here with probably more experience in reviewing the alternatives in health care and i'd like to yield him such time as he may use. mr. burgess: i appreciate the gentleman for yielding. mr. roskam from illinois talked about the american people want us to fix the economy. and one of the ways we can help that is if we with will conclude this discussion -- if we will conclude this discussion we've been having about taking over america's health care system because i firmly believe that is one of the things that is holding back small businesses across the country who, they've been having to cut back over the last 18 months, they've been doing what every american family's been doing, maybe we'll just have to make do with a little bit less, maybe we won't hire that extra employee. but they also don't know what we're going to do. are we going to put an 8% payroll tax on them? are we going to put an $1,100 a year energy tax on them? what are we going to do in financial regulation? they are scared to add employees

right now in small businesses across the country and, yeah, maybe that's only one or two jobs in a location, but extrapolated across the wider economy, it's thousands and thousands of jobs. . people being districted by health care, that is the fundamental problem out there right now, that is the basis for the anger that people are feeling when they see what congress is doing late tonight and what we're fixing to do tomorrow as we say in texas. i hear the president say, it is so aggravating to hear is that republicans are obstructing this process. republicans had no ideas to bring to the table. and republicans could have fixed everything in the last 12 years and chose not to and now they

need to get out of the way. let me take each of those points because it is important to hear what has been going on this past year from the standpoint of republicans obstructing this process, it just isn't so. as the gentleman from texas said, there are 178 republicans, a few months ago there were 177. if you have 218 votes, you get to do what you say. 177 republicans weren't not enough to stop anything in the house of representatives unless some democrats crossed the aisle and voted with us. and you know what? that's what started happening. as a consequence, it's not republicans who are obstructing this process, but democrats. it's a problem they have within their own conference. and why is that? they don't have the popular support of the american people. a poll out today said 40% of people think we are doing too much and ought to go back to the

drawing board and do something more manageable and 20% said we shouldn't be working on it at all. six out of 10 americans said this is the wrong thing for us to be doing right here right now. the democratic leadership, the speaker of the house, the president of the united states, the majority leader cannot get done what they want to get done and what is the reason? those darn republicans are obstructing us. now from the standpoint of republican ideas as the gentleman from texas have said, there are republican ideas that have been talked about all year long. now, look, right after the president was sworn in, i was surprised they didn't come forward with a big health care bill and i was surprised that it wasn't the number one thing on the agenda. that's all you heard on the campaign, health care, health care, health care. i thought they had a bill in the works and thought it would come out of the senate finance

committee and the house would follow suit and we would have a health care bill. if we voted a year ago last year, it would have passed. the president was enormously popular at that time. congressional democrats were extremely popular at that time. there likely would have been nothing standing in the way. since they decided to do other things first, stimulus, cap and trade, taking over school loans, whatever else they had on the agenda, because they chose to do other things first, people had a chance to look at this bill. and we heard the story several times, a year ago i was sitting in my town hall and seeing enormous amount of anxiety and unease. we want to do something. if you're voting against this stuff. we want to help you. what can with do. they could organizea -- at home.

they did over 4th of july and september 12 and came back today and i couldn't help but think every time i talked to just regular people that were out in the great weather today on the lawn of the west side of the capitol to hear the speeches and listen to the stuff, they were just regular people from back home who had come up because they were concerned about what they saw happening in washington. but if you -- if it had not been for them, this bill would have passed in july. i don't know if people would recall that. we had a cap and bill -- trade bill at the end of june. the bill was dumped into our committee in july and supposed to mark it up in one day and then turn it back to the house floor and we vote on it and go home for the august recess. take a step back for a minute. we have been talking about this

for a year, we don't need to talk about it anymore. in 1990 and 1991 when my committee, the committee on energy and commerce marked up a bill that dealt with clean air, the clean air act, they held that markup for eight months. my lands the people in that committee hated each other, but you know what? it was the right thing to do because in the end it had bipartisan support and it passed and functioned as advertised not because they slammed it through, because they did have big majorities back in 1990 and 1991. it worked because they did it the right way and even though it was a painful process and even though the people hated each other at the end of the eight months, it was a better way to do major legislation that was going to affect the lives of every american and for generations to come, much better

way to do that. we chose not to do it that way this year. my committee which was supposed to do this ended up stretching it over eight days and the reason is because seven democrats on my committee heard from people back home during the month of july and said wait a minute. we are getting nervous and hearing all kinds of stuff that people don't like what we're doing and don't like what we did with cap and trade and now they're saying put the brakes on. this is going too fast. now, we didn't end up stopping it in committee and ended up passing on july 31. the story is it passed on july 31 and did not come to the house floor before we went home. and then what happened in august? that energy that had been almost palpable in april really did bubble to the surface. and we had people in town halls like we never had before.

a little sleepy town of denton, texas, hot august saturday morning, i had 2,000 people show up. i went up to gainsville, texas, 600 people show up. i never had that kind of turnouts in town halls. not everyone agreed that i was doing the right thing, but there was a broad consensus that they did not like what they were seeing, what congress was doing with their health care and you saw it play out over and over and over again across the country. it just wasn't north texas, but michigan, way up west, up on the east coast, in wisconsin. you saw the scenario replay itself. but you know what? when i would have those town halls, people would say we don't trust you with this 1,000-page bill. the gentleman from texas indulge me, the good old days the 1,000-page bill and he has a

2,700-page bill. we know you didn't read it and said you wouldn't take that insurance, why should we be for that. what we are for is sensible reform. i heard this over and over again. we would like help with pre-existing conditions. we never had a hearing, we never had a hearing about is there anyway to deal with the problem with pre-existing conditions without resorting to an unconstitutional mandate. i believe there is, but we never heard any testimony on that. it was simply we have to have the mandate because everyone has to have insurance and that's the way it's got to be. but that's not necessarily so. so what we heard, help us with pre-existing conditions, provide us a little flexibility and maybe we would like to buy across state lines if it brought the costs down, how about some fairness in the tax code so we don't punish the person who is in business for himself as opposed to someone who gets his

insurance tax-free from an employer and cobra is complicated and expensive and could you make that simpler for us because people are losing jobs right now and as they lose jobs they lose insurance. you have cobra, but i just lost my job and can't afford to make that payment and let the insurance expire. some major medical crisis may hit and the cycle repeats itself, repeats itself and repeats itself. these are the things that people wanted to see. i have a website, healthcaucus dog. these things i have heard, i put into legislation and affixed that to the things that people told me they wanted to see. at healthcaucus.org, you can print that off yourself on your

computer and there are nine things down there. it's not like there is already legislative language on most of those things, because there is. if there's a bill number there, i put it there beside it. if there is another member of congress who has a bill that has been introduced that will cover that issue, i've got their name there and bill number beside it. the fact is there are ideas out there and some of them are bipartisan. what a novel concept. but those ideas are out there on paper. we could take them up in an incremental fashion, over the next three weeks and we could really be down the road on solving the problems the american people want us to solve. instead, instead, it's this one-size-fits-all, washington knows best. we're going to give you this bill and when we pass it and you find out what's in it, you are going to like us after all. i thank the gentleman from texas for taking this hour. the hours are growing close

where this bill will come to the floor for a vote. we're probably getting down to the single-digit number of hours for america to remain a free country. this has been an important debate. i hope people will continue to watch. i hope they will continue to interact with their member of congress. and member of congress runs for office every other year. we are people's closest contact. that's what the founding fathers wanted. even though it's late and it's on sunday, this interaction takes place between a member of congress and their constituent is a say credit bond and that needs to be upheld over the next 24 hours. people do need to let their member of congress how they feel about this. that is one of the critical things we have been missing. i thank the gentleman for his indulgence and i yield back.

mr. gohmert: i thank my friend, dr. burgess, and i can assure it's not indulgence but a pleasure and honor to hear someone so ngable about this very issue that is being brought to a vote tomorrow. this is big and if bem have heard the president talk back in 2007 going into this campaign for president in 2008, he made very clear and he's made it very clear that he would sign a bill like this that would be the first step towards socialized medicine. he said this will be the first step. canada didn't get there in one step. you need this step and then you can transition into the full what's really socialized medicine. and in his speech today to encourage democrats to get on board, he said these words, this is the single most important

step that we have taken on health care since medicare, absolutely. absolutely, it is. and that's the step he was talking about two years ago, that this is the first step and then we move into full socialized medicine where the federal government controls everything about your health care. it's a huge step. it is a devastating step. and so, you have to think that if there are those democrats that are still trying to decide between yes or no, you really think -- should think -- the president is saying all the good stuff will happen between now and november, well, there may be a credit here or there, but when my friends that have talked to me about being so close between closing their business, being

out of business and hiring another employer and moving forward, when they get hit with an 8% payroll tax and have to go out of business and lay off everybody or stay in business at a dramatically reduced level and lay off individuals, cut salaries and those people can't pay their bills and we lose more mortgages, i don't think people are going to be in a good mood come november. i know art laffer has said and he is a brilliant economist that it's possible that the economy could start improving for one reason and that is because next january, the biggest tax increase in american history will hit. and it will absolutely devastate the economy. so it could be toward the end of the year as people start getting ready to move towards capital gains and all of the income tax

rates that go up, that it may look right before the election that we may be having a recovery. maybe so. but when you start adding the taxes now, that changes the equation. how our democratic friends and c.b.o. can tell people with a straight face this pays for itself when you got 10 years of income to pay for six or seven years of health care? and then we're told, yeah, but in the second 10 years, it really starts to pay for itself. that's never happened. you think congress is going to sit back and do nothing for the next 20 years and just wait and see for 20 years if things fix themselves? the soviet union didn't get that chance when they started spending money like this first

on the afghan war and then the missile defense. no one would loan them money. they couldn't print it fast enough. they went out of business. . when the president said in his comments that these words, for example, instead of having five tests when you go to the doctor, you just get one. he's being very truthful. thank god my mother had many tests over a period of six days before they found her brain tumor and she didn't just have one. i do appreciate the president saying in his speech today the words that ultimately the truth will come out. i believe he's right. and it will be devastating for those who were pushing through this government control. and toward the end of his -- well, actually there was a lot more speech but i'll just finish

with one other mention regarding the president's speech. he says, now, i cannot guarantee that this is good politics, that is very true. you vote for this, i know some people may have districts where they just -- they're used to having everything given to them, entitlement districts understanded -- districts, and they'll need to vote for it because they're used to entitlements, but elsewhere it's not going to be good politics and you're -- looking at the end of some political careers here, unless the president has agreed to give them jobs when they lose their seat. but, you know, this deal with caterpillar, they're saying they're going to lose $100 million in the first year. i've heard about states like when goodyear plan in alabama, where the state and local came together and offered $51 million just to keep the people there and keep the plan open -- plant open.

