companies have created 4 million jobs in this country over the last few years. thank you for not being like all other witnesses have been, who said, i or we have created these jobs. the administration has not done that. it is the private sector that created the jobs. the other thing i think that is important to talk about is the fact that somebody mentioned 98% of americans get insurance under this bill. before obamacare was passed, there were only about 10 million americans who wanted health insurance who could not afford health insurance. somewhere around that number. we could have taken care of that with the things that our colleagues have talked about. and republicans did do that. comprehensive health care -- i

love that expression that you all use when you want government to take over some issue. let it be comprehensive. that is the code word for that. my colleague from new york mentioned that college graduates need to be covered by obamacare because they cannot get jobs. republicans have sent over 30 bills over to the senate that would help create an environment for creating jobs. we know that government does not create jobs but we help create an environment. we need to look at not the symptoms, we need to look at the causes that are creating, that are forcing so many young people not to be able to get jobs after their college education.

the economy is in such bad shape and we are spending so much money at the federal level. i also want to say that our motives are often impugned on this side of the aisle by our colleagues. the implication is that we do not care about women, children, if we do not vote for government takeover of our lives. i would like to point out that there were many democrats who voted no on the obamacare bill and i suspect that there will be some democrats who will vote to repeal it. i am sure my colleagues are not going to impugn their motives for their integrity when they do that. because i do not do that. there are people who understand the difference between freedom and lack of freedom and what we

do when we give the government so much control. mr. price has pointed out that we want patient-centered health care. we want patients and doctors to make decisions, not a 15-member , on elected, unaccountable board of people to be deciding who is going to be getting health care in this country. that is what you have a when you have obamacare. that is the kind of thing that we want to get rid of. all of these other problems can be dealt with, and they can be dealt with, as my colleague from california stated, and in many cases, they are being taken care of. obamacare does everything possible to destroy hsa's. it does not allow for

association health plans, liability reform, purchased across state lines. there are many things. i also hear my colleagues talking out of both sides of their mouths on the prescription drug plan. many of them have lambasting that program. on one day, they will scream about how it is not paid for. on the other hand, they say, we have to close the donors hold. what is it? you voted against it when it came up before. i probably would have voted against it, too. but come on. you are being hypocritical when you say we have got to fill the doughnut hole. even my colleagues probably need to read the book "1984."

maybe they will see a little bit of themselves in the things that are in there in terms of how you rewrite history. and how you make things sound great that are not great. the loss of freedom in this country is really putting us at risk long-term. that is my greatest concern about this bill and the taking away from individuals the ability to make decisions about their health care. with that, i yield back. >> dr. fox, it is funny to hear you talk about impugning motives. i am pretty sure i have been called a totalitarian who wants to take everybody's freedom away. we ought to be careful about

some of the rhetoric that we use. i would urge my colleagues to replace some of her speeches because that was pretty harsh. mr. sessions about taxes. for the record, my constituents are sick and tired of paying for people in texas who can afford coverage but choose not to get coverage. we end up paying for that. the affordable health-care act provides my constituents with a tax cut. i should also point out that your standard bearer, mitt romney, the co-author of the massachusetts health care plan, said that this was not a tax. i stand corrected. this week, he changed his mind. you own him. he is yours. he will be all over the place by the time this campaign is over with.

this notion of making sure everybody has the freedom to have access to good, quality health care is something that motivated me to vote for this bill. everybody in this country does not have the freedom to be able to afford good, quality health care. the status quo was unacceptable. i am glad to hear that we do not have to worry about these things. the insurance companies all have our best interests at heart. we can repeal all of these requirements that ban discrimination against children. the provision that forbids insurance companies from discriminating against women. it used to be that, being a female was a pre-existing condition. that has been banned. we lift all of the requirements and take away all of these requirements on insurance

companies to behave responsibly, that they will do that. one of the reasons we need to do this is because insurance companies have not behaved responsibly throughout the years. to many of our citizens have paid a heavy price for that. i wanted to begin my comments by saying, enough already. this is our 31st time we are repealing some or all of the affordable health care act. it is one of the first things you did when you came to power. you have us all on record. if this is all about politics, r hot-button votes. how many more times do you want us to be on record on this? if this is a campaign issue for you, fine. you and mitt romney want to run on the platform of saying we are born until leave it up to states or insurance companies to decide whether or not it is okay to

