we manned to vita sites in boston, 11 in dorchester and one in east boston if you want to know you know, how poor people think, what they're lives are like their like, there is no better way than to follow the money. it is a poignant time i think, sitting across the desk from a family or individual filing taxes. it is an intimate moment where you learn private things and it is a chance for you to build on that feeling that people so value that they are citizens and taxpayers. you can give a lot in that interaction but you we will come away with an understanding which we will transform you and help you you no.

when you act you have the voices of real people in the back of your mind which of course, is always better than acting without that. >> thank you. >> if i can say one more thing about the actual experience of working with a client. they have to tell you very personal things because you need to know about they're children and where they live and what they are doing and if they have lost there job. so you so you have to deal with them on a personal level. i had a client years ago and if i start crying, don't be upset. upset. this woman had been through a horrendous situation, been evicted from her apartment. in a homeless shelter with her children. her sister turk and the children but would not take her. anyway she got a job at cvs

working at one hour photo. this is a job that some of us might not value. it was the most wonderful thing in this woman's life. she came in and said how blessed she was to have this job and it was great. and the people she worked with were fabulous. i did the return. the previous year whoever did her return did not figure out about that credit i i tell her she is going to get this refund like three something thousand dollars. she threw her arms around her and said, you are giving me my children back. okay. and you go oh my god. she was going was going to have money where she could put down the security deposit on that apartment. it was not that she could not pay the rent, but she did not have the money to get a place to live with her children. when someone when someone says to you, you are giving

me my children back you carry that with you forever. it is that profound an impact that this tax credit can make. you make. you know it is not puppies and babies. it is profound. >> i forgot a question i wanted to ask earlier on really actually for you, professor brown. it is much -- professor kathryn edin, this is much more than an income program. >> as i said 40% 40 percent of the refund is typically spend toward mobility purposes. 70 percent of the total is set aside for savings and much of the rest goes to human capitol development

and durable goods. their are measurable improvements in people's lives that are laborsaving. a standalone refrigerator you can shop more efficiently and buy in bulk. it makes the day-to-day schedule more doable if you are able to buy and maintain a used vehicle. measurable improvements in people's lives. maybe what is the most meaningful is the sense that you can get ahead you can be something different from what you are now that you can enter the middle class. people not only plant all year for how to spend they're eitc making detailed calculations. they have multi-year plans for how they we will save save, clean up there credit, make a down payment on a home, moved to a quieter

place with safer streets and better schools. these narratives drive them all year long and keep them going. this is not just an income support but really not only a wealth creation device but a whole different idea of what life can be like in the future. >> thank you. before i i turned to the audience, this is a freebie. all right. audience. >> we think about school. we think of tax time as. [inaudible] how does this moment move

beyond just a refund and help with the aspirations for the future? one of the reasons it is so exciting more deeply part of this movement, so many of the vita volunteers have become adamant asset building advocates and want to link other services to what is happening because they see the potential. i love the ideas about thinking about the other services and products partnerships that we can use. >> one of the things we started doing it when you come in not just a list of

your personal information information, but also it links to social services. providing an atmosphere you weed out what people want at that time. >> it ties to a lot. we partner with various organizations for credit counseling. they go meet with a credit counselor.

so being able to five the credit counseling worked well. >> a couple of them are hear today. linking the opportunities and critics. taking the opportunity to devote develop your income to savings and income. in the packet you have a flyer.

>> a lot about the tax moment. dignity and that is really incumbent upon the vita sites to treat clients with as much dignity as possible. you have heavy competition from h&r block and the deliverers of taxes because they no how to treat people and make them feel valuable. part of the reason people go to h&r block rather than at vita site is because it feels good to be their. from how the office looks to how they are treated, we need to make sure it is profoundly attached to how they are treated. second, people want to clean

up there credit so that they can move ahead. people don't no how to. we cover this in detail in the book. so credit counseling and help with understanding how they should prioritize debt and what counts toward credit score would be valuable. >> okay. [inaudible question] >> to what degree to the vita sites allow people to register to vote? >> we don't have that with our sites, but it is a fabulous idea. [laughter] >> one of our sites is dedicated to providing opportunities to register voters, open accounts. it is definitely a priority to link that service.

>> it is hard for me to see the whole room. can someone help me if i am not seeing people in the back. yes. thanks. >> my question is for professor kathryn edin. how we can help low income taxpayers become more aware of tax preparation either in person, like at the vita site or online? >> it is hard to compete with those dancing tax men and women on the corner. it is interesting, there has been a long-term and vigorous campaign. the abcd community organization which has offices and storefronts in almost every block and neighborhood free tax

preparation. it has become institutionalized in a way that gets underneath your fingers. however you have this powerful competition from h&r block and all of its competitors and the possibility of getting a refund early. if we can figure out how to make work pay. i love the idea of allowing people to withdraw $500 midyear to avoid a financial cascade. we need to think more carefully about ways to not let debt be the driver of which door you enter when tax refunds become available. >> right here. [inaudible question] online preparation service,

and i am wondering if you could talk about that from a supply and demand volunteer side and an inclusion standpoint, the increase in online services is something that we are seeing for taxpayers at all levels. >> well, with bb&t and other banks that have offered free tax preparation online the problem you run into familiar with the tax codes and things you can claim on taxes you may incur some hurdles and things that you could have received. it is free, but free, but are you really getting everything that you could? >> and to that point,., too, we have tried at various times. our biggest site, self-directed tax return

preparation, we have people they're to help the taxpayers, ask questions. this is the very population that you really don't want to necessarily make do-it-yourself online tax preparation available to because it is hard, and their are things that are subtle in terms of understanding what certain terms mean which have a specific meaning in the tax code, which is different from the colloquial meaning. i struggle with that as a return prep service provider we are trying out doing something with a can be self-directed and we can supervise how they do the return. we will see how that goes but i do have concerns where they don't end up getting the maximum benefit out of that approach.

[inaudible question] one of the things you mentioned is that anyone can buy turbotax. if anyone is interested in the tax fraud issue, yesterday their was a a forum at the museum sponsored by the atlantic. into it was one of the sponsors. sponsors. just so you know, our ceo was one of the opening speakers. his.of view was for all of us in this battle, to make sure that we do not put the solution on the backs of the lowest income it is not right and is not

going to get us out of this problem, but problem, but i encourage you to go online and look at that discussion. also senator clover chart was talking as well. when andrea levere opened up she was talking about hope. we have been downloading turbotax through the free file. we have had the best success partnering with vita. my emotions are coming out. out. anyone eligible for a product can do free fed and free state. free file is not about into it but different software

companies. have you looked. my favorite story is from harlem. we had a taxpayer using turbotax. angrier and angrier and angrier. and we said, sir, if you don't like it, don't do it. he said no. i have had someone else do my taxes for years. is years. is this all their is to it? [laughter] >> people are afraid to do there own taxes. the idea that you could get audited, zero money break the law is very intimidating to people a lot of the reason they go

to private tax preparer is that they trust them to get it right which makes that laurie-anne sayles story all the more tragic. we must make sure those folks are regulated. fear is very much a factor. a lot of our folks what we saw is they went to the one person in they're network who mastered turbotax and pay $30 to that person to help them. this informal coaching is going on. we might as well capitalize on it by coaching the coaches. i i do think that their is just having returned from the mississippi delta where people are offering products to they're neighbors and engaging in some practices that barbara was talking about you know the

opportunity for exploitation is ripe. we must be alert to it and coached the coaches. >> the gentleman. es. the red tie. >> this is a question for doctor kathryn edin. can you get any sense that folks understood where they were? maybe i earned too much this year. a sense of that affected work incentives? >> we devoted considerable time to asking these questions, and it was interesting.

