011 that repealing the law would cost an access of $200 billion to the deficit. i think it's incredibly irresponsible to go guard with the vote until the facts are before the house what impact have on the deficit. >> there's no pay forward in the bill. there's no offsetting. >> one thing the majority did in january was to ignore the pay as you go rule. when the congressional budget came out and said it would add $2 23 billion, the deficit, i believe it was ordinarily you have to offset that with a spending consult or a new revenue. this committee facility aid long with the budget committee a magic wand which everyone waived and said we're going to pretended the rules don't apply. the first time they did this

they ignored the budget rules, now they're going to do is go through the pretends of getting score. i think it's the wrong way to proceed. >> so when we pay for health care reform. they don't pay for the repeal? mainly because they know it won't happen. >> yeah. i mean, . >> they won't pay for it anymore. glin the crease the burden of the debt the nation faces. let me go to the next topic. second question for mr. anders, it's my understanding the aid formedble care act it effects members of congress. members are congress are to be purchasing the insurance through the exchange beginning in the year 2014. it's my understanding it if republican bill passes members of congress will get the government health care they have historically gotten rather than being . >> the law states actually the only people in america who must join the exchange are the members of congress. we must be subject to the rules of the exchange.

the only people. if there this is repealed members of congress, i guess would stay in the federal employees health benefits plan we're in. which we pay for and pay copays and premiums and deductibles. members of congress would infact stay in the current uninstead of the exchange. it does not apply to members of congress. it does. if the law stays in effect, members here and our families will be insured through the exchange. >> this repeal before us would prevent members of congress from buying insurance like other american families and give them a government health care. >> that's basically right. members of congress would have their health insurance paid for through the federal employees health benefits plans and paid premiums and copays and deductible as any other federal employees does. >> it's not when my constituents was urging me to give congress their own gold plated.

>> i want to briefly comment about the budgetary issue. the reason the language is in the bill that allows us to have the bill scored through cbo and not the other. it's standard language that is used for the legislation. >> followup, once it's scored, is there a plan to pay for this bill through either justify offsetting cuts elsewhere or tax increases? >> i continue believe. the provision in section d i think -- section four of the bill provides for the ability to have that discussion with cbo and name so it is revenue knew really neutral. >> i don't understand where you have the discussion after you pass the repeal. i thought the way you do things is you find out how much something is going to cost on it and you take a vote. i think it's extraordinary maybe unpress precedentedded in recent decades the congress is about to name an important decision and i think the majority admit they have no idea whether the repeal

adds or subtracts to the disef sit. the last author author -- when this goes to floor tomorrow i guess the answer is we're going to guess and talk about it later on. i fail to understand the wisdom of that. >> i wield back. >> thanks to automatic of you for being here. we appreciate your testimony. we're planning to go to mrs. schwartz. we have three votes on the floor. there are no members who have voted. you were here filling in for assume questions -- [inaudible] >> women in the next panel is the budget committee and members are not members in my other committee. the stands in recess. what we'll do is any members we

wish to testify -- okay. any members who wish to testify please come back. we'll begin at the beginning of the last vote on the floor. we'll begin at the beginning at the last vote. members come back. the committee stands in recess. [inaudible conversations] the rules committee is deciding how long the house floor will debate will last on a measure that would repeal the 2010 health care law. if there will be any amendments allowed. the built expected to be considered under what's called the closes rule. it does not allow amendments. debate on the repeal is scheduled to begin on house floor tomorrow. with the vote in the chamber expected on wednesday. our live coverage of this rules committee meeting will continue when members return from votes on house floor.

oklahoma city may, wichita in june, and the past weekend in jefferson city. watch for the continuing travels of c-span local content vehicles every month on booktv and american history tv and next month look for the history and literary culture of the next stop. louisville, kentucky, the weekend of august 4th and 5th on c-span2 and 3. you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public policy events and the latest non-fiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get schedules on the website you can join on the conversation on social media sites. this year's national teacher of the year rebecca urged

teachers to remember their important role in american society and teach beyond the standized test. she is a seventh grade english teacher from burbank, california. she spoke at the annual meeting last week. it's about a half hour. >> this is a very special presentation from a special person. it is my honor to introduce to you the 2012 national teacher of the year any rebecca milwauke. this woman rocks, she is real, i love, love, love her. you are going to love her. rebecca is a seventh grade english teacher at luther burbank middle school in the great state of california. [applause] this is her second career.

we have more and more folks that decide to do something important with their lives as a second career and work for our students. she's been teaching for 14 years. she spent the last nine years in the current position where she teach general education, gifted and talented classes and serves on the school leadership team. i hate reading bios. you can read it. social security very -- it's very long, very impressive. you it won't tell you what is in her heart. what i admire most about rebecca, is the sense of urgency, this passion, that she has she needs to help the kids right now today. in a recent interview, rebecca had this to say about the work, i love it, they'll carry my cold, dead body out that have seventh grade classroom. i found profound and at the same time a little creepy.