discriminate against kids with pre-existing conditions. if you want to run on the platform saying, we are going to stop closing the doughnut hole. if you're going to run on the platform by saying, let the insurance companies or states decide whether or not women should be discriminated against. if that is your platform, go at it. i welcome that debate. the fact of the matter is, and i appreciate the chairman of the rules committee saying they are going to give us lots of time on this. i do not want lots of time on this. i want lots of time on a jobs bill. you stalled on the transportation bill. that should have been passed months ago. we should be spending hours tomorrow debating the president's jobs proposals for your jobs proposals. but seven or eight hours on this? it is going nowhere. the senate is not taking it up.

even if it did, the president is not going to sign it into law. >> i think your time was refreshing after our little lecture about george orwell. our friend from north carolina was right was right in referencing george orwell. i could think of no finer example of orwellian rhetoric than the use of the death penalty when this bill was adopted. -- death panels when this bill was adopted. the notion that there would be a commission that would meet and decide who gets a heart transplant and who does not, it was false and it will always be false. i am a little saddened about my friend from north carolina and yielding back before she took any comments. i respect her very much and i know the sincerity of her views. it was for full to hear her

refer to the president of the united states as "your president." i do not agree with hardly anything he did, but george w. bush was my president. ronald reagan was my president. i disagree with him most of the time, but george h. w. bush was my president. i am saddened by the fact that we have reached the point where we do not -- where we have one president who does not represent all of us. we should get beyond the rhetoric and talk about what really matters in this country, which is jobs. >> being amazed at how much congressman fox and i have in common. i have been reading "1984" rather recently. what bothers me about what she said is this notion of speed --

of freedom. i think of freedom of speech, not freedom to not have health care. it is not fair that people not take responsibility for their own lives. why should so many of us be paying these large premiums for people who do not decide to have health care? i also think that the other thing you said is that there are a lot of people out there that want health insurance, millions , and cannot get it because they cannot afford it. and a lot of others who are underinsured because they cannot buy a decent benefit package. we are not talking about these 40 million people who have health insurance under the affordable care act, but another 40 million who are underinsured

and cannot get coverage for the things that they need coverage for. they need to be able to buy affordable insurance with the subsidies and benefits provided. with regard to the insurance companies, if you repealed this, the insurance companies are the only ones who will benefit. they will go back to discriminatory practices, pre- existing conditions, lifetime limits, revisions spirit not because they are people necessarily, but because if you do not take in everybody and guarantee everybody has an insurance, you are almost forced to go back to the old ways in order to make a profit. it is not a question of who is evil. what i am saying is you would allow us to go back to the old system where all the discriminatory practices take

place and that is how the insurance companies make money. not because they are bad people but because that is the only way they can make money under the old system. the way they make money under the new system is by covering everyone. >> let me just say this. >> could you give me 30 seconds? i have been here a few years. i say this respectfully. dr. fox, just as she is leaving. "1984" illustrates how very difficult it is to get anything done. when you frame the issue in terms of "1984," it is so misguided and so totally polarized.

if that is the mindset of this republican party, we will never get anything done. >> i appreciate that. i just conclude with a couple of observations. on january 25, we voted on the first repealed. we were told that the republican majority in the house would have a bill that would preserve a patient's ability to keep his or her health plan if he or she likes it. we have not seen that. the other thing is dr. fox mentioned that the president of united sense -- of the united states rightly said this is the greatest country on the planet. you cannot try to make the greatest country -- the notion that you cannot make the greatest country in the world even better is stunning to me. that is what we are here for.