there is quite a moral discourse about this. they know it it is attached to work and you have to have kids to get it and they think -- and this is true in the phase in range -- the more you work the more you get. the people who are at the sweet spot generally benefit from working more and see it as a motivation to work more hours and not less. they do not no how much they we will get every year. they have they have a sense of what it might be. but the surprise cautions them against freespending and i think that is a good thing. you are still going to figure out a way to get what your kids need but not be as susceptible to temptations to spend because you are not really sure.

better than christmas. better than christmas. a sense of joy. that is a nice moment. on balance they understand the right thing. >> to the extent their on the downward slope sometimes they are surprised in not a good way.

when you.out the total amount of money they have in they're household is more but you got the better job and earned 3,000 more dollars than it really does not matter whether they got the credit or not. they get that idea that it is better to be able to earn more. and so none of them have the thing they can tell. they do not have that idea. they understand that if they earn more it is appropriate that people who are less should be helped the way that they were when they are less. [inaudible question] >> opportunities for exploitation.

i know our vita teamworks hard to help people with an injured spouse situation how they help people write themselves from identity theft. >> in terms of writing yourself from identity theft, we can't help with that other than if you have had your identity stolen the irs will assign you a special filing number. we have we have had clients come in with those so that they can file. the more valuable service we provide is the attempt to file the child, the dueling attempt situation where we are able to help the

custodial parent who is worried about having to get it filed because the other parent they no we will file the child. we have had situations where we have to sit down with them and say bring your paperwork. you can prove this child lives with you but you we will have to go and do that. >> i think we have time for one or two more questions. >> the question of research having a higher accuracy rate than others, certified or others in the private sector or individuals? if you could expand on that.

>> the report looked at various different types of preparers. the vita had the highest accuracy rate overall. the lowest was for unenrolled preparers that were not associated with the national chains. those are the types you are thinking about when you think about someone who goes and gets a copy and has not gone through an internal certification process. [inaudible question] >> last question. >> thank you great event. thank you all.

so many things. i get excited about tax time for me one of of the things that has come out of this the importance of vita the fraudulent things you have talked about. the one other thing is the fee-for-service model and helping consumers prospective vita clients as i like to call them helping them understand how much it we will cost them and seeing that it is taking away from there overall family budget. have any of you thought about showcasing the cost that they have, which is zero versus what your competitors are charging? secondly the research if their is anything that you could lift up in regards to

if you saw any change in behavior as far as vita clients versus others who understood they were getting the full refund. thank you. >> the issue of being able to.out to them that walking out the door with your refund means you are walking out with $400 less than you would be walking out with one week from now is something we try always to get that message across but is sometimes difficult because they might very well need that money right that night because they need to go pay there payday loan. it is a challenging situation for us to be able to make that value proposition when they are really up against it. what we do is try to get out there and start doing returns as early as we possibly can. if they have direct deposit they can get it in sometimes one week or less.

it is a challenging thing and i would like to figure out a a way to help migrate more people to vita sites but then we need to have the vita sites to migrate to. >> well, a good benefit of that is the flexible hours. you can come after work which is an incentive to work around schedules. another incentive is direct deposit. you you could get it within 72 hours. you can buy savings bonds. their are incentives. i think we do a good job of advertising benefits and do an annual report after each session to show how much money was the average return

and things of that nature. >> it is completely true that when you get that check from h&r block what you pay h&r block is invisible to you. you cannot figure out what they are supposed to tell you your fee will actually be. a great role would be to make the invisible visible advertise with great vigor the savings you can get from a vita. you have to confront the fear of irs. peace of mind of this audit protection feature that some of these tax preparers offer is valuable to people because they are afraid of getting in trouble with the law.

third, what the vita can do that for profit tax preparers can do is mary tax-preparation services with other services. he can figure out which debt to prioritize and the vita site becomes the place where you are treated with dignity then you can compete in ways that clearly make it beneficial for folks to go to the vita site rather than the for profit. ..

everybody would like to see bipartisan effort so i thank you for coming. [applause] now senate minority leader harry reid of nevada makes his first floor speech since being injured when some exercise equipment broke into some money or state. senator reid thanked his colleagues for the good wishes and then talked about the need to pass a bill and sharing homeland security funding. >> it's really good to be back. i appreciate the kind remarks from the republican leader. senator mcconnell and his lovely wife eileen have been very kind over the years and i appreciate their words of

support. i want to express my appreciation to my colleagues who have been so kind and thoughtful during my recovery time. presiding officer i received your phonecall. i was very warm and i very much appreciate it. as united states senators our work is measured by what we are able to come push for the middle class or the american people. i have watched closely and we have read all the stories in and what has gone on here in the last month. i'm sorry to say that we spent one month on a bill calling for the importation of oil from a foreign country and then importing that oil outside of america. i'm glad that we were able to work it out so we had a number of amendments and that was really great and we felt comfortable with that.

i wish we could have done some more but i'm satisfied with what we were able to do. the work of the senate is based upon should be based upon what we are able to do for the middle class. we are a construct of minority and we have proved that in the last month. and to show how constructive we are, take for example terrorism insurance. it's so important. up and down las vegas strip, -- , times square that was important to the business community but yet this was held up last congress on by my republican colleagues. to show her good faith we were able to pass it in a better powers and that's the way it should be. we are going to vote now tomorrow on the clay huntsville. that's an important piece of legislation.

i worked hard on suicide prevention and we need to keep working on that. each year in america 32,000 americans kill themselves. that doesn't take into consideration that car accidents that are not reported properly, hunting accidents and we have 24 veterans who kill themselves every day in america. yet again we believe it's important for america and because of that we will pass that in a matter of hours tomorrow mets away should be. there is an issue that is now before this body and it's an important issue. all we need to look at is what's going on around the world. terrorism attack in australia, a terrorism attack in canada france scores of people killed. belgium we saw what happened there. terrorism is for real.

