know our attorneys see this, outside of the family detention context as well. in the family detention context, i will say that the closure of artesia and the movement of currently detained individuals from artesia to carnes and some to dilly, mostly initial to carnes was completely confusing. our lead attorney only got notice of a hand full of those transfers before they would happen. and we would get notice on a friday night of transfers that might happen saturday morning, might happen monday, not exactly sure. it took our attorneys a long time to find out where their clients were. and when they got to the facility, and were told that they had been released, some of them some of them were still detained obviously, some of them

had been released, the question with respect to folks who had been released was on what grounds were they ror 'd, paroled, were they deported, what is the legal circumstance in which they found themselves. it created a great deal of fear for our clients because they did not know how to reach their attorneys to tell them that they were being transferred or once they were in a few facility, they didn't know how to reach them. and it obviously interferes with the legal representation that we're giving our clients. >> i know you probably don't know the answer to all the transferees, but do you have any idea why some of the transfers were happening? >> these particular transfers were happening because they were winding down artesia. they were closing artesia, and the currently detained

population had to be moved, some of them had hearings that were scheduled for the weeks during which the transfers were going to be happening, and so we were able to negotiate a pace for those transfers that would allow the individuals to keep their merits hearings, that took a lot of work. and there was a lot of confusion during that process. >> how about in the nonartesian settings outside the family? do you know of any of those? >> i know it is a problem i don't have any direct knowledge to speak to it. >> it's incredibly expensive in the nonfamily context for an individual to pay for an attorney when their case gets moved out to new york, for example, or atlanta, and so inevitably, that individual is in a situation where they have to seek counsel in their new location, and that not only creates incredible costs but potential delays on the case,

and inefficiencies in the case, you create a rapport and a relationship with your counsel. and all of a sudden you're in the position where you have to start at ground one. it's especially problematic when there are hearings set in a short time period, and that individual is faced with finding new counsel in an incredibly short time period. >> what we're trying to get is are there unjustified reasons for these people to move it around. make it difficult for their counsel to represent them. and another thing we could look at is prohibition on moving individuals who either have counsel or who may be close to time of an important hearing. is there any discussion? or have you heard of any initiatives such as that that have been bandied about? >> one place to start may be to see if we can find numbers or statistics that talk about why

individuals are transferred. i'm not sure if that information exists, but that would be one place for us to start. >> the last question i'm going to ask, we've talked a lot today, both this morning and now, about the things that aren't going right at federal facilities, either that are government run or run by for profit companies, but what are the things they're doing right? are there some best practices out there you've seen? whether in a particular facility or a particular issue that we might want to know about, so we can try to recommend their representation? >> in 2009 when the hudo facility was closed in the face of a controversial lawsuit and public outcry -- did something happen here? the public accounts of the environment for the families of

the detention facility -- i think it's safe to say they differed greatly from what we've seen at carnes. there are no more orange jumpsuits. families are allowed to go outside. not always at their only, but there are certainly periods of the day where they're allowed to go outside. the children are provided with schooling, from what i understand, children are evaluated -- >> thank you very much i want to welcome back the members and the staff and the american people who are very interested today in hr-596 to repeal the patient protection and afford affordable care act, and health care related provisions and the health care reconciliation of 2010 act. we all remember that we were told that the house had to pass

obama care to see what was in it. now we've learned what is in it since then it's become even more apparent, not only to the american people, but to physicians patients, and taxpayers alike. and so we recognize why we're here, we're here because it's a problem. obama care is a problem, it's a problem for the taxpayers, for jobs, a problem it's having on job creation across this country. and perhaps most of all it's a problem that we have held hearing after hearing after hearing in this rules committee about, and will highlight it again today. we also know if you like your doctor, you can't keep your doctor. if you like your health care plan, you can't keep your health care plan either. we also know that obama care raises costs on the average middle class american family and business. in fact the average family health care premium has now

increased by $3,000 during these last few years of the obama administration. deductibles are up as well. just a few short years ago, the president was selling this he said, and i will look at congress and say not one dime of taxpayer money will be involved. time after time the american people had been misled and so we know today just as we knew then when we talked about the millions of jobs, that were on the line what we should have said is full time jobs. we know that the president, through his strong economic policy has contributed to 11 million jobs since then, we've failed to tow the other side, that is mostly part time jobs, minimum wage jobs and that's not a net figure. finally, we know that obama care raises taxes on the average american people and it's cost

us thus far $1 trillion and $2 trillion in the next two years. the law is expensive, unworkable and unpopular and should be repealed. i recognize there are people who disagree with this position. and today we go to the plan is also available, the gentleman from the energy and commerce committee, and his favorite committee, the rules committee dr. michael burgess is here to help us work through the legislation, and the intricacies that the rules committee needs to be aware of as we talk about such important national policy. i want to thank both of you. >> thank you. let me say ranking slaughter is not here today because of the snow. otherwise she would be here.

the other thing is look, this is the 57th time that we are going to have a vote on repealing the affordable care act i think this is a colossal waste of time. i'm not sure this is a serious effort. i got a letter from douglas from the congressional budget office, they can't give a cbo score. they needed more time to put together a score four years ago, four years ago my republican friends passed a bill in the house that required all these -- all the committees back to the house legislation, that would constitute a replacement sfoor the affordable care act. that was four years ago, i don't know what people have been doing. maybe we could sue them because they haven't done their job. but going through this one more time, is to me a waste of

taxpayer money. i would just say one thing, i think the affordable care act is a good bill, and proud i voted for it. millions of people have health insurance today that didn't have it before that. you may think that's a problem. i think that's good. i'm glad people have health insurance. we have controlled the rate of increase in health care costs i think that's a good thing. being a woman is no longer considered a pre-existing condition. that's a good thing. you may think it's a problem, it's a good thing. allowing young people to stay on their parents health insurance until they're 26 years old to get a job. you may think that's a problem, i think it's a good thing. we're no longer talking about theory here. we're talking about real people. what my colleagues are proposing, and again i don't think it has any chance of going anywhere. if we were to follow this all the way to its logical conclusion, what you're proposing is taking away health insurance from people who

otherwise couldn't have access to it. i think that's a terrible way to do business. and again, we'll go through the testimony here today and have a debate on the floor, and i don't know what else is going to happen, but if you have a better idea, put it forward. so far, you haven't done anything but tell us what you're against. with that, i yield back my time. >> i want to answer at least one question the gentleman had that is these -- up to today, as you alluded to i don't know the correct number, but some 56 votes before today, that was as a result of the committees taking seriously what we had said four years ago, where committees need to report out those parts of the obama care that need to be repealed. >> with respect, mr. chairman, i think the 57 votes i was alluding to was a repeal, not replace. four years ago, you had instructed a vote, if i recall correctly. >> correct.

>> constructed relevant committees to report back what you were for. we're in a different congress now. but i mean, you know, if you want to replace this with something, then come up with a better idea. going through this exercise again, it really is a waste of taxpayer's money. >> would the gentleman yield? >> i guess it's the gentleman from texas this time. >> it is. i would ask the gentleman if he was referencing me, and the gentleman made my statement. >> i made my statement i will yield back. >> i would have yielded to you anyway. >> thank you. i appreciate the gentleman. you talk about those numbers. 16 of those changes you said that's only repeal the law. i think even the gentleman would recognize that no law is perfect. this law is less perfect than most. 16 of those things have been signed into law by the president acknowledge that 16 of them have

been signed into law by the president president. >> you're no stranger to this committee, we appreciate you being here your presence is often regarded well by many people that listen to you. you represent a viewpoint that this committee appreciates you coming and giving testimony. i have a suspicion that your impact today will be enormous as it always has been as a physician. a practicing physician with an enormous position in health. it's an obligation that you have to show up today and do your very best. i know laura's probably at home watching on tv making sure you smile at least once more.