[laughter] now, it is a sign of her dedication. she can't imagine herself doing anything else. you can't possess that kind of commitment without being a strong leader. her colleagues look to her as an example of leadership in her classroom. her lessons are infused with innovation and creativity and uses of technology that bring the world directly to the students she is serving. she made us all so proud in april when president obama honored her at the white house ceremony for her achievement as national teacher of the year. you should have heard her speech. google it, it is just amazing she gave voice to what is in the hearts of educators across this country. and here's a little of what she said, i'm not the best teacher in america. there isn't one.

every day here in america, teachers with patience and creativity are opening doors for students to reach deep within themselves and learn more. solve more problems, grow, nurture their dreams, and we do this with conviction, and it's not unusual. it's not a rare thing. it happens every day in america's classrooms. and i need you to know that. that's what she said to the public. [applause] rebecca my love, i love you for the voice that you give to our work. we are, look you, kind and case gnat and caring and funny, and passion nailt people whose work its to love someone else's child

give it up. and welcome rebecca, 2012 national teacher of the year! [applause] [cheering and applause] gorgeous group of educators. people, i love and i'm just as nervous and can be standing up here. i did the thing write imagined you all naked to calm myself down. that's a lot of flesh. it is. it didn't calm me down. it made me scared. instead i'm going to say it reminds me of our house on a friday afternoon. my dad was a teacher at my high school. and he was the social teacher,

the one that rallied the troops after school to the important meeting. i know the one i'm talking about. and they'd be at our house, and i would come home from a long day of driving my teachers crazy at school and come in and see my question math teachers and english and others drinking wine at the table. and this is not something that every 17-year-old girl wants to see on friday afternoon. it was more of a walk of shame than anything. i was not exactly a model student. and now here i stand a model teacher. i'm telling you, the irony is not lost on me. [applause] [laughter] [applause] but there i was, i got to start with another story. november 11, 9:32 in the morning. i was in front of my class i had a great lesson to run for the day.

i have a gorgeous graphic on the white board. i'm talking, teaching, pointing at things with purpose, things are really, really good. and the class is with me. i know, this because a hand goes up and another and another. i think, they're with me! i got them. they're engaged, interested, their asking questions. because i'm in the middle of something fascinating like reflects and pronouns -- [laughter] yeah english teachers. don't stop to take any questions. i'm on a roll, come on! i keep teaching. as i'm teaching, something causes me to pause for a minute because now not only is every hand in the air but half the class is doing the thing with the hand where they stab the guy to try to get your attention and the other half of the class is not so much raising their hand as reaching out to me begging me, imploring me, please, call

on me! and i finally did. i called on a girl and jasmine doesn't say a world. she never loses eye contact as she points to my feet. and it took an eternity to look down and see what was the entire class had known about for ten minutes but i was far too wrapped up in what i was doing to notice. the elastic waistband of my slip -- [laughter] had lost all transaction -- there was no purchase. it had given way. and had slid slowly and completely down mylesses. while i had been teaching. puddling in a horrifying angle scarf at my feet. [laughter]

now, i'm going to spare you the david blaine like maneuvers that needed to occur to remedy the situation. but to say that moment is seered forever in the minds of the seventh graders. [laughter] and you're asking yourself, now, how soon is lunch? and you're also yourself why does she start with an embarrassing story in and i start because this story reminds us that sometimes in education we get focused on what we're doing we get so caught up in what we think is the right course of action, that we fail to see some really important truths that are stairing us right in the face. for two long atime, this nation has been u obsessed with high staking and the results they bring. [applause] result which is can bring

devastating consequences and enormous pride to schools. they cannot tell you if my teacher is masterful. they can't tell you if the students are knowledgeable. they can't tell us if the schools are strong. they can't be what drive decision making in education, and yet -- [applause] and yet that is what the loudest voices --..

to create generations of children who are average, and we all know americans are not average. and we also know if i snapped my fingers today and every child in america were suddenly proficient, but then? would we wish we had spent the last many years and our time and attention and talent and energy on? we would have desperately wished we expand our time and energy on us, the teachers. so here i stand one teacher symbolizing millions. one enthusiastic, hard-working, humble, dedicated committed example to stand for the millions more just like me. of one voice to represent us all. it's a voice that has been missing from the highly charged conversation and education. it's this of waste that has been

told to a whisper as people that haven't set foot in a classroom make decisions and policies that impact nearly every aspect of our profession and its striking to me that in our ferocious and noble zeal to leave not even one child behind we may have accidentally left all the teachers behind instead. [applause] if we want a transformation in education, if we truly want innovation and reform, we have to stop talking about testing and start talking more about developing, supporting a celebrating teachers. teachers are the architect of the change we have been waiting for but it seems like we have forgotten what it is a great teacher can do that a standardized test can't, and i want to tell that to you today. great teachers design exciting relevant lessons that set kids up for success.