senator mccaskill said at the best way i have seen it described. the republicans are more afraid of the dreamers than they are of isis. by the way i says that they are coming our way. why should we be dealing with issues that have nothing to do with homeland security? nothing to do with homeland security. we should pass a homeland security bill with no strings attached to them. that's where we are going to wind up. if the republican majority in the house and the senate wants to have a cr for homeland security a continuing resolution that would cut about $1 billion, $1 billion out of the budget for homeland security. homeland security was developed after 9/11. as a bipartisan piece of legislation consolidated 22 different government agencies. we need to get that done and sent to the president and clean

fashion. >> nagl nancy ognanovich with bloomberg bna gives details on the current fiscal year funding for the u.s. department of homeland security ahead of the scheduled procedural vote in the senate. she takes a look at how the senate plans to move forward and what may happen with attempts of the bill to block president obama's executive order on immigration. >> host: nancy ognanovich joins us. she's a reporter with bloomberg bna and anti-let's take a look at homeland security spending. president obama already releasing his budget proposal for 2016 but congress is working on 2015. why is that? >> guest: last december when all of the bills had been negotiated by house and senate appropriators there was resistance from some parts of the house republican conference to include the homeland security bill in the omnibus package. some of the critics of president

obama's immigration policy file by holding backs homeland homeland security or temporary funding the agency with a cr they could get leverage over their president than they had control of both chambers in the new year and revisit some of the immigration funding and the policies. right now we are looking at only another three weeks before the department of homeland security spending collapses and the question is whether we do that full year bill now or whether we looked at another cr. >> host: nancy what are some of the details in the bill itself and also some of those immigration provisions that are holding things up? >> guest: the primary things that drew the president's veto threat against the homeland security bill that passed the house in january deal with preventing them from having money to implement his november executive order which would have shielded millions of illegal immigrants from deportation and

also that is the house republicans also had another provision that would have gone back a little bit further couple of years back and trying to keep the president from pursuing his policy that protects younger people from staying in this country. they're young people who came here as babies or children and grew up in this country and now would like to stay here, go to work, go to college. they are the so-called dreamers but they haven't been given the ability to permanently stay in this country. the president tried to shield them from deportation and now house republicans would also like to stop that policy. >> host: 44 democrats, all of the 44 in the senate into independents sent a letter to the majority leader senator mcconnell to have this and take up a clean spending bill for homeland security. what kind of impact do you think the first vote they will take

tuesday to move forward or this might have? >> guest: i see it as a test vote because you are going to see how unified the democrats are and how unified the republicans are paid at this point the democrats say they're going to hold together and keep mcconnell from getting the 60 votes that he would need to get onto the bill and start debate. i think for now the republicans are going to be unified too even though there is the perception that there are a number of republicans that really don't like the house amendments of the homeland security bill and would like a simple funding bill that would protect homeland security till the end of the fiscal year. i don't think we are going to see an outcome tomorrow. i think it's going to be a stalemate for a few days, maybe even longer. >> host: nancy what you think will happen if it fails to get 60 votes to move forward? what options does the majority leader have? >> guest: well he can talk

with his conference as well as house republicans about the next steps and start discussing possible areas of compromise. the same thing for democrats but at the current time both sides are taking it pretty hard stance stance. the democrats in the white house are saying it's nothing but a clean bill for them and president obama again repeated his call for that today at the department of homeland security where he went to announce his budget. democrats say he didn't choose the homeland security department by accident. and for mcconnell he has to do a lot of talking with the republicans. there are a lot of people in this conference who actually like the house bill including jeff sessions opponent of the prison's immigration policies i think it's going to take a while from o'connell to get his members behind one strategy. >> host: nancy ognanovich reports for bloomberg bna and

you can find her article at their web site bna.com. thanks for the insight. >> guest: thank you.

>> the house rules committee met today to discuss procedures for a bill that calls for the repeal of the federal health care law that was signed into law by president obama nearly five years ago. the pending bill sponsored by representative bradley byrne of alabama also mandates that relevant house committees draft legislation proposing alternatives to the existing law. representative byrd appears before the committee chaired by texas representative pete sessions. this is an hour and 45 minutes. >> the members and the staff and the american people who are very interested today in h.r. 596 to

repeal the patient protection and affordable care act and health care-related provisions of the health care education reconciliation act of -- the 2010 act. we all remember that we were told the house had to pass obamacare to see what was in it so now we have learned what is in it. since then it's become more apparent not only to the american people but to the physicians patients and taxpayers alike and so we recognize why we are here. we are here because of the problem. obamacare is a problem. the problem for taxpayers and that's a problem for job creation across this country perhaps most of all it's a problem that we have held a hearing after hearing after hearing in his rules committee and we will highlight it again today.

we also know that if you like your doctor you can keep it doctor. if you like your health care plan you can can't keep her health care plan either. obamacare races cost on the average middle-class american family and business. in fact the average family health care premium has now increased by $3000 during these last few years of the obama administration and the deductibles are up as well. just a few short years ago as the president was selling this he said i will look at congress and say not one dime of taxpayer money will be involved. time after time the american people have been misled and so we know today just as we knew then when we talk about the millions of jobs that were on the line what we should have said is full-time jobs. we know the president do his

strong economic policy has contributed to 11 million jobs since then but we have failed to tell the other side and that is that they are mostly part-time jobs, minimum wage jobs and now it's not a net figure. finally we know that obamacare raises taxes on the average american people and it has cost us thus far $1 trillion and $2 trillion in the next 10 years. that was expensive, and work your poll, unpopular and should be repealed however i realize there are people that disagree with this position today mr. prologue who was before the committee today was argued so vigorously in and a jump in energy and commerce committee and his favorite committee rules committee dr. michael burgess is here to help us work through not only the legislation but the intricacies that the rules committee needs to be aware of as we talk about such important national policy.

i want to thank both of you. i would like to yield time to the gentleman from massachusetts for an essay that he would like to bake. c thank you mr. chairman and let me say that ranking member slaughters not here today because of the snow. she is snowed in rochester otherwise she would be here. the other thing is look this is the 57th time we are going to have a vote on repealing the affordable care act. i think it's a colossal waste of time and i'm not even sure this is a serious effort. i have a letter here from douglas elmendorf of the congressional budget office. they can't even give the cbo score on this because it was minutes away than they need more time to put it together so we will consider this another cbo score. the other thing is four years ago my republican friends passed a bill in the house that required all of the appropriate committees to report back to the

house legislation that would constitute a replacement for the affordable care act. that was four years ago. i don't know what the hell people have been doing. maybe we can sue them because they haven't done their job but going through this one more time is to me a waste of taxpayer money. i would just say one thing. i think the affordable care act is a good bill and i'm proud i voted for it. millions of people have health insurance today that didn't have it before then. you may think that's a problem. i think that's good and i'm glad people have health insurance. we controlled the rate of increase in health care costs. i think that's a good thing. being a woman is no longer considered a pre-existing condition. that's a good thing. you may think it's a problem but i think it's a good thing. allowing young people to stay on the parents health insurance until they are 26 years old until they get a job you may think that's a problem but i think that's a good thing.