this bill is going to cost them $100 million, cost caterpillar $100 million. we're going to charge them $100 million, you think companies are going to be able to stay long like that? and i just want to finish up in my time tonight going back in history just to remind people before this terrible vote tomorrow, hopefully the american people will prevail, people will lose their nerve to force this economy and the health care off a cliff. but -- and then we can come back and we can work together, we can provide real solutions, we've got lots of good ideas, just let us work together with you to do that instead of having the president say, as he did at our retreat, i've read all your bills, yeah, i've read, there's things there, but i'd really -- he's not read our bills. he has not read all our bills. we've got lots of things that could be considered. but you go back to the founding

of this country, 1783, the articles of confederation didn't work, they're too loosely woven, no common currency, so it's falling apart. 1787 we have the constitutional convention in philadelphia. they talk george washington into coming back and presiding. he had done what no man had ever done in the history of the world before or since, he read a -- led a revolutionary military, won the revolution, resigned and went home. said, did i what you asked. well, 1787, they're telling him, if you don't come back and preside, the 13 states are not going to come back. we're done. the country's over. but all 13 states have agreed to come back if you will promise to preside over the constitutional convention. i mean, what a testimonial for a man, a man of integrity that he

was so beloved, if he would come back they would come back, they won't come back for anybody else. they knew he was a man who could walk away with power and never look back because he had done it. the convention goes on in philadelphia and they put blankets over the windows to keep people from looking in and people being distracted looking out. and there was bickering and arguing, it went on and on for nearly five weeks. at that point benjamin franklin was 80 years old, a little over two years away from meeting his maker, meeting his judge, meeting his creator, and, yes, he had sewed some wild oats in his life and some people thought he was a deist, that's someone who believes god created things or something happened to create things and then that being stepped back and has never done anything, basically. well, what some people call a deist today was recognized. he knew he was a couple of years

more awhich from meeting his maker -- away from meeting his maker. witty and brilliant as ever he stood up and he said these words, well, he started by saying, we've been meeting for nearly five weeks, we've accomplished basically nothing. we have more noes than ayes on these votes. i'm going to use his compact words taken down by james madison. in this situation of this assembly, grappling as it were in the dark to find political truth and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, sir, that we have not once hitherto thought of humbly applying to the father of the lights to illuminate our understanding? in the beginning contest with great britain when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room. for the divine protection. our prayers, sir, were heard and

they were graciously answered. ben franklin went on, he said, all of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor, to that kind of providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. and have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? ben franklin then went on an -- and said, i have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer i live the more convincing proof i see of this truth -- proofs i see of this truth. god governs in the affairs of men. and if a sparrow cannot fall to

the ground without his notice, is it possible an empire can rise without his aid? we have been assured, sir, in the sacred writing that except the lord build the house, they labor in vein that build it -- vain that build it. i firmly believe this. and i also firmly believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of babble. we should be divided by -- babel. we should be divided by little partial local interest it's, our projects be con founded and we -- con fouad -- confounded and we should become a byword down the ages and mankind may here after from this unfortunate instance despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest. i therefore beg leave to move that henceforth, prayers employing the assistance of heaven and its blessing on our

deliberations be held in the assembly every morning before we proceed to business. and after that, seconded by mr. sherman, it was unanimously adopted and from then to today we have prayer to begin our sessions in here. but, oh, if we could ever come back together as a group and as the very first congress did, join and pray together as they did on their knees and come together as one wrote to his wife, it was such a moving powerful prayer time, even the quakers had tears in their eyes. this is an important time, i thank god for those who have come to make their voices known this weekend. i thank god for the blessings with which we have been enriched and i hope that people across america will pray to that same god ben franklin referred to and

that he will move in the hearts of people here in congress, that they will do the thing that will bring us together and create a stronger nation that can survive for another 200 years and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1 the chair declares the house in recess subject to the call of the chair.

>> is the democrats have said they will not pass the bill not -- -- the democrats have said they will not use the deem and pass approach to the bill. they will have three votes instead. we will show you more of the rules committee meeting in a little over an hour. here is a portion of congressman cardoza. >> i think my friend for yielding and i appreciate this exchange. i want to share with our colleagues to see if there is any response to a story that has just come out from "the washington post." it says house democratic leaders

say that they will take a separate vote on the senate health care bill, rejecting an earlier criticized strategy that would have permitted them to deem the measure passed without an explicit vote. i wondered if this is a decision that has been made by the democratic leadership. i know -- >> as you know, we are having this hearing. we have not put a rule together. that is the point of this. at the end of this hearing, we will try to -- >> it sounds like you have -- >> they announced -- >> does the lady yield? >> certainly. >> has the dean and pass plan -- >> there has been significant discussion. i want to thank the house leadership for indicating to a number of us that will happen. we have had sanity prevailed, and i am pleased about that.

it is not that it was not constitutional, or was illegal, but it was something that should be in the light of day, straight up. >> on an issue of this magnitude -- >> reclaiming my time -- do you want to say something? >> american samoa congressman andrews said, we have been incrementally tinkering with this system for 50 years, at a minimum. when you want to make the kind of change that brings about the deficiencies in the system, the expansion of the system, and controls the utilization of value -- if you do not put everybody in, it does not work. >> from national public radio -- julie are you with us? there has been a development in the house. democrats are considering health care legislation tomorrow. what happened? >> they were going to use this procedure they called "deem and

pass" so they would not have to take a direct vote on the senate bill. a lot of house members do not like a lot of things that are in that bill. they got a ruling from the senate parliamentarian that said they could vote on the senate bill after they vote on the budget reconciliation bill, which has the changes to the senate bill. that would make it easier for them to vote on that senate bill, if they could vote on the changes first. they have decided they are not going to do that suffocating -- that self executing rule. instead, they will have three votes. the third will be on the senate bill. that will take away a big line of argument from the republicans that they were abusing the process, even though republicans have done it many times and democrats have done it many times. it had never been done on a bill this big, and i think that was true. there has not been a bill is

significant for many years. i think it makes it easier for them to get the votes. it takes away that argument. now that the parliamentarian has said it is ok to vote on the changes for the bill before the bill, they are going to do it that way. >> you think that prompted the change in strategy? >> it was a ruling from a parliamentarian that prompted a change in strategy. there were also getting a lot of push back, some from democrats who have been saying they want to do the process that way. they wanted to have this clean vote on the senate bill, even though there were a number of members who did not want to vote. >> is this an indication that democratic leaders are confident they have the votes to pass the bills? >> that would seem to be the case. the house majority leader came out a little while ago, for the first time. they have been saying we will have the votes when we take the

boat. for the first time, he said he was confident they had the vote. it would seem they think they have the votes. being able to structure the vote that way does make it easier for members to vote on that bill. they will have already voted on the changes they want to make. >> what is the latest on the talks with abortion opponents? >> those talks have broken down. it would seem they do not need the votes of those abortion opponents. there are a lot of abortion opponents who say they will vote for the bill. the senate bill also had abortion restrictions. that has been endorsed by a lot of abortion opponents, the catholic health association, a group of nuns. they say the senate bill does prohibit federal abortion funding. it is not clear how many abortion opponents will not vote

for the senate bill. it may only be a handful. the house can lose up to 37 democrats and still have enough votes to get the bill passed. it is not clear that they need that block of votes, although there was some talk that the president might perhaps issue an executive order to clarify this -- that there would be no federal funding for abortions. some abortion-rights democrats said that would be ok because they believe the senate bill already does that. they would not mind if the president did that. that would be a compromise they could live with. it is not clear, with the people who are working with congressman stupak -- they said they would have to see something in writing. there will be no separate vote for abortion distractions -- abortion restrictions, but there may be negotiations.

it looks like most of the things that were hanging as big issues -- an issue about geographic disparities in reimbursement under medicare. that seems to have been taken care of. if anything else flares up, we will be interested to see if the republicans try delaying tactics. there are all kinds of things they can do, parliamentary issues. you have to make sure everybody shows up. it is not the issue in the house that it was in the senate, but there is always the issue of getting here and voting. it is never over until it is over. there may be last minute issues that show up. at this point, it would appear that the democrats have the votes they need to prevail. >> thank you for joining us this afternoon. >> you are welcome. hos[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> president obama spoke at the

capitol where he addressed a meeting of congressional democrats. among the speakers were nancy pelosi, harry reid, and cindy wherhoyer. this is about 50 minutes. [applause] >> the caucus will come to

order. mr. president, majority leader reid, welcome to the house of representatives caucus, america's caucus. while the body was waiting outside to bring the president in, i was in forming our caucus that it did not happen under speaker canon, rayburn, or mc cormac. but under speaker nancy pelosi, we are going to pass health care for the american people. [applause] to introduce the president of the united states, the speaker of the house.

[applause] >> thank you all very much. i received your kind words on behalf of all of our courageous members of the house of representatives who want the best for the american people. what we can do that is best for them in the next 24 hours is to pass affordable, accessible health care for all americans. [applause] the best for all americans is to have 32 million more people to have health insurance in our country. the best for our country is to have $1.30 trillion in deficit reduction so that we are not keeping a mountain of debt. the best for our country is to

hold the insurance companies accountable and not let them come between patients and their doctors. we are on the verge of making great history for the american people, and in doing so we will make great progress for them as well. the president has said over and over we will measure our own success on the progress that has been made by america's working families. that is our responsibility, and we will honor it when we vote on health care reform. we would not be here without the courage of our colleagues here that have bought this fight. they have understood the issues. they have brought great exuberance to the debate. this will be about wellness and prevention and innovation as well as reducing our deficit and making america healthier. we certainly would not be here, mr. president, without your

inspiration, your leadership, you're fresh thinking on this subject. we thank you for that leadership. [applause] it is now my privilege to introduce my friend, the leader of the united states senate, a man who understands how important this issue is, an issue that has hit home for him very recently. he said at the time of his wife's accident that it made him further aware of why we must pass this bill, because it was so important for all americans to have the same access that she has. to watch him on a day-to-day basis is to see a master at work, and understanding of issues, a dedication to values, a vision for america, and a

knowledge of the procedures. i am pleased to thank him for what he has done to bring him to this point -- to bring us to this point and to introduce my colleague, the democratic leader of the united states senate, harry reid. [applause] >> one of the joys of my life has been my friendship, my partnership, with the greatest speaker the house of representatives has ever had, nancy pelosi. [applause] we have spent the last year