that is what the president is supposed to do. we are all supposed to do that, improve the quality of life for people. this is the greatest country in the world. if we can guarantee everyone the right to have health care, i think that is even greater. i understand what is going on here. i would request that you give us a little less time. you want the votes for your campaign commercials so that these super pacs can humble us, fine. we should be spending more time on jobs and less on hot-button issues. i yield back my time. >> thank you. i do not intend on going through the philosophy of this particular bill. with one caveat. i served on the state legislature before i came here. different from the rest of my

delegation whose first jobs were to come to washington and thought that perhaps the way we do things in washington is the way it ought to be done. i appreciate the comments that have been made here because i did not realize how incompetent i was as a state legislator, how much i did not care about issues. and only once i briefed the rarified air of the potomac river i was able to make these decisions. the fact that you talk required health care decades before anyone here thought about it was just an apparition of our inability of doing things. however, i do have a specific, colloquial question because i have never received an answer. i never once claimed credit for this program. now that we know it is a tax and it has been verified as a tax, the tax will be collected by the irs. i have a center in my district that to a good job but they are

pressed to the mats right now. if this program were to go through, how are you going to handle the process of having the tax verified through the irs program and having people examine those types of things? will you outsource this program has had been done in other programs? there are some who suggested it would be between 12,000-14,000 more people to handle the program. i have to admit there is some historical reference to that. when our tax program went from a class tax to a mass tax, we tripled the amount of irs agents. the same thing happened in world war two when the top rate went up and the bottom rate went up. there was a significant increase. i know there are irs employees who do a good job but cannot handle the increase mandated by

this program. is it the plan to outsource these jobs to the private sector? or is it to increase the number of irs employees? >> it will be handled responsibly. we will have the intelligence with in this body to make sure that the law is implemented. >> that means you had a plan ahead of time. what was the purpose or plan? >> we do not talk about conjuring up some master plan. there is enough intelligence in his body to rise to the occasion. >> let me ask the question again. is the plan to outsource this work or are we going to hire more people inside? that is a legitimate question. >> that will be determined. i do not think there is any plan to outsource. there is a lot of outsourcing being done. that is not being contemplated.

>> so we will increase the number of irs agents. >> we do not need to conjure up straw people. we will handle that. there is enough intelligence in this body to respond to that. do not sell us short. >> mr. levin, i am asking what the plan is. if you do not have a plan, say you do not have a plan. >> the answer is that there will be implementation. some of the provisions are not in place yet. some are. you want to repeal what is in place. that is what you want to get rid of. now you conjure up what will happen with some of the provisions that have not yet been implemented. some have been implemented and others have not.

the purpose is for you to repeal what is already in place. >> mr. andrews, can you give me an answer? >> here is the way it would work from a taxpayer's point of view. when a person files there 1040, their w-2 will reflect that they have health insurance. if a person does not have a w-2, they will file a schedule that indicates they have health insurance. pretty much the same that you show you can make mortgage payments. if the person does not have that, there will be a penalty assessed. if they do not add it on, it would be the regular enforcement mechanism. whether that requires more employees or not, i do not know. the treasury department is presented a budget that assumes this will be law. >> how many employees do they

increase? >> i do not know. i would be happy to check the records. i am certain that the commissioner of the irs has taken this into account. that is the way it works in a real world. >> i appreciate that. i also realize that in the real world, the irs center in my district is maxed out right now. in the past, other programs added to their responsibilities were outsourced. >> i would join in opposing any outsourcing. >> if it is what you started to say, if the goal is not to outsource, i think that was the result of my question. i think that is a legitimate answer. >> that is true. >> historically, every time there has been an increase in the role of the irs, there have been an increase in the number of agents that are needed to do that work.

that cannot be denied. >> when the mortgage interest deduction was added to the tax code, was there a spike in irs agents? >> there was an outsourcing. that is one of the problems. >> i am making the assumption that there was. i may be inaccurate. >> we have a whole bunch of people who know better than i. there are 17,000 new irs agents that are authorized with the health-care bill. there are 17,000 agents that were authorized through the ways and means proponents of the bill. mr. rangel was the chairman at the time. you are here as subject matter experts and you should understand and answer the questions appropriately. 17,002 irs agents were authorized. as early as last week, the white

house indicated they will begin at hiring process right now. >> i told you my question was parochial. i really did not know the specific answer. i will quit babbling on. >> let me begin by referring to himself as a modest state legislator. what was the last position? >> i walked out under my own power. they called me speaker at the time. >> i was a history teacher. i would like to, with unanimous consent, enter into the record the statement of administration policy. i might add, mr. chairman, this one does not say, as many as in the past, that our staff would recommend that it be vetoed.