we are no longer talking about theory here. we are talking about real people and when my colleagues are proposing and begin i don't think it has a chance of going anywhere but proposing if we are to follow this to a larger conclusion you are proposing is taking away health insurance from people who otherwise could not have access to it. i think it's a terrible terrible way to do business and again i will go to the testimony and we'll have a debate on the floor and i don't know what else is going to happen but if you have a better idea then bring it forward. so far you haven't done anything other than tell us what you are against. i will stand bye bye my photo but that i yield back my time. c the gentleman yield spec is time to want to answer one question the gentleman has today as you alluded to. i don't know the correct number but 56 votes before today was a result of committees taking seriously what we had said four

years ago that committees would report out those parts that obamacare that do need to be repealed. >> with respect mr. chairman the 57 votes i was alluding who are basically a repeal, not replace and four years ago you had instructed a vote if i recall correctly instructed committees to report back what you are for. we are in a different congress now but if you want to replace this with something then come up with a better idea but going through this exercise again is really a waste of taxpayer money. c would the gentleman yield? >> i would be happy to yield. >> it is my time and i would ask the gentleman that he was referenced and has a journal and a statement? >> i would yield to you anyway. >> i appreciate the gentleman. when you talk about those numbers 16 of those changes

that's anything that would change. if you count the 56 anything that would change the law and i think even the gentleman would recognize no laws perfect. this law is less perfect than most but 16 of those have been signed into law by the president so if you are going to count the 56 acknowledged 16 of them have been signed into law by the president paid i yield back. >> i think the gentleman and i want to thank both of the gentleman from managing commerce rules committee who are here today. mr. blunt you are no stranger to this committee and we appreciate you being here. your presence is often regarded well. many people listen to you and i will tell you that you represent the viewpoint that this committee appreciates you coming and giving testimonies. mr. burgess i have a suspicion that you're impacted a will be in on this as a physician practicing physician with enormous interest in patient safety and health is well respected and widely known and

it's an obligation i think you have to show up today and do your very best. i know laura is probably at home watching on tv and making sure you smile once more. without objection both will be entered into the record and the gentleman from texas is now recognized. >> i have a statement prepared by the energy and commerce commission that will report to you. it will simply be a matter of time before the program will gain popularity and support from the american people. washington democrats have been been -- and acted by congress such as medicare and the 1960s were the prescription drug program signed into law by george w. bush. however mr. chairman supporters of the affordable care act have been proven to be wrong. today a majority of american

people continue to oppose the presence health care law. the affordable care act is not held in high regard such as the medicare program. i would suggest the affordable care act would even hold the same support would ever hold the same support as medicare because it was passed on a purely partyline vote and written behind closed doors in one of the most secretive backs of legislating in this country's history. in addition america's opposition to the affordable care act is only growing as our constituents learn more about the law and experience this law. today more americans believe they have been hurt by the affordable care act than those who say they have been helped. only 7% of americans believe the health care law will reduce their health care costs. americans also reject the law says the president and is congressional supporters have made promises that it simply proven to be wrong. do you remember the president

promising that i promising that if you like your health care plan you can keep it or what about the promise that you can keep your doctor or premiums for american families would go down by $2500 under the president's reform plan? all of those assurances repeated over and over again by affordable care act supporters have proven to be a mirage. in fact promising americans can keep their health care plan was recognized in 2013 as the lutemack of the year. americans continue to reject the presence health care law because it's also hurting their family budget and the economy. a mere 7% of americans think the law will reduce their personal health care cost. reducing health care costs is the number one health issue for middle-class families. by any measure the affordable care act as a failed attempt at addressing the number one concern of american families. we also know the job is hurting daschle -- the laws hurting job christian america and the health

care law will reduce the number of full-time equivalent workers by 2.5 million people in the american action for a barge the affordable care act regulations are reducing small-business wages by over $22 billion annually. reports also continue to raise questions about the security, privacy and functionality of healthcare.gov. there are no shortage of reasons reasons to reveal -- until reveal -- repeal this law and that is likely the house should pass h.r. 596 a bill to repeal the president's failed health care law. however simply repealing the law is not enough. that's why h.r. 596 instructs committee chairman to craft better solutions to reform health care in america. they there are better ideas to actually reduce health care costs for the american people. we can do this and protect americans with pre-existing conditions and help foster better coverage options for the american people. republicans have and will

present ideas to strengthen our health care system and empower patients with more choices. the first step down that path is passing h.r. 596. i yield back to the chairman. >> thank you very much dr. burgess. i appreciate your testimony before the committee today. your health care bill that you have had now for a few years. >> i can't say it's growing on me but you see we have spent some time together. >> anything you have in writing will be written to the record. the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. i have to say listening to my colleague dr. burgess who has tremendous respect for is very disconcerting because first of all he starts out and spends most of his time talking about spin in the sense that he mentions polling data and information about what's popular and what's not popular and i

really don't think we should be driven by that. i think as mr. mcgovern said we are talking about the statute which has been on the books for several years that actually is working. people are continuing to sign up for obamacare for the affordable care act and the exchanges and i also feel i know it's groundhog day and we are back here again for the 57th time, i don't know what it is. >> i'd like to make an observation. >> groundhog day was always important to me so i can't help but mention it. >> perhaps we should limit references. >> i will call it fantasyland. let me call it fantasyland instead. when i go home i keep going to enrollment events. we were out one last week for or the week before.

two or three actually and i see all these people coming out to these enrollment events some which we have had another center sponsored by different nonprofit organizations and we are excited about the fact that they have health insurance and they have a tax credit or subsidy that pays for the opinion that millions of people are signing up. i hear what you say about how this is such an awful thing i don't know who you talk to. i know you may have polling from different groups but i don't think pulling is the key. my evidence may be more anecdotal but people are excited. they come out to these forums and they are signing up in record numbers. they talk about solutions dr. burgess. i go back to what my colleague mr. mcgovern said. four years ago when republicans first took the majority they passed to repeal bill almost exactly like this in the house and they have all these directions to committees to come up with alternatives and none of that happened, not an energy and

commerce committee not an ways & means, not an education workforces to suggest get solutions because you will track these committees to come up with alternatives and many talk about what you are asking them to do in terms of goals are things the affordable care act already does. i do want to get and that the details of all that. mr. chairman if i could mention a few things statistically. we now have health care coverage under the affordable care act for millions of americans who are otherwise uninsured and what the republicans are suggesting is to take that away. you talk about taxes. this bill and repealing the act would repeal all the tax credits and subsidies and help people pay their premiums. in my opinion is a tax increase on average person who is getting health care subsidized or getting taxes to help pay for it. the other thing that bothers me is i know a couple of weeks ago

when we have the 30 to 40 day rule on the floor and mr. ryan was there at the time i asked him, my understanding was in your conference and i don't want to say what you do in your conference because i'm not there but my understanding was based on reports coming from the conference that the gop conference in the house decided they weren't going to do her repeal. they were going to come up with legislation to make changes like the 30 to 40 power for which i don't agree with what they put to to rest beside the others now write repeal. i don't know the right-wing or the tea partier the new members wanted on the record but all of a sudden we are back to repealing it. that is why mention groundhog day because i thought that was over with. obviously it isn't but anyway just a few facts and i wheeled back. baca is benefiting many people. let's review the numbers. 12 main uninsured americans got covered in 2014 the first your

