footnote right there. ms. slaughter pointed out something to me last night that you all need to get rid of, or, in my judgment -- she didn't say that. i'm saying in my judgment, something you need to get rid something you need to get rid of. every number in this chamber right now was elected. anthe constitution immediately establishes a congress made up of a house and a senate. i don't then need any other provision other an that i got elected to legislate. so when you all start -- and i'll be among the first, perhaps, to test you in court when you start down thpath that you're not going to receive my proposed legislation because i didn't cite to a specific amendment in the unit states constitution which i revere and you rvere, then i'm going to tell you that i cite to the fact that i got elected and i'm going to move on and then we'll go to court

and see whether or not this junk y'all are talking about is going to stand up. but that's for another day. if i heard you correctly, mr. king, then it is that we probably shouldn't have legislated health care in the first place because we didn't have the constitutional per to do so. now, i don't want to put words in your mouth. you tell me what you meant. >> mr. hastings, i believe that this bill that is the law of the land today that's set before us and proposed to be repealed completely violates the constitution in probably four different categories. the most obvious one is it violates the commerce clause. and there have always been babies born with -- the interstate commerce clause. there have always been babies born within the states who live, breathe and died without crossing state lines and without accessing any health care whatsoever, let alone

purchasing health isurance. they would b compelled to buy insurance underneath this policy, expanding the commerce clause to a point beyond the imagination of the founding fathers or any legitimate reading of the commerce clause. so under those conditions, this violation of the commerce clause, if it's allowed to stand, does allow the federal government to direct every activity of our lives. that's the most egregious violation. i believe it also violates the equal protection clause of the constitution, where -- and that, as far as i know, has not been litigated at this point. >> it has not. >> and florida would be a state that's aware of that. there were special provisions set up under the medicare advantage that allowed some of the people in florida to keep their advantage polics. so i would argue that that violates the equal protection clause in the same way that the former kickback violated the equal protection clause. i would argue that there's not the enumerated powers to grant congress the authority to pass legislation like this, and i believe that it violates the 10th amendment of the

constitution. this is a states rights issue. that's where i stand. and i hope that we're able to resolve this through the litigation process. but i wouldn't leave the resolution of this to he courts, because in the ends, as you know, the constitution you have in your hand, puts the power in the people and the people's house. >> whether you leave it to the courts or not, the simple fact of the matter is it's on a path to the united states supreme court, and certain provisions, whether your repeal were to be successful or not and certain provisions they exist, are likely to be tested in court. the chair referred to judge hudson's decision. there are two other federl decisions that are in disagreement with judge hudson's decision, and the chair notably did not reference those decisions. so the courts are going to be in conflict, and their interpretations, just as you and i are. i don't think this violates the commerce clause at all. ion't think it violates

article one, section eight, of the constitution. and i do read the constitution to mean when you say promote the general welfare, that matters of this consequence and countless others come under that heading, and, therefore, i can't ignore some facts. let me turn to -- >> would the gentleman yield on that point? i just think it important that we understand that the language and the constitution that says promote the general welfare means the general welfare of the united states, not the general welfare of the individual population within the united states. >> where the power is derived from in the constitution? the people. >> indeed. >> indeed. but the general welfare of the united states is the condition by which we can achieve our own success and happiness, not iosed upon us by the federal government. >> we'll sends you to conduct our law school seminar. >> and may i also ask if you would be willing to respond to

would be willing to respond to the point that i made about interstate commerce, about a baby born within a state that accesses no health care, crosses no state lines, lives and dies, how would they be covered under an interstate commerce clause by the federal governnt? >> i think the legislation as proposed did exactly what you said, and that is to look out for all americans, and that would be that child that didn't cross state lines as well. what you would have the commerce clause be read to mean that insurance companies, for example, can cross state lines. that's one of your mantras. so that they can sell across state lines, and it would leave a state like mine and a district like mine and dan webster's, and nugent's district wre we have high incidences of retired persons and people -- lots of them in better than my district, over 80, that would be left uninsured, beause we've seen

