the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, october 9, 2015. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable jeff sessions, a senator from the state of alabama, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: orrin g. hatch, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 10:30 a.m. on tuesday, october 10:30 a.m. on tuesday, october pro forma sessions are scheduled for tuesday and friday of next week. the senate is back in session for work monday october 19 in the senate will take up

legislation to prohibit federal money for the so-called sanctuary cities where the local police do not enforce federal immigration laws. when the senate is back in session, live coverage on c-span2. right now we plan to take you to the house budget committee meeting that today's committee meetings are taking up the budget outlining the so-called reconciliation rules and the republican budget bill would repeal the affordable care act and federal spending and planned parenthood. the hearing is scheduled for 10 a.m. is delayed because republicans were meeting to discuss how to go forward to selecting the next speaker. here's a look at the hallway outside the room where the house republicans and majority leader kevin mccarthy yesterday dropped out of the race. house republicans met and as you can see -- let's listen in.

as we said the house budget committee is meeting with live coverage on c-span2. it's related to the early house republicans conference meeting and why over the weight we will show a rally from yesterday.

>> thank you for being here to participate in this important discussion i'm pleased to be joined by my colleagues here to discuss this important issue. as justice brandeis said sunlight is the best disinfectant which is the reason why it founded the bipartisan transparency caucus with several bills to improve transparency across government. the mission of government matters in the work matters but we can't lead effectively don't have the people's trust providing the tools people need to hold the government officials accountable is the best way to ensure the public remains the most diligent watchdog and we will begin rebuilding the people's trust in the government. today there's about 200 seats available in the supreme court. however the number of pooping seats very from case to case from the cases some visitors arrived the day before and we pay people to hold their place in line.

72% of all adults across the political spectrum support video cameras in the courtroom whether you are here in washington or the comfort of your own home you can watch congress and the executive branch in action on c-span. this is an important part of making the nation's legislative executive branch opened and transparent to all americans. but one government institution remains closed to the public eye a u.s. supreme court. supreme court decisions on the supreme court decisions on major cases from brown v. board of education have significantly shaped american society and changed history. gideon versus wainwright, roe versus wade, mcdonald versus the city of chicago that struck down the handgun ban and the citizens united for the shelby county versus holden that struck down a vital part of the voting rights act, king versus burwell and the case of same-sex marriage guaranteed under equal

protection are important parts of our history into his oracle point. how accountable it is to be able to watch the arguments in the case like brown v. board of education into historical context. unfortunately due to the antiquated practices and policies we have no video record of these historical decisions. in 2015 if so much new innovative technology at our fingertips at this time we use every tool available to preserve america's judicial history. i was proud to introduce cameras in the courtroom act with representative connolly and being part of one of the office of the country as a transparency government act which includes provisions requiring the supreme court to provide video and live stream audio in its proceedings. i'm also happy to introduce with the representative the eyes of the courts act that requires cameras be permitted in all federal courts. the time of the decisions are impacting the countless americans we cannot stand by and simply accept the status quo.

the public deserves better from its government and my friend and colleague from virginia, representative gerry connolly. [applause] this building behind us does not house the oracle it houses a court the highest in the land that is part of a third branch of government. the men and women appointed to this bench never have to talk to the public were write a book or travel in to give a speech and never have to account for their opinion if they don't want to. in fact they don't have to allow a recording of their opinion if they don't want to decide whether there will be a recording and if at all it will

be released. irrespective of the magnitude of the public interest that is wrong in the 21st century. our public because of the fusion of media and the university access expect all governments to be transparent and accountable. those are the basic presumption that democracy. they don't undermine the judiciary. they enhance it. it's the antiquated approach and cloaking this court in secrecy and darkness and mystery is simply not appropriate for the contemporary democracy such as our own. mike talked about how many public spaces there are in this building. they are lucky on any given day of the week that there are 40 or 50 spaces for the public that we

serve. other than that you have to hope or read about whatever it is they are planning. that has to end. the public has a right to make up its own mind watching and listening in the public sessions of the court what they are hearing. the line of questioning and what they may or may not reveal what the public decide that for yourself. this is the people's building. and it's about time we come into the 21st century and all while the people that we serve access to the third branch of government i'm proud to be a cosponsor of the legislation and to be the original cosponsor and proud of the fact that we have bipartisan and even crossed the ideological support. i work with my friend who is a

conservative republican from texas and who was a judge in texas and believes firmly in the principle of transparency and accountability in every court and he couldn't be here today because of a hearing conflict but he certainly supports the legislation and we will not give up until this court recognizes its responsibility to the american public. now it is my privilege as a senior member of the house judiciary committee jerry nadler of new york. [applause] >> first i want to thank our colleagues for being leaders of transparency to the courts. i appreciate you being here today for this important issue. last spring i had the honor of sitting on the supreme court chamber to watch the arguments in the same-sex marriage cases. no matter how someone feels about the legal issues in the cases, before, they were a pair of importance to millions of

americans. yet all except those lucky enough to be inside of the courthouse were deprived of the ability to watch or hear the arguments. everyone else has to settle for audio recordings for written transcripts that were released later that were poor substitutes with the visual experience. in the exasperated justice to look at the concern of the faith and watching an oral argument is simply more engaging. many more people are likely to tune in and follow the issues being discussed if they are televised. with greater access to court proceedings we will have a more informed population. public scrutiny of the proceedings is essential to democracy but in the age that we have nearly a thousand channels available on the television sets and can stream almost unlimited programming on our smart phones, we do not have to love iced access to the federal courts.

how is it possible that we can keep up with the car -- ian -- keep up with the kardashians is not supreme court. it never reached the subpoena court and finally decided instead by the federal appellate courts most of those courts are closed cameras as well ping them off-limits to the public at large. that's why today my colleagues and i are introducing the bipartisan eyes on the courts act in this legislation would to this legislation would bring the cases to public view by requiring the cameras be allowed in all supreme court and federal appellate court proceedings. if a presiding judge that the chief justice of the court or the presiding judge in the appellate court to determine that permitting cameras and a specific case would violate the due process for some reason or would otherwise not be in the interest of justice to the proceedings would still be closed. however the judge would be

required to begin finding and writing with his reasons to ensure that it is used sparingly. they may be legitimate privacy concerns when it comes to witnesses and jurors. i do not hear the concerns of the belief that the highly trained lawyers and judges and appellate court proceedings will start playing to the cameras. they are tackling some of the most important issues facing the country and the stakes for the lawyers do not permit them to play to the cameras instead of the judges nor am i aware of any problems occurring in federal courts where cameras have been used. the court begins a new term this week and will consider cases affecting fundamental right of everyone in the country. i appreciate the difficult important job of the supreme court and other federal courts. if the decision becomes law the public will have an opportunity to watch them in action and gain a critical greater understanding of the critical work.

i hope congress will take up this legislation soon. thank you and i have the privilege of introducing wesley from the committee for freedom of the press. [applause] >> the reporters committee has always been interested in this topic because access of this type accents. there seems to be a fundamental disconnect with some courts where they think opening the front door and letting people physically in his access and anything else using cameras or microphones is like putting on a show but we know that isn't true anymore. full access to allowing cameras and microphones and limiting access to those that come in as an artificial constraints that doesn't make sense anymore. a lot of people are also concerned about the fact they

say cameras will affect what goes on with witnesses and attorneys and there've been countless studies about this. they study the effects and it hasn't poured out. there haven't been problems with witnesses changing their stories were problems with lawyers standing for the cameras. if there were we wouldn't would still have cameras in so many chords. another complaint we hear is that the public won't understand what's going on. we heard this recently with one of the justices. and i ask you what is the answer if the public doesn't understand something isn't shutting them out from it or giving them more information about that issue and that's what we have to do is allow greater access so the public can learn about these courts. it's interesting what the court is up to is higher than ever and public access can only help electronic access in cameras and

microphones can really only help the public understand how their world works. thank you. [applause] good morning and thank you i want to start by thinking you for introducing the bill and for bringing attention to one of the institutional problems facing our third branch today. i'm the executive director of a nonprofit that advocates institutional changes that would build a more open and accountable u.s. supreme court. the justices are fond of saying they don't pay attention to public opinions but there is no question they are cognizant about how popular the camera issue is. they are asked about it on morning joe, the late show with stephen cole there. while cameras are favored by the