coverage was in effect according to cbo. in 2015 9.5 million consumers are signed up already for the health insurance marketplace and that enrollment goes until february 15. since the beginning of open enrollment at october, 9.7 million additional people have enrolled in medicaid or chip and 129 million americans can no longer be discriminated against for having a pre-existing condition. but there is more. over 8 million seniors have saved more than $11.5 million on prescription drugs is 2010 than average of $1407 per student. 37,000 seniors have received free preventive services with no co-pay per the solvency of the trust and has been extended by 1310 years traditionally cbo states repealing the bill would cost taxpayers $109 million in route 19000000 people of health insurance so again instead of

bringing these bills to the floor which the president has said he is going to veto so it's a complete waste of time let's get back to real things here. if you want to make some changes i did like the 30 to 40 world but that was a legitimate thing to bring up that you want to. if you want to work with us to come up with changes that might be helpful and expand care and access i'm all for it but to come up with his outright repeal just a waste of time. we should be dealing with the real issues, stagnant wages figure out how to pay for childcare, dealing with the high cost of college tuition and thinks the president talked about in his state of the union and he also talked about today in his budget bill. we will address these issues and dr. burgess and i'm more than willing to work with you. you are probably one of the most bipartisan people that i know on the republican side.

i can't emphasize enough mr. chairman. i feel like we are wasting our time is very unfortunate. i yield back. >> the gemini of spec is time. mr. bipartisan right there in the middle of the crowd. [laughter] let's hope there's a crackle of the airwaves in louisville texas to be broadcast there. your primary opponent, good gosh. mr. pullum thank you very much. as always you and i both know you are not only welcome here but we appreciate you taking time to get on our dance card in without objection the gentleman is recognized. say i think you mr. chairman and although we sometimes disagree you have always been very cordial and given everyone an opportunity to be heard and i appreciate that. mr. chairman ranking member slaughter i appreciate the opportunity to testify before the committee. on the new ranking member on the

committee and protecting affordable health care for america's workers and families is a top priority. the fact of the matter is the affordable care act is working we should not repeal of perhaps those who want to repeal the affordable care act have a short memory and it's important to remind ourselves what was taking place when we pass the affordable care act. before that insurance coverage was shrinking. there were months in 2008 in 2009 where 14,000 people a day were losing their health coverage in 1999 to 2010. the cost of premiums for employer-provided health insurance increased by 138% and workers earnings only went up 40%. those who were employed often -- and to their job because of a lost their job were left their job they would lose their health insurance and so someone wanted to retire could retire because they needed their insurance. every american family with

insurance have a hidden tax of approximately $1000 per family for covering the cost of finishing care when people go to the hospital and don't pay of those that do pay payroll extra. it's a thousand dollars for every person with health insurance. if we repeal the affordable care act to go back to those days. thankfully workers have the peace of mind of knowing they have options of employer-provided insurance is not available. they can enter the burger place that is not affordable they get tax credits to help them pay for their insurance. they know their dollars are spent on insurance are going to health coverage. 80% rule and provides 80% has to be spent on health care and not corporate jets and ceo bonuses. for those who have insurance they experienced the lowest growth rate since the affordable care act passed in many years.

the vast majority of large employers to provide insurance to their employees suffer less of an increase in payments to the cost-shifting because now everybody just about everybody has insurance and so on and on and on mr. chairman the program is working. otherwise uninsured children and young adults have insurance on their parents parent's policies, senior citizens are benefiting from the lack of helping in the doughnut hole. repealing of the law we have to explain to people who have benefited why we have to go back to the way it was. i understand there will be a delayed delay in the effective date of the bill that may be proposed in the bill but given 180 days we have to come up with a meaningful replacement yet. there is no reason to believe

delaying a 180 days makes it any more likely that there will be an actual replacement. all the people who now have insurance all the people who now can afford lifesaving treatments will go back to the days where they wouldn't have insurance and wouldn't be able to provide that coverage. this is the 56th attempt to repeal the affordable care act. it's a distraction we need to work on ways we can possibly improve it. not just toss it out with nothing available to replace it. mr. chairman thank you for the opportunity. >> thank you very much. all three of you have come to this panel today to help us understand more about your ideas as well as those which are presented today. i'm sure the gentleman mr. burgess if i gave him a chance would say this but in fact 180 days we don't know what the supreme court is going to say. the supreme court and i believe there is a serious threat

against at least part of the health care bill as a result of i believe the law not being utilized as prescribed by law so it's not a circumstance where we can adapt to whatever the supreme court says. i consider that not a frailty or fallacy in the bill. mr. burgess dr. burgess and mr. scott said the statement just about everybody has insurance. he just made that statement. is that right? dr. burgess? >> i don't know where that data comes from but i believe that may be an overestimation of the facts. >> do we know what the facts are?

>> reportedly 9 million people are covered under the affordable care act and that includes people such as myself who previously had high deductible policy and health savings account, lost it in the run-up to the affordable care act so i purchased health insurance through healthcare.gov so i am probably counted as one of those people who got insurance. technically my insurance was going to run out at the end of calendar year 2013 so yes i have a third exchange and did receive the subsidy. let me be perfectly clear about that. i don't think it's reasonable to count people who like myself through no fault of their own lost their insurance in them because they wanted to be covered or were concerned about the individual mandate purchased insurance and don't get to claim out as a plus-up in the number of uninsured or the reduction of the number of uninsured. medicaid expansion has resulted

in an increasing coverage. the same time it is resulted in a significant increased expense to the taxpayer. >> mr. scott just about everybody has insurance. oh access. >> we have the lowest uninsured rate we have had i believe administer the united states. 10 million more people have insurance and so we are going in the right direction. >> mr. chairman i'm not going to give you i can't answer your question as far as manifestations but what mr. scott said is true. the number of people who are covered has increased dramatically and i mentioned 12 million uninsured americans who were covered in 2014. that's 12 million people that were not insured previously. that's 12 million people that

had no insurance previously. some of that is medicaid expansion but those are definitely people that did not have insurance before. >> as dr. burgess said the amount of money is equal. >> if the gentleman would yield i think those figures include the 4.525 million people who lost insurance that they previously had when the central health benefit. >> it's not in that number. they have insurance but not on that side. >> my understanding is people that were uninsured and didn't have coverage before but in any case but mr. scott said is true. a the number of people that are getting covered has increased. >> that's not what he said. he said just about everybody has insurance. >> that's the goal ultimately. >> he didn't say access. he said just about everybody has insurance. i'm just trying to understand.