it on automobile insurance, we've seen it on wind insurance when we had hurricanes. insurance companies go elsewhere. elsewhere. and i'm not mad with them. they have a right to pursue their bottom line. but they will cherry pic and thereon lies another flaw. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i'm not going to yield now, because i do have other questions and i don't want to take all my time on the gentleman's comments. last night a good friend of mine that others here know as well, and i don't know whether my colleagues, mr. webster and mr. nugent, knew katherine kelly. but katherine died last night. she supported me in 1992 and she did so for the reason that i made a speech in west palm beach that she attended. and i advocated universal health care. and she came up to me -- i didn't know her from anybody, and she said, you know something, young man, i'm going

to support you because i believe in universal health care, too. among the premises that i sought office in 1992 had to do with establishing universal health care, and i had as a subset the great need that we had and have in this nation of people to live in adequate housing, followed closely, of course, as all of us do, by the need to educate our children. katherine d good healthare because she was wealthy. her husband had good health care for the same reason. she labored in nursing care in a varietof forms for the last two years of her life. i last communicated with her six months ago when she had six months ago when she had undergone inhalation therapy.

i don't know what her medical bills were and it's not my business, but i'm pretty sure that they were rather considerable. but i do know this -- that katherine would have given er last dime to ensure that least of us in this great america would have the same opportunities that she did as she exited life, and toward that end, that's just a slight memorial to the loss of a great american, as many of us have had, who advocated for more than what we did in the measure that was passed in the last session of congress. now, then, for 48 years i've had goo health care. i beganmy practice with a lawyer that allowed that both of us understood that one of us cod die and we wanted the other and hills or her family to be protected. and so what we did was e got a

buy-and-sell agreement and had insurance specialists come in and set up even in our poverty days plans for us. i then went on to become a state judge and i had blue cross blue shield of florida good, health care. i went on to be a federal judge. i had oo health care. i had oo health care. i was thrown off the federal bench and i had enough money to buy blue cross blue shield again. and then came here and, guess what, i still have blue cross blue shield of florida and i have good health care. i come at this from the standpoint of i'm all right. my mama had good health care not because of what she could afford,but she had an only son who could afford to provide for her, a i did before she died. she had medicare, and medicare helped an awful lot, but it did not pay the thousands of dollars of bills for home health care and a number of other measures along those

lines. now, some of our colleagues, specifically a couple of them are in the room. representative welch, miss capps, i didn't see her yet, jane harmon, ms. schakowsky, i saw her over there, but there are several bills that were offered that would include the elimination of lifetime coverage, the coverage of individuals up to 26, the requirement that individuals not be denied pre-existing conditions and the requirement that preventi care be provided free of charge, including the provision that recently took effect providing preventive services for seniors. mr. upton, do you deem it unreasonable that that measure could go forward, and then the things that you and the resolution, as offered by the chair, could be undertaken?

>> well, let me just say particularly, as i look at the very talented and thoughtful members on the energy and commerce committee, many of them who you just cited and i consider as my dear friends, as we look at a bill to replace the repeal of this bill, that that certainly would be considered in the full and open debate before the -- not only the health subcommittee, but the full committee as well. something that i would note did not happen in the passage of the house bill because they skipped the subcommittee. it went directly to the full committee. but i would think that mrs. capps, who's on -- you're on health, right? well, you haven't decided actually. ranking member waxman i don't thk has decided yet who the ranking mmber is or the membership of that subcommittee. and we're in the process of dog that now on the republican side. but i would think that under the fair and open process that

we're going to have, that that would be an amendment that would be offered and we'll see what happens. but i think tht there will be a debate. >> do you think it will be made? >> in committee, absolutely, that's going to happen. >> well, we had that opportunity. >> i would note that a number, if notll of those provisions, at least most of them, were in ct in airman dreier's statement of things that he would support. so as a basis of how we would replace this bill, i think that those are certainly building blocks that many -- most of the, if not all -- >> i'm reclaiming my time. where is the data that you all have reflecting that what has passed and what is the law of the land as we continue the debate on repeal and you styled your repeal measure sort of a stab at the legislation -- you called it job-killing, i fosht the exact name -- forget the