discussing, debating, drafting, and re-drafting. there is no longer a question of whether reform is necessary, whether this bill is an enormous positive step. the lives and livelihoods of millions are on the line. the question is whether senators and congressmen will stand with the american people or with the insurance industry responsible for this crisis. it is about whether you will fight for insurance company profits or for the families peace of mind. the question is whether you want to raise health care costs or whether you want to lower them and the deficit. whether you want to pretend this is about senate procedure or admit it is about struggling people. the question is whether you want to protect our broken health care system or fix it. the most sweeping changes to america's health care will be in

a matter of days. we need a simple majority to make a good law even better. i am happy to announce i have the commitment of a significant majority of the united states senate to make that good law even better. [applause] our great country has needed help perform for generations. this congress has been focused on it for the entire past year. history will show it will be one of the most important years in our history, ending with one of the most historic achievements congress has ever produced. mr. president, you have asked us

to send you a bill to improve the health of millions of americans and help our economy. we are going to do that. [applause] mr. president, i know you know basketball. you are a big fan. i know many are fixated on the national college basketball tournament going on now. mr. president, we are in the last minute of play. the shot clock is turned off. the other side knows what the outcome will be. they are trying to follow us and follow us and foul us again just to keep the clock from reading 0. they are not just delaying the inevitable. they are donating -- they are delaying the powerful. we will overcome every obstacle they have thrown in our way,

just as they have for the last year. when the buzzer sounds, there will be a clear winner. that winner will be the american people. [applause] in the house of representatives, there is no one who has mastered the floor as well as any hoyer -- as steny hoyer. there is no one who reaches across the aisle every day to try to encourage our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join with us in this historic vote. what he works hardest on is what he calls the psychology of consensus.

he and nancy pelosi together have created that and have created the greatest caucus ever assembled in the history of this country, the democratic house caucus. [applause] >> thank you very much. apparently, not the most humble. mr. president, welcome. we are pleased to have you here. senate majority leader harry reid, little did you and i realize when you were a cop and i was working down in the basement of the russell building that we would be on the stage with president obama. >you had a good job, he said. [laughter] in that office in which i

worked, there was a young lady who also worked there. her name was nancy. this was pre wedding. little did we realize that we would be here together at this historic time to participate with our colleagues in this extraordinary effort. america is watching us. some would say this is a partisan effort. they are wrong. this is an effort on behalf of all americans. george w. bush in 2002 said, " all americans should be able to choose a health care plan that meets their needs at affordable prices." bill clinton has said the time has come together to come together and deliver health care to all americans. george h. w. bush in 1992 said a universal comprehensive health insurance company -- health insurance program is one of the major unfinished items on america's social agenda.

the american people, he said in 1992, have waited too long. gerald ford, in 1974, said let us a firm that this national legislation is only the beginning of our effort to upgrade and perpetuate this part of our total health care system so no individual in this country will lack help whenever or wherever he needs it. john f. kennedy said in 1962, "whenever the miracles of modern medicine are beyond the reach of any groups of americans, for whatever reasons -- economic, geographic, occupational, or other -- we must find a way to meet their needs and fulfil their hopes." dwight eisenhower, in 1955, said, "clearly, our nation must do more to reduce the impact of accident and the disease.

two fundamental problems confront us. rising costs of health services. serious gaps and shortages in those services." so said dwight eisenhower in 1955. in 1945, harry truman said, "millions of our citizens do not have a full measure of opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health. the time has arrived for action to help them obtain that opportunity and that protection." another president said this. "comprehensive health insurance is an idea whose time has come in america. there has long been a need to assure every american access to high-quality health care. as medical costs go up, that need grows more pressing. now, for the first time, we have not just the need but the will to get this job done."

he went on to say there is widespread support in the congress and the nation for some form of comprehensive health insurance. he urged us to act sensibly. indeed, he urged us to act now. in 1974. to insure all americans access. our president talks about the fact that theodore roosevelt put this on our agenda over a century ago. barack obama went to the people of this country and reached out to them and said, "if you elect me president of the united states, this is what i will do." there was no illusion of what he would do. there was no trying to hide it. it was transparent. in the debate in october of 2008, he said exactly what he was going to do.

john mccain stood on that same stage and said, "i believe every american ought to have access to affordable health care." all the president's i quoted tried to get something done, and it was not done. on sunday, tomorrow, we will do it. [applause] >> led by our president, who said to the american public, "this is our moment." ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states, barack obama. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you.

thank you. thank you. thank you, everybody. thank you. thank you very much. thank you. everybody, please have a seat. two leader reid, to steny hoyer, john larsen, cjim clyburn, to an extraordinary leader and an extraordinary speaker of the house, nancy pelosi, to all the members here today -- thank you very much for having me. thanks for having me and thanks for your tireless efforts waged on behalf of health insurance reform in this country.

you know, i have the great pleasure of having a really nice library at the white house. and i was tooling through some of the writings of some previous presidents. i came upon this "by abraham lincoln. "i am not bound to win, but i am bound to be true. i am not bound to succeed, but i am bound to live up to what life i have." in this debate -- it has been a difficult debate. this process has been a difficult process. this year has been a difficult year for the american people. when i was sworn in, we were in the midst of the worst recession since the great depression.

800,000 people per month were losing their jobs. millions of people were losing their health insurance. the financial system was on the verge of collapse. this body has taken on some of the toughest votes and some of the toughest decisions in the history of congress, not because you were bound to win but because you were bound to be true, because each and every one of you made a decision that at a moment of such urgency it was less important to measure what the polls said than to measure what was right. a year later, we are in

different circumstances. because of the actions you have taken, the financial system has stabilized. the stock market has stabilized. businesses are starting to invest again. the economy, instead of contracting, is now growing again. there are signs that people are going to start hiring again. there is still tremendous hardship all across the country, but there is a sense that we are making progress, because of you. but even before this crisis, each and every one of us knew that there were millions of people across america that were living their own credit -- living their own quiet crisis, maybe because they had a child with a pre-existing condition. no matter how desperate they were, they could not get coverage for that child. maybe it was somebody who had

been forced into early retirement in their 50s, not yet eligible for medicare, and they could not find a job and they could not find health insurance, despite the fact that they had some sort of chronic condition that had to be tended to. every single one of you, at some point before you arrived in congress and after you arrived in congress, have met constituents with heartbreaking stories. and you have looked them in the eye and said, "we are going to do something about it. that is why i want to go to congress." now, we are on the threshold. we are a day away. after a year of debate, after every argument has been made by just about everybody, we are 24

hours away. as some of you know, i am not somebody who spends a lot of time surfing the cable channels, but i am not completely in the bubble. i have a sense of what the coverage has been. and mostly it is an obsession with "what will this mean for the democratic party. what will this mean for the president's polls? how will this play out in november? is this good or bad for the democratic majority? what does it mean for the swing districts?" there has been a lot of friendly advice offered all across town. [laughter] mitch mcconnell, john bonneoene

karl rove -- they are all warning you of the disastrous impact to support this legislation. it could be that they are suddenly having a change of heart and are deeply concerned about their democratic friends. [laughter] they are giving you the best possible advice in order to assure that nancy pelosi remains speaker and harry reid remains leader and all of you keep your seats. that is a possibility. but it may also be possible that they realize after health care reform passes and i sign that legislation into law that it is going to be a little harder to miss characterized but this effort has been all about. this year, small businesses will

start getting tax credits so they can offer health insurance to employees who currently do not have it. [applause] this year, those same parents who were worried about getting coverage for their children with pre-existing conditions now are assured that insurance companies have to give them coverage this year. [applause] this year, insurance companies will not suddenly be able to drop your coverage when you get sick, or impose lifetime limits or restrictive limits on the coverage that you have. maybe they know that this year, for the first time, young people will be able to stay on their parents' health insurance until they are 26 years old. that might just be popular all across the country. [applause]

and what they also know is what will not happen. they know that after this legislation passes, and after i signed this bill, nobody is pulling the plug on grammnny. [laughter] [laughter] it turns out that people who like their health insurance are going to be able to keep their health insurance. there is no government takeover. people will discover that if they like their doctor, they will be keeping their doctor. in fact, they are more likely to keep their doctor because of a stronger system. it will turn out that this piece of historic legislation is built on the private insurance system that we have now and run straight down the center of

political thought. . . >>the republicans wanted what i call the "foxes-guard-the-hen- house" approach in which we further de-regulate the insurance companies and let them run wild, the notion being somehow that was going to lower costs for the american people. i don't know a serious health care economist who buys that idea, but that was their concept.

and we rejected that. because we said that we want to create a system in which health care works not for the insurance companies, but for the american people and working families. so what did we do? what is the essence of this legislation? number one: this is the toughest insurance reforms in history. we are making sure that the system of private insurance works for ordinary families -- a patients' bill of rights on steroids. so many of you have worked on these insurance reforms. they are in this package. that insurance companies are not going to game the system with fine print, recisions and

dropping people, but instead are going to have to abide by some basic rules of the road. the second thing this does is creates a pool -- a marketplace -- where individuals and small businesses who right now are having a terrible time out there getting health insurance, are going to be able to purchase health insurance as part of a big group just like federal employees, and members of congress. they are now going to be part of a pool that can negotiate

for better rates, better quality. that is why the cbo says this will lower people's rates for comparable plans by 14-20%. that's not my numbers -- that's the cbo's numbers. so people will have choice and competition just like members of congress have choice and competition. number three: if people still can't afford it, we're going to provide them some tax credits -- the biggest tax cut for small business and working families when it comes to health care -- in history. (applause)

[applause] number four: this is the biggest reduction in our deficit since the budget balance act, one of the biggest deficit reduction measures in history -- over 1.3 trillion dollars that will help put us on the path of fiscal responsibility -- . everybody who has looked at it says that every single good idea to bend the cost curve and start actually begin reducing health care costs, are in this bill. so that's what this effort is all about -- toughest insurance reforms in history, a marketplace for choice and competition, reductions in the cost of health care for millions of families including those who have health insurance.

the business round table says this will save employers $3,000 per employee -- not only does it reduce the deficit, we pay for it responsibly -- . this is paid for, and won't add a dime to the deficit and will reduce the defiicit. is this bill perfect? of course, not. will this solve every problem in our health care system right away? no. there are many ideas that many

of you have that aren't included in this legislation. there are many things that many of you would like to see, and that i would like to see, that are not in this legislation. but is this the single most important step that we have taken on health care since medicare? absolutely. is this the most important piece of domestic legislation in terms of giving a break to middle class families?