>> we are in the second year of enrollment and more more people are rolling out whether we get to 95 or 96% at some point we are not there yet. we are certainly on the way. >> we understood only half the people who were uninsured would be theoretically insured. it's about 24 million and 24 million. >> the goal was to get at some point, not yet to something like 95 or 96% of americans would have insurance and i think we are on our way. >> the gentleman from oklahoma chairman cole is recognized. that thank you very much. appreciate mr. chairman and a couple of things in response with the three of you had to say in i appreciate it very much but a quick question to you mr. burgess. assuming the repeal were to pass and become law unlikely we all agree politically what would be

the effective date? >> the plain language of the statute says 180 days. >> i think i saw something that would be effective at the end of the year. in other words get the supreme court time to make its determination. i say that for a couple of reasons. my friend mr. scott mentioned this as as quote the 56th time. i think that's not exactly right. neither of those things became law and they pass a democratic senate were signed by the person and those were things like repeal of the requirement for 1099 which would have been multibillion-dollar exercise. that is counted of one of the repeal attempts. we have a number of other things that have collectively save $62 billion. i would suggest we have tried to change the law where we could find common ground and you are quite correct trying to repeal it multiple times as well.

i agree very much with my friend from new jersey's remark about not having alternative. i sign onto an alternative every year since it was passed. they're up in zabul turns up some of a them having 12030 140 co-sponsors. when you get to 140 days and we are about serious alternatives. i think probably what prevented that from happening was the fact that we met was again -- going to get to the senate and be signed by the president. i think now you are seeing a lot of movement because of the supreme court because of the sense that this thing may financially collapsed on itself. i would suggest that actually to both opponents and proponents. i don't say this with any kind of strong feeling as to what the supreme court will do. i am not an attorney and it's a hard body to protect sometimes what it will do but thinking

about an alternative is prudent for both sides wherever you are now on obamacare. if the supreme court does come down it will destroy the exchanges in 30 odd states in the blink of an eye. i will give you a chance and just a minute let me finish my remarks. to the point that my friend mr. burgess made when we should look at polls in response to a point he made about my friend from new jersey. you have to recognize this thing has never been popular. we can argue whether it should or shouldn't be but it's never been popular. you cannot find a poll that shows its popular and i think we have had multiple elections where this has been a major issue. for popular my friends might well still be in the majority. it's just not popular. that comes from two reasons in my view and this is only my view. first the manner which in which it was passed. it wasn't really passed the way

a normal bill is. it didn't really get the senate in the way it should have. we did in each pass it in conference and send it back again and i think the manner which the process was hijacked essentially after a special election in massachusetts whatever it -- reverse the outcome as one of the reasons why the resistance in the case has been so strong. the second reason i think it's because of the manner in which it's been implemented. this is my view. we obviously have a disastrous rollout of this thing that did not work well but we have also had friends of the business mandate which is in the law. it's been unilaterally suspended by the administrations of the idea you get to pick and choose which part of the law you want to enforce what kind of timeline i think we are in court now over that issue right now and i don't pretend to know how that court case will work out. that tells you how strong it is.

i think the two sides position is well-known. the idea of getting alternative ready is pretty smart whether you are the administration support about this or you are not and you are opposed because again the supreme court may well make this unworkable. finally again i would ask my friends it doesn't go away because we didn't operate in the proper way when we passed it and we have an enforced it and implementation of it. those are the reasons for the continuing opposition. with that i certainly get give my friends a chance to respond and deal back after that. >> i know mr. scott wants to say something but i would say this. i don't want to get into polling because i like to think as a legislator that i'm not just here based on whatever polling there is out there. i did want to say that if you feel very strongly that somehow

things are going to be different and instructing the committees to come back with an alternative is really something you are striving to do. again i know that was in the bill 4 years ago and it never could happen in our or anywhere else then put some kind of deadline or reporting requirement that the committees get back to you. you mentioned the supreme court and when they might make a ruling. this criticism is not only that this is a repeat of what happened four years ago but there was never a timeline to report back. there was never any deadline and it seems to me if you are serious about asking these committees to come up with an alternative there should be a deadline and some kind of reporting requirement which i don't see here. again i don't like to talk about process but that is what the rules committee is all about. it's totally legitimate for the

house to take up the senate bill and pass it. it would have been nice to have a conference but what did the house do? they simply took up the senate bill and pass it and that's certainly something you can do and it was done so i think that process was totally legitimate under the constitution. i don't know why we are criticizing the process. that has always been a big thing for dr. burgess but the process was perfectly normal in my view. >> we will just agree to disagree. that's perfectly normal because i have never seen anything like that at all ever and to do it in the teeth of public opinion that was overwhelmingly -- no wonder people feel like they were hijacked. that is not me making it up and my town hall meetings are probably different than yours. i have no doubt my friend is accurately describing his experience and i can assure you mine are very different. i won't tell you that there is isn't support.

there is support for elements of it but not much in my part of the world. again it does get back to the process and the manner in which it has been implemented. where i do agree with my friend and so far as i can co-sponsor one we did have an alternative. my friend mr. burgess has had his name on any number of alternatives unless the suspect in the member peer would have their name on that alternative. i think it's more imperative now. think doing it previously previously when he knew it wasn't going to be taken up by the senate and certainly wasn't going to be passed by the president. i've been quoted as saying accurately to my friends on my side of the aisle let's be real, you're not going to repeal something called obamacare when a guy named obama's president of the united states. it's not likely to happen. this rifle shot approach which

hasn't worked a times is the better part, the better way to proceed in my view. i do think now because of the supreme court there is a chance that this might happen. i think my friend is correct. we are the majority in both houses largely because of this law in my view so we had better be ready to present an alternative posthaste should the supreme court act. we need to have done a better job on that so i want to be critical of my friend. i know my friend mr. scott had something you wanted to say as well. >> if of your going to replace in repeal it would be helpful to have replacement available as you discuss repealing so you know exactly what you are doing. what you may get is one alternative offered in virginia in the last election and the

"washington post" analysis of that plan was under the headline to health care plan worse than obamacare. if what you are going to replace it with his worse people might be informed of their vote going in. it's a little out of order. the supreme court governors and state legislators are considering whether they would set up their state exchanges had lists of pros and cons. the idea that the tax credits would not be available for their constituents was never mentioned to my knowledge in any state as a reason to have a state exchange rather than a federal exchange. the legislative intent is absolutely clear. there shouldn't be any problem at all in the supreme court. >> i'm not sure the legislative

intent is clear. i seem to recall a principle architect of this plan telling us in telling multiple audiences and i expect to statements will be part of the supreme court case that this was designed in a way to force the states to adopt state exchanges that was meant to be that way. obviously in dozens of states that hasn't been the case and they have chosen not to do that. i think that is the crux of the issue but i will leave it up to the simpering court as to whether it's clear not. i would suspect and i don't want to get into supreme court prognostication. it will probably be a split decision either way so there will be smart legal people on both sides of the question. they're already art. each side seems to know exactly what's going to happen again my experience is going to the supreme court is a crapshoot. my brenda's forgotten more about the law than i would ever knowing about courtrooms. i would like to yield to my

friend mr. burgess. >> thank you mr. call and on the issue of polling popularity. correct, you can't always be governed by polls at least be guided by this notion that the government with the consent of the government. no one was asking for this, no one was and is a consequence it still remains desperately on possible. i yield back. >> i think that is well stated and that to me is a key point. if it's been operating for four years and is still of some popular than i don't think it's going to suddenly magically become popular. again we may have a decisive point that we on our side have responsibility in both my friends on the other side have pointed out to be ready for it. i agree with my friend from new jersey we should've done that a long time ago in my view but both sides had better think about it now unless their crystal ball on the supreme court is better than mine. with that i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back is time and i appreciate his

comments. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. >> by me say when you talk about what's popular and what's not they can be that i'm popular given the fact that president obama won re-election over republican candidates whose health care plan was to take two tax breaks and calm in the morning. people knew what this president stood for and what this bill was about. they believed, most people believed everyone in this country ought to have health care and not to have health insurance. i know some in your party mr. burgess don't believe that. they think when people like me say health care should be right is a radical idea but i think most people in this country believe this. we are in the rules committee. this bill was referred to energy and commerce education and workforce and ways & means. is that correct? >> there are's dual jurisdiction.