exact name. but it's the repeal of patient protection andffordable -- waste it called, job-killing something or another. but the job-killing part continues to stick out at me. where have the jobs been killed? where did you see that? >> we'll be glad to get you that evidence for the record before the day is out. >> all right, then do that. and will you also get for me the jobs that were made as a result of the bill. >> i would note that in my testimony i talked about the nearly 400,000 jobs that speak pelosi said would come about almost automatically. about almost automatically. i know that the 15,000 jobs that are in the bill for the i.r.s., i don't think they've come yet. but i have not seen a great number of jobs to the 400,000 th speaker pelosi -- >> but about the number of losses, you told us when the bill passed that sky was going to fall. well, it didn't, and we still are alive and well.

you talk in here as if the american public, all of them are in agreement with everything that you said. there are many things not to like in this bill and there are things to like in this bill, and there are many people in america who like a lot of this bill and determining who likes it the most and who likes it the least is something that i gather that all of not yet developed a detailed estimate of repeeling that legislation. and that's the question that i

raised last night by us going forward without having a c.b.a./c.b.o. score. although it is working with the staff of the joint committee on taxation to complete such an estimate in the near future, because congressional deliberations on h.r. 2 could begin very soon, c.b.o. is providing a less detailed preliminary analysis of that legislation. c.b.o. and j.c. t. estimated that the march 10th health care legislation would reduce budget deficits over the 2010-20109 period, and in subsequent year. consequently, we expect that repeeling that legislation would end -- would increase budget deficit. a lot of talk goes on around here about budget deficit. do you all agree that the repeel

of this legislation will increase budget deficit? mr. king? you don't? c.b.o. is wrong? >> i'm just starting a list and begun to go through it. the legislation that is set to be repeeled before this new 112th congress, which i think the sky actually did fall for people here, it has tax increases here that are calculated into the funding, and a cut to medicare services in the country that's also calculated in there. i don't know all the assumptions of c.b.o., i know those two things. i think that needs to be taken into account. >> so 10 year tax benefits, six years of benefits that can tor wrongly asserts. if you look at the charts, you

will find that estimate is wrong. vern and ms. slaughter and me and others when they talk. let's tell you what you're getting ready to do in my state. i want mr. webster and mr. nugent and the others to pay particular attention. without this affordable health care act, what we will have is would suddenly find themselves to have lifetime limits placed on how much insurance companies will spend on them. nearly 1.1 million people in florida alone are at risk of

losing their insurance. nearly one million residents of florida would not be supervalued for their health insurance premium dollars as it insures the state will no longer be required to spend at least 85% of premium dollars of health care rather than c.e.o. salaries, bonuses and corporate profit. the new insurance plan would no longer be required for recommended services like mammograms and flu shots. nearly 3.2 million seniors in florida would have medicare coverage or be forced to enter co-pay. nearly 3.2 million seniors in florida who have medicare coverage would have to pay extra if they want to stay healthy by getting check-ups regularly. 182,672 medicare patients would see significantly higher

prescription drug costs. and you all stand accused repeatedly of not filling the doughnut hole. this legislation starts by filling 50% of it and could benefit those persons who are my stitch wents that are in that hole and now you would repeel it and say we start all over again. i don't know when it is you propose to put it back where it is now. but i gather you do intend. easo premium increas. florida would not receive additional funds to plan for a additional funds to plan for a health insurance exchange. maybe they won't have to. they just will have lost the money that was provided if you all decide not to have one. florida would not receive funds to support a consumer assistance program and 190 employers would not be receiving help from the early retiree insurance. let's go nationwide.

142,000, again, in the doughnut hole in my state. 293 already signed up, previous existing condition insurance situation. the milln dollar crackdown that i pointed out to you, that has already been set forth. let's talk about grants. in the state of florida alone -- and this is true in all of your states. let's just talk about grants. already -- already $26 million-plus dollars i discovery programs and tax credit grants have been allocated. other grants, $1.7 million for demonstration projects to address health professionals workforce needs. $3.4 million for early child -- this is already done. $500,000 for aging and disability resource centers. $1.4 million for medicare imovements for patients and providers. $2.1 million to strengthen public health infrastructure to improve health outcomes.