kids will learn what we teach them. they will take an hour content when we make it relevant for them and that is where we are so masterful and that is where the work you do matters so much because you design learning opportunities for kids that mirror their hobbies and interests and concerns and passion. you reach out to kids and help meet them exactly where they are and take them to replace the need to be. that means our kids read and write and think and sing and draw and act and filmmaking and animate and write poetry and solve math problems that boggle the mind and uncover scientific discoveries that will change the world, and they do it all by the size of their dedicated and schoolteachers. [applause] we make the content we teach real, relevant and challenging and when we get kids the time to do that kind of work, we have given them everything they need

to be successful in today's world and the best part is its visible, it's measurable and it's exciting and you don't need a number two pencil to see it. [applause] great teachers have incredibly high standards. i understand right now that the conventional wisdom says if i can lift a child in proficiency i must be a highly effective educators and my kids must be educated. i get it. there's a need for accountability right now to be able to say our institutions are working and a public education is a good investment i get but i'm not satisfied with that. i'm not satisfied by the means i'm being measured because it limits us to a narrow set of parameters, and i want more from my students. [applause] we want more from our students because the world they will be

forced to find work and will demand more from them so it's incumbent upon us to continue doing what we are doing, getting more out of kids, more creative thinking and problem solving, expert communicators, the ability to see patterns, connections, solutions, the mastery of math and science and most importantly great teachers teach resiliency in the quest for success because the road will not be easy. they will stumble and they will fall but great teachers teach kids how to get back up and keep trying as they try to make themselves better and move forward. [applause] when great teachers are asked to focus on test scores and push them to the forefront of the priority list, we give kids a war to education that honors neither the devotee and breadth of human knowledge but it is an absolute turning of the facts on the unique every individual

child we teach and i refuse to do that. >> you can see all of this at c-span.org. members are returning after a vote on the house floor. they will decide how long the debate will be of immeasurable repeal the 2010 health care law. the chairman of the committee, david dreier, has dabbled in. >> thank you. i do have a few comments to make and the kennedys have asked me to present on their behalf so i will do that if i may and then of course if there are questions i will take them. there was a long conversation about this but i did want to offer my comments. two weeks ago the united states supreme court issued the affordable c.a.r.e. in upholding the act, the court affirmed a path forward to the medication for children with preexisting conditions to receive care with

17 million for 3 million americans to be able to afford coverage. the act of the families won't go broke because small businesses can afford affordable coverage for their employees and young adults to remain on their parents coverage and there are 3 million young adults. >> mr. garamendi has already been -- mr. welch will come to the table as well and the other members. i will say to all of the witnesses any prepared statements you have in the record we welcome the summary. >> despite the decisions they are making attempts to repeal health care reform. in the priorities to the american public to work across the dial to grow the economy and strengthen opportunities and financial security for the american middle class the legislation before the rules reflects today a decision by the

republican leadership to the partisanship ahead of the pressing needs more constituents in the country. in fact we have with it 30 times to appeal all party affordable care act. it offers the 31st time to call to for access to affordable quality health care coverage. let's be clear the republicans' efforts will not be successful but it's also clear their efforts today would suggest to get their way would increase the deficit this discussion about this previously that last year the cbo estimated cost to repeal had 81 to $10 billion over ten years. it put insurance companies back in charge of americans health care coverage offering the consumer protections and fewer options for individuals and for small businesses. increased costs for seniors on

medicare and cut benefits for seniors on medicare and eliminates tax credits that health insurance more affordable for small businesses and the actions take time and attention away from the work we should be doing. republicans in congress are choosing to play politics rather than working to define bipartisan solutions to the important challenges we face as families, communities and as a nation. >> thank you very much. >> i submit the rest of my comment for the record but i do want to say that the actions today and the suggestion of the affordable care act creates and stability and certainty for american businesses and american middle class and hurts our economic growth going forward and it is not something that most of us believe in and certainly not most americans want us to be doing. >> thank you. are there any questions? she has to leave for another meeting. no questions? thank you for being here. let's go to this schakowsky and then mr. welch and garamendi,

and again, it looks like you've beautifully prepared statements. let me just say that without objection, any statement that you have will appear in the record in its entirety, and we would welcome a brief summary. >> i want to once again briefly restate some of the numbers. 105 million americans will no longer have lifetime limits on their health coverage because of obamacare. 86 million americans received at least one benefit service to 17.5 million children with pre-existing conditions who can no longer be denied health insurance coverage, 3.1 million young adults on their parents policies as a result of obamacare and the last panel the statement was made about business. my son is a small businessman and at his birthday party -- he is an adult, he was saying thanks, mom, because my accountant told me that my health -- i get a tax break