absolutely. is this a vast improvement over the status quo? absolutely. i know this is a tough vote. i've talked to many of you individually. if you honestly believe that this is not an improvement over the status quo, if you think that the system is working for ordinary americans, rather than insurance companies, if you can honestly say that, then you

shenk putin but it is okay that we have millions of hard-working americans without health care and that it is acceptable that the wealthiest nation on earth, that there are children with chronic illnesses that can i get the care that they knew. if you think that the system is working then you should vote no on this bill. -- if you can honestly say that, shouldn't support it. you're here to represent your constituencies, and if you think they honestly wouldn't be helped, you shouldn't vote for but if you agree that the system isn't working, if you've

heard the same stories that i've heard all across this country, then help us fix this system. don't do it for me. don't do it for nancy pelosi. or harry reid. do it for all those people out there who are struggling -- . do it for the american people. they are the ones who are looking for action right now. i know this is a tough vote. >> my daughter, a wonderful person, lost her job. she had a blood clot in her brain and she is now disabled and cannot get care. dear president obama, i did not yet qualify for medicare. cobra is about to run out. i am desperate and do not know what to do. do it for them. two of four people who are

really scared right now, who have done all the right things. the suddenly find out that because of an accident, because of an element, they are about to lose the house. and i am actually confident that the have always taken pride in providing care for their workers and it turns out that they cannot do it anymore and they are having to make a decision about providing health insurance for workers or just drop the coverage or not hired some people because it is being gobbled up by the insurance companies. don't do it for me. do it for the american people. they are the ones that are looking for action right now.

i know that this is a tough vote. and i am actually confident. i've talked to some of you individually. it will end up being the smart thing to do, politically. i believe that good policy is the policy i am convinced that when you go out there and you are standing tall, you're saying that this is the right thing to do for your constituents and the right thing to do for america and all to run the, the truce will win. i had a wonderful conversation. -- i believe good policy is good politics. i am convinced that when you go out there and you are standing tall and you are saying, 'i thing to do for my constituents and the right thing to do for truth will win out -- (has a couple of previous no-votes the caucus). i can't guarantee this is good politics. you all know your districts

better than i do. you're getting pressure, robo- calls, e-mails, phone calls that -- the next day, that same newspaper ran an oratorio that said that they have looked at the legislation systems -- i know the pressure you're under. . we are pleased that the congresswoman is supporting the legislation. [applause] when i see john.

stand up. when i see him with a whole bunch of his constituents -- [applause] in as tough a district as there is, you stand up with a bunt people from his district. i don't know what is going on in washington, but i know what is going on with these families. i looked at him with pride. i can't guarantee that this is good politics. everyone of you know your district better than i did. you are under enormous pressure. you're giving robotic calls and

i know the pressure that you're under. i got a few comments made about me, i don't know if you've noticed. i've been in your shoes. i know what it's like to take a tough vote. but what did lincoln say? i am not bound to win. but i am bound to be true. two generations ago, folks who are sitting in your position made a decision, said we are going to make sure that seniors and the poor are going to have health care. and they did the right thing. i'm sure at the time they were making that vote, they weren't sure of how the politics were either, any more than the people who made the decision to make

sure social security was in place knew how the politics would play out, or the people who passed the civil rights act knew how the politics were going to play out. they were not bound to win. they were bound to be true. and now we've got middle class americans -- don't have medicare, don't have medicaid, watching the employer-based system fray along the edges, who are being caught in terrible situations, and the question is, are we going to be true to them? you know, sometimes i think about how i got involved in politics. i didn't think of myself as a potential politician when i graduated from college. i was skeptical about politics and politicians -- just like a lot of americans are skeptical

about politicians right now. because i thought -- folks in elected office are looking out for themselves, and not looking out for the folks who put them there -- that there were too many compromises, special interests have too much power, there's too much big money washing around. i decided finally to get involved because i realized that if i wasn't willing to step up believed in, then the system wouldn't change. every single one of you had that same moment at the beginning of your careers. maybe it was listening to

stories in your neighborhood, people being laid off in your neighborhood, or a moment where you said, something should change -- something inspired you to get involved -- and something inspired you to be a democrat republican, because somewhere, deep in your heart, you said to yourself, i believe in an america in which we don't just look out for ourselves, and we don't just tell people, you're on your own, that we are proud of our individualism, we are proud of our liberty, but we also have a sense of community, and we are willing to look out for one another, and help people who are vulnerable, and help people who are down on their luck, and give them a pathway to success, and give them a ladder into the middle class.

[applause] that's why you decided to run. and now, a lot of us have been here awhile. and everybody here's taken their lumps and their bruises and everyone's had to make compromises, and you've been away from families for a long time, and you've missed special events for your kids sometimes, and maybe there've been times where you've asked yourself,

politics in the first place? and maybe things can't change after all. and when you do something courageous, it turns out, sometimes you may be attacked. and sometimes the very people you were trying to help may be angry at you and shout at you, that thing that i started with has been lost. but you know what? every once in awhile, a moment comes where you have a chance to vindicate all those best hopes that you had -- about yourself, about this country, where you have a chance to make good on those promises that you made in all those town meetings, and all those constituency breakfasts, all that travelling through the district, all those people who you looked in the eye and said, you're right, the system's not working for you,

and i'm going to make it a little bit better. moments. this is one of those times where you can honestly say to yourself, this is exactly why i came here. this is why i got into politics. this is why i got into public service. this is why i've made those sacrifices -- because i believe so deeply in this country -- and i believe so deeply in this democracy, that i'm willing to stand up even when it's hard. even when it's tough. every single one of you have made that promise, not just to your constituents but to yourself.

and this is the time to make true on that promise. we are not bound to win. but we are bound to be true. we are not bound to succeed. but we are bound to let whatever light we have shine. we have been debating health care for decades. it has now been debated for a year. it is in your hands. it is time to pass health care reform for america and i am confident that you are going to do it tomorrow. done! [applause]

>> fired up. ready to go. >> fired up. >> credit ago. [applause] [in distin>> house republicans t earlier. cameras were allowed for the first few minutes of the meeting. we will hear first from the conference chair. this is about 50 minutes. >> thank you for joining us for the first time ever. you're most welcome here. let me make a couple of

housekeeping announcements. we will talk about details for the rest of this weekend. first, on the personal detail siad, this sunday, the u.s. house of representatives is scheduled to be in a rare sunday session with boats happening at 1:00. there are inviting members and staff at 11:00 a.m. for a sunday worship service here at the capitol. thank you, randy. [applause] in 1800, the congress except to the use of the church building. the church of the capital was

the largest church in washington. the speaker of the house has advised -- invited us to be in the house and we will establish a new position with that, you have your house republican on your chairs. just a few thoughts about this moment in the life of our conference and the life of our nation. we really are gathered here at an historic time i don't believe this is a historic time the way they think it is a historic time to rea. more government, more taxes, more mandates, and public funding of abortion, more bureaucracy, but house

republicans know that americans want to face the challenges in health care with more freedom and not more government [applause] nik about how far you have come. because of the stands that every one of the men and women in this room have taken, on everything from the stimulus bill to the budget bill up to this very moment, you have taken a stand, not just for fiscal responsibility and reform, but you have taken a stand for the american people. if evidence needs to be found, you could look out on the capitol today. house republicans are on the side of the american fight. the american people do not want

a government takeover of health care. now, it is incumbent on republicans to take a stand for the american people. we need to remind the american people that with all the aspects of this bill, of which they may not yet be aware, the bureaucracy and the taxes and mandates, but we also need to remind people here in washington d.c. that this is not the president's house. this is not the speaker's this is not even our house. this is the people's house and mr. president, and nancy pelosi, the american do not want a government takeover of health care. [applause]

i am proud of this whole team and i am proud of the effort you have made. our challenge is to finish strong. to be confident. to know that we can win this fight if we would rise to the challenge. i do not know whether victory will come on the third sunday in march, or on the third tuesday in november, but victory will come. with that, to join me in welcoming the republican whip to the podium. >> thank you. [applause] >> ok, a lot of drama today.

a lot of festivities outside because people are angry. we know that if you look at it, the clock on this debate may very well be winding to a close within the next one to 4-30 hours. that means that we still have work to do. there are lot of folks in here today that are not usually an hour conference. their focus has been largely on that group of members on the other side of the aisle known as the stupak group. every breath they take is being analyzed, research and everyone is trying to predict which way they will go. what i can tell you is they are standing firm on the principles that our government taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund abortion.

[applause] the story that is not being written is that which is not been written. there were seven announcements of members on the other side of the aisle that have switched from a no vote back when the house tickets above the two now yes. those were not surprises to us. we have to focus on making sure there are no more surprises. we have two groups. we have a group of members on the other side and the 30 or so democrats that are still left. unless the democrats in this group wanted dispute to

characterization, is a fact that they are against this bill. here are a few. not only -- constituents are watching. virginia, michael mcmahon of new york, glenn 9 of virginia, colin peterson of minnesota, and johnthose were all the "no" votes their constituents. now, the second group right now

is the group that voted yes before, but which we know, given where their constituents are, may very well want to come and join us. there has been a lot of press reports. we still have no real definition or affirmation of their vote. bill foster of illinois, debbie difference of arizona, stephen lynch, we have to make sure he comes the way we need him to come to stand up for this country, exact space of ohio. that is our universe we have got to focus on. the group is holding firm on principle. we have got to make sure that there are 38 "no" votes on the other side to assure defeat on

this bill. let's go get them. thank you. [applause] >> all right. sit down. 15 months ago, we began to outline what the party was going to look like in the future. we talked about standing on principle. we also said that if we had to oppose them, based on our principles, we would offer the

american people a better solution. if you have watched over the last 15 months, and all of you have, you have been there, we stood on principle. we brought our team together in opposition to the big government failed policies of this democratic congress and this administration. at the same time, we offer better solutions. when it comes to health care, we have the seven-hour obama infomercial. you all remember. it was a great opportunity for republicans to talk about what we thought were better solutions, to take a step-by- step approach for improving the quality of health care in bringing down the cost of health insurance in america, thereby making it more affordable for more americans are team has been united day in

and day out over these last 15 months. i want to say thanks to all of you who are here, for the work you have done and your willingness to work with colleagues and to stand on principle. i told you two weeks ago, we had to do everything that we could possibly do to make sure that this bill never becomes law. i did not want to be on the floor of the house on sunday night knowing that i could have done one more interview, or that i had done everything i could to try to stop the bill. let me tell you, you have all responded. i cannot say enough good words about our friends across the street who have done a marvelous job with code red.