$5.4 million in communities putting prevention to work grant awards. mr. chairman, i'm so glad you put cameras ithe courtroom -- in the rules room. $600,000 to build a laboratory and health information systems capacity. $1.3 million very much neede in florida for h.i.v. prevention and public health nd activities, where we have already seen cutoffs that are causing people not to be able to get drugs to keep them alive. $3 million to implement the national background check program for long-term health workers. $6.7 million for the primary care residency expansion program. $2.1 million for advance nursing education. $600,000 to expands physician's assistants training. $14.5 million to support capital development and heah centers. $1.4 million for medicare improvemts. and i'll spare you the national details. suffice it to say that they

mirror what's happening in florida. but what i want you to tell me is, if you are successful -- and you're not going to be -- butif you were successful, other than passing it ere in the house of representatives, which is your prerogative and out goes to the senate, and if you were fortunate enough to get senators crazy enough to sign on to this and send it to the president and he caved, what would you say to all of those people, and how would we get that money back, and how get that money back, and how would that not be a loss to the federal government? >> again, as mr. king said earlier, no one is talking about taking away money that's already been -- the checks that have already been cut. >> i hope kathleen hears that. she could get into a lot of check-bouncing. >> but we are committed. all of us here, as well as dave camp, chairman of the ways and means committeeto come back with a plan that replaces the with a plan that replaces the repeal.

most members of congress do support reform of health care. the question is, do you want the reform that passed without amendment that just took the senate bill, that was ram-rodded down our throats, or do you want to come back and look at an open process where we can look at common ground to actually make improvements to the current system, as chairman dreier indicated in his opening statement? that's where those of us here at this table today stand ready and prepared to move forward. >> wl, i think you will repeal in a manner that will hurt america's middle class and eliminate millionsf americans' jobs, in spite of what you say. and i believe that it explodes federal deficit. it certainly does by the announced and already scored c.b.o. score of at least 143 billion dollars.

and i believe that there will be millions of people that would be affected by this. i would like t at this time yield to the ranking member, ms. slaughter. >> i thank jat for yielding. i thought that i asked very interesting and important questions earlier in your enlightening testimony about how many jobs had been created since this health care bill went into effect. private employers since that time has added 935,000 jobs to their payrolls and the health sector has added an additional 171,000 jobs. for a job-killer bill, it's not for a job-killer bill, it's not doing its job very well, is it? >> not at all. thank you, madam slaughter. before i yield, mr. chairman, particularly for the members and young people in this audience and the rules committee today, as you heard me say, those of you that were in the room, for 48 years i've had good insurance. i don't know how many of you have had good, bad or

indifferent insurance. but i would k any member in here who has had insurance in the last 20 years and if you have had it continuously for the last 20 years, as i have and as the chairman has,and others in the room may have, if you have had that insurance and you did not choose to increase your deductible or choose to have extracted from it benefits that you may have derived, one that they didn't get straight until just recently, for example, is dental care, one that they need to get on with, is long-term and therapeutic care for individuals. but in the last 20 years, how many of you have had your insurance -- health insurance go down? raise your hands. . .

going up before this measure, i rather suspect that if we're not careful, health insurance will continue to go up if we let the insurance company bend it. and you tell us that's what i said they are, get away with it. >> does the gentleman yield back? >> yes, sir. >> thank you very much mr. hastings. mr. woodall? >> thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate the opportunity to be here today. this was a discussion that i had throughout the past year. and in the spirit of full disclosure i'm a co-sponsor of h.r. 2, a proud co-sponsor. down to the seventh district of georgia, before march 30 of 2010 we used to talk about solutions. we were talking about health care costs rising as they have been over decades.