public justices need to pay attention. instead i want to be sure they know the american public believes this court to be the court to be the most polarized and politicized in history and the approval rating is at its lowest number. why a? because it would reverse this unfortunate trend instead of nine individuals on the partisan line 5204 unable to agree on marriage or healthcare the public would see the vast majority of the time the institution that frankly takes its job seriously and carefully and creatively ways of the issues before it and that is no truer than what happened on monday in the case deciding that it's okay for americans to form a company in this case the european railroad company is operated by a foreign government so if you're in you were in the courtroom able to witness the case you would see the justices kennedy and soviet playing off the points made by the others chief justice roberts asking a

hypothetical related to a broken land a dear and asking about who she can sue if she slipped and fell at the opera house. it was classic. unfortunately though later that day the audio doesn't do it justice. you have to watch the justices body language and information to get at the heart of the issues at play and that is especially true given this a time when every aspect of our lives can be filmed and uploaded for the world to see. video yields the desires of increasing government transparency building up the public trust in a quintessential taxpayer-funded institution. you may ask finally why the public outcry for cameras will do to do anything to? the answer is maybe. as they began a new term last week or is very earlier this week announced a policy change that came about as a direct result of public pressure. i'm talking about banning wine standards in the line into

telling the public when they made changes to the opinions and it's shoving the internet link cited in the opinion is accurate. these are modest but more than that they demonstrate the justices actually do pay attention to what is being written about them in the press and they have the capacity to make changes that reflect modern times. the great constitutional score that passed away a few weeks ago used to say oral argument at the supreme arguments at the supreme court is one of the most impressive things our government does. that was the case this past monday and it will be the case later when the justices argue affirmative-action, the death penalty for public union but only if the public could see it. the bill introduced will give all americans whether they live in chicago like me are the constituents outside houston or across the river like the congressmen, we rudimentary feasibility to witness powerful government actors in action so

i'm hopeful with this group of leaders today sponsoring the bill and the support from all corners of the country we've got to hear from you so we can all make this happen. thank you. [applause] >> are there any questions? >> does congress have the authority to tell go courts how to run their courtroom and why if there has been bipartisan support for years why hasn't ago on this move? spinnaker congress clearly has the authority to regulate the judiciary. we do a lot of things with respect to judiciary. we can amend the court rules and give greater or lesser for the rules and procedures. >> i think it's important to know we have the authority in the constitution. we in congress establish the

judiciary. the constitution is kind of brief about what constitutes you three under the first act in the first congress. how much to get paid goes from a lot of the procedures that are in fact established. there is a fine line we want to be mindful of the planet is the judiciary -- one is the judiciary by letting the public see what takes place and that they can see the agricultural committee discussions on c-span if they are that interested they can see with the president of the united states is doing so we are not expecting any more from them than we don't require or have in place for ourselves. >> why he hasn't the bill gone

anywhere? >> a question i get at every press conference about gun control immigration reform. i don't have a great answer for that but the fact that we have the support is moving forward and gives us an opportunity to push forward on that point. >> it is one of the few issues these days of which we do have bipartisan support. >> i wonder your thoughts on the acts of civil disobedience when people do report the court. to you think that is a good way to get more attention to this issue? >> i just want to change the rules. >> you can't justify but we do have to make it sensible. >> you can see the rest on

c-span.org and we now take you to the house budget committee meeting taking up the budget outline under the so-called reconciliation rules. live coverage on c-span2. >> the budget committee has the role of combining the reconciliation submission of the three instructed committees and reporting the bill to the house without any substantive revisions after reporting to measure the committee will follow this practice of considering the motions to request changes to the reconciliation bill and the rules committee which may make in order of amendments to the reconciliation bill. under the agreement i preach with the ranking member from maryland the procedure for today's markup is as follows at first the ranking member and i will make an opening statement and getting tired and constraints with the votes later today i ask the members insert their written statement in the record and for the record open until the end of the day for that purpose. after the state and staff statement staff will be available for a ten minute q&a perco followed by up to 40 minutes of general debate on the

reconciliation bill and we will then proceed on the motion to refer to the recommendations submitted to us pursuant to the reconciliation instructions. after voting ended to to report the restoring america's health care freedom reconciliation act of 2015 we will debate up to two motions offered by the minority and one offered by the majority. for each motion that will be a total of 20 minutes of debate and recognized for eight minutes into the number of those will be recognized for tent and then have two minutes to close. i recognize the gentleman from indiana. >> since they are scheduled to have the votes later today i ask unanimous consent consistent with house rules 16 the chair would be authorized at any time. >> without objection, so ordered. >> we now move to the opening statements and again i want to thank everybody for joining the markup today. we are reporting a package of legislation submitted by the

three house committees pursuant to the reconciliation instructions included. this is the next step in an ongoing process that will give congress the opportunity to move legislation through the house and the senate in an expedited manner and to the president's desk for his consideration. this year for the first time in over a decade congress passed the balanced budget that is a plan to promote job creation and economic opportunity to hold watching ten accountable and make the government more efficient and effective end of the support priorities like the national security as well as health and retirement security to get the fiscal house in order. because the house and senate reached an agreement on the budget we have an opportunity to pursue the reconciliation process. to address obamacare and in efforts to help all americans gain access to health care and coverage that they want and not

that the government forces them to buy and that is exactly what we are doing here today. we are committed to protecting every american from this harmful wall and the damage it has been and will do to patients, healthcare providers, family budgets and job creators whether it is fewer health-care choices, less access to care, higher out-of-pocket costs were less medical innovation, obamacare is an attack on quality health care in the nation. last week the house committees charged with reconciliation and education workforce committee and energy and commerce committee told their markups on the respective recommendations you want to thank chairman ryan and chairman of denver their hard work and the hard work of their committee members. this is a team effort and of may and their committees of shunning leadership in this endeavor. under the reconciliation process the role of the committee is to combine the recommendations and over from the three committees into a single bill to consider the single bill in the committee

before reporting it to the full house for its consideration. a quick review of the policy in the legislation demonstrates a concerted effort to provide relief to the american people from the damage inflicted by obamacare where they can do the most good. the ways and means committee has addressed $37.1 billion of savings by repealing the individual and in player mandates. the so-called cadillac tax and medical life tax as well as the independent payment advisory board. the unelected bureaucrats that are in power to make decisions that will effectively deny care to seniors. the energy and commerce committee has achieved $12.4 billion of savings by repealing an obamacare slush fund called the prevention and public health fund and they've included an additional policy that would prevent for one year taxpayer dollars from being used to pay abortion providers prohibited in the legislation. this is accompanied by moroni

and resources so that women would have greater access to healthcare. health care. the education workforce committee achieved $7.9 billion in the auto enrollment for health insurance. when these three components are combined into one bill the total savings of $79.8 billion. together the package will dismantle many of the elements of obamacare that are harming individuals and families and hurting job creation in hurting job creation and spending taxpayer dollars on programs with little to no congressional oversight. the patient centered healthcare solutions and families and doctors are making medical decisions not washington, d.c.. to combine these recommendations is not within our power under the reconciliation process. to make substantive changes to the legislation before us you should see the projected section 310 of the budget act and states

that each such committee so directed the show promptly such determinations and recommendations and submit such recommendations to the committee on the budget of its house which i thought receiving all such regulations shall report to its house reconciliation but a station carrying out all such recommendations without any substantive revisions. they're for today's markup may not include any amendments. there will be an opportunity regarding the process after the legislation is addressed and again i want to thank the committee and the committees that help draft the legislation to their efforts and i look forward to these debates and yield to the ranking member mr. van hollen. >> is absolutely mind boggling that we are here on this day in this place was this piece of legislation in front of us. it's a crisis of leadership in the republican caucus and it may be a matter of political

intrigue to some but the reality is we have a huge number of pressing issues facing the country right now. we have our debt payment and debt ceiling that needs to be addressed to the united states makes good on the full faith and credit of the united states so we don't put our economy at great risk. for the 62nd time here we are by my count of trying to dismantle the affordable care act and on top of that attack women's health programs including planned parenthood. rather than tackling those issues here we are trying to do the bidding of the faction of

the house i can't come to terms with the fact that the affordable care act twice by the supreme court. i draw my colleagues attention to the congressional budget congressional budget office is an analysis of the reconciliation bill. the chairman on the other side of the capitol here is what the congressional budget office reports this bill will do. it will reduce the number of non- elderly people with health insurance coverage by about 14 to 15 billion in most years about 20% of those are estimated to be children. i would like to put up the charts as you can see the affordable care act has had a

dramatic impact in reducing the number of uninsured in this country. .. >> is there any evidence, in your opinion, that planned parenthood has broken any law? answer, no, i'm not suggesting that they broke the law.