it ends with, if the president were presented with hr6079, he will veto that. >> i hope you will copy -- hand that to a general -- to the gentleman to your right and it is clear that the president would reea -- repeal it. >> 17 months ago, the house adopted a resolution instructing house committees to do specific things regarding our health care. since that time, as has been mentioned here, we voted. tomorrow will be 31 times. to repeal measures having to do with the affordable care act. i wonder how well the committee is have follow those instructions.

i ask any of you -- as your committee reported a bill that will increase the number of insured americans? i gather by no response that you have not. i'm talking the committee, not you as individuals. >> it looks as if he had to leave. i want to see if anyone has any questions for mr. pallone before we allow him to leave. >> no questions, in particular. thank you very much, mr. alone. -- mr. pallone. >> has your committee reported a bill that would provide for a permanent -- >> the ways and means committee

has held tens of hearings on this legislation in an effort to try to garner the kind of information that would allow us to bring forth a piece of legislation. we look forward to doing that. we would like to do it in a bipartisan fashion. >> i thought you were done. >> excuse me. you finish. >> apparently, the individual does not want answered. -- does not want to answer. >> it can be said that the committee is considering its study. the truth of the matter is, no legislation has passed through the ways and means committee that would make any considerable dent in the number of uninsured. >> that would be true of

measures having to do with pre- existing conditions. >> there is no legislation that is past, except the affordable care act. let's let me go in another direction. as a lawyer and former judge, i want to say something to you all that may benefit all of us here. it behooves us, as congresspersons, to be a great deal more respectful of the nine members of the united states supreme court. what i saw in the media, and ideologically, i agree with some of them and i disagree with some. i do not have to put my history on the record. i went to the supreme court as an individual on two occasions and i thought that they were wrong in their relents, but i

accepted that. and i went about my business. i shudder to think that he would continue to, as one senator said, that two members of the supreme court, changing their position does not make all of the land. the senator is wrong. today, it is along of the land. -- the law of the land. we have rights and responsibilities. among our rights is to seek to repeal or to do what some of us think would be helpful, to continue about the business of following the law as it exists and trying to make it better. many of the things you speak of,

people like me would support. i advocated there should be collected opportunities for business persons all the time i came here for it -- since the time i came here. i came here seeking a public option. i advocated universal health care before i ever heard barack obama's name. obamacare does not mean anything. it should be hastings/obamacare because i had something to do with it before he did. most of us read "1984." some of us read "brave new world."

the way we are acting comes more in line with the decline and fall of the roman empire, if she would want to monday through those volumes and see the parallel that exist. among them is the fact that people began to disrespect themselves. i personally apologize for those that have this respected justice roberts. -- this respected justice roberts. as a lawyer, i read the cliff notes. i thought that he had a stroke of genius establishing it as the roberts court at this point. he did divide the baby and left all of us -- when i was a state court judge and the husband and wife would leave the courtroom and both of them would be mad,

they would look at me and say, you made another good decision. that is what happened here. when you say a tax, a tax on who? i yield to you to tell me who is being taxed. >> i appreciate the gentleman asking. the supreme court justice, mr. roberts, all lined that he believed that the essence of this was a tax. we could have called it anything. >> what he said was that because it could not travel under the commerce clause, that it was a tax. you can name if anything you want to, what i named it in the final analysis is that 1% of the people in the united states will be affected. it is not everybody.

you run out and say the word tax and that is supposed to cause everybody to shudder. if it means i am taxed $1,000 so that the people in the community do not get turned away, let me put a foot note right there. emergency facilities are where most of the people wind up. we wind up having to pay for that. we need to figure out a better way. 14 industrialized nations around the world do better than us. our costs for insurance alone is more. i ask all of you, everyone of us, tell me the day your insurance when down in one year. anybody, raise your hand. did it go down, bob? you paid $5,000.10 year and then you paid none.

it must have been 16 years before you came to the rules committee. did you have insurance during that period of time? >> plans have gone down while others have gone up. >> florida blew an omaha and all of those, everyone of them have gone up. everybody knows that. i have news for you. whenever we do here, they are going to go up any out. -- anyhow. unless we go to the american public courageously and say social security, in its present form, is not sustainable. you came up with this particular measure takes $500 million out of medicare. the ryan plan pretty much eliminates medicare. what we need to do is get busy

among ourselves spirit there is enough intelligence in this institution for us to be able to modify this plan going forward. i will say one other thing about dr. fox. she keeps going around saying all of these divisive things. what we're doing to the supreme court is divisive and degrading. just like mcgovern said, it is hollow political posturing. if there was a right wing university, then a whole lot of my republican colleagues and some of my democratic colleagues would be eligible to be the dean of the college of hypocrisy. we carry on as if there is not a real world out here. everybody knows how difficult and complex this issue is. we have seen it in more ways than one. we do not have enough nurses or doctors.