>> the energy and commerce committee is the energy and commerce committee formally organized at? >> when i was talking about the committees i was talking about the bill directed at committees to come up with an alternative. they weren't absolute no hearings. >> i mean right now. in this new congress. >> we have even had markets. >> is that hearing a markup on -- -- >> mr. mcgovern what was the word until last friday we haven't had anything. >> is education and workforce committee organized get it? [inaudible] is mr. ryan going to testify does anyone know? >> i don't expect testimony.

>> i don't expect ways and means us have a caring either. >> i want to take your time but i have a dialogue on the floor with mr. ryan in when the world came up a couple of weeks ago and he said something to the effect that there was no plan to do or a repeal. >> so we were told during previous bills that we had to have closed rules because committees have an organized and they can't possibly have gotten together to have hearings. clearly that is not the excuse that could be used in this case so mr. burgess are you and the other chairs of education workforce and ways & means asking for an open rule? [inaudible] >> i think usually we have a chairman peer and they say they want a closed rule or they moped onto a modified open rule or an

open rule. you aren't both of this committee and -- if i introduce an amendment to call for an open rule would you support it? >> i think think the gentleman knows the answer that question. historically i have not supported it. >> are right so we have a bill before us that this has no hearings in this congress. we have 58 new members and no mark-ups though this comes up before the rules committee and we are probably going to get a closed rule, no amendment so if people had some good ideas for replacement or tweaking this bill but they won't have that opportunity. four years ago the house passed naca repeal bill that included instructions to house committees to submit a republican alternative to the affordable care act. allison 2011. i that was four years ago. what happened?

wife four years why are we here what alternatives? >> mr. mcgovern i don't think that bill was ever signed into law. >> but the house passed it and instructed the committees here here -- -- it was a resolution that did need to be signed into law so we were instructing committees here to do that. if this is such an urgent thing where other repeal bills and why are we going to do this again? does anyone know what happened? why did none of the who committees report anything out of? >> i think what has been stated and what is different this time is there's a supreme court challenge that will be heard in march and will receive their wisdom at the end of june which will change the landscape going forward for the affordable care act.

>> so the language of this bill is similar to the one that was passed by the house four years ago but in addition i guess the republicans have submitted an amendment that i guess they plan to self execute. this amendment instructs the committees to end a word here is submit their alternative plan rather than report it to the house. we have consulted with the house parliamentarian and i am not aware of any precedent in history of the house for this odd procedure. i understand what reported bill out means but when committees are asked to submit a plan who are they submitting it to and what does that mean? ..

i think it is quite clear. i said before if they were serious -- and i i like them. i am not suggesting an alternative but based upon my dialogue, i think their is an obligation if you say you want to repeal something that is having such an impact on the american people whether good or bad, bad, to come up with an alternative. if they were serious they would set a deadline. >> have you ever dealt with submitted versus reported? >> i don't agree it suggests a total lack of any process. report means the committee considered it.

submit, i guess the chairman just publishes a a letter with know process, no nothing, know suggestion that the committee majority supported it, know suggestion that anyone supported. >> i am just trying to get a sense for what we come in this process committee arguing. we have had this debate 50 sometimes already. we will have that debate tomorrow on the house floor but it is troublesome or we have committees that have been organized and constituted that are not holding hearings. and then this rule substitutes the word report with submit and the only conclusion we can come to is that as a way to start regular order.

i would, again you know urge my colleagues to rethink some of the language. maybe if we went to regular order we would not have this confusion. >> i am going to go further and say that looking at what this bill says in directing the committee, the bottom line is we have seen different piecemeal bills as mentioned but the problem is they have got this direction that says all the comprehensive things of the affordable care act already does lowering health-care premiums to increase competition and choice, preserving the patient's choice to keep his or her insurance, affordable health coverage, reform the medical liability system increasing the number of insured americans i have never seen the republicans for anyone in the commerce community come up with any

kind of comprehensive legislation that would meet these goals. >> and i would just say that the gentleman does not appreciate the affordable care act, but i mean committees met and held hearings ended markups, you no which all contributed to the final result. i am just simply saying we ought to take care that we do not totally obliterate the process hear and i am worried that is what we are doing. another closed rule when their should not be. a license to continue to get around regular order with this word submit. with that mr. chairman, i yield back my time. >> the gentleman from george's recognized. >> thank you. i appreciate you being here.

i don't no who would claim to be the greatest expert on the affordable care act amongst the three of you. i want i want to ask you about a statement in the president's veto he says, the affordable care act is not only working but is fully integrated into the american healthcare system. my understanding my understanding is that it is not. their are still numerous pieces that are not yet functioning in the marketplace. >> i think you are very mistaken. a mistaken. a lot of what we discuss here is at the high end. the affordable care act is so much more ingrained in the discussion.

the affordable care act includes the indian health care improvement act, a bill i sponsored and championed four years ago which is making all kinds of improvements to the indian health care system. all kinds of grants going out for community health services hospitals to make changes in the way they do business. i would say, yes. they would be here for hours i don't think their is any way you can repeal this practically without causing total chaos. i i am trying to be nice but you are bringing it up. very much integrated for years and a lot of things are happening and related to the macro things we have been talking about. >> i think you make the.that so many of us have a concern about.

we have talked about how many people have insurance not about the changes to the indian health care system but to the larger who can afford healthcare. we talk about it as if the fully integrated and incredibly complex hard to pull out even if you want to has led to an improvement in insurance coverage. the numbers i look at tell me expanded medicaid accounts for only half of those yet we talk about it as if we have done something i daresay if you sat down and talked about it you would be in agreement. >> actually cosponsored. and i will tell you for the record that would have passed on its own with a

huge bipartisan majority placed in that legislation. native american constituencies that otherwise would not vote for the bill and that was done to some of her democratic colleagues who voted know. they were furious. to pass a bill that otherwise would not have passed, and passed, and now we must deal with the consequences. the last congress had legislation that if it were repeal this particular section would immediately have a vote. >> very little to do with obama care. let's be real. >> i'm trying to make the.