because of obamacare on the insurance that i provide for my employees so to say that businesses are paying more small businesses are really benefiting. i do want to just say one thing about this constituent whose daughter olivia suffered a stroke at birth 11 years ago. from the first breath, she had a pre-existing condition. now she has a right to prolong this kump will see cognitive delays. before obamacare, she and her husband had to navigate and almost unnavigable system in order to get coverage for the her every time they switched employers they were in trouble. but thank goodness because of obamacare they don't have to worry anymore. what a burden is lifted and that is what i and the floor my colleagues to think about that in every country that has health care for all their employees,

for all their citizens, people get cancer. they have diabetes, they have high blood pressure. but not one of those people is carrying on all the burden of thinking how am i going to pay for it? am i going to have to go bankrupt? and finally, in the united states of america we have a bill that brings us to that point. please, don't repeal them. that's my testimony. >> thank you. >> mr. welch. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. it's great to be back here. here is my concern. my view is congress is making a skeptical of itself and there's a reason we have nine or 10% popularity and it's because we are dysfunctional, and i get it that there are many members of this body in the majority that disapprove of what is now being

called obamacare. many members he didn't think it is a threat to the economy and a threat to liberty. and that represents a point of view of the people that you represent. but how many times can we repeal the same law? we are moving out of number 32. that doesn't say to the american people even ones that agree with those that want to repeal it that that is a serious policy. it says it is serious politics. for 32 times. when does it end? the second thing is revealing of care is not the same as having a health care policy. in the question that i think is a fair question for those of us that support this bill to ask those that want to free peel the bill is where is your plan? where is it? there have been references to it but instead of putting it on the floor making an effort to pass even the components of what others say needs to be done in order to substitute for the health care bill that the law of the land, it's not put out there. instead of offering

alternatives, there is an offer of yet another retial, 31 or 32, but who's counting. the question i think the american people should have of the proponents is where is your plan on keeping your kids on a policy until age 26? where is your plan when it comes to the yes or no covering folks with a pre-existing condition? werries plan and a guaranteeing seniors are going to have access to free preventive care? where is your plan of their closing the doughnut hole that creates hardship for folks when they can't pay for their prescription drugs? so, what we are doing here is business as usual in congress. it's an argument that is without end. it is a repeal that is on the road to nowhere. i'm not disputing the right of any member to have a heartfelt determined position one way or the other on this and putting the repeal, but it has been done.

so at this point it isn't a series believe to a serious proposal it is simply a political talking point. and that is a fair and legitimate debate. let the american people decide on each of us in our respective races where they want to come up let them decide but let's not pretend that this is a serious action that's going to make a difference and have an outcome that will make a difference to american business, to american jobs. >> mr. garamendi. >> thank you mr. chairman and members i get their prepared statements and i will submit to that. i listened to part of the debate and a couple things come to mind. one, i spent eight years as the insurance commissioner elected the biggest state in the nation and i would be happy to discuss with you the insurance issues were raised earlier and are profoundly important coming and i believe that to assume the insurance companies what do what is right is wrong.

they will do what is in their best interest and that is to increase their profits. a lot of discussion about freedom and liberty i want to give personal with samples of freedom or the lack thereof and liberty or the lack thereof. from the day she was conceived until she was 21, our daughter was covered by insurance. the day after her birthday, she lost her insurance and she had no freedom to get health care until law became -- until this became the law of the land she's now injured once again under our policy. another example is a sister-in-law. she suffered with the illness until the day she died. with her divorce she lost her insurance, and for about 25 years she struggled to deal with her disease and to provide what

she could afford put her family's health and others, she was able to get some level of assistance. she couldn't get a job except as a sales person on her own commission because she had a pre-existing condition. she didn't have liberty and she didn't have freedom. she did not have freedom to take a job that she wanted. she didn't have the liberty and ultimately, her health care was compromised by the fact that she did not have insurance. given one more example, my chief of staff, his son was born with kidney failure some 20 years ago. he had an insurance policy until the moment they discovered the reena failure at about two days of age, today's old. he and his family lost their

insurance. that family did not have the freedom, did not have the freedom to take a job to move. so when we toss around words like freedom and liberty we ought to look at the mean to individuals. individuals that do not have health care, or individuals that have to keep the job that they have because they have to have the health care do not have the freedom to take another job to travel, and individuals to not have the freedom to carry out their lives unless they have health care. this legislation isn't perfect, but it does provide millions upon millions of americans with the opportunity to enjoy freedom >> thank you very much. any questions for ms. schakowsky mr. mcgovern? >> i want to make one observation. one of the things i have learned

is that after having made billions of dollars now spent against the health care act which was called obamacare what i learned is that most people, there is no relationship between what they think is obamacare and what is the affordable act. this kind of myth that has been built up about obamacare with billions of dollars spent to distort everything. i know people and i know elective officials whose kids are able to stay on their health insurance because they are young adults but you have jobs and take advantage of that benefit as part of the affordable care act who cannot publicly and say they are against obamacare. there is disconnect out there