all of this business about jobs -- 660,000 new health-care jobs have been created since and before the affordable health care act came into existence. the third highest profession is health care delivery for these young people that do not have a job. what you are saying to them is that they are the new normal. people do not have a job and they're not going to get one any time soon at the rate that we are going. somebody needs to tell the american people the truth aside from malpractice reform. you do not have a plan. all you want to do is go out to the november election and say that you repealed something. when the deal goes down, the american people are not as crazy as some of us think. but the most important thing i want you all to do is stop

disrespecting the supreme court the way that you have. people using hyperbole, using their skills to go out and scare people, having been a judge, i would imagine that justice roberts probably has no fear for his life. but the kind of decisions that he made rankled so many people in this country. i am hoping that the marshals will provide the additional requirements for his safety. stop it. that is what to do. that is what my granddaughter says. she says, stop it. there are not going to be health exchange programs. the federal government would implement it, then that would be where we come from. anyways, i cannot imagine that we are here with all of the pain

in this country, all of the misery that exists, all of us knowing the significant number of people. you said there were 10 million people uninsured. i am here to tell you there were 42 million when i came here. it must be at least 50 million. it includes some people who are too poor to even begin thinking about getting insurance. wake up and start telling people the truth. get out of this back-and-forth mumbo jumbo that we go through here. i hope a lot of you lose and i hope by wind. -- i win. [laughter] thank you. >> we have a series of votes on the house floor. these analysts have said -- house -- have been sitting here patiently for a long time.

having said that, i recognize mr. woodall. >> thank you. i think it would be unreasonable to listen to mr. hastings and not have a few comments. u.s. news and world report reports that 81 new irs workers will be hired solely to deal with the tanning tax. mr. pallone started off saying, my constituents should move on. i just want ask. mr. andrews was here when they passed the tip of built in 1996-- the hippa bill in 1996. mr. levin was here. mr. pallone voted no. there was a concerted effort to deal with those issues in a bipartisan way. only 2 votes against it in the

house. it was done and a bipartisan way. the reason falconjk cannot move on is this was not done -- the ere -- the reason folks cannot move on is this was not done in a bipartisan way. the folks in my district still do not like it. why don't we just move on? the reason i do not move on is i have constituents telling me to get rid of this bill. what is the experience in your district? >> mine is similar. it is not just patients. it is employers. all we caning, figure out to do is to lay people off. as a physician, my opposition colleagues are saying, if this comes through to all its glory,

that is it. that is the final straw. we are out of here. god help us for the work force challenges we are going to have. the appropriate thing to do is proceed and repeal this bill to move forward. that romney is associated with proposals of this type. he is associated as a governor. i am glad it worked for you all. when something similar was tried, it went from 43 fincher is down to 2. i was not here when you pass this bill. but the faults we think about most often, the hollander family. what are you going to tell to all of those kids who have health care under this bill? in georgia, they have five kids

and 10 grandkids. there was a young woman under her charge, her parents could not take care of her, the state became her guardian and adopted her. they had the misfortune of adopting her right about the time the president's health-care plan went into action. when they went to the state's insurance commissioner to say, where can i go to get insurance for my child? i heard about this great new bill. they were told that we had insurance companies in the state that would write those policies last year but because of what congress passed and the president sign, every single insurance writer of policies for children in the state of georgia had left the state. not one child can get insurance in georgia today. those policies are bond. i do not leave for a moment the one of you who supported that intended that consequence. i do not believe it for a moment. the laws of unintended