i believe they're are so many aspects. it would be total chaos. >> i don't want to say your intent, but it would be chaos. >> on so many issues of health care the president started this debate and won the hearts and minds of the american people. i don't believe pre-existing conditions. the president persuaded america, through know fault of your own they're ought to be a program. the to stay on they're parents program. he won that. and we're looking at a chance for i i believe the

program will collapse on its own weight. that is what makes it so important to me. they describe it as a big messaging opportunity where folks are just preaching of political mantra instead of trying to make a policy difference. it took know effort at all to fully fund and expansion of medicaid. that was not clever. it took know effort at all. more people we will buy healthcare plans if we required to buy them i law and subsidize 90 percent of

the cost. that was not particularly clever. if you require anyone to do something by statute and subsidize 90% 90 percent we we will get more people to engage. their are difficult questions out their. they are still out their. we need to be able to come together. make the case, tells me this is the group that is serious enough about it to find that common ground. we're not talking about trying to give the president a black guy on his signature policy. we are talking about trying to deal -- you read through the requirements. these are all things in the bill anyway.

not one of us were defendant you ought to tell them that you are going to help them but we no that was a mistake. by my count it is 11 times most recently in the omnibus bill where we said maybe it was not a good idea to tell folks who are doing mission work in nigeria that they are required to purchase healthcare .gov compliant plans when they are overseas. maybe that was not a thoughtful answer. again as recently as three months ago it disappoints me. people that i know and respect talk about these conversations as if they are some sort of partisan gamesmanship instead of a serious effort when the

supreme court decides these subsidies will not go out the door to the federal exchange. i am glad we are beginning that conversation today. >> two points and i do not want to get ms. fox going. first again i think that the expansion has been successful. successful. you could have done it separately but i don't think it would have happened separate. now we are seeing some of the republican governors who previously opposed this doing it. one of the examples last week i consider a conservative member of the body who decided to adopt

the medicaid expansion. even in red states with republican governors that this expansion is taking place. to me that is an indication that it has been successful. i will get my friend from virginia -- i don't want to aggravate you, but we have had this discussion before. when you say that you can keep what you have, i don't think the president intended that you would be able to keep a lousy plant. >> i know. it is true that we have a generous benefits package and certain people may not be able to keep them.

the intention never was to say that if you have a skeletal plant you can keep it. that was not my intention. i don't want to speak for the president. >> you have had this discussion before. >> speaking from the heart. when government, those powers are derived from the consent of the governed, they never would have allowed for the fact that if they loved the way there life was today you insist they purchase something different. medicaid is struggling. a tough time finding doctors that we will accept those plans. there was nothing that raised reimbursement rates. >> temporary. >> i don't even want to start on the temporary bait

and switch is. my uncle, i will call him a big liberal he wears that mental proudly. you can hand out all the insurance cards you want to, but if you can't find a dr. who is willing to take that insurance card you have not helped anybody. i don't think it's something we ought to pat ourselves on the back on. we kick the can down the road. bipartisan things we would have had to have done to fix medicaid, we just dumped more folks on it. states did states did not bother us about further exacerbating a problem. maybe then we we will have that conversation. this committee and the folks at the witness table are better than that. it is never more clear that

the president has won some of these debates. i am happy to admit it but it is also clear that some of these programs are destructive to the fabric of the american healthcare system and folks on both sides of the aisle ought to be able to admit that. >> thank you very much. i do ask unanimous consent that the letter dated january 30 from the congressional budget office be made a part of the record and i ask unanimous consent the statement of administration policy also be admitted and that at some time during the amendment

process, in case i forget i would like to ask unanimous consent going forward that ms. jackson lee's statement be made to five. >> without. >> thank you very much madam chair. mr. mcgovern leaned over to me a moment ago and said something that is so very true. you kind of have to wonder do any of us on the rules committee recognize that this is the rule community? and he did not put it that way but i am saying that it would seem to me that we would come to our senses your and recognize our responsibilities in this particular committee. the reason i raise it as an example when mr. scott and i came to congress in 1992

i did not no very much at all about the rules committee but how i learned about the rules committee was from a very vocal chamber in the media particularly radio and i was doing a lot of radio at that time. other than the community and mr. collins has heard me tell the story. i was being bombarded by people saying, why are you democrats doing all of these closed round? i kept trying to figure out what in the world they were talking about. time came many years after i became a member and i sought democrats have closed rules and republicans have closed rules command that is wrong. wrong. and the most historic of the

rules committee's in the previous congress, the most close rules that we have ever had, and now we are pairing for yet another put aside of the substance. earlier when the chair spoke he took the liberty that many of us do in offering either on the floor or here in the committee when we say with the american public think. i think with the american public thinks is that they are tired of hearing about this. my friend was correct when he said you cannot find the poll saying that person's favor this in any large measure. so here the kinds of organization.

i will quote from it. continue debate or moveon. after more than five years of debate about the split on whether the conversation should continue is important for this country. the debate over the health care law while 45 percent said they are tired of hearing about it and the congress should focus on other issues a majority of republicans say the debate should continue. the majority of democrats say that the debate should not continue. where are we, people? what are we doing here? in that same poll my good friend from georgia would be interested to no that it

also signified that we are about the business and their are an overwhelming majority of people that think all we are doing at this.is scoring political points. quite frankly i think we are better people and should return to regular order to the extent that we can. of course, every measure cannot be put forward and i, for one, clearly understand that. let me ask a question of doctor burgess. you made the comment on a supreme court decision that is eminent and all of us anticipate at some time after a little while and

probably sooner than later but it we will change the landscape. i i am not quarreling with your comment, but i am curious if you've been the case before the supreme court is either way going to change the landscape. is that what you meant? >> i simply stand by the statement that i made. congressman burwell will change the landscape. may i expand upon that? >> of course. >> king versus burwell occurs because a plain reading of the language in the statute would i

>> the number of people in my state and i particularly feel it is because we are not being reasonable. we could very well have done all that is necessary to ensure americans are not in the position they are in with reference to healthcare. we pay more and cost more than most countries around the world. 10.3 million uninsured adults received coverage. additional 8 million individuals enrolled in

medicaid or chip in 2014 which is an increase of 14 percent. there has been a 26% reduction in the number of uninsured adults in this great country of ours in just one year. we are in the open enrollment from the hhs 10th weekly snapshot. january 28 over 9.7 million applicants submitted. in his home state of alabama have been 130941 individual plans selected. enrollment process after process. so i agree with my friend

from georgia his statement about the present administration being approved -- opposed to this, it was fully integrated. i do not believe it is fully integrated. i believe it is capable. i believe if people like me had our way we would have universal healthcare. the rate at which healthcare premiums increase and extend in the life something know one had said anything about extended the life of the medicare trust fund by 13 years helping our most vulnerable americans gain access to healthcare and

saving money through preventative measures. instead of addressing comprehensive immigration reform on many of the other urgent priorities my friends on the other side are continuing they're obsession i heard this and tell it was just pounded in me. you say that a lot. it would destroy millions of jobs and caused tens of millions of americans to lose coverage. yet since it passed nearly 10 million jobs have been added. in the 1st year 10.3 million people