we were talking about health care access and talking about some soft solutions that republicans put in place in 1996 at the federal level for federal plans. but the moment obama care passed on march 30, 2010 that discussion stopped. no more were we talking about solutions. we were talking about repeel. my people were so alarmed, so disturbed by the take away of freedom they had, and the increase in tax dollars they were expending, the entire discussion of productive solutions was completely subsumed by this new discussion of repeel and trying to get back to a level of sta cuss quo that we could begin to find stuff from. to that place where we were, whether it be medical malpractice soluons or whether it be access solutions

or reforms. is that an accure reflection of your commitment? not just your hopes and your dreams but your commitment here today? >> that's a commitment from all of us. as the debate went on for months and months and went to the campaign, it became clear to us here and we certainly were hearing from our constituents and people throwing rocks at town hall meetings that they didn't like this legislation. it's not that they didn't want the old status quo. they wanted improvements. but they didn't want what we were calling obama care. it's job-killing legislation. i talked to small businesses in a round table and they told me they're looking at the certain provisions that i outlined in my opening comments where if you're sitting around 50 employees, you're making

decisions to not hire. those are not the type of decisions that we want our busisses to be making. we want to put americans back to work. we believe you can get a better solution if you can clean the table of this job-killing flawed legislation and then go forward and taking steps some of which have been outlined here today that would lower the cost of health care. so we have a commitment. and i think chairman dryer has and i think chairman dryer has a resolution that will direct us to take that up. >> i very much appreciate that. mr. king? >> thank you mr. woodall, in response to that, i wanted to express how we view this going forward. i just think it's universal among republicans that we want to make improvements to the health care policy once we get down to the solution you referenced in your statement. i was one of a number of authors to draft and establish a declaration of health care

a declaration of health care independence, to put a rite on a document. it has at least 100 signatures. we took that document out and read it alongside mr. dryer's resolution. it's consistent with his resolution. we have 111 members that would submit that. i don't think we should go forward with a comprehensive forward with a comprehensive reform. i think we can do changes stand-one. that will be a decision that's perhaps made by others, but i wanted to make that point. >> one of my commitments was to >> one of my commitments was to work to bring the simplest bills possible to the floor and i'm thankful to the chairman of the rules committee for bringing this one line, one page, one piece of legislation before i was struck by mr.

before i was struck by mr. hastings' list. even though we're neighbors, mr. hastings, i'm not aware of what it all does. but we in georgia are involved in a lawsuit to overturn obama care. as a strong states' right proponent, we're not giving in georgia. we have tremendous programs going on in our state leslature, but our state has decided that this piece of legislation is restrictive as opposed to something that encourages oversight. do you see your solutions is something that we in a states rights location, that you think we have a good idea? >> i know that as we look at the replacement side of health care as well as looking at the many individual troubled spots

in the exiing bill that did pass last winter, i'm going to be asking the governors and to be very actively engaged with our committee and subcommittee that they come and tell us precisely what is happening in their state of georgia or florida or michigan or california or new jersey, new york, etc. york, etc. i want the governors to weigh in. in terms of the new burdens and how they're going to pay for the additional cost, one of the things that has not been mentioned today, of course, is the requirement that states take up, expand the medicaid rolls to 130%. i know that states like mine which has a big deficit issue and will not raise taxes, all of a sudden they will because

medicaid is a plan that will be shared. how are the states going to cover these additional costs during these very difficult, economic times? again, my state at 12%, 13% unemployment over the last three years, how aree going to do that? i want the governors to come tell us exactly what these new burdens are going to do to thr state. and as one that also supports stes' rights i think that's a very important part in terms of looking at legislation to replace at a bill that i think will be repealed next week. >> i won't go into the litany that i did. but just to help you along, 44,300, 4,500 will lose their 44,300, 4,500 will lose their health -- 4,300, 4,500 will

lose their insurance. 300 georgians will not know if they're receiving -- >> reclaiming my time, mr. hastings. i wanted to be pre-emptive. i don't doubt those figures in the least. and that's one of the great things about comg from the state of georgia. i talked to some of those people getting free insurance on their parents policies. that was insurance that they're paying for that they're now getting for free. i can't get them up here. but they know that they're getting something they pd for two years ago and now it's on the backs of somebody else. for all the regional

distinctions we have, georgians don't want to ride on the backs of anybody. we can solve our health care we can solve our health care problems all by ourselves with all due respect to theery bright minds here on the table. we're not looking to mandate solutions upon us. >> you look at that specific provision, i would note that that was in the republican proposal that most republicans voted for in the last congress, the idea that childrenp to the age of 25. i know in essence the same, would qualify undetheir parents' insurance. >> i appreciate that. thank you all and i yield back >> thank you very much. >> i appreciate your initial outline of the five areas for improvement. i think there's ample ground i think there's ample ground for bipartisan corporation on some of those -- cooperation on some of those.