consequences -- you said we are supposed to be here to improve the quality of life of people back home. i am supposed to be here to protect their freedoms. we argue about the constitutionality of this bill. every single reform in this bill could have been implemented by the state of georgia, the state of utah, the state of massachusetts. not one constitutional challenge would have stood. the power of states is plenary. it is the power of congress to legislate in this area that becomes a question of why it is. faults whose hearts are in the right place, i know that they are, feel like passing the national solution that ends up preventing the newly-adopted 6- year-old from having any access to insurance whatsoever. she would have before the bill passed. the arrogance of knowing that we

have the answer that other folks do not. i assume mr. rose, is the state legislature working on that area back home or are they dependent on us? >> they have not started yet. let me tell you. the 2700-page bill and 13,000 pages of rules and writing as of today. we could have provided, this year, and i asked her, how many people will you expand coverage to? she thinks about 30 million. i said, i can do that in 2 paragraphs. just expand medicaid already a writ the problem with medicaid, the great story that is never told is it does not pay for the cost of the care. the costs get shifted so it just expanded a program that has not worked. in tennessee, let me give you an example.

1993 reform our medicaid program. we are spending $2.5 billion per year on that program. in 10 years, are democratic governor had to close it out because we tripled the amount of money that was spent on that program. it almost bankrupted our state. we have not added anything in higher education in 20 years because the money is gone. in medicare, we talk about estimates and cbo and all of that. it came out in 1965 as a $3 billion program. they said it would be a $12 billion program in 1990. the real answer, $110 million. in 2003, did you vote for -- i -- >> i voted for -- >> i voted for health care

reform. that is why i ran for congress. the republicans were not even included in this debate. >> that is the best place for me to leave it. there is not a single person in this room that cares more about the health care of georgia than dr. price and i. >> we have other members to have a right to ask the question. we have a series of votes on the floor. i would ask all of you to come back as the other members of the rules committee are looking forward. mr. levin was leaving. he has so much to offer, i inferred from his standing up that we were about to miss the vote. >> i will be brief. >> if there are 300 people that voted, mr. mcgovern will keep his eye on it and guarantee that not one of us mrs. the vote.

-- misses the vote. >>, with this increase the deficit by deaths -- how much would this increase the deficit by? >> the early figure was it would be very substantial. as mr. andrews has said, the committee is proceeding without having that answer. >> do you have a ball park? >> no, we do not. the congressional budget office is analyzing the effect of the decision of the administration not to enforce the class act and the supreme court decision about whether or not states will enroll in the medicaid expansion. we do not know. in january of 2011, the congressional budget office estimated that repealing the law would cost an excess of $200 billion added to the deficit.

i just think it is incredibly irresponsible to go forward with this vote until the facts are before the house. >> there are no pay force in this bill? >> one thing the majority did in 2000 well -- in 2001 was to ignore the part of the bill and said it would add $223 billion to the deficit. ordinarily, you have to offset that with a spending cut or new revenue. this command -- this committee facilitated a magic wand and said, we are going to pretend that those rules do not apply. the first time they did that, they ignore the budget rules. now they are not going to go through the pretense of going face -- of getting a score. >> so when we pay for health care reform, they do not pay for its repeal because they know it will not happen.

>> it will increase the burden of debt that the nation faces. the second question for mr. andrews is, it is my understanding that the affordable care act affects members of congress. members of congress are to be purchasing the insurance through the exchange beginning in 2014. if this republican bill passes, members of congress will get the government health care that they have historical the cotton? >> the law states that the only people in america must join the exchange are the members of congress. we must be subject to the rules of the exchange. we are the only people. if this is repealed, members of congress would stay in the federal employees health benefits plan that we are in right now that we pay for. members of congress would stay instead of buying for the

exchange. one of the things that has been misstated is that it does not apply to members of congress. it most emphatically does. members and our families will be ensured through the exchange. >> so it will prevent members of congress from buying insurance like other american families and give them a government health care. >> that is basically right. members of congress would have their health insurance paid for through the federal employees health benefit plans. >> that is not exactly what my constituents were urging me to do, to give congress their own gold-plated health care plan. >> i wanted to comment about the budgetary issue. the reason the takeover language is in the bill is it allows us to have the bills scored through cbo. it is standard language used for these pieces of legislation. >> once it is scored, is there a plan to pay for this bill