it has been enlightening. town hall meetings and democrat district, who would have thought of that one? some of lower members participated in the rally last night in pittsburgh. all of you have pitched in. now, we are there. we are about 24 hours from armageddon. we're 24 hours from members casting a vote on one of the biggest bills they will ever vote for in their careers. we are right there. i asked the speaker yesterday, i aster to have a call of the house, so that every member, every man and woman would be

required to stand before god, their countrymen, and their constituents, and tell them how they were going to vote. [applause] [cheers and applause] so, we are almost there. there are 24 hours more left in the fight. this was not the time to think that we had done it all. this was not the time to think that nobody is paying attention on a saturday afternoon. there are tens of thousands of americans right out here on the capitol grounds. they are not giving up. we shouldn't, either. republicans cannot win this

fight. but, the american people can. [applause] what we need to do is we need to continue to engage the american people. we need to have every american talking to their representatives about how they feel about this bill. we need to continue to the radio shows. we need to do the tv appearances. go up there and get on the blogs. i know there are telephone town hall meetings in democratic districts today. i want to make sure we are doing everything we do to make sure this bill never, ever, ever becomes law. [applause]

following their meeting, house republican meetings came outside to talk more about legislation. speaking first is mike pence. this is about 10 minutes. >> the house republicans just completed our special meeting of our conference. house republicans are determined to stand with the american people and oppose this government takeover of health care with everything that we have got.

it is important that the mandates and the bureaucracy in congress understand that that is not the president's house. and that is not the speaker's house. that is the people's house, and this weekend, we will stand with the american people and do everything in our power to give them more freedom and not more government. [applause] >> house republicans remain committed to do everything we possibly can to defeat this health care bill. we will work hard every hour until this vote is taken to

insure that we can produce 38 "no" votes on the other side of the aisle. i think the americans that have joined us in this fight. if we continue to work hard and listen to the american people, we can defeat this bill. [applause] >> the real question is, our representatives listening to america? we are elected to represent people all over this country, but we see poll after poll where americans say that we do not want this bill. the question that will be answered tomorrow is whether or not representatives are listening. we thank everyone for coming here and standing with us >>

yesterday, the speaker and nancy pelosi had a press conference. in that press conference, she sent the bill and to manipulate a bill, you can manipulate the score. the speaker also said that that she would into what is called a doc fix. that would make a billion dollar deficit. also, look at all the double counting in this bill. we are double counting $70 billion and double counting $53 billion. they are not counting 71 palkot -- $71 billion in appropriations.

10 billion of that goes to the irs. $398 billion just for medicare part a. if you add all of that up, this bill has a $454 billion deficit. if you add everything up, this bill is a $787 billion deficit. the point is this. the math is correct. we know how to add and we know how to subtract and when you look at what cbo said says, this gives us a massive deficit. this is on top of the fact that the entitlements we already have are unaffordable. we are creating a new government spending program where we are already 76 trillion dollars in the whole. it is unconscionable. they do not have the votes for it and i sure hope that they want.

[applause] >> i represent west virginia. health care is on the minds of everybody standing here. this is a missed opportunity for all of us in this country. i will tell you also what is on everybody's mind. that is jobs. in this bill, there are taxes totaling $569 billion. those are jobs killing taxes at a time when we can least afford losing one single job across this country.

i think that americans across this country, small business owners, job creators, those that are looking to hire are going to be sadly disappointed if we are unsuccessful in killing this bill because of $569 billion. >> thank you. [applause] >> democratic leaders are telling their members that after this passes, it will become much more popular. they are dead wrong. how about the seniors out there. a bunch of those seniors will see themselves lose their plans. how about the small business

owner who will see higher taxes, more mandates and higher fees? will become more popular with them? i do not think so. -- will become more popular with them? i do not think so -- will it become more popular with them, i don't think so. this is not the way to go and the american people know it. yesterday, i spent a letter -- i sent a letter to the speaker asking for a roll-call vote on this bill. a straight up or down vote. these men and women will stand up before god, their country and their constituents and announce their vote. i think it's time -- [applause] it's time to have accountability here in washington. none of the tricks.

let's just have it done one at a time to rid this fight is not over. this fight is continuing. they do not have the votes and we have to keep working to make sure that they never, never, never pass this bill. thank you. [applause] all the members are talking to undecided members. our members are doing telephone town hall meetings into undecided democratic districts. there are more activities going on than you would see in a normal campaign. >> this time tomorrow, how many will you turn? >> we do not know. every vote will count. this is going to be a very close vote.

this health care bill will ruin our country. it is time to stop it. >> kill the bill. kill the bill. killed a bill. kill the bill. kill the bill. kill the bill. tillable built. kill the bill. kill the bill. kill the bill killed the bill.

>> this weekend, lawmakers are heading towards a final vote in the hulls -- in the house. you can follow the latest on the only network that covers washington gavel-to-gavel, and edited, with no commercials or commentary. take us wherever you go for archived video and to see what house and senate members are saying on twitter. >> the u.s. house of gavels in tomorrow for debate on the health care reconciliation bill. a final vote is expected later in the day. lighthouse coverage on c-span. the senate could take up the reconciliation bill next week. live coverage of the senate is on c-span and2. -- c-span2 >> and now, the house rules committee considers changes to

the reconciliation bill. this is one of two -- two reconciliation bills. the second one also changes the federal student loan program. the rules committee sets parameters for debate. the reconciliation procedure is being used as a way to avoid a filibuster and requires a simple majority rather than 60 votes. here are some portions of the daylong hearing. >> thank you, chairwoman slaughter. it is a pleasure to be here today. the budget committee reported on the reconciliation bill, but we realize it is going to appear in tandem with another bill. this legislation would produce a sweeping overhaul of our health care sector. it will fundamentally change the

relationship between patients and their doctors and put washington in control of their health care. it will raise taxes . and put washington in control and raise taxes by 56 -- it didn't raise $500 billion, just as the economy is struggling to create jobs. it will add a trillion dollars entitlement program on top of the fact that we have $76 trillion in liabilities we don't know how to pay for. with you believe this should be enacted, i doubt there is disagreement about the sweeping nature of this legislation or the convoluted process unfolding here. the majority will cite cases of abuse. you will not find the midst of

abuse in this legislation. it is breathtaking. you are the experts on house rules. i want to focus on the extraordinary and unprecedented abuse of the budget reconciliation process. reconciliation has been abused in the past which is why the senate adopted the bird rule. reconciliation has never been the abuse to the extent that it is today. we are using last year's budget resolution which has a target of $1 billion in instructions to sweep into law a $2.2 trillion entitlement. in 2006 it was $40 billion. it forces the budget resolution, one dollar and deficit reduction and when we do that let's create

a trillion dollars entitlement. we are greasing the skids to abuse the budget reconciliation procedure to control the government, not expand it. the key to the government act was to rein in the president's power and give the congress means to control the budget. to day the budget act is being used ironically by this president to jam through the largest expansion in 40 years. the budget office are very good people who are being overworked. they do their jobs very well but their job is to score what is in front of them. let us talk about what is in front of them. it is a legislation full of gimmicks. when you strip away the double counting and the faulty assumptions it is clear that the overall does not reduce the deficit and does not contain costs. the speaker let the cat out of

the bag, we will pass the dock fix. i asked, to put in there and -- to pass the dock fix as the speaker is claiming, this wipes out the claim of deficit reduction. this shows us that. i shrunk this because it is a small room and it may be too big as well. let's look at the fuzzy mass inside this bill. looking at the letters we have gotten yesterday and a few days before they are claiming $138 billion in this bill and that is the smoke and mirrors. $70 billion of premiums looks to pay the benefit of the class act but are being sequestered to pay for this new entitlement.

and $50 billion of social security taxes. when social security taxes come in they are supposed to be reserved for more benefits. we have to have a lot of money to run this program. $10 billion to the irs to hire 50,000 irs agents to police the enforcement of this mandate on every american. $55 billion to bureaucracy to run this health-care and the trust fund, all this money through these medicare cutsçç extending medicare. it pays for this new entitlement, $38 billion, coming from medicare to this

entitlement. this is an $454 billion deficit. when you look at the fact that this treats medicare to create new government programs, what we're doing here is imposing a new entitlement that we don't know how to pay for. at a time to create jobs and finally let's look at the architecture of this legislation. it is designed to give the federal government control over what health insurance is available for all americans and mandates americans to buy health insurance that is determined by the secretary of hhs and how much health care is enough and what treatments are worth paying for. i don't think this is what people sent us here to do.

we are up for reelection every other year. the entire body is up for reelection. the framers designed this institution to be closest to the people and i would implore you they want transparent government and accountable to government and bringing forward a rule that deems a 2700 page bill a takeover of the entire health-care sector, creation of a $4. trillion entitlement, beaming this into law without having the courage to have a clean up or down vote in the people's house as representatives of the people is not good government or democracy. one of the cornerstone principles of this nation that our founders created is government by consent, that is not what is coming here. we are turning this principle on its head.

don't go down this path. give us clean votes and the shame of all of this, many of you know this, we have been offering ideas as well. we have asked you to work with us on a bipartisan basis step by step, piece by piece and with pre-existing conditions and work on costs and prices and the deficit. i realize you have a big majority and all the power in washington. you chose to go it alone with one party rule. i want you all to know that we too believe the current system is unsustainable. it is bankrupting families and people with pre-existing conditions. we don't want to have thirty million uninsured or whatever number you choose. we want to fix this but the answer is not to have the federal government take over the health-care sector and impose $569,200,000,000 in tax increases to kill jobs and raid medicare to the tune of

$532 billion to create a new entitlement. that is why we are opposed to this bill. >> we appreciate all that. mr. ryan, i understand you have your own reform plan. would you give us a very brief description of what you plan for medicare? you phase it out and get rid of it completely? >> i couldn't disagree with you more. let me just say there are lots of republican bills on care. [talking over each other] >> that is not the republican budget. i introduced my own long-term entitlement plan and i will tell you what it does for medicare. we realize medicare is the $38 trillion reliability. if we wait until 2013 it is a $52 trillion liability. medicare goes bankrupt by 2017. what my bill does which is scored by the actuaries as

achieving full solvency scored by the congressional budget office as achieving permanent solvency is if you are in or near retirement we are not going to change a thing for you in medicare. you will get a medicare you have organized your life around. [talking over each other] >> let me just finish. we are not going to cut medicare with this bill. we are going to have one out of five medicare providers go out of business or drop patients. we want you to have the medicare you have right now and if you are under 55, it will not be there for us. i say -- [talking over each other] >> let's reform medicare to make it sustainable and the kind of reform i propose is the health care we as members of congress have. i get a payment and a book. [talking over each other]