>> thank you for the recognition. i have a statement prepared by the energy and commerce committee that i will share with you. once the law was passed it would be a matter of time before the law gained popularity. medicare in the 1960s or the prescription drug program signed into law by george w. bush however, supporters of the affordable care act have been proven to be wrong the majority of the people continue to oppose the president's law. the affordable care act is not held in high regard. i would suggest that the aforwardable care act won't ever hold the same support as medicare because it was passed on a purely party line vote and

written behind closed doors. in addition, america's opposition to the law is growing. many americans have been hurt by the affordable care act than those who say they have been helped. only 7% of americans believe the health care law will reduce their health care costs. americans reject the law since the president and its congressional supporters have made promises that have simply proven to be wrong. do you remember the president promising if you like your health care plan, you can keep it? or what about the promise you can keep your doctor? or premiums for american families would go down by $2500. under the president's reform plan? all of those assurances, represented over and over again by affordable care act

supporters, have proven to be a mirage. in fact promising that americans can keep their health care plan was recognized in 2013 as the lie of the year. americans continue to reject the president's health care law, because it is also hurting their family budget and the economy. a mere 7% of americans think the law will reduce their personal health care costs. reducing health care costs is the number one health issue for middle class families by any measure. the affordable care act is a failed attempt at addressing the number one concern of american families. we also know the job is hurting job creation in america. estimates that the health care law will reduce the number of full time equivalent workers by two and a half million people, and the american action forum finds that the affordable care act reduces wages by over $22 billion annually. reports also continue to raise questions about the security,

privacy and functionality of health care.gov. there are no shortage of reasons to repeal this law that is why i believe the house should pass hr-596 hr-596. simply repealing the law is not enough. that's why hr-596 instructs committee chairman to draft better laws for the american people. we can do this and protect americans with pre-existing conditions and help foster better options for the american people. republicans have and will present ideas to strengthen our health care system. and empower patients with more choices. the first step down that path is passing hr-596. i yield back to the chairman. >> thank you very much. i appreciate your testimony before the committee today.

>> thele th care bill you have in front of you -- >> welcome to the committee, i'm delighted you're here and without direction, anything you say will be entered into the record. >> i have to say, listening to my colleagues, and dr. burgess, is very disconcerting, because first of all, he starts out and spends most of his time talking about what i call spin, polling data and information in what's popular and not popular i really don't think that we should be driven by that. i think as mr. mcgovern said, we're talking about a statute that's been on the books for several years, that actually is working. people are continuing to sign up

for obama care or for the affordable care act and the skmangs. i feel like, i know it's groundhog day i know i'm back here, 56th time 57th time, i don't know what it is. >> you don't like my term? >> groundhog day was always important to me so i can't help but mention it. >> perhaps we should limit references. >> i'll call it fantasy land. when i go home, i keep going to enrollment events, we were at one last week, or the week before, i think two or three, actually. and i see all these people coming out to these enrollment events. some of which we have they're so excited about the fact that they can get health insurance, they

can sign up. millions are signing up. when i hear you say this is an awful thing i don't know who you talk to. i don't think the polling is the key people are excited, they're signing up in record numbers, and then when you talk about solutions, i mean, i go back to what my colleague mr. mcgovern said, four years ago, when the republicans first took the majority, they passed a repeal bill, almost exactly like this in the house, and they had all these directions to committees to come up with alternatives, and none of it happened not in the energy and commerce committee. not in weighs and means to suggest that somehow you have solutions because you're going to direct these committees including our own to come up with alternatives, and then you talk about the -- you know the -- what they're asking them to do, in terms of goals, are all things that the affordable care act already does.

i don't want to get into the details of all that, mr. chairman, if i could just mention a few things statistically, you know we now have health care coverage for millions of americans who were otherwise uninsured. what the republicans are suggesting is to take that away. and you talk about taxes. i mean this bill would -- in repealing the act, would repeal all the tax credits to help people pay the premiums in my opinion, it's a tax increase on the average person who's getting health care subsidized or getting tax credits to help pay for it. i just -- the other thing that bothers me i know a couple weeks ago, when we had the 30 to 40 day rule on the floor and mr. ryan was there at the time, i asked him, i said, my understanding was in your conference -- and i don't want to say what you do in your conference, because i'm not there. my understanding was based on reports coming from the conference, the gop conference in the house decided they

weren't going to do a repeal they were going to come up with legislation to make changes like the 30 to 40 hour rule, which i don't agree with, they had kind of put to rest an outright repeal. i don't know what happened the right wing or the tea party maybe the new members want to vote on this all of a sudden now, we're back to repeal again. that's why i mentioned groundhog day, i thought that was over with. obviously it isn't. just a few facts and then i'll yield back. the aca is benefiting millions of people. in 20159.5 million consumers are signed up already for the health insurance marketplace. and that enrollment goes until february 15th. since the beginning of open enrollment in october 9.7 million individuals have been enrolled in medicaid or chip.

3 million young adults have health coverage because they can day on their parents plan until the age of 26. over 8 million seniors say more than 8 $1/2 billion on the prescription drugs since 2010, an average of $1,407 per senior. 37 million seniors in medicare, have received free preventative services with no co pay. it's costing taxpayers $109 million, and robbing them of health insurance. instead of bringing these bills to the floor the president said he's going to veto it it's a complete waste of time, let's get back to real things here. i didn't like the 30 to 40 rule. that's a legitimate thing to

bring up if you want to. you want to work with us to come up with changes that may be helpful and expand care and expand access and lower costs? i'm all for it but to come up with this outright repeal is a waste of time, and we should be dealing with the real issues. stagnant wages, figuring out how to pay for child care. dealing with high cost of college tuition things the president talked about in the state of the union. and he also talked about today in his budget bill. we'll address these issues. and you know i'm more than willing to work with you. you're probably one of the most bipartisan people i know. i can't emphasize enough, that i feel like we're just wasting our time again, and it's very unfortunate unfortunate. >> i yield back. >> mr. bipartisan right there in the middle of the crowd.

let's hope there's a crackle of the airwaves. good gosh. thank you very much. >> welcome to the rules committee, we haven't seen you for a while, delighted you're here, as always. you and i both know you're not only welcome up here, but we appreciate you taking time to get on our dance card. without option your statement will be entered into the record. >> i appreciate the opportunity to be heard. i appreciate the opportunity to testify before the committee. the new ranking member on the committee of education in the workforce, and protecting affordable health care for america's workers and families as a top priority. the fact of the matter is, affordable care act is working and we should not repeal it. perhaps those who want to repeal the affordable care act have a short memory, and it's important to remind our sfs what was taking place, when we passed the

affordable care act. before that the employer, provider, insurance coverage was shrinking. there were months where 14,000 people a day were losing their health coverage from 1999 to 2010, the cost of premiums for employer provided health care insurance. only went up around 40%. those who were employed were locked into their job because if they lost their job, they would -- if they left their job, they would lose their health insurance, some wanted to retire, con the retire they needed their insurance. and every american family with insurance had a hidden tax of approximately $1,000 per family for providing the -- for covering the costs shifted to indigent care. those that do pay have to pay a little extra. it's about $1,000 for every person with health insurance. if we repeal the affordable care