we did bring that forward last july on a suspension. i supported it unfortunately. it did die from insufficient support from the other aisle. i think that's a critical piece to fix. the president is onboard to fixing that. i've also supported competition across state lines. i'm hopeful that there's opportunity to work together. with regard to that, now i understand why this is coming so quickly. there was a commitment made that this should happen at the start of the new congress. maybe that's a week or two weeks. it's probably not two months or three months but sometime soon. i'm glad we're able to receive it. some of the good things we're

able to do. and i'll get into house resolution 9 in a moment. resolution 9 in a moment. i'm shocked at the offsets for the $230 billion that this would increase the deficit. my question is, why doesn't this include offsets? and two do we have a cmitment if this bill passes for your committees to identify where this is coming from so that this does not increase the deficit? >> i just -- let me answer the second part of that i know that our committee is going to be looking at as i sat down with a couple of members of the administration in the new year. and as i've talked to them a little bit of the budget, they're going to be proposing

now in february. we're going to be looking in every department to look for savings. i thought hahe president's proposal was very reasonable in terms of the pay-freeze for all federal employees for the next two years. i thinin the past some of those proposals may have been offered as a former member of the republican administration. often i know when it's a different part, some of those proposals would be dead on arrival. we're going to be looking at all of the president's proposals to save money. and i've instructed members on my side, on the republican side to, in fact, go visit the agencies and look at proposals and see where they total up. >> i welcome that. i worry that as the initial out of the gate bill, we have what is really the most expensive

one-page bill in the history of congress. we have a 30 billion bill as a one page bill. the first $200 billion will go to pay for this bill. we certainly wish you well this that regard. i wish that as a part of this initial record there was an ofet with regard to this. but we will wish you well and of course, keep in mind that the first 230 billion is to pay for this one-page bill. above and beyond that we have to make a dent in the deficit. i also wanted to bring up kind of what we're going to replace this with. i was just looking with house resolution 9. and i guess, you know, there's a number of things in there that have broad bipartisan support provided people with

pre-existing conditions, access to affordable health care coverage and we look for other ways to preserving that, lowering health care premiums. i'm very happy that that's in there. that's something we feel very strongly about. the short coming of the resolution and i guess i'll address this to the chairman, why these are "or" conditions rather than "and" conditions? >> will the gentleman yield on that? >> i will. the worry obviously is that one is doctor-patient relationship -- >> let me just explain. thank my friend for yielding. as you see there's a fourth

coitte the ways and means committee. many of these items fall under the jurisdiction of many committees. that's the reason it was yused because some -- used because some of them are under that committee. so it is assumed that all of these items are going to be introduced. in introducing h.r. 9, i wanted to explore the possible ways to drive every insurance premium down. and i thank my friend for yielding. >> i would suggest appropriate >> i would suggest appropriate instructions, a, b, and c, instructed the judiciary committee.

it would be possible to accomplish that which would give more peace of mind and let people know that these were "and" conditions rather than one of the above -- >> the first paragraph actually says house legislation proposing changes to existing law within each committee's jurisdiction with provisions. that part is fine. but the problem is they're all "or, or, or." >> obviously, the issues that are tort reform is not going to be addressed by mr. cline's committee. >> we still want to see the legislative result of these instructions. >> common sense here prevails -- >> i would just -- if i might interject and i would note the chairman from the energy and commerce is that we would be glad to have that jurisdiion with energy and commerce if

you'd like to do that. >> the key element is that respectively each committee would do all -- >> let me just say that this is the language that the the language that the parliamentarian provided to us in drafting h. rez 9 and it's clearly understood that these are items that will arify that. >> with regard with the >> with regard with the language that's been tossed of "job-killing" -- >> refering to the tight of the bill. isn't that the title of the bill? >> one of you said the employer mandate? i think it was mr. cline. i think it was mr. cline. i think we all value intellectual consistency and honesty. is the employer mandate so high as to discourage employment or is it in fact so low as to encourage companies to drop coverage?