>> you want me to explain what my medicare reform is. >> may i ask -- >> i was answering question. [talking over each other] >> what i want to know is your aim is to fade out medicare. >> that is not true. >> if you were below 55 medicare would not be there. >> medicare is going bankrupt and running out of money. [talking over each other] >> let me explain what i propose. can i answer your question? >> i hope you will. i am proposing for people under 55 would transform the medicare system to a system that works like what we have in congress. we get a payment like we have in congress and what we get with that payment, we get to pick among a list of certified medicare plan like we do in congress to pick our benefit but i do three things. you are low income we cover all

of your costs. if you are sick you get more money to make sure you get affordable care and if you are +t(p' afford more so that tests the benefit. what that does is gives everybody who goes into medicare, younger than 55, it medicare, younger than 55, it gives them the kind of benefit in congress with additional support for the sick and low income people doing it that way by giving competition so plans compete against each other for our business according to the congressional budget office makes the program permanently solvent and medicare still continues. it is still an entitlement and the medicare system for everybody over 65 but run in a way that is sustainable. it is done in a way that pays off our nation's debt. >> as i understand it -- hold on a minute. you are saying that in the future the elderly will be given

a voucher. the and mentally ill and critically ill, all these people covered by medicare will be given a public market. >> they will have a -- [talking over each other] >> just like it has for you and me -- >> they buy their own insurance. >> medicare approved >> [talking over each other] >> i understand you don't like the plan but what is your plan? >> we have got our plan. >> this isn't the medicare plan. it hurts medicare. >> one of the major differences i want to discuss with you is this plan we are proposing to vote on tomorrow covers 95% of all americans. >> the under 65 population. >> you will cover three million more people. we cover thirty two million. >> you are talking about a

different bill, not my bill. you are talking about -- i have a bill -- there are lots of different republican bills. >> you wanted to comment. >> i hope we get back to talking about the bill that will be passed for the american public but it is important to recognize mr. ryan's plan is legislative language. he will eliminate medicare for anyone who is 55 or younger and maybe paul doesn't call it a voucher but it will be a ticket that loses value every year to keep up with the cost of medical inflation and seniors hoping they can afford to have health insurance will find it more difficult but more than that what we should examine more closely, those of us not yet receiving medicare is the fact

that this republican proposal raises taxes on 90% of americans to pay for the cost of his proposal. that is because this will tax employee benefits that people through their insurer received. the tax on every american who works today and receive his or her insurance through the employer, mr. ryan's proposal would tax heavily. there are ways to pay for his plan. >> tell us what they are. >> to find a way to pay with the plan, tax every american, they receive their coverage through their employer. >> in your opinion his plan does away with medicare and leaves people with a voucher to find -- >> medicare as we know it -- [talking over each other]

>> it is very easy to find savings by essentially instead of guaranteeing everybody coverage like we do today under medicare give them a voucher and at the difference between the cost of medicare and the value of the voucher all you have to do is make it lower and use save more but you undermine health care for all people who are seniors. the basic premise of medicare is every senior is guaranteed health care. mr. ryan's proposal does not guarantee -- it doesn't. it doesn't. purely -- [talking over each other] >> we disagree on that. you want to talk about your own legislation that is not only clear to me -- let me say two

things. i find it interesting that you are saying we are growing the increase slower than health care. that is what you are doing in this legislation. you have two things you claim bends the cost curve. put this in the reconciliation bill which is your subsidy for americans in the exchange slows down in the out years to get savings. you yourself are basically saying we want the same thing. we want to slow down the subsidies at a lower rate in health inflation. taxing health insurance benefits. you are taxing health insurance benefits in this bill but unlike your taxing them to another government program. you will take it from the job and give it to you. that tax money doesn't go for a new program like you are doing. sea-tac money says if you got laid off, if you work for

yourself you will get the same tax benefit everybody gets. we a discriminating against people who did not have health insurance for their jobs and instead of having a tax benefit tied to your job let's tax it to individuals. it is not a tax increase is an exchange of one for the other. i am simply saying you have endorse those concepts in this legislation alone. let's be consistent if we could. >> do you want to address that? >> talk about our bill and ask about the difference between our bill and his. >> use the microphone. >> congressman andrews in new jersey, thank you. let's take a person who drives a truck and makes $50,000 a year whose health insurance plan is worth $18,000. is that person taxed under our

plan? >> $50,000 in what year? >> the answer is no. [talking over each other] >> there are plenty of other -- [talking over each other] >> is that person tax under your plan? >> he gets an average tax of $1,400. [talking over each other] >> i have run these numbers. [talking over each other] >> under your plan, are the health benefits of that truck driver taxed? >> yes and he gets a cash benefit of $57 which is more than he gets under the current code. >> i am pleased to be here but if we're going to debate back and forth between witnesses -- >> it is so important that we

have some idea. >> it seems to me -- [talking over each other] >> your proposal would shift the cost to the elderly, when they get to the elderly and that is how the government will save money but most americans want medicare to be there when they are eligible. medicare is a benefit you are entitled to after you have paid in all those years. you would take it from the next generation and say go out and buy private insurance policy. if you could afford more you would get more in if not you would get something. you get the poor people's 8 m 0 but that is not what we want for medicare or what the american people want but that is not up tomorrow. our bill that is up tomorrow would expand medicare, make that trust fund more solvent for logger period peterson will

close the doughnut hole and people paying for prescription drugs, make presentable benefits without co-pays and keep people healthier longer. that is keeping the promise of medicare. you want to change the promise it is a different philosophy. [talking over each other] >> rather than use it -- he is not a member of the panel. >> we ask mr. ryan to discuss his plan. he is very proud i think what we have seen is this is the most compelling argument for an open and free wheeling and transparent debate on the house floor.

compelling argument for an open and free wheeling and transparent debate on the florida house of representatives. we have the chairs and ranking members of four committees working diligently on this issue for a long period of time and the idea has mr. barton began discussing an pointed to so well and supported so well in this effort, it is essential in what was promised as the most transparent and open congress in the history of the republic that we on this issue which everyone acknowledges is landmark legislation, we have that kind of open debate we were promised at the last congress and the beginning of this congress. i want to take a moment to touch on what sandy levin raised, the very important personal aspect

of this. sandy was handing out fliers for john's fatah reminding all of us we are not as old as he is. by pointing--was reminding all of us how much older than we are he is but the fact is what was being done to focus on this issue and make sure people have access to health care is a very important thing. two instances of californians who are neighbors of mine and the challenge they face. there is a sense that going back to teddy roosevelt, president after president have been trying to deal with this and my friend regularly says scott we as republicans when we bring in the majority did nothing. we ignored this issue.

i would like to disabuse people of that notion by a pointing to a couple issues. recognizing we could go along way towards increasing the number of americans who have access to health insurance and in light of the argument we have made, mr. martin and mr. ryan made share the economic growth of $569,200,000,000 tax increase that will slow economic growth, i am hard-pressed to believe we will see health insurance made available for thirty-two million americans for our proposal will make health insurance available for three million americans. i don't accept that notion. if we actually see the economic

growth in this country resources will not be there. in response to this argument, we were not working on this issue, i am proud of the fact that we initiated 23 years ago the existence of medical savings accounts and those who played a role in increasing the access to health insurance for people in this country and i know the argument of incentivizing people through taxes is not possible for those at the lower end of the economic spectrum but we have been able to increase that access and i am proud of the fact that there are seniors today who have access to affordable prescription drugs because of the program we put in place but there are couple issues the president has said he supported in the health care

summit. unfortunately -- there were associate health plans. that is what he was supportive of. trying to allow businesses to have an opportunity to have lower rates. when we were in the majority we sent legislation to do that to the united states senate and it was blocked. it was blocked by the democratic minority at that time. the second issue to go hand-in-hand with that was the issue of meaningful lawsuit abuse reform. when the president address this in the joint session of congresi he said he was supportive of doing that and guess what? when we were in the majority we worked on that in a bipartisan way and sent it to the senate and the democrats in the senate blocked that. it is true for decades and decades there have been efforts

being made to try to ensure that more americans have access to quality health insurance we have tried and we will continue to try and if we are successful at killing this legislation, defeating this legislation, the only thing bipartisan about this will be those who are in opposition to the legislation, if we are successful in doing that, monday morning we will come together to not only work on real of lawsuit abuse reform and associated health plans but we can expand medical savings accounts, creates an opportunity to deal with the important pre-existing conditions that the two individuals mentioned are there, and the president supports the notion of allowing for the purchase of insurance products across state lines. those are five things we can work on in a bipartisan way.

the only way we can insure that we immediately not in 2014, drive the cost of health insurance to defeat this bill and an opportunity for the process which clearly undermines the open as we were promised but we will do everything we can to make sure more americans have access to quality health insurance. >> maybe we should go on. i respect -- hard to tell from the light when this is on. >> make sure you speak. >> it is like a ways and means committee. whatever it is.

i very much respect the sentiment but what has come before the ways and means committee on two of the issues if there are many more, no proposal came before us from the republican minority that would cover more than three million people. that is just the fact. in terms of pre-existing conditions, no proposal came before us that would address this basic issue. no republican proposal came before our committee. so i understand the sentiment. you are in control for lots of years. when you were in control the number of uninsured grew and grew and the number of people who were penalized for pre-existing conditions.

the inability to get control of health-care costs, that inability has grown and grown. >> there were proposals -- [talking over each other] >> when we were in the majority. we tried to do that and as we have gone through this process it has been a difficult one. >> we have shown one in four have not lacked health insurance. over a million people don't have health insurance and we will do something about it and pre-existing conditions -- >> what i said is the five issues i raised dealing with pre-existing conditions,

creating greater competition, the cost of those premiums is something i believe will happen immediately if we were to legislation. [talking over each other] >> we start pre-existing conditions with children right away in six months and take care of that problem. >> could i comment as well? your bill and our bill have similar treatment of pre-existing conditions because -- we differed -- >> there is no proposal to deal with pre-existing conditions. [talking over each other] >> it was in response to this notion that there was no proposal whatsoever. >> we have taken a different approach than the democrats.