act, we go back to those days. thankfully workers have the peace of mind of knowing they have options. they can enter the marketplace, if it's not affordable. they can -- they get tax credits to help them pay for the insurance. they know the dollars they spend on insurance are going to health coverage. the 80% rule. provides that 80% has to be spent on health care not corporate jets and ceo bonuses, for those who have insurance they experience the lowest growth rate in the last -- since the affordable care act passed in many years. the vast majority of large employers who provided insurance to the employees suffer less of an increase in premiums due to the cost shifting, now everybody -- just about everybody has insurance. and so on and on and on, the

program is working. 3 million uninsured children young adults, have insurance on their parents policies, senior citizens benefiting from the lack of the helping in the doughnut hole, repealing of the law we have to explain to people who have benefited why we have to go back to the way it was. i understand there will be a delay in the effective date of the bill that may be proposed to the role. given 180 days we haven't come up with a meaningful replacement yet. there's no reason to believe there will be an actual replacement. all of the people who have benefited and now have insurance. all the people who now can afford life saving treatments will go back to the days where they wouldn't have insurance wouldn't be able to provide those -- that coverage. this is the 56th attempt to

repeal, undermine the affordable care act, it's a distraction. we need to work on ways that can possibly improve it not just toss it out with nothing available to replace it. mr. chairman, thank you. the opportunity to be heard. >> thank you very much. all three of you have come to this panel today to help us understand more about your ideas as well as those that are presented today. 180 days is, because we don't know what the supreme court is going to say. the supreme court. and i believe there's a serious threat against at least part of the health care bill as a result of the law not being utilized as prescribed by the law 37 it's not to wrap us into a circumstance where we can't adapt to whatever the supreme court says. i consider that smart not a

frailty or a fallacy in the bill. just about everybody has insurance. you just made that statement. is that right? >> i don't know where that data comes from i believe that may be an over estimation of the facts of who -- >> do we know what the facts are? >> there are 900 people covered under the affordable care act, had a health savings account and lost it. i purchased health insurance through healthcare.gov.

i'm probably one of those people that has insurance. yes, i have it through an exchange, i didn't receive a subsidy, let me be perfectly clear about that. i don't think it's reasonable to count people who like myself, through no fault of their own lost their insurance, and then because they wanted to be covered or they were concerned about the individual mandate purchased insurance, you don't really get to claim that as a plus 37 a reduction of the number of uninsured. the medicaid expansion has resulted, and an increase in coverage at the same time. it's also an increased expense of the taxpayer. >> just about everybody has insurance? >> oh, access. >> we have the lowest uninsured rate we've had i believe in the

history of the united states. 10 billion more people have insurance. and so we're going in the right direction. >> mr. chairman, i'm not going to give you -- i can't answer your question at all. it's a man fess taking, what mr. scott said is true, the number of people who have recovered has increased dramatically. i mentioned 12 million uninsured americans, who got covered in 2014. that's 12 people that -- 12 million people that were not insured previously. that's 12 people that had no insurance previously. some of that is medicaid expansion. those are people that did not have insurance before. >> the amount of money is equal. >> i think those figures do include the 4 1/2 to 5 1/2

million people who lost insurance, that they previously had when the essential health benefit -- >> it's not a net number? >> i mean i had insurance but there's none on that side? >> that 12 million people were people that were uninsured they didn't have coverage before. in any case what mr. scott said is true. the number of people getting cornered has inyeesed. >> he said just about everybody has insurance. >> that's the goal ultimately. >> you didn't say access you said just about everybody has insurance? >> well, we're not trying to take you on, we're trying to understand. >> we're in the second year of enrollment now, more and more people are enrolling, but whether we get to 95 or 96% at some point. we're not there yet, but we're certainly on the way. >> we understood when this thing happened only half the people that were uninsured would

theoretically be insured. there's 24 million. >> the goal was to get at some point, not yet to -- something like 95 96% of americans would have insurance. and i think we're on our way. >> there you go. the gentleman from oklahoma chairman cole is recognized. >> thank you very much i appreciate it, mr. chairman. just a couple things in response to what the three of you had to say. i appreciate it very much. first, a quick question to you what's the effect -- assuming the repeal were to pass, and actually become law unlikely as i think we all agree politically, what would be the effective date. >> i think 180 days. >> okay. probably -- i think i saw something that would be effective at the end of the year, in other words giving the supreme court time to make its determination. i said for a couple reasons.

my friend mr. scott mentioned this is the 56th time i think that's not exactly right. eight of those things became law, this means they passed the democratic senate, signed by the president. and those were things like repeal of the requirement for 1099s, which would have been multibillion dollar exercise. that's counted as one of the repeal attempts. we've had a number of other things collectively have saved about $62 billion. i'd suggest we both try to change the law where we could find common ground and then you're correct, we certainly tried to repeal it multiple times as well. the reason -- and i agree very much with my friend from new jersey's remark about not having an alternative. i signed on every year since it was passed. there have been multiple alternatives out there some of them having 120, 30 co sponsors. there hasn't been a unified republican position, you're talking about serious

alternatives. there have been, but i think probably what's -- what prevented that from happening was the fact that we knew it wasn't going to get through the senate, and we knew it wasn't going to be signed by the president. i think now you're seeing a lot of movement because of the supreme court. because of the sense that this thing may well financially collapse on itself and so we better have something ready. i would suggest that to opponents and proponents. i don't say this with any kind of strong feeling as to what the supreme court will do. i'm not an attorney, i don't pretend to know i think it's a pretty hard body to predict sometimes what it will do. thinking about an alternative is prudent for both sides, if the supreme court does come down it will destroy the exchanges in 30 odd states in the blink of an eye, and undermine the financial -- >> i'll give you a chance in a minute. let me finish my remarks. to the point that my friend mr.

burgess made, what we shouldn't look at polls and -- it was made in response to a point he made, my friends from new jersey. look, i think you do have to recognize, this thing has never been popular now we can argue whether it should or shouldn't be. it has never been popular. you cannot find a poll that shows it's popular, and i think we've had multiple elections where this has been a major issue. if it were popular, my friends may be in the majority. it's not popular. i think part. that comes from two reasons, in my view this is only my view. first the manner in which it was passed, it really wasn't passed the way a normal bill is. it didn't really get through the senate, and the way we didn't each pass it and conference and send it back again i think that that -- the manner in which the election was hijacked it would have reversed the outcome is one

of the reasons why the resistance and distaste has been so strong. the second reason i think is because of the manner in which it's been implemented. we had a disastrous rollout of this thing that did not work well. we've also had the businessman date which is in the law it's been unilaterally suspended by the administration. the idea that you get to pick and choose which part of the law you want to enforce on what kind of time line i think we're in court now over that issue right now. again, i don't pretend to know how that court case will work out, that tells you how strongly it is. i don't think this is going to take a lot of time. i think the two sides position is well known. i think the idea of getting an alternative ready is pretty smart. whether you're supportive of this or not. and you're opposed, the supreme court may well make this unworkable. and finally, again, i would

just -- ask my friends -- it doesn't go away, because we didn't operate in the appropriate way when we passed it, and we haven't enforced it uniformly in the implementation of it, those are the reasons for the continuing opposition. with that, i certainly give my friends a chance to respond and probably yield back after that. >> i know -- scott wanted to say something too. i would just say this i don't want to get into polling i would like to think that as a legislator, i'm not just here based on whatever polling there is out there, but i did want to say, though, that if you feel strongly that somehow things are going to be different and instructing, you know, the committees to come back with an alternative is really something you're striving to do. again, i know that was in the bill four years ago. then put some sort of deadline