and, again, it brings me back to the point i mean earlier to why we are here. we have no score. so where are the people to care about the deficit and the debt? usually i want a cbo's or so we know what the impact on our deficit is going to be. there is no alternative. we know this is going nowhere and it all goes back to the story that i read today which is a gop recess plan. you want to do that? find. but let's spend more time on issues like jobs to put people back to work to find common ground on some of these issues that actually mean something in people's lives. this is all political. no matter what the vote is we noted the screen to be. it isn't going to mean anything in the short term. we have an election to deal with

that and if the republicans want to go out and campaign against these protections, go added and we will see what comes out but for the time being we are wasting time. a lot of people were hurting in this country come and the converse is fiddling while rome is burning and that is an unfortunate circumstance that i think you very much for the comment. >> mr. chairman, thank you. mr. garamendi, i know you've had a lot of experience in this area twice elected insurance commissioner and the state house, lieutenant governor, senate majority leader, i can think of lots of persuasive case is to make for every line of the president's bill and cases to make against it. what of those reforms, thinking about this family members and personal experiences you have had, what of those reforms have to happen in washington because of the nature of the industry it could not have happened in the

california legislature or to the action of the insurance commissioner of the governor. >> all of them. all of them because the current insurance system or the previous insurance system was state by state and if you are interested in freedom that is freedom to travel to take a job somewhere else besides where you happen to be located company to have uniformity across the nation on those issues that i spoke to earlier with regard to other insurance matters some of them could be dealt with but the reality is you have a national system and if the states are left to compete among themselves you are at an advantage or disadvantage. it doesn't work. there's talk about the self insurance across the state lines. i think you said that earlier today. in fact come insurance is sold across state lines when there is uniformity in the policy and the

strength of the insurance company itself. so that issue turns out to be won and which you have a race to the bottom. that is under the previous system insurance sold across state lines is usually come and we found this repeatedly in california where companies would sell a policy without authorization to people and then could not pay the bill when some incident occurred. we are constantly chasing after those companies so we need the uniformity in the policy as well as the viability of the company selling the policy state. of the specific examples that i gave could be dealt with in a state and in fact california set up an exchange with or without the federal law. some states will not. but in exchange becomes an extremely important part of

dealing with the problems that the three examples that i gave india the exchange allows for a large pool to be created at different risks in that process you are able to spread the risk and able to obtain a reasonably priced policy. so, the answer is no and yes depending upon which specific thing you're talking about. >> but in a total, this nation needs to have a national policy on how we are going to deal with health care. to do that, we will create in the devotee, chaos and millions of people not having insurance and the freedom that goes with having insurance. there's something unique about health insurance as distinguished in the same blanket policy for the homeowners insurance, although insurance, schools for our kids,

housing codes to protect our children. you see something unique about the industry that requires that natural solution ways other safety issues might not. >> the answer is yes there is something unique about health insurance. it is an individual's health this fundamental to their the personal liberty and health care. of the uniqueness lies and has already been taken up and has actually been in place for some 40 years now. it's called medicare. if you happen to be 65, and i think there's more than a couple of us in the room that are, we are automatically enrolled in the medicare and it is available to everyone who's 65 and older, and it happens to be extraordinarily efficient and effective. >> you do the same kind of case work i do who are actually over 65 and don't qualify for medicare because they never paid into the system they have to

work their way to medicare if they've never paid and they recently emigrated from overseas they do not qualify for medicare as a result. i think that's the point. we heard them say that what folks wanted was a nationalized health care system to deal with those issues. this was the best folks could do in that political environment. i appreciate that candor. i have great respect for what you do in california and i enjoy watching what goes on. it is always a good show and we learn from that experience and adopt some of those things and reject. >> i understand in the health care system you need to keep in mind that there are the two fundamental parts to it. they are important to understand. one is the financing of the system which in the united states is made up of government finances which is the bulk both state and local and the other is the delivery system that is the

doctor, a hospital. we get them continued when we talk about health care, and in doing so we get bad policy coming out of it. when you want to do is have a financing system that is sufficient and effective with the lowest possible administrative cost collecting the money and paying the bills. on the delivery side, and this is discussed by all of us, we want to be able to choose who is going to deliver the medical services. in the united states, we have four opportunities, we've got the emergency room, we have the big university hospitals some private, some public, we have socialized delivery care coming university of california, some of the best hospitals in the nation or infection socialized. as we have a wide range of choices and we want to add a

financing system that allows the individual to choose. and in that choice you want a selection of policies what's called platinum, down to basic, and we ought to be willing in this nation is seems to me to have all americans with a basic policy. and if you want to buy a plot to non-policy god bless you buy it on your own. that makes a system that we are moving towards with this legislation that isn't there but moves in that direction. >> that sounds like the descriptions i've heard some of your colleagues give of the budget proposal for medicare and the exchange the would be available for the folks of my age when we get to the plan. i agree it's nice to have that. >> thank you very much for being here. there will conclude the hearing -- i'm sorry.