through either offsetting cuts elsewhere or tax increases? >> the provision in section d, section 4 of the bill, provides for the ability to have that discussion and make it so that it is revenue neutral. >> i do not understand why we are having that discussion after we passed the appeal. i thought we were supposed to decide on how much something is going to cost and then take a vote on it. it is extraordinary, unprecedented in recent decades, that congress is about to make an incredibly important decision and the majority would admit that they have no idea whether this repeal adds or subtracts from the deficit. the latest was repealing a lot in excess of $200 billion to the deficit. when this goes to the floor, i guess we're just going to guess

and talk about it later on. i fail to understand the wisdom of that. >> mr. scott, mr. webster. thanks to all of you for being here. we greatly appreciate your testimony. we were planning to go to miss swartz next. we do have three votes on the floor. there are no members who have voted. you were here filling in for questions. the next panel is the budget committee and then the members who are not members of any other committee. the committee stands in recess. any members -- you wish to testify. ok. any members who wish to testify, please come back. we will begin at the beginning of the last vote on the floor. the committee stands in recess. [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the house of representatives will begin debate tomorrow on repealing the health care law president obama signed two years ago. that begins at noon eastern with live coverage on c-span. tomorrow on "washington journal"

we will talk about the measures with two members of congress. also joining us is the wall street journal health reporter. she will discuss the world's hospitals, health care companies, and how lobbyists are influencing the implementation of the law. >> we have great threats to our existence today, as a nation. i would think, in my opinion, quicker than any threat we have ever faced, whether civil war or revolutionary war, world war two, the depression, and that threat comes to us because we have spent the last 30 years in this country spending money that we did not have on things we did

not absolutely need and the bill is due. >> colorado christian university held a western conservative issue summit featuring speakers from this country and the netherlands. what it online in the c-span video library. on monday, president obama urged congress to pass a one-year extension of tax cuts for middle class families. making under $250,000 per year. he also said it is time for tax cuts for the wealthiest americans to expire. house republicans are are said to push for an extension of all tax cuts. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you very much. thank you. everybody have a seat. good afternoon, everybody.

i am glad things have cooled off a little bit. i know folks were hot. we are here today to talk about taxes. something that everybody obviously cares deeply about. i have also said that our biggest challenge is not just to reclaim all the jobs we have lost. it is to reclaim the security that some many middle-class americans have lost over the past decade. our core mission as an administration and as a country has to be, yes, putting people back to work, but also rebuilding the economy where that work pays off. an economy in which everybody can have the confidence that if you work hard, you can get ahead. what is holding us back from meeting these challenges is not a lack of plans or ideas.

it is a stalemate in washington between two very different views in which direction we should go in as a country. nowhere is that still may more pronounced than on the issue of taxes. many members of the other parties believe that prosperity comes from the top down. if we spend trillions more on tax cuts for the wealthiest americans, that that will unleash jobs and economic growth. i disagree. i think they are wrong. i believe our prosperity has always come from an economy that is built on a strong and growing middle class. one that can afford to buy the products that our businesses sell. the middle class who can own homes and send their kids to college, save enough to retire on. that is why i have cut middle- class taxes every year that i

have been president. by $3,600 for the typical middle-class family. let me repeat. since i have been in office, we have cut taxes for the typical middle-class family by $3,600. [applause] i wanted to repeat that because sometimes, there is a little misinformation out there and people get confused about that. moreover, we have tried it many ways. it did not work. at the beginning of the last decade, congress passed trillions of dollars in tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest americans more than anyone else. we were told it would lead to more jobs and higher income for everybody, that prosperity would start at the top and trickle-

down. what happened? the wealthy got wealthier but most americans struggled. instead of creating more jobs, we had the slowest job growth in half a century. instead of widespread prosperity, the typical family saw its income fall. in just a few years, we went from record surpluses under bill clinton to record deficits that we are still struggling to pay off today. we do not more -- we do not need more top-down economics. we have tried that theory. we have seen what happens. we need policies that strengthen the middle class. policies that help create jobs, make education and training more affordable, that encourage businesses to create jobs here in the united states. that is why i believe it is time to let the tax cuts for the wealthiest americans, folks like myself, to expire. [applause]