or reporting requirement that the committees get back to you. you mentioned the supreme court. when they might make the ruling. a criticism is, not only that this is a repeat of what happened four years ago, there was never any time line to report back. there was never any deadline, it seems to me that if you're serious about asking these committees to come up with alternatives, there should be a deadline, some kind of reporting requirement, which i don't see here, again, i don't like to talk about process but i guess that's what the rules committee is all about. in the -- you know, the -- it's totally legitimate for the house to take up a senate bill and pass it. i know it maybe -- would have been nice to have a conference. what did the house do? they said, we took up the senate bill and passed it, that's certainly something you can do and was done. i think that process was totally legitimate under the constitution. and so i don't know why we're criticizing the process i know

that's always been a big thing for the process, the process was -- it was perfectly normal in my opinion. >> we'll just agree to disagree if that's perfectly normal i've never seen anything like it at all. to do it in the teeth of public opinion that was overwhelmingly hostile, no wonder people feel like they were hijacked, they just do that hasn't gone away, that's not me making it up my town hall meetings were probably different than yours. i have no doubt my friend is accurately describing his experience. i can assure you mine are very different. i'm not going to tell you there is not some support. there is support for elements of it, not much in my part of the world. it does give back the process, the manner in which it's been implemented. where i do agree with my friend in so far as i can co sponsor one, we had an alternative.

i know mr. burgess has had his name on many alternatives i suspect most of my friends up here have had their names on alternatives, i agree we should have something. it's a lot more imperative now. doing it previously, when you knew it wasn't going to be taken up by the senate, forget it zee feeted. it wasn't going to be passed by the president, and i -- look, i've been quoted as saying accurately, to my friends on my side of the aisle, let's be real you're not going to repeal something called obama care, when a guy named obama is president of the united states. it's not likely to happen. i think that's -- this rifle shot approach which has worked eight times is actually the better part -- the better way to proceed. in my view. but i do think now, because of the supreme court, there is a chance that this might happen. i think that's -- my friend is correct, that makes us -- we are the majority in both houses,

largely because of this law in my view, we better be ready to present an alternative post haste should that supreme court actually act. and we need to have done a better job on that, i want to be critical. i know my friend mr. scott had something to say as well. >> i just said, if you're going to replace and repeal? it would be helpful to have replacement available as you discussed repealing. you know what you're doing, repeal first and then you don't know what you're going to get. what you may get, one alternative in a -- that was offered in virginia in the last election, and the washington post analysis of that plan was under the headline a health care plan worse than obama care. so if what you're going to replace it with is worse people may be informed with their vote going in. it's a little out of order.

the supreme court -- governors and state legislators when they were considering whether they were going to set up their state exchanges had lists of pros and cons,ed idea that the tax credits would not be available was never -- for their constituents was never mentioned, to my knowledge in any state as a reason to have a state exchange rather than a federal exchange, so i mean, the intent -- the legislative intent is absolutely clear. and so there shouldn't be any problem at all in the supreme court. >> i'm not sure the legislative intent is clear i seem to recall a principle architect of this plan telling us and telling multiple audiences, i suspect his testimony or his statements are going to be part of the supreme court case that this was designed in a way to force the states to adopt state exchanges, that that was meant to be that way and obviously in

dozens of states that hasn't been the case, they've chosen not to do that. so i think that's the crux of the erissue. i'll leave it up to the supreme court whether it's clear or not. i don't want to get into supreme court prognostication. it will probably be a split decision either way. there's going to be pretty smart legal people on both sides of this question, there already are. each side seems to know exactly what's going to happen. my experience is going to the supreme court is a crap shoot my friend has forgotten more about the law than i would ever know and about courtrooms. i have to yield to my friend mr. burgess. >> thank you mr. cole. just on the issue of popularity. you can't always be governed by polls. we used to be governed -- no one was asking for this, no one was.

and as a consequence it still remains desperately unpopular. i yield back. >> i think that's well stated. it's a key point. if it's been operating for four years, i don't think it's going to suddenly magically become popular, we may have a decisive point that we on our side certainly have responsibility, both my friends on the other side have pointed out to be ready for, and i agree with my friend from new jersey. we should have done that a long time ago. both sides need to think about it now. the crystal ball is better than mine. with that, i yield back, mr. chairman. >> gentlemen from massachusetts. >> let me just say when you talk about what's popular and what's not. it couldn't be that unpopular, given the fact that president obama won re-election over the republican candidate.

people knew what this president stood for and what this bill was about. i think most people believed everyone in this country ought to have health care. ought to have health insurance. and i know someone in your party, mr. burgess don't believe that, that's -- they think when people like me say health care should be right that's a radical idea. i think most people in this country believe that. this is a rules committee this bill was referred to energy and commerce education and workforce and weighs and means, if i'm correct. is that correct? >> there is dual jurisdiction involved. >> and the energy and commerce committee -- are they formally org nices yet. >> when i was talking about the committees, i was talking about the bill directing the committees to come up with an alternative, there were no hearings, no nothing.

>> right now. >> we've been having hearings -- we've even had markups. >> has there been a hearing or markup on -- >> no, we never saw. i didn't even hear -- what was the word? until last friday we haven't had anything like that. >> has the education workforce committee organized yet? >> we're in the process of organizing but -- >> but you have -- you're not -- okay. and mr. ryan is he going to testify, does anyone know? since weighs and means is -- >> i don't expect the testimony from anybody other than those -- >> i don't think we expect a hearing on these either. >> i don't want to take your time, i had a dialogue on the floor with mr. ryan when the 30 to 40 rule came up a couple weeks ago. he said that they worked something to the effect -- i don't know -- there was no plan to do a repeal. >> we were told during our --

during previous bills, we had to have closed rules, because committees haven't organized and they couldn't have possibly gotten together to have hearings that's not the excuse that can be used in this case. are you and the other chairs of education and workforce and weighs and means asking for an open rule? >> well, i think usually we have -- chairman who says they want a closed rule or they want to modified open rule you're on both, on this committee and -- if i introduce an amendment to call for an open rule, would you support it? >> i think the gentleman knows the answer to that question. >> historically i have not supported -- >> all right so we have a bill before us that has had no

hearings in this congress, we have 58 new members. but -- and no markups, though this comes up before the rules committee, we're probably going to get probably get a closed rule. no amendments. people have had some good ideas, replacement, or tweaking this bill they won't have an opportunity. four years ago the house passed a repeal bill that included instructions to the house committees to submit a republican alternative to the affordable care act. that was four years ago what happened? why didn't -- it is four years. why are we not here with the alternatives? >> i don't think that bill was ever signed into law. >> but you were -- the house passed it and instruct eded the

committees here -- it was a resolution that didn't need to be signed into law. so we're instructing committees here to do this where are the repeal bills? does anyone know what happened? why did none of the committees report it -- >> i think what has been stated what is different is from is a supreme court challenge that will be heard in march and we'll receive their wisdom in the end of june. which will change the landscape. >> so the language in this bill is similar to the one passed four years ago. but in addition, i guess the republicans submitted an amendment that i guess you plan to self execute.

this amendment instructs the committees to submit their alternative plan rather than report it to the house. i'm not aware of any precedent in history in the house in this kind of od proceedd procedure. when the committees are asked to submit a plan, who are they submitting it to and what does it mean? >> i was not familiar with the amendment until you just referenced it. >> just, for the benefit of my colleagues on the rules committee, as far as i can tell is the real difference. >> riermsequiring them to submit or report. it's not clear that submitting something to the house -- what

it would look like in practice. so you know i mean maybe you could alleviate my concern. bills that don't go through committees or show up here. people have to take it or leave it. i'm worried about -- you expressed concern that you didn't think the process the democrats have was open enough. under this language, the word is submit, not report. let me ask did you know what submit means? >> i think it is quite clear that if they were serious and i like the aca.

i'm not suggesting there needs to be an alternative, but based on my dialogue billion otherwith others i think you should appeal something if it is having such an impact whether it was good or bad. if they were serious there would be a deadline. i think submit is about getting a way on reporting. >> i would adegree that submit suggests a total lack of any process report. it means that a committee considered it voted, i guess the chairman just publishes a letter, just no process or no nothing. no suggestion that supported it.