next chart, please. and, in fact, the hearing where that committee brought the head of planned parenthood in front of them for four and a half hours, it wasn't a question of planted parenthood's wrongdoing. the chart that was put up to try and make the point by the republican chairman of that committee was given the pants-on-fire be rating, meaning the most untruthful statement that you can make by the nonpartisan politifact. so here we are today with a piece of legislation designed to deprive 16 million americans from affordable health care, designed to go after women's health programs and a witch hunt against an organization that provides cervical cancer screenings and other important preventive health measures for american women. and that a seems to be the priority. now, mr. chairman, you said this would actually help reduce the deficit. i also refer, colleagues, to the

cbo report. and just draw your attention right here to page 8. and what it says is that if you actually look at the long term, beyond our artificial ten-year windows, this legislation actually increases the deaf it. -- deficit. so all this talk about balanced budgets is just nonsense. this actually increases our deficit over the period of time outside the ten-year window. and, interestingly, i think the chairman mentioned that within the ten-year window it has the $79 billion of cuts. but, of course, those go away. that's just an artificial be marker. and if i remember, the republican budget had almost $4 trillion in cuts in mandatory spending. this is your one shot at reconciliation. your one shot. so you're just telling the world you didn't mean it when you put

forward that whole budget, because you're coming up with a piece of legislation that in the long run actually increases the deficit. it doesn't come close to balancing the budget. that was all smoke and mirrors. and you're doing it, though, at the expense of 16 million americans who now have affordable health care, taking that away and launching an attack on women's health programs and an organization that the chairman of your own investigatory committee has said hasn't violated any laws. and by the way, himself put forward an argument that got him the most untruthful rating from nonpartisan politifact. so let's -- i'm going to offer later a proposal to prevent the government shutdown. i hope we can all agree on that. we certainly don't agree on the idea of taking away health care for millions of americans. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. given the time constraints, i ask unanimous consent that members have until the end of the day to submit statements for the record. without objection, so ordered.

we will now take up to ten minutes for staff to answer any technical questions about the restoring americans' freedom reconciliation health care act. i urge members to ask factual questions if they have them. the staff is available to answer any technical questions regarding the recommendations, not to debate the policy implications of the recommendations. and we have ten minutes for this, and i ask if any members have any questions. gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott. >> mr. chairman, i only ask one question. did you leave in place the provision in the affordable care act that requires insurance companies to issue insurance policies to anybody no matter what their health care status is? >> ashley or amanda? >> thank you for your question, sir. the legislation before you reflects the submissions of the three instructed committees, per the fy-16 concurrent budget resolution, and the language before you does not touch, i

believe the provision you're referring to. >> you believe. >> it does not. >> it does not. thank you. so it will require an insurance company to issue a policy to somebody if they find out they're sick, they would go to the insurance company and say i'm sick, i want an insurance policy, they would be required to issue it at that point. >> yes, congressman. it does leave in place those provisions. >> it -- >> it does leave in place those provisions. >> turn your mic on. >> it does leave in place those provisions. >> thank you very much. >> other questions? >> yes, thank you, mr. chairman. budget committee are asking questions that are clearly within the subject matter domain of this committee. have you had a chance to review the congressional budget office analysis of this budget -- of this reck lille sayings -- reconciliation legislation? >> yes, congressman, we've had a chance to review. >> thank you. is it the case that they concluded that this legislation will increase the federal deficit beyond the ten-year

window? >> i believe the submission that you're referring to from cbo analyzes the ways and means reported language to the house budget committee. according to the budget, the budget control act, the house budget committee determines whether an authorizing committee is in compliance with its reconciliation directives and relies on cbo's estimates. overall, the ways and means resolution does reduce the deficit over the 2016-25 period. >> no, but -- i'm sorry, i understand that. but they also focused on what i think we should all care about which is, you know, not the deficit within an artificial window, but what's the long-term impact. and it, i'm just asking a question. this is the budget committee. the -- >> the gentleman has the cbo report. >> yeah. but i don't think, you know, there have been a lot of other things going on in the house recently. i do think it's important before

we vote on this that we get, you know, the analysts from the budget committee staff to tell us what's in the congressional budget office report. i'm not sure everybody here -- >> i can address your question, sir. >> thank you. >> according to cbo, it says that the legislation would not increase the net direct spending by more than $5 billion in either of the first two consecutive ten-year periods beginning in 2026. however, the agencies -- that is cbo and jct -- are not able to determine whether enacting the legislation would increase net direct spending in the third or fourth ten-year period. the agencies estimate that enacting the legislation would increase on-budget deficits by at least $5 billion in each of the four consecutive ten-year periods beginning in 2026. >> okay. and see, i, in fact, hadn't seen that particular fine print. but i think it makes the point very clearly that, you know, despite comments about trying to

balance the budget, that this, in fact, makes the budget deficit worse. i just think it's important people understand that's what they're doing here in the budget committee. could you -- budgets, i mean, the budget that passed the house, do you recall how many trillions of dollars in mandatory cuts, mandatory spending cuts it passed? >> with respect, i'm not certain that's a technical question about this reconciliation bill. if you want to carry on that line of conversation during the debate, then i think that's appropriate. >> well, again, mr. chairman, i was just referencing your comments about, that you made in your opening statement about this, you know, your balanced budget. and i do think it's important to point out that your balanced budget require ared, i think, close to $4 trillion in mandatory cuts. and this has $79 billion, and that's in the ten-year window which, as i said, it

increases -- not as i said, the cbo said -- we can move on from there, but let's understand the factual impact of this legislation as well. in terms of the impact on some of the children's access to affordable care, do you have any information that indicates how many kids who today have affordable health care coverage will no longer have that if this legislation passes? >> sir, cbo has not analyzed or provided us with in the information on the aggregate totals with regard to the legislation as submitted by the committees. >> you're referring now to the fact that they haven't, you have the ways and means analysis but not the analysis from other committees, is that what you're -- >> referring to the package as a whole. not further analysis that you're asking about. >> do you know if the impact from committees other than ways and means would have any impact

on the health, children's health affordability, access to affordable health care? >> we're not prepared to answer those questions at this moment. impacts of the -- >> well, okay, let me ask you this question. >> we would refer you back to the cbo estimates regarding the recommendations that each of the committees submitted with regard to the house committee on the budget. >> okay. well, just before the committee -- >> during this technical question time here. >> could you tell us what cbo concluded with respect to the impact of the ways and means committee portion of this bill on kids' access to affordable health care? >> i think that's a debate point. and, look, i respect -- >> i'm not debating, i'm just asking. it's a factual question, mr. chairman. >> it's not a technical question about the piece of legislation. >> it is a technical question. >> no. >> i'm trying to figure out what

the impact of the legislation is. it's a factual question. >> which is appropriate during the period of debate. >> but we're asking now the analysts as to what the factual impact one. mr. chairman, you know, we typically, i think, at least half an hour to ask questions about the bill. we thought in the interest of time we wouldn't do that, but i'm not sure -- i'm asking about a congressional, this is the budget committee. i'm asking about a congressional budget office finding with respect to the impact of this legislation. >> do either of you have any further information to respond to that question? >> we would just refer you to the cbo estimate on the ways and means committee submission. it does, in fact, include some information about the effects of the appeal of the individual mandate, but it does not provide any specific numbers as to the number of individuals who would be losing coverage or who -- >> amanda, do you want to pull your microphone closer, please?