>> it is -- it's going to be a choice -- you're posing the question actually correctly it's going to be a choice that businesses will look at. my example that i'm talking about is you're a small business sitting at 49 or 50, business sitting at 49 or 50, you're going to look at the cost of going from 50 to 51 and theithe costs are very high to do that. it's going to cost you over $40,000. you make a decision to not hire that additional person. that's a job-killing decision. >> most employees already have benefits. i was a small business. they had that to begin with. you're referring to people who don't provide insurance to the margin. >> they may not be providing as the law dictates.

we have these examples where you have the mini med programs. >> to be clear again, not at levels exactly indicated by law but rather at minimal levels indicated by law. that is a minimal package. it's simply not just checking a box and saying by the way, we provide 50 bucks a covere and that's is no form of coverage. what all of this is about is reducing cost shifting that occurs in the economy which is very inefficient. this is not a principle. this is not a principle. somebody talked about and i think it was mr. king, why is it anybody else's business? i'm in my castle and i choose not to have health care.

why does that impact anybody else? >> it does because if you have a heart attack and call 911, you're picked up by an ambulance. they operate on you if you need it. and guess what, somebody pays for that. the costs of treating you is foisting on somebody else. you're paying more for that person. if you let that person die at the hospital, that would be one thing. we don't have that we have laws that requi that if you have an emergency condition, the hospital is actually required to treat the condition. i would ask mr. king why -- you know, why this is inconsistent with it? >> and the answer is because my statement is consistent with the constitution. i'm making the point and i said specifically that there have always been and likely always

been babies that were born, lived and died within the jurisdiction who nev crossed state line, access no health care and therefore do not impact interstate commerce, therefore to compel somebody to buy an insurance policy cannot be defined as within the confines of the interstate commerce clause. it evolved into politics -- you find that human being that has never accessed health care -- every human being has accessed health care. accessed health care. even those with religious restrictions have access to health care. it is impossible to live without health care. >> it happens all the time. it happens in every country in the world. >> you finthe baby that was not born at a hospital or with a midwife who did not receive

inoculations. you find that baby and identify and i'll be happy -- >> i hate to show you but they show up in garbage cans around this country. >> i sure hope not. that's -- that's -- you -- show me where somebody doesn't interact with health care and we'll continue that discussion. i wanted to get back to the job -- so-called job-killing piece with regard to the employer mandate and my discussion with mr. cline. i heard again that a the employee mandate is so on rouse that it will affect people. that it will affect people. i ask you which one is true. you pointed to a small set of companies already don't have benefits that might be impacted. is your concern with the

job-killing focus exclusively then in that small set of companies with 47, 49 people or are you concern with the 100, 200 company and therefore i revise my question whether it's too high or too low? >> it's not a question whether it's too high or too low. it's something they choose to do. they commuse to provide health care as an incentive to hire or retain employees. they should be able to choose to provide health care or not provide health care based on what is best for tir business and not because congressman dated that they had to provide that coverage. >> and again, this is --y answer to that and i'll be answer to that and i'll be completing my remarks -- it's my initial answer to mr. king and my discussion with mr. king that this is not a decision

made in ice lace. you have companies of great size that do not provide health care benefits. they are passing t burden on to others, sometimes to other businesses. so this is simply a matter of finding a proper cost allocation in an economy so everybody pays their fair share. it's a concept that's consistent with republican ideals and one with democratic ideals. we certainly welcome ideas from both sides of the aisle and look forward to working with you to better accomplish what we need to with regard to the allocation of health care cost in the economy. i think the piece missing from this bill is the offset. we look forward to finding what we look forward to finding what the offsets are. the first sets are paying for a

fairly expensive one-page bill. i'm very glad to receive the clarification that the intent is for all of these things to be accomplished because any one of this would be far from the silver bullet. >> thank you very much. mr. webster? >> i have oneuestion. that is when the c.p.o. scores a bill, do they take into account any other taxes or other fees or costs that would be generated other than those would affect the federal budget and the federal deficit? if may, the c.e.o., -- the