>> i'm just trying to get a sense for what we in this process committee are doing. wed had this debate 56 or 57 times already. i know what you believe on the affordable care account. we'll have that vote, that debate tomorrow on the house floor. in terms of the process, we're at a point now where we have committeed that are reporting and constituted. and this self reporting bill replaces report with submit. to me that seems like a way to skirt regular order. i urge my colleagues to rethink some of the language here.

i'm going to go further and say that the bottom line is we have seen different piecemeal bills on the part of different republicans, but the problem is they have a direction that sars all of the things that the ae fordable health care act already does. keeping insurance, providing people with pre-existing conditions coverage. i mean i have never seen the republicans, and certainly energy and commerce committee come up with any kind of comprehensive legislation that would meet these goals i think they're saying submit because

there is no intention to do this. >> committees met, head hearings and did mark ups, and it all contributed to the final result. and getting away from the substance for a minute here, we ought to take care that we don't totally obliterate the process here. i'm worried that that is what we're doing here. another closed rule where it should be, and a license to continue to get around regular order with the word submit. >> the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> thank you. i appreciate you three being here. i don't know who is the great essex pert among the affordable care act between the three of you, but i want to ask you about a statement in the president's

veto. he says the affordable care account is not only working, it is fully integrated into the american health care system. my understanding is that it is not fully integrated. while the statute require that it will fully integrated there are still numerous pieces of the affordable care act that are not yet functions in the marketplace today. am i mistaken about that or is the president mistaken? >> if i could respond i think you're very mistaken. a lot of what we discuss here is sort of at the high end. i mean the affordable care act is so much more engrained even than part of the discussion we had. it includes the indian improvement health care act which is making all kinds of improvements to the indian

health care system. it has all kinds of grants going out for, you know, community health services. i would say yes, it is all -- we would have to be here for hours to talk about the way it has been integrated. i don't think you can repeal this practically without total chaos. i'm trying to be nice but it is very much integrated. it is four years now and a lot of things are happying related to the macro things we're talking about. >> when people talk about the affordable care act, we talk about how many people now have insurance, not about the changes to the indian health system, but to the larger, who can afford

health care. and in those numbers, we talk about it as if this fully integrated an incredibly complex, hard to pull out even if you wanted to so involved -- and everywhere led to an improvement in coverage insurance. the numbers that i look that medicaid counts for half of those. like it counts for something. i dare say your indian health bill, i dare say if you sat down and talked about that bill you would be in treatment of making changes. >> he was a co-sponsor my friend, and for the record, that would have passed on it's own with a hue bipartisan -- it was placed in that legislation to frankly try and force people with native american constituents that would not have voted for the bill to vote for

the bill. that was done by some of our democrat colleagues that voted know. they were furious. that had nothing to do with it. it was used as another one of these deals to pass a bill that otherwise would not have passed and now we have to deal with the consequences of this, and my friend mr. pallone is right. i had legislation that if it were repealed that this particular section we would immediately have a vote and it would remain in effect. it has very little to do with obama care. but let's be real about why this was in there. >> i'm mentioning it because i'm trying to make the point i believe there are so many aspects of the affordable health care act integrated into the health care system now it would be total chaos if you just

repealed it. it could be chaos. >> there is just no question that on so many issues of health care as they affect families the president started this debate, and he won the hearts and minds of the american people. i don't believe preexisting conditions will ever come back into the conversation in america. i think the president persuaded america that if through no fault of your own you're in a situation why you have been playing by the rules and you can't find a health plan to cover you there ought to be a program for you. he won that debate. children that can't find a job on their own to stay on their parent's health care plan he won that we're we're absolutely looking at a chance this summer where i believe the program will collapse on it's own weight, but certainly the supreme court and

it's adherence to statutory language will hasten that. that is what make it's so important to me that you are all here. when i listen to some folks describe this conversation they describe itig messaging opportunity where folks are just preaching a political mantra instead of trying to make a difference. it took no effort at all for this institution to fully fund medicaid. that was not clever, we just wrote a big check that our children are going to pay for it. it took no effort at all. to say we think more people will buy health care plans if we require them to buy them and we subsidize the cost. if you do that for anything we can get more people to engage in

that behavior. there are really difficult questions still out there. really difficult questions still out there that we need to be able to come together and talk about. and the fact that you have come to the rules committee to make the case tells me this is the group serious enough about it that will come together and find that common ground. we're not talking about trying to give the president a black eye on a signature policy. we're talking about trying to deal with -- you read through the requirements that the committees would be held to. and you started listing them, and that includes keeping health insurance they have. of course that is not in the presidents bill, we know it is not, and not one of us would defend it. if you don't want folks to keep

it, you should tell them they don't know how to keep their own health care policies, but we all know that was a mistake. by my count is it 11 times most recently now in december where we said you know what maybe it was not a good idea to tell folks who were doing mission work in nigeria. that they're required to purchase health care.gov complaint plans when they're overseas. as recently as three months ago, it disappoints me when people i know and respect talk about these kergss instead of a serious effort to look at what is going to be a serious problem by both of our conclusions when the supreme court decides these subsidies will not go out the

door. and i'm glad that we're beginning that conversation today. >> can i just -- just two points and i don't want to get ms. fox going here either but i have to mention it. first on the medicaid, i think it has been highly successful. i think you could have done it separately, but i don't think it would have happened politically separate and now we're seeing some of the republican governors who opposed this actually doing it. and he used to be a member of this body and i consider it a conservative member of this body and are adopting the medicaid expansion. and i think that you're starting to see that republicans in red states with republican governors, this expansion is taking place. to me that is an indication that

it has been successful. i know that i will get my friend from virginia probably you know, i don't want to aggravate you, but when you keep what you have, i don't think you intended or the president intended to keep a lousy plan. we had this discussion. it is true that we have a very generous package, and the intention was never to say that if you shad a skeletal plan you could keep it. that wasn't my intention. i don't want to speak for the president, but i don't want to -- we had this discussion before. i know the gentleman is speaking from the heart, which goes to the point that when government

is -- it seems odd that folks never would have allowed for the fact that if an american citizen loved the way their life was today, that you would intist they they purr which i say something different, but medicaid is struggling in my great state of georgia. we're having trouble finding doctors that will accept those plans. there was nothing that raised reimbursement rates. my -- temporary it has gone back down that is the problem. >> i don't even want to start on the temporary bait and switches because that is a long list too, but my uncle who is a big liver he said you can hand out all of the insurance cards you want to, but if you can't find a doctor

who will take that insurance card, you have not helped anybody. i don't think expanding the number of people participating in a broken system is something we should pat ourselves on the back out. we need medicaid was broken already and instead of doing the serious tough and bipartisan things we had to do to fix medicaid, we dumped more folks on it funded it 100% so states didn't bother us about further exacerbating a problem and when that starts to trickle down to 90% and on and on maybe we'll be better than that. it is never more clear to me that the president has won some of these debates in the hears and minds of the american people. it has never been more clear to me that some of these programs are destructive to the fabric of

the american health care system and folks on both sides of the aisle should be able to admit that and we ought to be better. i yield back. >> thank you very much, mr. hastings, you're recognized. >> thank you madame chair. before i begin i ask unanimous consent that the letter dated from the congressional budget office be made part of the record, and i ask unanimous consent that the statement of administration of policy also be admitted. and that when we're in the amendment process in case i might forget i would like to ask unanimous consent going forward that [ applause ] jackson lee's statement be made at the appropriate time. >> without objection.