>> the only thing i wanted to say is the fact most of us like single-payer and we have certainly put on the record of the administrative costs of medicare is the two to 3% and administrative costs of private health care which is what obama did because would be run by private insurance agencies is between 28 to 30. that is an enormous cost right there that we are going to see changed. >> if i could because of obamacare there's a medical loss ratio, and insurance companies to spend at least 80% or 55% of health care. billions of dollars are going to be sent to consumers this summer

because they had exceeded that. if i could also we do have a number of national structures like the occupational safety and health administration that sets rules for businesses all across the country. so of course we have lots of regulations and health care and safety regulations that apply. states could have potentially dennett themselves but in fact we say that this is a national priority. finally in the united states saying that health care for most americans anyway will be a right as established under the legislation. and then there will be many differences among the states because they can set up their own exchanges the will be suitable for that particular state with under the national

rubric. >> i think we're way late in the day. we put too much burden as far as i am concerned on businesses and to carry these across the other countries don't have to do that. we trade with the corporations and don't have to worry about the problem of health care as we do and to allow something like this to go forward so to speak. >> thank you all very much. that will conclude the hearing and the chair will be in receipt of a motion. >> i know if the committee grant h.r. 6079. the repeal of obamacare provides five hours of debate with 30 minutes equally divided 60 minutes equally divided by the chair.

on the committee on education and energy and commerce that means 30 minutes equally divided by the chair and the ranking minority member on the budget. 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and the lynndie minority member on the judiciary and 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member on the small business. the rule waives the consideration bill that the bill shall be considered as read and all points against the divisions on the bill provides one motion to recommit. >> any discussion or amendment? >> yes. first i want to say that i think this is not. we know it isn't going anywhere and it rolls out once again what we are doing here is clear in time and i have an amendment while we are at.

for a long time i've been concerned about that which exempted health insurance from federal oversight state-by-state commesso that caused a lot of trouble and i think mr. remondi referred to that. i have amendment on the rule to give necessary waivers by mr. defazio number one which would repeal the health insurance industry antitrust exemption. >> those in favor say aye. those opposed camano. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.

>> put off [roll call] >> the total? >> 48, eight nays. >> of the clerk i've never seen that box before. i wondered if you got it out of my office. >> i'm a little surprised given the comments that were made in the open and transparent process that we have a closed rule and as my colleagues noted means that no member of the house not just democrats but republicans would have the right to even offer an amendment to this in any way, shape or form. so i have an amendment to the rule and i would rule that you grant 6079 so all members have the opportunity to offer amendments to the bill on the floor.

mr. chairman this is the first time the house has the history of repealing the affordable care that even after the supreme court ruling we are here playing this game and wasting the american taxpayers' time and money we ought to be talking about jobs or ways to protect the mid put power back in the hands of insurance companies and if we have to consider so everybody can be heard. >> of the vote occurs on the amendment doesn't favor of an act and those opposed, notemac. [roll call]

>> the total? >> for yays come eight nays petraeus benevolent to be recognized to speak on the underlining rule. >> so no further amendments then? the gentleman is recognized. >> i ask unanimous consent to submit a statement by mr. dingell to the record. >> the statement will appear in the record. >> i ask unanimous consent to submit a statement mr. conyers to the record. i ask unanimous consent to insert an article from the hill to the record. >> article from the hell will appear without objection. >> and quite apart from that, revealing president obama's health care law would let members of congress keep the government subsidized insurance coverage after they retire, and of course the rest of the article would be available for members. >> we look forward to that.

>> i would yield back. >> the vote occurs. >> i have not read that article. is the suggestion that the vote tomorrow is somehow a self-serving vote for the members of congress and the health care benefits as opposed to all the other things we will talk about today? >> as a matter of fact it could have been carved out by the republican majority so the republican majority did intend to make sure the members of congress that their benefits i don't know if they are predicting perhaps in a large number of retirements on the other side of the polls were not. but for whatever reason that is in the bill. >> the voodoo curse on the motion to the gentleman from dollars. those in favor, aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> sorry. >> mr. sessions? [roll call]

[roll call] eight yays and for nays. >> the motion is agreed to. mr. sessions will be handling this for the majority. we will be meeting tomorrow afternoon at 3:00 on the resources bill and without objection, the committee stands adjourned.