>> of course. again, i would refer you to the cbo estimate on the ways and means committee submission regarding the repeal of the individual mandate. it does not provide any specific numbers as far as i can see at the moment and would, again, ask you to look further at that submission from cbo and jct. >> all right. well, mr. chair, i'll wrap this up unless my colleagues have any questions. i must be looking at a different congressional office report, because it does have numbers. it says it would reduce the number of non-elderly people in the united states by about 14-15 million in most years, about 20% of those 14-15 million being children. so those look like real numbers to me, mr. chairman. but unless any of my colleagues have more questions, we can proceed to the next -- >> great. thank you. >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you, staff, for your

participation here today. we'll begin -- this concludes that question and answer period pursuant to my agreement with mr. vanw3 hollen, i ask unanimos consent the general debate consist of 40 minutes. the majority and minority each have 20 minutes for debate. without objection, so ordered. we will -- the majority side will now take 20 minutes, and then the minority side will then have 20 minutes to discuss the bill. i want to make a couple points before i yield to some of my colleagues. this piece of legislation is not in a, is in a vacuum. you can't do policy changes in a reconciliation bill. so to stipulate that there are this number or folks or that number of folks, that's looking at this legislation not in the context of appropriate reform. in fact, what we believe ought

to occur is to have real reform, patient-centered reform where patients and families and doctors are making these decisions and not washington d.c. it's important to point out that the american people in a significant majority continue to oppose law. this law. and they do so because it violates the principles of health care, violates the principles of health care. not the republicans' hold, not the democrats' hold, but the vast majority of the american people hold. and those principles are the american people want a system that's accessible for everybody, affordable for everybody, that's of the highest quality, that provides a system that's response i have to patients, that incentivizes innovation so we continue to have the highest quality health care in the world and that provides patient choices. patients ought to be ones that are selecting when they're treated, how they're treated, where and the like. and instead, this law puts government in charge of those things. this is why we're bringing this

forward. we believe so strongly that the american people ought to be positively and aggressively and actively represented by this congress to respond to their concerns about this piece of legislation. so that's what this does. and the difference this time than in other times is that through the reconciliation process, we have an opportunity to have the senate actually get to the legislation without the filibustering that occurs from our democrat colleagues on the senate side and get a piece of legislation to the president's desk. so very positive activity that's going on here today, and i encourage, i encourage our members to continue to move this forward. i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from indiana, the vice chair of the committee, mr. rokita. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning, everyone. you know, six years ago congress passed the affordable care act otherwise known as obamacare under the guise of increasing access to care. today it is clear that obamacare has been bad for families, bad for small businesses and bad for

our economy. you know, our debt continues to climb, and our economy struggles to recover under this administration, and we need legislation that will provide jobs and opportunity for all americans while not placing burdens on future generations, and that's the key. this law continues to impose onerous taxes on families and job creators. according to calculations by the senate budget committee, obamacare will cost future generations $6.2 trillion over the next 75 years. obamacare will cost future generations $6.2 trillion over the next 75 years. we have a moral obligation not to pass this on to our children and grandchildren. obamacare has also negatively impacted our economy. it imposes mandates that will burden employers and rob them of their ability to have the flexibility and choices needed to grow their businesses and respond to the needs of their employees. according to the congressional budget office, obamacare will actually cost 2-- cause 2.5 million employees to drop out of the labor market.

that's not my office, that's the cbo. obamacare will cause 2.5 million employees to drop out of the labor market. it also created hundreds of rules forcing businesses to spend thousands of hours complying with new washington regulations. we should instead look at how we can free up businesses and promote growth and innovation. this bill will help reduce our deficit by over 79 billion over the next ten years and set us on a path towards a health care system that fairs cutting costs -- favors cutting costs and higher taxes. republicans are supporting greater economic freedom and opportunity and supporting families and job creators. i yield back. >> thank you. i now minute one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett. >> i thank the chairman. you know, there's bipartisan agreement that the medical device tax must go. the house of representatives voted to repeal it back in the 114th congress, the 113th congress and the 112th congress. traditionally, excise taxes are reserved for products such as alcohol and tobacco, but the aca

imposed one on manufacturing of life-saving and life-improving devices. therefore, it hits small, start-up medical device firms and innovators disproportionately. so in the search -- supporters of the aca came up with a medical device tax that basically holds back growth and innovation in health care. the tax resulted in employment reduction ares, that's lost jobs, 14,000 industry workers last year and years prior implementation with approximately additional 4500 jobs in 2014 according to industry trade groups. additionally, the industry will forgo hiring of new 20,000 employees over the next five years. considering both jobs lost and not created, the tax result in 39,000 fewer fewer jobs. the tax -- therefore, i encourage members from both sides of the aisle to support its repeal. >> thank you. yield one minute to the

gentleman from florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman. under the president's health care law, the independent payment advisory board was created. this board gives 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats, super-bureaucrats, a mandate to slash seniors' access to care and actually forces providers to stop seeing medicare patients. the house passed legislation this year, by the way, with bipartisan support, repealing this board by a rather large margin. you see, both in the house both republicans and democrats agree that allowing a panel of bureaucrats in washington to make these kind of critical health care decisions instead of around patients and their families to make those decisions is not the right way to keep our promises to american seniors. for those reasons and many others, this reconciliation package will repeal that board of super-unaccountable bureaucrats. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you. pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from oklahoma. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for yielding the time. i want to focus on part of the reconciliation package that actually enjoys strong

bipartisan support, repeal of the 40 excise tax on health care plans that are deemed to be too generous. this tax, due to take effect in 2018, would include plans which provide benefits bo $10,200 for individuals. a recent survey by mercer anticipates one-third of the employers would face this tax in 2018, by 2022 the number grows to 60%. the tax leads to less generous coverage by employers which in turn leads to higher costs for employees in the form of higher deductibles and co-pays, the exact opposite of what the affordable health care plan was supposed to accomplish. republicans have a bill to repeal this tax with 106 cosponsors, democrats have a bill to repeal this tax with 143 democratic cosponsors. even democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton supports repealing this tax. so i would encourage my colleagues to support this sensible provision which only serves to provide consumers with

inferior health care at higher prices. >> thank the gentleman. yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the reconciliation process is a powerful tool that's intended to enact the statutory changes necessary to implement the budget act, and i share the ranking member's disappointment that it doesn't implement the entire bucket, and i'm glad that he's disappointed that we're not implementing the entire budget. i think that's a huge, huge improvement and real progress. but baby steps are better than no steps, and the reconciliation bill repeals obamacare and its individual mandate. that's a good thing and a good reason to support the reconciliation act. this mandate coerces healthy young people into paying exorbitant premiums to underwrite the expenses of older and sicker patients. we force a young person to pay much more than they should for their insurance so that others pay much be less, and if they don't pay that exorbitant premium, we tax them to death while, of course, still requiring that they pay back

their government student loans. repealing this mandate means reducing the tax burden on young families by $43 billion over the next ten years. that's a good thing to do on policy grounds. >> thank the gentleman. pleased to yield two minutes to the gentle lady from tennessee, ms. black. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to speak briefly today on a provision in this reconciliation paneling that is very dear to my heart, and that is the language placing a one-year more to have number on the payments to prohibited entities such as planted parented hood. i know some of my colleagues have so far refused to watch these undercover videos. and perhaps they haven't seen this. independent forensic report confirming the awe then disty, but i have. and i believe that by not offering a response we in congress would be shirking our duties the people have sent us here to represent. and that is why this reconciliation package places a one-year moratorium on the funding to select abortion

providers like planned parenthood and redirects those dollars to more than 13,500 community health centers around country. as you may know, i'm a registered nurse, and i wouldn't support legislation that would block access to preventive care. so my colleagues should know that this measure actually increases the funding for community health centers by $235 million. as members of this committee know, i'm unapologetically pro-life, but all of us should want to do everything in our our to insure that the taxpayer dollars are spent with integrity and not doled out to entities that skirt the laws. this is not a political statement. this is quite literally our job here in congress and on this committee in particular. we have a real and legitimate questions about potential illegal activities in planned parenthood. until those questions are answered and it is fully appropriate to call a timeout on taxpayer funding and to spend that money to -- to send that

money to federally-qualified providers that offer a better standard of care to women who need it the most. and that is exactly what this provision in the reconciliation package will accomplish. i urge this committee to prioritize women's health over the interests of a scandal-ridden, politically-aligned abortion giant and to support the reconciliation bill with the language included. thank you, and i yield back my time. >> gentlelady, pleased to yield two minutes to the other gentlelady from tennessee, ms. blackburn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first, i want to commend ms. black for her excellent work on this issue, and let me start right where she left off talking about these community health centers. because this is not a reduction in funds, this is a repositioning of funds. and quite frankly, it puts the money where people need it to deliver the care when it comes to women's health. it really gets to addressing the issue of access. we talk a lot about access and

having the services where people need the services. and i think it's so important to note that for every one planned parenthood center that is in the country, there are 13 community health centers. and you take a district like mine, there is no planned parenthood facility. and you've got 16 of the community health centers. so it gives you -- and i give the breadth and the expansion of access when you're looking at about 10,000 of these community health centers around the country. also our community health centers with the increase as planned parenthood reduced their services through the years and community health centers have seen the increase, they see 21.1 million patients each and every year. and that's eight times the number that is seen by planned parenthood. so this is a repositioning of those funds to the centers where the money is going to meet the