>> thank you, mr. mcgovern leaned over to me and said something so true. you kind of have to wonder do any of us that are on the rules committee recognize this is the rules committee. he did not put it that way, but i am saying it would seem to me that we come to recognize our responsibilities on this particular committee. the reason i raise is it just as an example when we came out to congress in 1992 i didn't know very much at all about the rules committee. but how i learned about the rules committee was from a very

vocal echo chamber in the media particularly radio and i was doing a lot of radio at that time, and others on the committee have heard me tell this story. and i was being bombarded by people saying why are you democrats doing all of these closed rules. i'm trying to figure out what they're talking about about the closed rules. time came and not many years after i became a member of the rules committee and i have seen democrats have closed rules and that was wrong, and i have seen republicans have closed rules and that is wrong, and now i serve in the most historyic of the rules committee in the previous congress of closed rules that we have ever had. now we're prepared for yet another, put aside as was asked

of the substance of the measure. earlier when the chair spoke, he took the liberty that many of us do in our offerings on the floor or here in the committee when we say what the american public things. i think what american public thinks is that they are tires of hearing about this. my friend mr. coal was correct when he said you can't find a poll says that a person favors this in any large issue. and you can't find many that say those that do favor it don't tpt to be. here is what a recent poll of the keiser organization said. continue debate or move on. after more than five years of

debate about the split on whether the conversation should continue is important for this country. the debate over the health care law, while 45% say they're tired of hearing about it, and of the congress should focus on other issues, a majority of republicans say the debate should continue, by majority of the democrats say that the debate should not continue. where are we people? i mean what are we doing here? and in that same poll my good friend from georgia would be interested to know that it also signifies that we are about the bis and there is a overwhelming majority of people, 72% think

that all we're doing at this point is scoring political points. that is regrettable. and i think quite frankly that we're a better people than that and we should return to regular order in this body to the extent that we can the republicans have the responsibility of management, and every measure cannot be put forward as an open rule and i, for one, clearly understand that. let me ask a question of dr. berges. you made the comment that the supreme court decision that is imminent, and all of us anticipate at some point after a little while probably sooner rather than later, but your comment was that it will change the landscape. i'm not quarrelling with your comment, but i'm curious if you

mean the case that is before the supreme court it is either way going to change the landscape. is that what you meant when you said it will change the landscape? >> i simply stand by the statement that i make. it will change the landscape. may i expound upon that? >> of course. >> king versus birdwell occurs because of a plain reading of the language in the statute that would indicate that states that did not set up an exchange -- jonathan gruber eluded to that as well. this is important because why did so few states actually

decide to set up exchanges -- >> let me take back my time i'm going to come right back to you. why they didn't is because of politics. >> the reason they did not is because the administration played hide the ball with the governors of this country. they knew there was an essential benefits rule in the affordable care act. it was supposed to be reported out in august of 2012, but that was inconvenient for the administration. they didn't want to read about it so they postponed the date of the rule, they postponed it until november 10th. that was a week after election day. the governors had a week to make up their minds after they saw the essential benefit rule, a week to make up whether or not they would participate in the

exchange. most said i don't know what type of financial obligation i'm occurring so i want no part of it. they were given an extension, but that extension kind of occurred at christmas and new years and they were given another extension. and they said we just have to know who is in and who is out. this month are you in or are you out. and 36 states said no deal. the administration hid the ball. if they had worked with the governors, we could be talking about the different -- >> if the governors had worked with the administration we might not be in this state, i don't know about in your state,

which i think is a crazy state to begin with -- >> mr. chairman. >> some of the policies. >> he doesn't have the time madame chair, i have the time. >> excuse me, madame chair i reclaimed my time, i think that is the procedure here. >> he is making a very deflamatory statement about my state. >> that's how i feel about texas, i would not live there for all of the tea in china. i know what my state did, we came just as close to being crazy and that is they did not expand medicaid. for that reason i take um bridgebridge

about all of the people 650,000 people left and i feel it is because we're not being reasonable as democrats and republicans with each other with all of the brainpower we could have done all that is necessary to ensure that americans are not in the position they're in with reference to health care in this country. we pay more it costs more than most countries around the world. and somewhere along the line it is just plain wrong. let me give you a few facts. 10.3 million uninsured adults received coverage in the first year of the affordable health care act. eight million more enrolled in 2014, an increase of 14%. in just one year, can there has

been a 26% reduction in the number of uninsured adults in this great country of ours. we're still in the open enrollment period and from the hhs weekly snapshot of marketplace open enrollment activity there has been over 9.7 million applicants submitted. this particular legislation, representative burn and his home state of alabama. there has been 970,000 individual plans selected. and as reenlycently as last sunday. so to a relative degree, i agree with my friend from mr. woodall from georgia, his point to the president's statement in the statement of the administration

of being opposed to this, that it was fully integrated. i disagree what w that statement of the president. i believe it is capable of being fully integrated. if people like me had our way, we would have universal health care. i didn't think this went far enough to help the american people we we slowed the late at which health care premiums increase, and extended the life of the medicare trust fund by 13 years. we're helping our most as a rule herbal americans gain access to health care and saving money through preventive measures. instead of working to create jobs raise minimum wage

address comprehension reform or any of the urgent things we were sent here to deal with in facing our nation my friends on the other side are continuing their obsession with affordable health care act. republicans have long claimed and i heard this until it was just pounded in me that the affordable care act, the sky was supposed to fall, would destroy millions of jobs and would cause tens of millions of americans to lose their employer coverage. yet since the affordable care act passed, businesses have hadded nearly ten million jobs, and in it's first year, 10.3 million people who were previously uninsured gained health insurance coverage. you're not addressing some of the issues of this law that it will reduce the deficit by 2010

million over ten years, and you have no other program. you have presented none whether you submit or do anything else you want, you have not shown us anything that is an alternative to this measure. we know that you're the party of noaa, but we have serious concerns about what your plan is for people to be insured. while you spend all of the time in the 56 now times that we have sought to repeal the act, trying to stop people have having insurance. now you come here and argue to the american people those that have been insured you're going to take it away from them. i want to stand here and watch that. i think you all know that this is not going to become law, yes i will yield to the gentleman. >> we're the rules committee here, and i made reference to

the word submit instead of report, an amendment that will be self executed. that amendment had to be redrafted again because it was put together so hurriedly. now we have a version that removes the word submit. this is how this bill is being put together. if there is anything that i think my friends on the other side of the aisle should be clear about, given that we have been doing this 56 times is how to write a bill to repeal the affordable care account. now we have another version of the self executing amendment being dropped on us. it goes to the point i was making earlier. you ought to open this process up. we ought not to be drafting things at the last minute and changing things as we go along. this process is just as flawed

as the under lying bill, and i thank you, gentleman, for yielding. >> thank you, i repeat that 22 years ago closed rules are not a good thing. it was not good 22 years ago when i came here and it's just as bad now. we're getting ready to do another closed rule and i will continue the mantra that we should return to regular order. thank you gentleman for your presentations and thank you madame chair i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back. we don't have a parliamentarian here on what to say when people are not saying exactly the right things. we owe to our colleagues the colleagues on this committee a