they want to do one big bill that does these things and we felt we should follow on the paths -- putting wellness in medicare and all of the step-by-step approaches that made sense and the problem with that approach is premiums go up and the reason people lose their insurance and don't have insurance is they can't afford it and if you look of the congressional budget office score of the senate democrats' bill premiums go up 13% in 2016. we don't have a score of this reconciliation bill because they haven't had time to do it and democrats won't give them time to give us the information as to when premiums are going up so we have no information. let me just talked again on the coverage issue. half of their coverage is from expanding medicaid. that is a program that is not

sustainable in the long term and what they had to do is cut special deals with states to get people to go along with it. so they extended the federal share so this was a match program paid by the federal government. if anyone thinks the federal government will pay 100% of medicaid in the future, obviously they are not being very realistic about this program. so at huge cost in a program that needs reform that is unsustainable they are expanding and they do that by a huge tax increase and the reductions in the medicare program. there's another way to do this and the way could have been forward with this smaller approach beginning to address the issue of cost. bring costs down in health care and address the issue of expanding coverage as we did to millions of people in our bill. we could move forward once we

begin to get costs under health-care. >> in reconciliation there is no special deal on medicaid. >> the special deal -- [talking over each other] >> the federal government is paying 100% of medicaid. >> call that a good deal for coverage of people with health care. >> it is 11:40 now and we have been going for an hour and a half. that is 50% logger than the entire debate time that will be allowed not on the legislation but simply on the special rule that will be brought to the floor for consideration of this and i think what we have seen here demonstrates very clearly that we should be having an open and transparent debate on the house floor on this issue. >> i want to thank the witnesses for being here. i appreciate the tone you

brought to this debate. all of you including my republican colleagues are serious about trying to approach this legislation. let me say something about the process. the fact is this has been an open transparent process. i don't know of any legislation that has received as much scrutiny as this legislation has. president obama began the process with the health care summit in 2009. republicans and democrats participated and over the past year and a half the house held 100 hours of hearings in 83 hours of committee markups. we heard from 181 witnesses both democrats and republicans. 239 amendments were considered at 121 were adopted. the notion that there wasn't a process in place is absurd. we are now in a difficult

situation because the republicans -- the republican leadership has made it their mission to use every parliamentary maneuver and hetrick available to try to block this legislation. .. one of the things about this bill, that also addresses another outrageous process, and that is the process many insurance companies utilize when they deny people the right to become part of health-insurance plan, when there are people literally on their way to the operating room and are notified it will not be covered for a procedure. there is a lot of abuse in the insurance industry. there are good insurance companies and bad.

mr. dreier talks about all the great initiatives the republicans had. well, you are in charge belong time. not much has changed. the fact of the matter, there are tens of millions of americans without insurance. there are countless people discriminated against because of pre-existing conditions. at some of the pre-existing conditions are outrageous. people denied insurance because they have a bad case of acne. in some states, domestic violence is considered a pre- existing condition. a woman who gets beat up by her husband or boyfriend has a pre- existing condition and kanaka health insurance? that is insane. -- and cannot get health insurance? that is insane. insane, that's not. that has to change and i didn't change mr. dreier, for all the years you were in control but we're going to try to change it now. we are going to try to change it now. the fact of the matter is i think we are on the cusp of

making history. you know, ted kennedy -- i'm from massachusetts -- kennedy -- elected in 1962 and said he will fight to make sure everybody has health care. 1972 of my old boss the former chairman ran for congress and his slogan was that both for me and i will help ted kennedy get everybody insurance. when iran for congress in 1996i said i'm going to help get everybody insurance. now, i think tomorrow if this bill is brought up we will have that opportunity to fulfill their dreams, i only wish they were here to witness it. but what we are trying to do is ensure 32 additional -- 32 million additional americans who want to provide more choices, more protections than they have right now. i mean, every american should have what members of congress

have. it should have choices and protections that we have and that's what this bill is about. we want to control cost for small businesses. i think everyone of us here has gotten calls from small businessmen and women that say they would like to expand the number of employees but they can't because the cost of insurance is so high. this bill has subsidies and relief for small businesses and individuals who can't afford insurance, that's a good thing. we want to extend the life of medicare. you know, i'd want to go back into mr. ryan's budget alternative, but i think what the chairman was pointing out there is a philosophical difference between democrats and republicans on the issue of medicare. we don't want to go to a co-chair system and want to privatize social security either. so there are philosophical differences and those are worth debating on the floor. it reduces the deficits. you know, in contrast quite frankly to the prescription drug bill that was run up to the

rules committee at midnight to win my friends of the republican party were in charge and it wasn't paid for. judge read -- senator judd gregg republicans said the part d added and $8 trillion unfunded liability to the federal deficit. i mean, you know, we are paying for our bill here. not only are we paying for it but it going to cbo we are going to reduce the deficit by well over a trillion dollars. i think that's a good thing. and i think it's a courageous thing that we are actually putting this together and bring it before the floor. you know, for many years when my friends on the other side were in charge, their prescription for health care was essentially take to tax breaks and calling in the morning. it didn't work. in fact, the bush tax cuts alone

added $1.6 trillion to the dead in the first 10 years. so when you want to talk about deficits and debt, this is one way to get it. help control health care costs from assisting our 17% of our gdp is health care. we are told if we don't do anything in the next decade or so it rises and rises up to the point where you get to 50% of our gdp, that's unsustainable. we are spending an awful lot of money and not getting the biggest bang for our buck. everybody in this country should have access to good quality health insurance. nobody in this country should be discriminated against because of pre-existing conditions. we need to figure out to control costs so that individuals and small businesses can afford it and that's what this attempt is and there are philosophical the rinses and ideological differences, i get it and we will debate its but i will tell you and i want to commend the chairwoman and the speaker, the goal here was two have a

transparent and open process. i think we did back. we are running into a situation now where the republican leadership is trying to block this so i don't know the rule is going to be but the fact is i think people are tired of us giving speeches and are tired of the rhetoric and they're tired of excuses of what they want as action. my hope is tomorrow we will have action and i look forward to speaking on this bill in voting for it and i think this is an historic moment and i'm very proud of everybody who participated. thank you. >> thank you, mr. diaz-balart. >> thank you, i think all of our colleagues before coming before us in their presentations this morning. adding sensitively there has been a summary of the proposals that has been able to be heard by virtue of the contrasts of opinions and the discussion that we have had.

i think mr. barton and for emphasizing the issue of process. we are the process committee and i guess the question that i would have for our distinguished friends, the chairman who are here, has to do when i recall has to do with process because when i recall when we passed -- attempted to pass the line-item veto that the supreme court said if the president before he signs a bill changes in any way even by taking out one line is not the same bill. that was passed by the house or the senate and the sign in. so if we do and demon the senate

bill passed in a rule, obviously then there will be some additional words. how do you over, the requirement of exact language. mr. waxman. >> thank you very much. i was one of the plaintiffs of the lawsuit that knocked out the line item veto for the president. it was knocked out because it was a delegation of authority to the congress to the president that the congress has, the congress has obligation to pass a law and the president can sign it or veto it's not selectively pick out what he would veto. the situation here is different. we're not going to deal with the senate bill passed, we're going to pass the senate bill. we're going to pass it by a vote of the house, that's the way a bill becomes law. you'll figure out a way to do the role but when you establish the rule we will be required to vote for the rule, required to

vote for the amendments, an eminent will have to be approved before its carried and the rule approved before it's approved, that's the way we operate. i would be against the away -- against dean, we either pass or down and i think the rule ought to say that we pass this when we vote to do this, pass that when we look to do that and that's the way we saw that. >> mr. barton and. >> i hope we are making news here. i hope that what chairman waxman just said, the rules committee is going to pass a rule that gives us a vote on the senate-passed bill. is that which you are saying? it is, praise the lord. hallelujah. >> of course, we are going to vote. >> you'll have to have a vote, the rules committee can it as all have done under democrats and republicans fashion what goes in and what goes out when there's a particular boat that is before. >> henry waxman and i are

together, we are like twins on this. chairman waxman is and he's going to insist or request a rule that is a vote up and down on the substance of the senate-passed bill, that is news. not a self executing role, not bad teams -- no, it is not the same mr. miller, it is not the same. >> mr. diaz-balart has the desk. >> you have two separate issues. we have a 2700 pages senate bill and we have a large reconciliation bill, there are two different pieces of legislation. okay, you're going to have a vote on a roll number one, and then if you do what chairman waxman said you're going to have a vote on the senate-passed bill number to it, and if that passes then you'll have a vote on this reconciliation. if you don't do it that way is is a version of the process. >> do you have a point?

>> mr. diaz-balart, they do raising the point because we have to go through a process of due policy so to respond, what we are doing is we are passing a legislative package which you knew having sex on the rules committee for so many years and many now that we oftensput together a package of proposals into one bill that is passed on the floor. i give the example that i've heard from some of my colleagues that best explain this. you have purchased a house and i have, when you make an offer on a house you have now signed a contract that says it will buy that house. typically ask for contingency, inspection contingency and take a look at the house and have inspector who can tell if there's anything wrong. if he comes back and says you didn't know it but the roof is leaking pretty badly you say i still will by the house because i signed on the dotted line but you have to fix the roof where give me money so i can fix the roof because it was an obvious. you then have a terrific storm

money provided to you to fix the wrath. and that's exactly what we're doing this legislation process. in the senate passed a bill, we are taking that bill, we are going to pass that bill, we're going to pass it by making the corrections, fixing the leaky roof with this correction, this correction bill called for reconciliation bill and that will pass. >> but you know that if in that role of that vehicle by which the senate bill is passed, that it then becomes law. in the other contingencies are remedies to be sent to the santa -- to the senate so they may be passed in may not speak. what i want to say because i think it would be ironic if this signature issue, this landmark

legislation of this president and his majority, it's going to reach the supreme court. on the issue that i thought in the clinton vs. city of new york is clear, if there's any change whatsoever, even one word in legislation in any of the three facets than a dozen satisfy. that's how ironic it would be if your signature issue is thrown out and mr. diaz-balart as the same. >> if you believe your purchase and found out she bought a shack and said you're going to be upset. >> can i answer that. i'm sorry. >> we are passing the senate bill. the president will have that that he gets to sign in a clock. we are passing in this package reconciliation bill that includes the corrections to the senate bill. i go to the senate for passage.