greatest need and do the most good. now, the other provision that ms. black mentioned is the investigation that is going on. and, yes indeed, it's important to realize planned parenthood is a not-for-profit. they're not a federal agency. any not-for-profit that increased their request but also had decreased or cut in half their services over the last seven years -- which is what planned parenthood has done -- we would call them in and want to though what they're -- know what they're doing with the funds. it's important that we do the review. and while they are under review that we make certain that the funds are not going to them. and with that i yield back. >> i thank the gentlelady. gentleman from south carolina is recognized for one minute. >> america used to be known as the land of opportunity. now not so much with the employer mandate and the other mandates under the affordable care act. you can see that president barack obama has issued in his six years more regulations and

mandates than any president since lyndon johnson. he's at 120,000 man deaths and regulations -- mandates and regulations. next slide, please. folks trying to get to the -- folks trying to get to the middle class and living on the edge under the affordable care act, they can get, they can get free government health insurance. of course, it might be an insurance policy they can't use because of the high deductibles, but they can get free government health insurance. the problem is that they can't get a job. because if you look at all these mandates and regulations and you see the effect on this slide, for the last five years business start-ups have been outpaced by business closings for the first time in 80 years. you think all these regulations don't matter, look at the facts. look at the slide. more businesses are closing than being formed in this country. yeah, they might be able to get free be government health

insurance. of course, it's insurance they usually can't use, but they can't get a job are. >> i thank the gentleman. gentleman from indiana, mr. stutzman, is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as a sitting u.s. representative of warsaw, indiana, which is known as the orthopedic capital of the world, the burdensome medical device tax hits really close to home for me and those of us in indiana. in fact, indiana as a whole is the second in the nation in exports of life science products and across the state over 20,000 hoosier ares are directly employed by the medical device industry alone. companies like zimmer biomed, depew and cook medical in indiana are developing life-changing and life-saving innovations for our country and for the world. the impact on our communities and our neighbors is one of the reasons i've fought so hard to repeal this destructive tax on the joints, knees, hips that increases patients' quality of life. the hard working hoosiers in my state know that taxation does not create jobs, it kills them.

in fact, a recent study has shown that the medical device tax has cost more than 33,000 jobs nationally so far. repealing obamacare and p importantly the medical device tax s a common sense reform, and i urge my colleagues to support this very important legislation. ..

deducting money from his hard earned paycheck, today for potentially worse coverage than he or she already has. force, coercion top down. that is obamacare. no freedom of free markets. by eliminating this provision we can help rein in our deficits and debt and will back a horrible provision in the president health care law. i find it a bit ironic that the ranking member is so concerned with deficits and debt when we are approaching 420 billion deficit this year, that of 19 trillion the other side has not made one proposal since i've been here to rein in those issues. these are important priorities for the american people and they can achieve both by repealing and obamacare mandate known as auto enrollment. thank you and i yield back. >> yield one minute to the gentleman from arkansas.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. this budget reveals the prevention of public health fund. this fund is quite simply just a slush fund, an example of a slush fund greater but obamacare that funnels billions of dollars automatically in the funded never expires. i go along the administration receives $1 billion per year with little oversight. so what does this administration do with a $1 billion per your slush fund as you may think they would give it to cdcp is a to work on early detection and prevention and treatment for breast and cervical cancer. they might use it on immunizations, flu vaccine to meet other useful and worthy efforts but no. they use this fund, according to the committee on energy and commerce has uncovered. they had used it to promote pickle ball am afraid that metering and for massage

therapy, kickboxing and zumba. they've also congressional investigators have linked the use of the fund to questionable lobbying activities by the administration. and if that wasn't enough, the cdc was allocated taxpayer dollars to award grants for wellness efforts but these funds were used to run ads attacking and singling out legal american products and industries which the administration clan contributed to bad health. mr. chairman, no government agency should receive american taxpayer dollars to advertise against american-made products, and i yield back. >> i thank my colleagues are pointing out the remarkable challenges that the american people are having now with this law. and that's why we gather today in this reconciliation process to be able to afford a piece of legislation that recognizes and respects the principles of

health care. the current law makes health care less affordable for the american people. federal law makes health care less accessible. the current law harms the quality of health care or the american people. federal law decreases innovation in the health care every in and thereby decreasing further the quality of care being provided to the american people, and federal law destroys choices that are so necessary for patients and families and doctors. those individuals about to be in charge of health care, not our federal government. i commit my colleagues for the observations and appreciate their support for this piece of legislation. and that concludes the majority general debate on. i know you 20 minutes to the ranking member, mr. van hollen and ask unanimous consent to the authorized to yield such time. without objection, so ordered. >> good one. interested in your care tradition that it probably at majority of members of this committee get their health care through the affordable care act. and go on exchanges and i

haven't noticed the government telling me what plan to get. i would hope we would extend access to affordable care to the 16 million americans who now haven't who didn't. without yield two and half minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. van hollen. i'm glad that chairman mentioned that because this is getting to be kind of a groundhog a debate. the good thing about groundhog day debates, you have to prepare. event in so many times. a happy to be the impact of the affordable care act on the commonwealth of kentucky. under the aca, kentucky, more than 520,000 individuals have acquired coverage which they didn't have before. as medeva medevac would reduce e unemployment rate, the uninsured rate in kentucky by more than 50%, one of the best impacts in the country in my district in legal kentucky, kentucky derby reduced the uninsured rate by 81%. darnell fewer than 20,000 people in my district without health

insurance. that's a phenomenal record more importantly than that, maybe not more important but equally important, is the governor steve fisher asked for deloitte accounting firm to do a study about the impact of the aca would be on kentucky between 2015-2020. making back and said the aca and conduct would create 42000 new jobs, $38 billion in increased economic activity, and that it has an impact on kentucky state budget of $820 million. so the ac is working in kentucky. it's worthy many places for this country -- working -- after take the 60 something to repeal and not replace, just repeal would be a tragedy for this country. this is definitely a tragedy for the commonwealth of kentucky. i yield back. >> mr. chairman, i yield to and half minutes to mr. pascrell, new jersey.

>> thank you, mr. ricci member, mr. chairman. under the affordable care act which is occupied three quarters of our conversation so far from even the we're talking about the total budget, but i guess that's immaterial. under the aca children can no longer be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. the aca expanded coverage for kids aging out of foster care. it allows children to receive oral and vision coverage as a part of their benefit plans. this is what you are trying to take away. this is only one issue concerning the aca. just one issue. so you can pontificate all you want about what does cost and but that costs. what is your plan? what is your idea of addressing just one part of what this legislation deals with? you have no plan. because you think that i should be done either and the private sector or you think i should be

done with people's income, even those who cannot afford it. so you urge my colleagues, focus on the funding, government, funding this government. and the priorities of that the american people care about. when the president introduced his budget in february, he said something very interesting and i want to close on this point, mr. chairman. there's lot of things to talk about but he talked about reversing mindless austerity. i think you're recuperating from the financial problems. returning to the mindless austerity of the sequestration in 2016 would bring discretionary funding to its lowest level adjusted for inflation since 2006. the budget proposes to end the sequestration, fully reversing it with domestic priorities of 2016. as the president's budget, not your budget.

matched by equal dollar increases for program

it included strong consumer

protection such as the ban on medical underwriting and guaranteed issue requirements for all insurance companies. these provisions were paired with mandates that include individual purchase coverage and that this is cover their employees. this greater a delicate balance that insured that consumers are protected from abuses by the health insurance industry and that the industry could spread risk broadly across entire populations. when the republicans took over the legislature in 1994 they repealed the individual mandate would we are doing today while the banned plays the popular consumer protections including guaranteed issue, which we are doing today. this led to a statewide catastrophe. without the individual mandate, consumers have no economic incentive to control when they were healthy. instead they would simply wait until they need care to buy coverage. this led to a death spiral into insurance industry.