great deal of civility. i have been concerned in several meetings we had recently about words being used in this committee in terms of being on the edge of impugning the integrity of other members. if we were on the floor i think the parliamentarian would be called on to make a ruling on the words used in here as it relates to members. i want to say to the members two things. one when i first came on this committee there was a five minute rule for how long members could speak. it was viciously enforced for the minority. we have not done that. i also am very concerned again about the civility in this committee. i want to say that we oh each

other, again being civil, especially to our colleagues on the committee. and i want to urge our members to remember those things and spending time on something considered a waste of time. >> i just want to take issue with one think that the gentlelady tadsaid. i don't ever recall a five minute rule on this committee and not one that was viciously implemented implemented. that was not the rule when the democrats are in charge, and it certainly was not the rule when previous republican chairs were in charge. i don't disagree that sometimes i wish there was a five minute

rule, but i want to make it clear that -- >> be careful what you wish for. >> thank you. >> i believe the time is mine in the sequence. >> i'm not going to speak on the rules committee, but i feel that i need to say that has a member of congress i'm used to attacks being tossed my way. but there is no reason at all to impugn the people, governor, of a state of this country. ily await the gentleman's apology. i yield back. >> you will wait until hell freezes overfor me to say anything in an apology. i would apologize to you if i was directing my comments to

you. i was commenting about the state that you happen to be a resident of i will not apologize. >> i just do not see the value in a member of this rules committee hurdling invectives towards a stave governor, and it's people. it is uncalled for and there is no reason a member of this committee should do that. >> the gentleman from florida does not have the floor. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. >> thank you, madame chair. i will be fairly brief but i want to thank the gentleman for appearing before us today. thank you for your passion on

the health care issue. we may disagree about how to get there, but i appreciate your contribution and how you fight hard for the people you represent top do what you believe. i think we all agree that americans should have access to health care that is affordable. i have co-sponsored replacement bills in the last couple congresss. i think there are requesteds more affordable and more sustainable and they include portability legislation, high risk pools, food and drug administration and tax incentives for coverage. we'll leave that debate to another day. because there is so much that has been said about the fact that there is not a replacement in this bill many of us around this table and throughout congress are working hard to fix that, and i appreciate the

passion that you all brought. i hope that we can work in a bipartisan way going forward to do some of those issuemeasures. i know that it is a polarizing issue, and that is unfortunate because the american people, i think, deserve better. my first question is for the gentleman from virginia. i appreciate you being here today. you stated earlier that everybody has health care under the law you clarified that everybody has access to health care. would you be surprised to know that a cnn article says that 41 million people are still uninsured under the law as we sit here today. >> yes. >> i will send you the article. would you be surprised to know that the same article shows that the uninsured rate came down to 13.4% before the exchanges

kicked in, and it did go down further to 13.1% according to the cnn article. >> when the economy recovered more people had insurance, yes. >> have you all had a chance to review the cbo statement? it is pretty voluminous. >> there is no cbo -- >> the only thing that i have is what -- >> the february cbo statement of last year, sorry. >> the only thing i have is it says the cbo estimates that repealing the law would cost taxpayers $109 billion and leave 19 million without health insurance. >> that same study, it did say that because it takes away about

a trillion dollars in taxes. it also says that it would put -- there would be 2.5 million less jobs. did you see that part of the study? >> i saw one provision is that said many people would quit their jobs because they would no longer be job locked and working only for insurance. they wanted to retire, and the same argument could be made about social security. >> yes, that was part of it. a lot of people quit their jobs. >> it does talk a little about people providing less supplied labor, and ultimately 2.5 million jobs would not be created because of this law. and if you put the study that claims that four million people were insured and we lose 2.5 million jobs, that is one job loss for every 2.5 people insured, i'm wondering if the

gentleman from new jersey thinks that is a good deal for the taxpayers or for the person unemployed. >> the first question about the statistics, could i -- >> the one thing i wanted to mention, and i know you mentioned the number of uninsured. and i have not seen -- i don't have the article you're mentioning, but keep in mind anyone undocumented is not included under the atordbleffordable care act. the census includes the tennesseetens of machines of people and they're not eligible for the affordable health care account. >> the others from the national health interview survey can i submit that cnn document for the

record? >> without objection. >> do i frequent telephone townhalls, and i had one constituent, a lady who had her hours cut due to the health care law. my question for the gentleman from virginia and new jersey, what you would say to a woman trying to balance her budget on less hours because her employer can't afford to employ her full-time because of the definition in the law. >> 90% or so of businesses provide insurance without a mandate. i'm sure there are some that just don't want to provide insurance and will do everything they can -- but i would suggest to you they won't be able to get away with it because people will just up and quit. the economy is so bad right now people don't have options. when the economy gets a little --

>> what would you say to the lady who lost her job. just go out and get another job? is in a what you're saying? >> i'm saying 95% of the businesses covered by the mandate provided insurance without the mandate. i'm sure you can find a company somewhere that would do everything they can to get under the threshold but i can tell you the reason that 90% or so provide insurance is because they want the best workers, you will not attract good workers when you're doing those kinds of shenanigans. >> i just hope that her budget lasts long enough to find a job. i hope you gentleman will try to work with noek rs likefolks like me and i will try to work with folks like you. i yield my time. >> mr. collins is recognized.

>> thank you, madame chair. we serve on the judiciary committee. rules, floor and again, from our perspective, from our side of the aisle you always give a great defense of a lot of things we're feeling. i think one interesting thing you said, and my only statement about this before i get into states and things that states have done or not done, you made a comment about intent that judiciary will rule on intent of the law. the only problem is that if that is the new standard we'll have to go back to law school and change the statutory

instruction, that is not the way that it is supposed to start. it you look at it from any basic ruling. we start with the starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself. it must ordinarily be regarded as inclusive. the consumer safety commission gte. is t is a cardinal principal of statutory construction that we must give effect possible to every clause and word of a statute. every part of an act is presumed to be the same unless absolutely necessary. you can continue on after many of these, the statute the supreme court of arkansas, of

such obscure and doubtful meaning that the reasonable minds -- >> the statute is clear. all i will say to this is we get into the future look of this, in the supreme court. we can have disagreements as to whether this is a good law or a bad law. that is pretty well stated here. i believe like my friend from georgia there are things and reasons to think about parts of this position. however, i will say these things are not the way this needs to proceed. words on paper. at this point in time we will have a disagreement on how the court will interpret in june. we'll look back and see. this is another process of working toward an end. >> thank you, if you read two or three words you may come to that

conclusion, if you read the bill, you have to come to a different conclusion. i'm confident that is what the supreme court will come up with and i appreciate -- >> i think the interesting thing is again, many times words on paper, the law will begin -- i think that is the problem with most american people. what does this mean and when will we enforce it. when will we do this and when we will not. for me that is not an option that we have. statutory intend beside words on paper still matter. i'm glad we're here, i appreciate you all testifying. with that i yield back. >> i want to thank all three of you for being here today. mike you can think about how fun this was a little later. i do acknowledge that i appreciate all three of you and

in fact, i became aware of the die dialog that took place here and this closes the hearing portion. excuse me one portion here. i have now been asked to submit testimony on be half of the gentleman from iowa mr. king. i thank the gentleman for being here today. this closes the hearing portion of what is called hr-596. before we move further i would like to address an issue that was brought up during the hearing portion, the gentleman from massachusetts in fact brought up a series of questions

around the change in the word from report to submit that is in the amount. i, as you may have seen took a few minutes off out of the chair and tried to look up many any trusty book and made a few phonecalls to find out what is the practical application of this word. what does the word submit a mean to language that may become law. i have asked for, i called mr. bern, we're going to change the word back to report. i think it is a word better able to be understood. i want to thank the gentleman from massachusetts not only for bringing this up, and not just his questions but really in the way he tried with intrigue to find out the meeting.