there is nothing that will be different from when we buy a house and expect to have a roof that works. >> and you were going to say? >> the reconciliation bill will amend the senate bill that became law. >> with my colleague field? >> i have had no more request so i will. i like to make a point before i yield. >> just take note and am glad that that mr. waxman pointed out and others have reiterated we are going to pass the senate bill. if it is deemed or whenever the word is used, there is going to be legitimate case and controversy and i would thus have hoped and again and mr. barton and made the argument initially at 10 in the morning that regular order much more

regular order certainly would have been used. i am not sure because i think this is going to be a new issue presented to the supreme court. i'm not sure that this is going to pass constitutional muster and obviously i want a conclusion but i say that it's one more reason for more regular order to have been made followed. >> mr. levin and chairwoman at slaughter, let's assume we pass a rule which is deemed and then we're going to debate reconciliation package and while we are debating this reconciliation package is the president of united states going to sign this bill that we just been to pass? if he doesn't it ain't a lot. i don't think it's a lot anyway. >> he is going to sign the senate bill. in. >> i don't know how much time we're going to have between the rural vote and the final vote on reconciliation but probably will be days. >> he will sign it and then it remains to be seen what if anything else passed by the

senate. >> i agree but my point is. when does that deemed to bill -- >> the president has to sign something for anything to become a law unless you changed that in the rule to. >> david. >> [inaudible] >> mr. diaz-balart yielded to me, here's the question i think is a very important one as people talk about the fact that nobody likes the senate bill and yet that's going to be public law, correct? we all acknowledge it's going to be public law. what guarantee do we have in light of the fact the chairman of the budget committee kent conrad said that he believed that there would be changed to come about that we are not going to end up with nothing but the senate bill and, in fact, the only guarantee we're going to emerge from based on the process before us is that the store nearly unpopular bill that everybody hates is going to be

public law. and we are going to be left with, we are going to be left with a hope that our colleagues on the other body just might be able to do what happened back in 1983 and do this without modifications but since it's only happened one time since the 1974 budget act put in place, i guess what, based on the fact the senate budget committee chairman said what he did it as going to happen. >> [inaudible] >> this is an important discussion, madam chairman. >> one at a time. we need to do this, this is obviously something we will decide when the rule is written. >> of course, i agree. >> not to spend all our time on a hypothetical here. >> but at the same time it is i think evidence that we have a

constitutional responsibility to vote on the same text and i think some progress seems well in the discussion as been made in terms of the fact that guess we will pass out the bill that was passed by the other body, that's constitutionally required. now, i think mr. dreier emphasize correctly so that as i mentioned before everything else is speculative, everything else is it? mr. waxman. >> it's up to the chair. >> it is my time, you can speak out. >> that's an interesting where they have a extra time. >> we are proud of that. >> i don't hate the senate bill, it has a lot of features and ads that were in the house bill but there are some features we want to change but we are not allowed to amend the senate bill and send it back because then the senate would have to have 60

votes to stop a filibuster so we are required in the root reconciliation process to change the senate bill on some of the areas where i think it makes sense to change its but in the meantime we will be reconciling the law and the law will be the senate-passed bill put into law, that comes from a vote in house and then the reconciliation bill is the only way we can with a majority vote. the american people should be astounded that their senate cannot ask a majority vote if a small minority prevents it. so this will allow a majority vote in house and senate to make changes in the senate bill but not that it is so terrible that we all hated, there are things we like to change. that's what we do all the time, we change current law and the current law will be the senate bill once is voted on by the house. >> the yield to my friend. >> i thank you and i asked my

friend the would you be mindful of the fact at another point in time you voted in a manner to allow. >> yes and i know it's been done before and what i would say is that certainly and the reason why i think this is going to be an instance of first-time consideration by a new question of the supreme court is because on matters when it was done before certainly did not have the impact, certainly did not have a the impact, the interest -- >> will yield quacks' we were here when we passed the line-item veto and i can't imagine that you have for gotten that significant number of people in this country were focused on the line item veto,

it was talked about in line in your state and our state governor has a line item veto. mr. dreier voted in 1996, mr. barton and loaded for a in 1996, the leader of the republicans mr. boehner voted for in 1996 and now all of a sudden. >> when 90 percent of the american people supported it. >> you say that. >> the poll said that too. >> you all in the minority continue to say what the american people think. you don't know what all of the american people think there you certainly don't know what -- >> we read the polls. >> reclaiming my time. >> mr. diaz-balart, i would like now to go down to go too. >> reclaiming my time. >> may i? thank you.

we have four votes purses getting over at the beginning, after you have voted which you come back? >> i would just like to say to my friend mr. hastings that after that vote is when the supreme court made clear and emphasizing the importancv-be oe companies? be on the side of the american public? thank you. >> thank you. mr. sessions of texas. >> thank you mr. chairman, we have an opportunity well on this committee to offer our own opinions and i think it's a misnomer for anyone to say that this is about insurance. what this bill is about is about how the government will play out the health care system to all of americans and i have several questions i'd like to go through. the first observation i'd like to make is that sitting on this

panel sometimes i'm not have problems but i don't think it's been straight forward and when we talk about the bill. sometimes we talk about what might be the senate bill and sometimes the house bill and remix those up about what's in the bill and what's actually going to be voted on. so the first question i'd like to ask you to view as you choose to because i think it's a huge issue for this body that we should have despised us knowing what's in it or not i think that debate should take place about the gatorade, the cornhuskers kickback, the louisiana purchase. the reason why i say this is because that will be something that will be in this bill that will be voted on that will provide a specific state or area with something that no one else gets. and i believe that that is not only horrible legislation, i believe in some ways it has been

amounted to a pay off that i do not think is correct. so i think this body at some point ought to have a discussion about that. mr. barton, do you have an opinion? >> i did offer amendments on behalf of myself and congressman johnson of the ways and means committee to have a vote to strike those so we have specific amendments for each of those special deals pending before the committee. >> mr. sessions, the special treatment for nebraska is in the senate bill, it is removed by the reconciliation bill. the special treatment for florida under medicare advantages in the senate bill and is removed by the reconciliation bill. i would disagree with the characterization of the louisiana purchase in the following way. the louisiana provision says that any jurisdiction that suffers disasters as defined in

that section qualifies for higher medicaid reimbursement rates, it's not limited solely to louisiana. now, i hope and pray that louisianans the only state that does it because we don't have that kind of calamity also ran the country but if god forbid we did the medicaid reimbursement wouldn't be eligible to other states as well. >> can i comment on what he said? they say they've eliminated the nebraska provision. they haven't, they kept it to given to every other state in the nation and so for the first four years of the program every person who comes onto medicaid who hasn't already been on medicaid is 100 percent pay for the the federal government. beginning in 2014 that some city phases out so what you're going to see is i think many states like, arizona, already has are going to begin to draw medicaid coverage for their citizens and we're going to make what used to

be in there to% 50% federal-state program, 100 percent federal program for people below 133% in this case a party. >> if i may i think this is a better chance to avoid that what my friend just said. the criticism of the nebraska bill provision which i think is extremely well founded was a terrible idea and that's why we're taking it out of the bill is that only nebraska gets the benefit of a bargain. with the reconciliation bill says is because we are insuring new people under medicaid these are people families making 27 or $20,000 a. individuals making less than that we don't have insurance, the federal government is picking up 100 percent of that cost for every state for the outset and then eventually scaling back to 90%. the criticism of the nebraska provision was a benefit in nebraska and the way that not everyone else got the benefit of. if that's not the case and i

think is quite accurate to say the provision is out of the bill. >> it's interesting, this is one person's observation that this was done to get folks to pass the bill and yet essentially very straight up what we're trying to do is avoid a conference for both bodies have to get together to come to an agreement. >> with the gentleman yield? you mention conference and part of the problem is your counterparts in the senate won't allow us to go to conference. they are obstructing the regular order so the deal is -- >> reclaiming my time, my observations are this is no different than a lot of other bills with a part of a process in the process when we are doing is we are doing what i considered to be a banana republic type of work around rather than going straight after what this is.

>> mr. sessions, there is a special tax deal for unions in the plan. the tax quote on quote cadillac or high and plans beginning in 2018 and for everybody in america that will be if their plan is a family has a value of $27,500 or individual it would be $10,200, but what this bill does says if you're in individual or a family in the union you don't pay taxes until 27,500 so there's a special tax provision that applies to union only and there's also -- >> i understand it that is in the record. >> i have several other points. >> you are talking about both. >> the reconciliation bill. this is not in the senate bill so they changed that. there also is a special provision for levee, montana or regardless of age everyone qualifies for medicare. for everybody else in the country you have to become a

senior in order to qualify for medicare. the reconciliation -- >> why would you think that? >> it is a special provision for the citizens of that state. .. there is a special provision for tennessee only where they received a disproportionate amount of funding. that is special to that state alone. but also appears to have a special carve out for north dakota. while most government subsidies to banks would be eliminated by student loans, the bank of north

dakota will continue to receive federal assistance for student loan programs while banks all around the country will not be able to do that. there are a number of special provisions we are aware of that remain in this legislation. provisions that we are aware of that still remain in this legislation. >> mr. sessions would you yield? >> i would like to respond to my friend, david camp's points. the reconciliation bill which will be the final product does not distinguish in any way between union and non-union workers. the excise tax applies to union and non-union workers. it is clear the senate makes the distinction but it's corrected by the reconciliation bill which is why we want to do it. with respect to the issue about connecticut's hospital, 12 states are eligible for that funding. it would be rewarded on a

competitive basis. that is in the reconciliation bill but it's not an earmarks. the gentleman mentioned north dakota in the student loan program. there was an understanding that state higher education guaranty agencies needed to be afforded the chance to continue to do the excellent work they do for students. so the public authorities throughout the country were given that opportunity. because the north dakota banks serve the same function in north dakota and it is functionally the same as that agency. was given the same treatment that new jersey's agency would be or california's agency and so forth and in the manager's amendment, excuse me, yes, the manager's amendment, so the notion that there is special treatment coming back to that under the excise tax for collective bargaining workers is not accurate. islamic i would like to ask the gentleman if he can provide a copy of the manager's amendment.

>> mr. sessions? i can answer that question. i can point that out if to yield to me. >> i'm looking at the bill, h.r. 4872. let me refer to to page 82 and 83, page 82 is where the subtitle begins provisions related to revenue. section 1401, high-cost plan excise tax. there you will see the reference, and essentially lines six and down through about 23 you will see the language that relates to the excise tax on the benefits. i believe that is already on the web site. >> you are in a reference to the manager's amendment. i would like to ask the gentlemen -- i'm sorry, ms. grangers have we been provided this manager's amendment it? >> we are waiting still which as

i understand i have a note here it will be here shortly. >> let me if i might mr. sessions to clarify the point on the manager's amendment. i think i utraquist as the chair of the committee that language be struck in the manager's amendment and i assume that will be included but i haven't seen the manager's amendment. >> i appreciate that. i think my point might be that there is conversation at the table among people who are here to give testimony and evidently you are able to give testimony about the bill and speak about it to the rules committee and the rules committee doesn't have a copy of that, you don't have -- i assume our members mr. barton, mr. rye and how members don't have a copy of this package which is not a double secret. this happens on a regular basis where there is a manager's amendment with the gentleman is