across the state premiums skyrocketed. fewer and fewer companies offered policies, and by 1999 the individual insurance market was dead. you could not buy a policy. washington learned a lesson the hard way. you simply cannot record insurance companies to cover people without an individual mandate. the reconciliation bill we are doing ignored this fact. all of us know that this will never become law, what we're doing here today. in the future of that encourage my republican colleagues to look to history before wasting anymore time on bad bills like this one. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield to and a half minutes to ms. lee of california. >> thank you very much for yielding and for your tremendous leadership on this committee. judging by this reconciliation bill it seems once again our republican colleagues failed to realize the american people do not want to shut down government

over women's health. yet they once again put forth legislation that the tax women's health and the affordable care act. this reconciliation bill once again would defund planned parenthood for one year, prevent millions of women from accessing critical health services such as cancer and screenings and contraceptive care. they would also prevent states from receiving or using federal funds to reimburse certain providers simply because they provide abortion services as part of the practice. even if those services are provided outside of their participation in the federal health care program. that's outside of their participation. this means federal payments under programs like medicaid and the maternal and child health block grant would immediately be disrupted leaving countless low-income women and women of cover out in the cold. these family plans and programs are critical to reducing unintended pregnancies and to make economic sense. for every 1 dollar spent on

family plan and services we save more than $7 in other costs. the claims our republican colleagues that these women can simply go to other health centers that receive funding in this reconciliation bill, that claim has not been -- excuse become this has been discredited. it's just downright false. we would be sending women to providers who we know would not have the capacity to meet they need created by eliminating funding for family planning and other women's health care providers. although planned parenthood centers make up only 10% of all publicly funded planting centers, family planning centers, they serve 36% of clients who are paying care from the family planning center network. we know planned parenthood centers are essential to the health and well being of women and their families. in 2013 alone planned parenthood provided healthcare services to

more than 800,000 californians in my home state of provided more than 93,000 test and 97,000 breast exams. deny access to health care providers such as planned parenthood and other social safety net providers will hurt women who need these services the most. again low-income women and women of color. we need to call this reconciliation bill what it is, under the ideological attack on women's health. you will not support comprehensive sex education. you will not support family planning, you will not support them against contraception and you don't support a woman's right to safe and legal abortion. instead of continuing to undermine women's health care and access to a full range of reproductive health services we should be working to replace this damaging sequester and work toward a responsible long-term budget deal. i urge our colleagues to reject its underlying bill and i yield back the balance of my time.

>> thank you. i know you two and half minutes to mr. poe can spin thank you very much for that time. a lot of is going to be going home today one of the things i look forward to is going home and seeing my doctor i think of the picture -- there he is right there. that's one of his favorite toys. he's got that k-9 single-minded obsession with returning the toy to me every time i threw it. no matter how wet it gets, no matter how chewed up it gets. he will return it. it seems like just a number of times i throw it. but even he would not probably bring them back to you on the 61st or 62nd time. because he knows at that point it is pointless. the build we have before this exactly that. it's pointless. is never going to become law but it does show the priorities and fortune of the majority party, that you increase the number of uninsured people if you repealed the affordable care act and likely raise premiums. you will take away the ability

to not have preexisting conditions and all the other factors. i think something we have to learn from perhaps the presidential race on both sides, whether you watch out and ben carson or bernie sanders on our site. they're largely running against us, the way we operate in washington the way we don't operate in washington is largely a message that is appealing to the public because they are tired of our inability to get together and actually have a budget process with appropriation bills that get done and we don't shut down government. some of the people within the beltway on the majority party don't understand it. i would just hope as we look at something like this that's clearly not going to become law but once again would show you're going to repealed without replacing the affordable care act, millions of people would lose access to their health care. once again put us closer to a government shutdown is absolutely not what the public wants.

if you're looking for a speaker candidate come he is available, but he comes at a high price. i will yield back my time. >> mr. moulton, two and half minutes i yield to mr. mullin. >> thank you mr. van hollen. and thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to start my time with the definition that we attribute to one of america's greatest scientist, albert einstein. einstein said insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. if einstein were alive today and he could witness the debate we're having on this reconciliation proposal, he would be able to see his definition of insanity in action. we are here today to debate and vote on a bill that would do the following things. attempt to repealed defend or otherwise undermine the affordable care act for the

61st time, despite it being upheld by the supreme court. attack yet again the right for a woman to choose where she receives her health care. and avoid yet again the misuse and abuse of the overseas contingency operations fund which, in last year's house budget report, the majority stated was, quote, a backdoor loophole that undermines the integrity of the budget process. therefore it baffles me that at a time when we should be coming together to negotiate a plan to replace the damaging sequester and avoid a government shutdown, we are here debating a highly partisan proposal that will likely draw a challenge in the senate and ultimately be vetoed by the president. what's the point? americans would be better served if instead of wasting our time on the futile crusade,

republicans would join democrats in crafting a bipartisan deal that could move our country forward and avoid yet another government shutdown in december. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. bolton. i now yield two minutes to mr. yarmuth. >> thank you very much for you or i want to address the planned parenthood issue for me because we did this in energy and commerce committee and i think there's some important points to be made. one is a this congress had disagreed with the issue of fetal tissue research, then they probably would not have authorized it about 20 years ago. if congress wants to reconsider that decision as to whether fetal tissue research is appropriate or not, we should do that. but we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater, and that is a plan that is intended.

97% of planned parenthood clinics don't you fetal tissue research, don't make tissue available for fear research. i am a former board member of the planned parenthood in my district. my clinic in legal kentucky doesn't do abortions. so what this provision would do to my district is basically to provide 5000 people a year of their health care. i know the item is they can go to community health centers. our community health centers already have waiting list. those 5000 people would have nowhere to go. so let's talk about the issues separately. this bill really, it's in fact, is to deny important basic health care to literally millions of women throughout, and then, throughout the united states. states. if you wanted to be fetal tissue research let's debate that separately but again let's not deny health care to millions of women because of that. i yield back. >> mr. chairman, i just want to

ever fought on that that. i mentioned earlier the statement that mr. chaffetz made on national television indicating that after its investigations he found there was no evidence that planned parenthood had broken any laws. he was just asked, made a statement yesterday at a judiciary committee where he said, and i quote, did i look at the finances and having specific as to the revenue portion and how they spend? yes. was there any wrongdoing? i did not find any. so this whole the creation of special committees is clearly another witch hunt. we saw what happened with respect to benghazi. never committee hearings in the house, and the senate, the defense committee, the intelligence committee, defense committee, in the senate all of them look at the very tragic and awful situation in gaza and

found no wrongdoing. so what did we see in the house? and you didn't get the answer that you wanted politically, you create a special committee. and the majority leader of the house just a bracelet on national television, you know, that committee did its job. it brought down hillary clinton's poll ratings. we achieved our political results. spending $5 million in tax money, taxpayer money, on a political witchhunt. and this planned parenthood special committee is the same thing. again, all the committees of the south have looked at it as have many states. conclusion, they didn't break the law. no wrongdoing. what do you do? create another special committee to look for a political answer that you want that is not there. so i went into these witchhunt. this will is, mr. chairman, this effort to repeal the affordable care act, you know it's not going anywhere. the president is going to veto the bill. the president effort to go after

planned parenthood again, this will not be successful, the finding of any wrongdoing and they provide essential health services. what we really should be focus on is the business for this house and that will be the subject of my next motion, so thank you. >> the gentleman yields back. we will now proceed with reporting the restoring america's health care for you reconciliation act of 2015 to the house. before you vote on reporting to the award remind members that the committee will follow its custody practice of considering up to two motions to request changes for the reconciliation bill after it is ordered reported. the clerk report spent a bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title to of s. con. res. 11 the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2016. >> i recognize the adjustment from indiana for a motion to order the registration bill reported to the house. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i move the committee on the budget order reported, the restoring america's health care for you reconciliation act of 2015 with a recommendation that the build the past. >> restoring america's health care freedom act installation act of 2015 to reported favorably to the house. at all those in favor was that i ago. those opposed no. india -- a recorded vote is requested and the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] >> are there any members who haven't voted for which to change their vote? if not the clerk will report. >> mr. chairman, on that vote the ayes are 21 at the nose are 11. >> the ayes have it and the motion is agreed to.

restoring america's health care freedom act and silly act of 2015 is reported with a favorable recommendation. i note for the record a quorum is present. i now because the children from indiana, mr. rokita spent i ask unanimous consent that never was a chevy authorized to offer motions to go to conference and filed in yemen and conference report pursuant to clause one of house rule 22. number two, the study authors to make necessary technical and conforming corrections by defying to build such as inserting the short of the bill and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. >> without objection, so ordered. with the bill having been favorably report i ask unanimous consent that committee editing up to two procedural motion play to the type of role the committee work was from the rules committee. made on these two motions will each be limited 20 minutes equally divided with two minutes restored for the proponent to close. without objection, so ordered. is there a motion?