>> the committee is setting the guidelines for debate on the measure that would repeal the 2010 health care law. five hours of the date with a closed rule meaning no amendments will be allowed. the debate on the repeal the scheduled to begin on the house floor tomorrow. this is on the chamber expected on wednesday. the house will vote on the repeal without official cost estimate from the congressional budget office. they said today that it's still evaluating the impact of the supreme court health care decision and will not have a final floor ready until the week of july 23rd. we talked with a reporter about the vote in the house. >> with a look at capitol hill we are joined by billy house, a writer for the national journal daily. as the house lawmakers are returning from the fourth of july break, what is on the legislative agenda this week? >> that is messaging on such things as health care and it's also a big yvette is the markup on wednesday in the house the

agricultural committee farmville, five-year farm bill. >> the retail of the health care law, is that a top priority for house republicans? >> that is the major priority. it's a bill to repeal foley the health care law also would actually already passed that last year, last january. but in light of the supreme court decision last month, they want to reaffirm at least in the public mind that they intend to repeal the entire law. >> why are they making this a top priority? >> mostly because this is the stretch run to the fall elections and also they believe it is the course points in their individual race. one is that cbo announced today, monday, that it doesn't have a scoring of the bill were the law itself as it stands based on the changes of the supreme court.

so easily with republicans will do this week and they plan to debate all day tomorrow and possibly wednesday is pass the bill without knowing the case on the budget of the repeal. >> if this comes to the house floor on tuesday pacelli, house democrats say this will be the 31st vote to repeal president wallace b. five health care law. how do they figure that and what is the point of keeping count? >> the point of keeping count is to address what they say is the repetitive and wasteful in their view time the republicans are spending on this. degette to 131 by not only doing these votes to fully repealed the bill, but they've been dozens of votes to repeal parts of the law individually. >> are house republicans planning more votes related to repealing the health care law in the coming months? >> it is not clear what they have planned for the upcoming months. the build up on monday was going for the rules committee and would be the focus of the floor

debate tuesday and wednesday unlike the bill last year doesn't really require the boat of the committee to come up with a replacement for the health care law. so it seems to be in flux what exactly they plan to do over the next few weeks and months. of course they will not pass this bill and the president won't sign it, so it's all kind of a messaging thing as we started to respect what is the issue play among the constituents in both sides of the aisle? >> it's kind of mixed. there's a general knee-jerk reaction according to some of the polls against being forced to participate in anything. however, when it is more fully explained, there is a greater acceptance of the wall. >> billy with national journal daily, thanks so much. >> white house press secretary jay carney said today that the president wouldn't sign a bill that would extend the range of the bush era tax cuts. these rocks came in response to

questions from reporters regarding president obama's tax cut proposal for the middle class that would extend tax cuts for families making under $2,050,000. >> i have no announcements to make up the top so i will go right to the questions. >> the president laid out his plan on the taxes. republicans in congress said that they want to temporarily extend bush tax cuts across the board. if that bill were to reach the president's desk -- >> let me say a couple things. we have a lot of disagreement in washington. the president talks about all the time. the fact that we have a stalemate that has prevented us from doing some of the important things we need to do to help grow the economy and create more jobs and to help make the middle class more secure.

one thing that we all agree on, virtually everyone in washington, democrats and republicans is that the middle class tax cuts should be extended. we all agree. that's good for american families, it's good for the american economy. that's what the president announced today. his absolute intention and willingness to sign the bill that would extend tax cuts from 98% to the american people. if republicans want to hold those tax cuts hostage to the tax cuts for the wealthiest americans, including millionaires and billionaires, that seems pretty unattainable. that seems like a hard argument to make. the president's position is clear. we should extend the tax cuts for the middle class from 90% of

americans we should not extend tax cuts for the wealthiest americans, tax rates for people who don't need them and for whom it doesn't even make a great deal -- it doesn't make economic sense as an economist whose ph.d. is worth the paper it's printed on will tell you middle class americans will get the tax cut has a positive and direct and immediate impact on the economy not to spend about, and the cost in terms of adding to our deficit makes it a net loss. so, the president would sign tomorrow a bill that everybody agrees on from extend the middle class tax cuts. he doesn't support extending tax cuts for the wealthiest americans. >> [inaudible] >> he wouldn't sign that bill. >> during the weekend of several

democrats including robert gibbs from the offshore bank accounts. >> to tell us how the administration won't address. >> i think you should take to relieve the campaign related questions that address them to the campaign. i can simply say that the president believes the disclosure is an important tradition and useful in this country and that it's one that he has followed as a candidate for office both when he ran for the senate and obviously when he ran for president in 2008 and now running for the reelection. but beyond that i have to take that question to the campaign. >> you may address the campaign. i think the issue is most of

these questions could be answered easily by, you know, any candidate the would simply disclose tax returns as the president did as virtually every major presidential candidate in recent memory has. >> the busheir net tax cuts are passed. is the white house open to its deal that would tie together the questions coming in as a way of pushing off the impact of all those things happening at the same time in the economy? >> let me say two things. one, in terms of creating some new greater economic certainty that the president announced today which is his absolute willingness and intention to sign a bill that would extend for a year the tax cuts for 98%

of americans the would relieve, that would create certainty for the vast majority of americans, and what have a very positive impact economically. our position, the president's position on the broad issues when you talk about the sequester from its inaction enforcing mechanism, and we all of what needs to be done to address our medium and long-term fiscal. it's very clear at length and in the president's budget proposal what his position is on how we need to move forward to address these issues and that is a balanced approach that includes non-defense discretionary spending cuts that we have already made and signed into law and it includes reforms to the entitlement programs to make them stronger and more cost-effective, and it includes asking the wealthiest americans to pay their fair share so that we do not ask ordinary hard-working americans and