i thank the gentleman for that. i wanted him to know that you will not see that -- you will see once again a change that has been submitted in the bern amendment. questions or comments? >> no i appreciate you doing that. i still have a problem with the bill, and i still have a problem with the rule, because there is really no time requirement for when any of these new -- replacement ideas have to come up. i appreciate the gentleman because i do think it was a glaring issue that i think would have paved away for more of a process that went around regular orders. >> i just, you know with that regard for how big or small it is. i think it is important, the words matter, i thank the gentleman. thank you very much.

ms. fox. >> mr. chairman, i move the committee grand hr-596 to pass the parable protection own the health care related axes. the rule provides 90 minutes of debate divided and controlled among the chairs. energy and commerce wanes and means. the amendment printed should be considered as adopted and the bill as amended should be considered as read. all points of order against provixpro provisions in the bill. >> you have now heard the motion from the gentlewoman from massachusetts. >> i move that it is granted an

open rule so that all members can contribute on the floor. the committees are organized. there is no execute for not reporting on a bill. given they had no hearings and they didn't report out any legislation. including mr. stivers for an opportunity with his replacement ment alternative. i thank the gentleman for discussion. all in favor say aye, say no. >> ms. fox? mr. cole. mr. woodall.

mr. chairman? >> no. >> chairman no. >> clerk will report the total. >> two yays, seven nays. >> judge does not seek time thank you very much. the voting will now be on the motion from the gentlewoman from north carolina. the ayes have it, gentleman asks for a roll call vote. >> mrs. fox? mr. woodall? mr. burgess? mr. collins? mr. mcgovern? mr. hastings. mr. chairman? aye. >> clerk will report the totals. >> seven ayes, two nays.

>> and i will be doing it for the democrats. and i love texas. and the gentleman from massachusetts will be handling this. in fact, i love our united states. and i would say that it is a great country. and that for us to work together is important. and i want to thank the committee for it's time today. i want today let the committee know that we expected to meet tomorrow at 3:00 p.m. the committee is now through with it's work for the day.

they have finished meeting on a bill to replace the affordable health care law. they made nearly 60 attempts to ae peel all or part of the

affordable health care act since 2011. this is will be the first time it comes up in congress. go to c-span.org to see it from the beginning. the political landscape has changed with the 114th congress. there are 108 women in congress including the first african-american republican in the house. and keep track using congressional chronicle. voteing results statistics, new congress, best access on c-span, c

c- c-span 2, c-span radio. and steve king hosted the iowa freedom summit. next remarks from rick santorum santorum. he spoke for about half an hour. >> thanks. thank you. thank you. thank you very much. thank you. it's great to be back in iowa. it's great to be back here where believe it or not the sweater vest was born. i hosted an event here with mike huckabee the press gave credit to the vest.

it's great to be back and see so many friends and meet some new friends. i have been asked over and over one question since i've been here. same question over and over again. i'm going to end the suspense. and i'm going to announce that bella is doing great. applaud applaud [ applause ] karen and i want to thank each and everyone of you. we want to thank you for all of your prayers through the election when we were dealing with bella and her health issues, and all of them since. we felt them. as you will find out soon, karen and i are publishing a book about raising bella. it is called "bella's gift." because she is. it is coming out in a couple of weeks.

you will find out how your prayers were answered so many times through that time and what it is like raising a child who has a severe disability and the challenges and blessings it is. so i just want to let you know that karen and i wrote the book jointly. we divided it evenly. we were going to write it together, and after an hour or so we figured that isn't going to work out too well. i'm a very strong, as you know -- you know karen. she's a very strong and principled woman. she has very strong opinions on things. we dealt with this issue differently. we decided to divide the book evenly. she has 11 chapters. i have 7. right? look forward to that. i am nostalgic here. three years ago, after you got to know me and karen and the kids, you heard me tell a story

at the stoney creek inn in johnston. on caucus night on a very wild and crazy caucus night, i might add. i shared a story about a young teenage boy. as a young teenage boy i knelt at the side of my grandfather's casket. he was a coal miner. i remember seeing just his hands, these strong, thick, meaty hands that dug coal until he was 72 years of age. i remember sharing with you that as i sat there and reflected on it, that those were the hands of an immigrant who came to this country after the first world war and brought his children later, that dug freedom for me. it is a story that each of you, all americans have, of somebody,

an ancestor who created the opportunity for you to be an american, to be a person who could pursue the american dream because you are standing on someone's shoulders. that wasn't what the campaign was always about. it became that, by going to a few dozen pizza ranches in iowa and several meat and three's. some of you don't know what those are. but if you're in south carolina, you know what a meat and three is. having town hall meetings and talking to the decent, hard-working people of this country, the patriots who care deeply and are deeply concerned about this country and its direction right now, they are concerned about whether that american dream -- and that dream was what? to work hard, sacrifice, leave america and your family better

than you found it, right? that is what the american dream is. a lot of people believe in america today that that dream has slipped away. i can spend the rest of the speech easily detailing why president obama and his middle-class economics have failed, failed miserably. i can be haranguing on obama care and his tax increases and government excess, all of those things. what does that get us? how many people do we convince that they should vote for us by simply criticizing what the president does? that is their gain. they won the election in 2012 that way. it was divide, criticize, blame, not take responsibility for anything. that is their shtick. and what a horrible price they paid to win.

this country -- now we look at it, the 1% versus the 99%. black versus white. anglo versus hispanic. business versus labor. americans feel the division, and we are sick of it. [ applause ] >> we need to do better. we need to do better because america deserves better. they deserve a group, a party, a movement that is for policies that provide opportunity for everyone to reach that american dream and a message that unifies us. you're going to hear a lot of folks come in here today and you'll be privileged to a lot of

people coming through iowa. that's the blessing of iowa. you will. but look for that message. mike lee is right. look for that message that could bring us together. because as good as it feels to hear the bad stuff, as good as it feels to beat up on the other side for the damage they've done to this country and it's been substantial, i know through my own personal relationships that pointing the finger and condemning somebody doesn't win you a whole lot of arguments. and more importantly it doesn't bring us together. so today i want to share with you. i want to share with you a vision forward, a vision forward that can unite us, that i deeply believe in. it's a vision that says that we can restore the american dream and it's not a different thing from what republicans have stood for before. in fact it's added.

we have been and must be the party of growth and opportunity. we must be the party that says we want lower taxes, limited and responsible government, less regulation. we need to be the party that goes out and says that we're for fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets. all those things are right but they're not enough. they're not enough. we need to be pro growth but also need to be pro worker. we need to be on the side of the american worker. [ applause ] why? one of our favorite sayings i know that you hear republicans say, a rising tide lifts all boats and that is true unless your boat has a hole in it. ladies and gentlemen, look at america today.

look at those who of the 70% of americans don't have a college degree and many of them don't have a high school degree. substance abuse, family breakdown, there's a lot of americans who are out there who are seeking employment who want the american dream. but they have holes in their boats. and so when you go out and talk about how we're going to raise the tide, how we're going to grow this economy and they see median income and the lack of a ladder of advancement, they don't feel better, they feel like they're sinking deeper underneath the water. we have to be the party that says we understand what you're feeling. we understand what you're thinking.