>> there is, mr. chairman. >> i recognize the gentleman from ireland, mr. van hollen. >> i know that the committee -- >> the clerk will report the motion. >> the motion offered by mr. van hollen. mr. van hollen -- directed its chairman to request a map of the committee that the rule for consideration of the reconciliation bill make an order and an amendment that would strike all of the underlying text which is an irresponsible attack on women's health care and affordable care act and replace it with the text of h.r. 3708 which calls for bipartisan negotiations to raise the discretion spending cap for fiscal year 2016 or if those negotiations that raises the defense and nondefense discretionary cap by equal amounts to the presence request a level below appropriations actions to proceed and fund essential services at necessary level. >> mr. van hollen is recognized for eight minutes and then two

minutes to close. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as i said at the outset of this committee markup rather than working to repeal the affordable care act for whatever 61st time, and g rollback important protections for women's health we really should be focused on some of the pressing issue of the country including making sure that we don't say government shutdown in the middle of december. so what this motion does is say that we should adopt, make in order, legislation to prevent the government shutdown that would create a bicameral and bipartisan negotiating group to prevent the caps from continuing to erode military readiness and negatively impact our economy and education, scientific research. and if the committee is not able to accomplish that they would keep the government open at funding levels necessary to

accomplish those objectives. very straightforward. let's give the country peace of mind that when i couldn't see a government shutdown in the middle of december. and with that i yield two and half minutes to mr. ryan. >> thank the gentleman. for the opportunity here. i want to just go through this. we all know what's going on in washington the last few days and we know there's some big divide between the two parties, and i would just like to speak to how the budget kind of interfaces with what's going on out in the world. and we have these black and white arguments of all governments are no governments come and we all know, those of us who sit on the budget committee, there is a very delicate interplay between the public investment that we are charged with making, and private sector investments that can

enhance and grow the economy. but they are both needed. and the budget is where the rubber meets the road. we have to do think sure that the private sector can't do or won't do or doesn't want to do or can't make money off of because there's no profit involved. so we've got to make these public investments to help protect our people but we also to make public investments that are going to go the economy. and this budget under sequestration is a devastating. enemy why we don't see economic growth, we are not seeing that kind of job courage we need to see is because we are stumbling all over ourselves you. we have moved away from the strategy that we have in this country from post-world war ii up until recent history with the antigovernment folks have come and many are in this room, have really shaped a narrative of the country. and so we see in this budget, for example, the cuts to

education below the 215 levels. we see with infrastructure $1.2 billion less than what the president wanted, tiger grants that help her we have one in my district that just with $20 million lead to $140 million in other investments from the other public entities and the private sector to create jobs. we hear about how veterans can get a healthy. note could make money off of providing health care to veterans of government to step in and do it. we see the republican bill provides 1.4 billion less than the president requested. we will have many people in congress talking about how veterans these are the best, need health care, not giving their opponents in time and do we have a budget, $1.4 billion, cut to the safety forces, cuts in public health but this is the kicker and i yield back my time, 6.7 billion for innovations are

being rescinded. this is in the health care delivery system. these investments led to 17% decline in hospital-acquired conditions between 2010-2013 and we are guiding the very things that are saving lives and saving money. we need to wake up. i yield back. >> thank you mr. reichert does anybody else on the committee want to say a few words on this? >> thank you. hard to top my colleague, congressman ryan, about the issues that we're facing in terms of day-to-day life saving health care, and coming from a district where we were one of the va hospitals with the highest waiting list and a whole series of other access issues. both in the new personal choice program and in the program before we initiated another

$17 billion for va services. i just want to go back to the basics the ice to represent one of the most impoverished states in the country. 22% of adults and 31% of children living in poverty. it's the second highest rate in the nation. at the same time we are frankly fortunate to to national labs, four military bases and plentiful natural resources which means that the federal government has a major presence in the state. as a result, frankly no state depends more on congress doing its job and my state. but new mexico has been hurt over and over again. frankly, we are crippled by congressional dysfunction. this indiscriminate job killing sequester cuts, short-term continuing resolutions, the threat of continued government shutdowns make it impossible, out to impossible for my state to recover. we can't grow its tax base come we can't grow jobs. while the national unemployment rate is down to five at 1% the

rate has increased in my state to 6.7 pursue the government employment fell by 2200 jobs since last year at the construction industry has lost 2000 jobs. our contractors all small businesses mostly small businesses do everything from the most sensitive national security operations the routine maintenance of federal facilities. they aren't particularly vulnerable. this dysfunctional budget process creates uncertainty to these small businesses and its reduce the ability to invest and create jobs, and many of them have closed. on the nondefense side because many in mexico communities are impoverished, spending cuts if it is particularly heart and is made as i said before impossible to recover from the recession. here is a stark example. more than two-thirds of children come from low income families. nearly a quarter of new mexicans rely on snap bigger and faster we sing a 19% increase in snap

cases at a time when sequestration agenda threatens drastic cuts. i think we should govern responsibly. we should pass a county budget the next target investments lived families like the ones i represent out of poverty and create jobs. i support this motion because it forces our republican colleagues and democrats to work to repeal the sequestration which is on so many new mexicans and so much of this country. i yield back. >> i thank my colleague, a just and closing with sympathy congressional budget office has told us, the budget committee, that these sequester level, levels of investment in defense and nondefense are slowing down economic growth over the next couple of years and i can't imagine why we would deliberately do something that actually slows down economic growth in this country. so let's pass this legislation,

it would've the uncertainty, ma provide stability and economic growth. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank the gentleman. the gentleman will be recognized for two minutes after the majority rebuts the points made on this motion. this motion really has nothing nothing whatsoever to do with the underlying bill. it doesn't meet the requirement of the reconciliation construction, or conciliation structures are the committee jurisdictions finally swung by not in savings and direct the savings, mandatory savings. that was the committee of ways and means, education workforce. this motion does not do that. instead the substitute would, in fact, raise the deficit by billions of dollars end up with policies that stray far beyond the jurisdiction of the underlying committee. this motion really is not a reconciliation bill and urge my colleagues to oppose the motion. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall. >> i'm glad you took the motion on in terms of its merits, that

it has no place. i was going to take it off on an emotional perspective because i can't count, i've lost count of how may times folks have talked about we need to come together, work together and craft a solution. what does this motion to? it takes the biggest bipartisan agreement we've passed into four entities that i've been in congress and calls on us to come together and renegotiate that because folks don't like the deal they got. then it's as if we can't come together and renegotiate the biggest bipartisan deficit reduction do in history of the united states, let's just quit and raise spending for everybody. it is unbelievable. this is the budget committee for pete's sake. this is a five person committee with thoughtful people and our idea of progress is to talk about working together again to come back and try to undo the deal we did last time we worked together. if we're going to do this it's going to be hard. it's going to be hard and it's

going to go or everyone's ox. we're getting to the hard part now. voting to do something together in august 2011, that was the easy part. coming together now and sticking with what we agreed to do in 2011, that is the hard part. this motion begins the process of unraveling all of that bipartisanship we can do better than that and we must do better than that. i urge rejection of this motion and i yield back. >> i'm pleased to yield to mr. the gentleman from alabama, mr. palmer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. contrary to claims -- penalizes work and encourages dependence from a wide range of americans, received a negative affects of this enormous new government bureaucracy that restricts freedom imposes a nation burdens on the american people and while everyone can agree that we must reduce the cost of health care

and remove the barriers to access ca to obama. is not the solution. is time for congress to repeal it. this would lead all the damages impact including the individual mandate which coerces americans to purchase private product that they may not want, need or can't afford to pay for come and it creates individual mandate penalty. a lot of people experience that when they file their taxes this year. obama to requires employers with 50 or more full-time workers defines, defined as them in a 30 hours either offer government approved health or pay a penalty. as a consequence thousands and thousands of companies have refused july the 50th employee. there's a huge amount of evidence that employers are cutting workers hours to fall below the 30 hour threshold. the first nine months of last year nearly 5 million people were no longer receiving employer sponsored coverage.

medical device attacks which has resulted in employment reductions of 14,000 workers in that industry and is already been repealed by the full house on a bipartisan basis in the last three congresses. in the independent payment advisory board which allows an unelected board of 15 bureaucrats this last provider reimbursements and restricts it seems access to health care. the gentleman, mr. rice, made the point about how obamacare and other regulations are harming our economy. i just want to point out, thank you that las lasher regulationst the economy over $2 trillion. it has a disproportionate impact on small business. large businesses paying on average $7700 are predatory cost. small business was paying nearly $12,000 per small business is a single largest provider of jobs in this country and we are killing small business.

as mr. bice pointed out, last year there were committed to the number but there were 70,000 more companies closed and started. that's the first time since 35 during th the carter administran had prior to that, 2008 over 100,000 more businesses started then closed. we no longer rank in the top 10 in the world among entrepreneurs. i reject the may speak against this motion and urge that it is rejected speak i think the gentleman and yield two minutes to the gentleman if missouri. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this motion is not germane. it does not, i mean it does assert that it will increase defense spending and i share that goal. many of us do and that's exactly what the republicans passed a 2016 budget that provided for a robust level of spending for men and women in uniform ensuring could have the resources needed to defend this nation.