seniors parents of disabled children be the ones to bear the full burden of getting our fiscal house in order. ischemic would you do a deal that tied together -- scaap we are trying to negotiate something that will be decided much a leader in the year. i think what we made clear today is there are a lot of issues we have a great deal of disagreement. there was a stalemate in washington that is due almost entirely to the fact that republicans are so intransigent when it comes to asking that everyone pay their fair share. but one thing we all agree on, democrats and republicans alike is that america's middle class should have this tax cut extended. of their taxes shouldn't go up on average $202,000.6 months. since we all agree on that, pass the bill in the senate and in the house, send it to the white house and the president will

sign it and that will have a positive affect on those american families and all the economy. >> thank you putative the president wanted that to wondered 50,000-dollar threshold does today represent a change before he set $200,000 for individuals to hundred $50,000 income for households? >> we are still talking about households. the president's position has been this very same position for a long time and it has not changed. he believes we should extend tax cuts for 98% of america's taxpayers and we can do that. as you know he is in favor of extending those and making them permanent. but again, recognizing there's a stalemate in washington and the broad issues of tax reform are for a much subject of contentious debate let's do something that can have a

positive effect on the economy and have a positive affect on the finances of millions and millions of american families and pass this and signed it into the law right away >> it is the case for putting that threshold at a million dollars, letting only those much higher categories. will he negotiate anything like this? >> the presidents since position is where he announce it today. this is something we all agree on, and we should be able to have the congress passed. the senate majority leader harry reid said that he looks forward to giving the democrats and republicans the opportunity to vote on this proposal in the coming weeks. the president very much appreciates that. again from the president's position long-held encapsulated in this specific legislative proposal that everybody agrees on, and i guess the question is if republicans oppose this

beyond the senate they have to explain why because you were here and so was i.. we saw what happens. the tax cuts that were passed in the early part of the century in 2001 and i think in 2003 but disproportionately benefit the wealthiest americans, we were assured that time the reason they were so -- the right thing to do is that it would create prosperity for everyone that the middle class would benefit and average americans wouldn't end up benefiting. what we saw instead was an economy that created fewer jobs than any period of expansion in recent memory. we saw the incomes of the wealthiest americans expand considerably while middle class incomes stagnated or declined and in the end of this

experiment, was the calamitous recession that was the worst economic recession crisis that we had had since the 1930's. so, we tried that. it didn't work out so well. a good point of comparison in terms of tax rates for the wealthiest americans was the period before that under president bill clinton which also covered, and when they were put into place i remember in 1993 the republicans said it would cause a terrible recession and economic decline and instead we saw the largest peacetime expansion in our history we saw an economy that credo for 23 million jobs i believe and we saw the first budget surplus in a generation or more. so, we were looking at these proposals are and comparing them we don't have to guess about what the impact would be if they

were implanted. the president's proposals are implemented versus the proposals put forward by republicans in congress and on the campaign trail. we've seen the impact of the policy proposals in the past. and i think most people accept the premise the statistics bear which is the middle class didn't do so well in a situation where tax cuts were given to disproportionately to the wealthiest americans and our budget deficits exploded and we ended up in a terrible recession. >> 97% figure for small business would be under. islamic where did i get it? i can provide the sources that this is a -- i'm glad you asked me about this. the question is as you almost want to say when this issue is raised about the need to end the tax cuts for the wealthiest in

america because we can't afford them, opponents of the taxes on america's job creators on small business but it's a fact, and 97% of america's small businesses wouldn't be affected by this. it is a fact that of the 400 wealthiest americans, roughly half of them would qualify as a small business under the definition put forward by senator mcconnell and others. and i think it is a useful exercise to ask those that hold up the banner of being defenders of small business to see where are these small businesses and who are they that are harmed by the sand of the fact is they are often partners in law firms were hedge fund managers. they are not the kind of small

businesses view and i think of when we think of small businesses. they are not small businesses that have been helped again and again by this president signed into law 18 on 19 small business tax cuts. and who have on his to do list profound risks another tax cut for small businesses the would go to small businesses that hire or raise their wages. if the members of republicans in congress are concerned about small businesses, if they have an opportunity this week to vote for the proposal we look forward to them doing so. >> white house press secretary talking to reporters earlier today. you can see this news briefing in its entirety on the web site, c-span.org. >> we have great threats to our existence today as a nation, and i would think in my opinion greater than any threat we've

ever faced, what it's been our civil war or the revolutionary war or whether it's been a world war ii, whether it's in the depression, and that threat comes to us because we have spent the last 30 years in this country spend the money that we did not have on things that we did not absolutely need, and the bill was due. ..