c.b.o. scores the legislation as it sits in front of them. they don't take into account outside considerations. one of the great disagreements that we had during the debate leading up to the bill's passage was that in order for the c.b.o. score to balance and meet the president's requirements, you have to assume that doctors were going to take a 21% cut in their medicare reimbursement whenever single member of congress knew that wasn't going to happen. and yet to get the numbers t balance you had to assume that. and c.b.o. had to assume that -- to score that. they score and we talked about them being the judge on the field or the referee on the field. they do a good job of scoring what's in front of them. they are not allowed to speculate on other things. >> i would just note as well that the budget committee

republicans in their analysis figured that it would actually increase the deficit by more that $700 billion over 10 years. and when you looked at some of the things that c.b.o. did, of course, or that the bill did, it increased taxes over 10 it increased taxes over 10 years but most of the benefits don't kick in except for the six years of that 10-year window. so a bert reflection of the score, and you'll remember the president said he didn't want to do anything if it was going to increase the deficit. well, maybe we should look at a 20-year window to determine the full cost of the american taxpayer. >> that's really what i wanted to discuss. and after 10 years our state, florida, medicare funding goes back to the way it was prerescission.

-- pre-recession. and a huge cost gets distributed to in such a way that it will take a doubling of our sales tax just to cover that portion of the bill. that's not in any way -- in any part of the c.b.o.'s score of a particular piece of legislation. so the overall cost to the local and state government which is going to sore in year 2011. >> will the gentleman yield on that point? >> yes. >> i appreciate his very thoughtful remarks. thoughtful remarks. we have obviously in response to the c.b.o. letter that was just received have a response that's been put together but the budget committee to the fact that ere is $2.7 trillion in additional spending that is included in this measure and i'm going to ask

unanimous consent to place in the record this analysis that has been done because if you look at the added fees a taxes that are imposed, it is very obvious that we are, you know, to me it's incomprehensive that this massive expansion to the federal government and its mandates and dictates are going to be end up being a cost-saving -- >> without objection i'm going to place this in the record -- is there objection? would you like to reserve the right to object? right to object? >> [inaudible] >> there's no objection. if not, the budget committee's report will appear in the record. >> will the gentleman yield -- >> yes.

>> i think what really i find disturbing about this exchange is that we're being informed that basically there will be no more neutral budget group of exports -- but with the c.b.o. you have to toss it aside. but basically all the numbers are going to be made by republicans on the house budget committee. and i find that very, very disturbing >> will the gentleman yield on that point? i think if we look at the opening day package, one of the things that we have found here is that if you will take the six year vs. the 10-year window for consideration of this measure, we have dramatic tax increases and if you go to the out-years, we want to project -- i thank my friend for yielding, we want to project 20, 30 years beyond so we can't

say we have savings early on and then have an explosion of spending in the out-years that exacerbates the problems. >> i think that's a very big mistake. >> we're trying to make it more accurate and accountable. and i thank my friend for yielding. >> i thank the gentleman from florida, mr. webster. there's a missing point here. we're talking about this scoring and the number of $230 billion and i know we've had discussions about dynamically score. i think it will be significant i think it will be significant and tremendous. and we're talking about the damage to the fedom and vitality of americans here. i am one that started a business with nothing. and i know the psychology of fearing federal regulations and state regulations. if you're looking at obama care

hanging over your head and you're an interprenure, you are less likely than you are -- you're an entrepreneur, you are less likely than you are. it can be quantified by people who have actually started businesses and have written paychecks. i thank you and i yield back. >> what i wanted to know what the score was. and i found out what the score is. >> thank you very much. you're going to continue t find out what the score is in years to come. it's always a challenge, mr. webster. >> gentlemen, thank you very much for being here. i appreciate your

. . . . . . . . >> this weekend on c-span 3 american's history >> then from the bureau, learn about the history of u.s. currency, see the complete weekend schedule online at c-span.org where you can also press the c-span alert button. .