the budget provides the same amount of defense spending that the president requested. both the house and senate have passed a national defense authorization act despite the no votes from almost everybody on the other side of the aisle who are offering this amendment. asked by colleagues wanted to our national defense they could have done it last week by voting for the ndda. at the president our commander-in-chief wants to our national defense, he will not veto it like he is saying that he is going to. but today we have a chance to of americans being hurt by the unaffordable care act. it is increasing the cost and reduce access and hurting jobs. i just a few examples of people in my district. we have a hickory county court is talk about how their health insurance costs are going up to their employees are going to see at our scene between 25 and 60% increase in premium costs with higher deductibles and out of pocket costs. another counterparts the rate of

the county increasing their insurance premiums by 24% of this is what i got two e-mails from home and mike was a business owner said we received our health care renewal from this interest provide for the upcoming year. our renewal reflects a 36.2% increase. and he talked about difficult it was to stay in business have how discouraging was the and lastly i got an e-mail from people i met at the farmer's market a couple weeks ago and they said since obamacare list as they call it an insurance policy of the biggest cost out in the whole budget is insurance premiums. they say now they are paying to .5 times the amount they're paying for the house payment. just for the insurance and three brokers gigabits. one of them had a $12,000 per year deductible. obamacare is hurting people. that's why i urge the defeat of this motion and support of our underlying bill. i yield back.

>> spirit i thank my colleagues for the observations on the nongermane nature of this motion but also on the issue itself. let me just address a couple of points that have been made by some of our friends on the other side of the aisle. there's been concern expressed about this reconciliation bill, removing to pre-existing illness explosion but it doesn't address that at all. it can be a note that there is no change under the pre-existing condition exclusion. i want to also talk about the concerns that some folks on the other side of downtown about the fact the replacement isn't included. you're right it isn't because you can't include replacement built in of reconciliation bill. it's not allowed by the rules of reconciliation. factor that is with all sorts of great ideas for patient centered health care to replace obamacare

with a system that actually respects patient and respects families and their physicians. then i want to briefly address this notion that was put forward by one of our friends on the other side that the economy is currently struggling because of the republican budget. give me a break. the fact of the matter is that this economy is struggling right now because of the policies coming out of this administration. the fact that the administration is wedded to hike taxes for both businesses have been can't create jobs and for individuals who don't have extreme difficulty realizing their dreams putting forward the kind of programs that they believe are most appropriate. we have seen growth rates just over the last three years, the projection for growth rate to come down from 3% over the next 10 years the 2.5 and now 2.3% and that's due through the republican budget? please. a regulatory oppression come out

of this administration is what's causing the economy to be in the doldrums. you know it. we know it and we urge defeat of this motion, adoption of the republican motion and i now recognize the gentleman from maryland for two minutes to close. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would have time in the two minutes to show that the inaccuracies in the statements that were made about the affordable care act. except i do want to make this point. it's to your not using this legislation to provide your alternative on health care, but the reality is, this house of representatives has not passed through regular order any piece of legislation to replace the affordable care act. this fight years and years of telling us that you're not just going to eliminate but you're going to replace. so go ahead and use the regular order but that hasn't been done. secondly, the one thing i do agree with you on is that this

motion to make sure that we keep the government up and running does everything to do with the underlying bill. because what the underlying bill is doing is wasting the time of this institution to try to repeal the affordable care act for the 62nd time, something that you know is a futile exercise. you know the president is going to veto this. and at the same time if it was successful would take away affordable health care to over 16 million americans. now, just to mr. woodall's point. it's interesting that here in the budget that would make that argument when as you well know the way that our republican colleagues fund the defense by essentially raiding the oco funding was in the words of his own committee just last year a violation of the budget process. so if we really want to do what we said we should do, increase

defense, let's also increase our investment in essential things like education and research at nih. let's get together and together way to do it, but if we can't come to agreement, and are having trouble agreeing your leadership is going to be, so if you can't come to agreement, the delays have is a failsafe mechanism that tells the american people we will not have a shut down in the middle of december and we're not going to hurt the economy. i urge everybody to support this motion. >> the question is not goin notg to the motion offered by mr. van hollen. all those in favor will signify by saying aye. no? in the opinion of the chair the no's have it. the gentleman request of recorded vote and the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] >> any member wish to change their vote or anyone who hasn't voted?

if not the clerk shall report. >> on that boat the ayes -- the ayes are 13 and then those are 19. the no's have it and the motion is not agreed to. is there another motion? >> i had a motion at the desk. >> the clerk will read the motion. >> a motion offered by mr. rokita. mr. rokita moves that the chairman of the committee on the budget be provided discretion to request the committee on rules report will make an order an amendment to the restoring america's health care freedom reconciliation act of 2015 as reported. >> i recognize mr. rokita for eight minutes and he will have two minutes to close. >> come on back this is a simple motion that affirms the prerogative of the chair to request a rule making it possible to chevenement in order. although this amendment does not offer substantive policy change,

it has been necessary in the past to the amend reconciliation bills that we must be prepared frankly for any contingency. the are a number of reasons that these bills get amended by this for tactical changes in complex legislation, which is often the case o what needs to be one of e many house or senate budget rules. so i don't want to take the entire to minister up in my colleagues did a wonderful job of it when all the way the affordable care act is harming our economy. so with that, mr. chairman, i -- >> the gentleman will yield? >> it's important just to i think this motion is a very general motion i think it preserves the budget committee's authority regardless of who is a majority party to provide for the rules committee a recommendation for any changes to a reconciliation bill as it comes to the process. as everybody knows who is looked up at installation bills in the past these changes have been made out of the rules committee.

and because the budget committee is precluded from making any changes to the reconciliation bill, that's the process by which the budget committee is able to then affect any particular changes that might be desired either committed or by the conference. so it's a very simple motion, and i think about to be able to be supported by all because it protects the budget committee's prerogative, and i yield back. >> thank the chair and i reser reserve. >> i yield back spent the gentleman yield of the gentleman from maryland is recognized for 10 minutes. >> i thank you, mr. chairman. i'm going to oppose this motion come and here's the reason why. it's the right of any member of the congress to go before the rules committee and make any motion and request to the rules committee. so number one, it's unnecessary, but our concern is that in

voting for it it suggests that we provide a blank check to whatever recommendations the majority would make to the rules committee. we just made our recommendation as to what motion we should make to the rules committee which is to prevent a government shutdown in mid-december and create a process for doing it. we are not going to get sort of a go ahead. you clearly rejec

déjà vu all over again since september 18 of how such loaded four times to defund planned parenthood. six in 10 americans don't want planned parenthood defunded. to eliminate medicaid reimbursement for abortion providers and otherwise restrict access to safe and legal abortion, although it's our constitutional right as women to control our own bodies. we voted last week to give flexibility to states to exclude abortion providers from medicaid funding them also had a kangaroo court. we establish a kangaroo court the select committee to attack women's health. to find evidence that doesn't exist and even the chairman chaffetz has admitted that there is just no evidence. and yet is continuous and excessive attack on planned parenthood is a not so truly

attack on low income women to help. just look at the fact that 70% of planned parenthood patients are at or below 150% of the poverty level, 41% of low-income women consider their ob/gyn their primary care source to be planned parenthood. and we are not just prohibiting planned parenthood funding for one year with this motion. we're also, once again, repealing vital part of the affordable care act. this is the 61st vote to repeal or undermine the affordable care act. and by doing so we are increasing the numbers of uninsured come up to 15 million come and increased premiums and individual market by about 120%. and you guys just refuse to admit that since the aca enrollment began, uninsured population has decreased by 35%,

17 by 6 million uninsured americans have gained health insurance, and 129 million americans with preexisting conditions, including 17 million children, no longer have to worry about being denied coverage through higher premiums. colleagues, this is not a game show. this isn't a competition for how many people we can throw under the bus. there's no prize to be won by these futile exercises. you know it's never going to be law. it's just, this is just a production, and just a tantrum to undermine women's health. and i yield back. >> thank you, ms. moore. >> i thank the ranking member and thank the chairman for the hearing. first of august always think it's very unfortunate that event hall the motion was voted down.

i was the most constructive path to avoiding a government shutdown that is looming in the december, and forcing us and the congress to come together to work on a budget agreement. thank you, mr. van hollen, for that very constructive proposal. this is creating great economic uncertainty. ..