by the way i might feel differently because it is not what i like to pay taxes. i might feel differently if we were still in surplus. we have these huge deficits. everybody agrees we need to do something about the deficit and debt. the money we are spending on these tax cuts for the wealthy is a major driver of our deficit, a contributor to our deficit. it is costing this over the next decade. these tax cuts for the wealthiest americans are also the tax cuts that are least likely to promote growth. i believe anyone making over to under $50,000 a year should go

back to the tax rates under bill clinton, when our country to 23 million new jobs, the biggest surplus in history, and plenty of millionaires to boot. this is not just my opinion. the american people are with me on this. poll after poll shows that is the case. there are plenty of patriotic and very wealthy americans to also agree. they know that i'm making the contribution they are making the country as a whole stronger. at the same time most people agree that we should not raise taxes on middle-class families or small businesses. not when so many folks are just trying to get by. now when so many folks are still digging themselves out of the whole that was created by this great recession.

and at a time when the recovery is still fragile. that is why i'm calling on congress to extend the tax cuts for the 98% of americans that make less than $250,000 for a another year. [applause] if congress does not do this, and millions of american families including these good- looking people behind us could see their taxes go up by $2,200. starting on january 1 of next year. that would be a big blow to working families. it to be a drag on the entire economy. we can anticipate that we know that those who are opposed to

letting the high in tax cuts will expire will say. they will say that we cannot tax job creators. they will explain how this will be bad for small business. folksy tree most new jobs are america's small-business owners. i have cut taxes for small business owners eight teen time since i have been in office. [applause] i also ask congress repeatedly to pass new tax cuts for entrepreneurs that hire new workers. here is a thing you have to remember. the proposal i make today would extend these tax cuts for 97% of all small business owners in america. 97 serve a small businesses fall under the threshold.

this is not about taxing job creators. this is about helping job creatures. i want to give them relief. i want to give them a sense of purpose. i believe we should be able to come together to get this done. well i disagree on extending tax cuts for the wealthy because we cannot afford them, i recognize that not everyone agrees with them. we all say we agree that we should extend the tax cuts for 98 some of the american people. everybody said that. the republicans say they do not want to raise taxes on the middle class. we should all agree to extend the tax cuts for the middle- class. let's agree to do what we agree on.

that is what compromises all about. let's not hold the vast majority of americans and our entire economy hostage while we debate the merits of another tax cut for the wealthy. we can have that debate. we can have that debate. let's not hold up working on the thing we already agree on here. my opponent well like to keep them in place. i will fight to end them. that argument should not threaten me. it should not threaten the 98 certification of americans. they just want to know their

taxes will not go up. they deserve this guarantee. they deserve this certainty. it'll be good for the economy in good for you. we should give you that certainty now. we should do it now. it'll be good for you. it to be good for the economy as a whole. my message to congress is this. have a bill. extend the tax cuts for the middle-class. i will sign it tomorrow. next week i will cite it next week. you get the idea. -- i will sign it next week. you get the idea. as soon as i get it done, we will have a debate about whether it is a good idea to also extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest americans. i will have one position.

the other side will have another. we will have that debate. the american people can listen to that debate. next year once the election is over and things have calmed down a little bit, based on what the american people have said and how they have spoken, we will be in a good position. that is something we have to do for the long term. we will give middle-class families the security they deserve. you are the ones who are driving this recovery for words. -- forward. you are the ones you're driving this recovery for word. i think it is time to widen the circle of intel more americans.

-- and tell more americans. this is what i'm focused on every day. i told congress will help meteorite think. thank you for being here. -- me do the right thing. thank you for being here. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [applause] >> a conversation about the

political party convention. the sight of the republican national convention in the set of the democratic national convention give an update on what to expect. starting live at o'clock 3:00 pm eastern on c-span 3. mitt romney is in colorado on tuesday. he is hosting a town hall meeting in granted junction. live coverage is starting at 12:35 eastern on cspan 3. >> we have great threats to our existence. i would think in my opinion, greater than any step we have faced, whether it has been our civil war, our revolutionary war, with it has been world war ii, whether it has been the

depression. that threat comes to us because we have spent the last 30 years in this country spending money that we did not have on things we did not need and the bill is due. >> colorado christian university held an issue segment featuring speakers from this country and the netherlands. watch the form on line at the c- span video library. >> chris christie spoke about his fiscal agenda and efforts to reform the government in his state. the governor and democrats disagree over tax cuts. given a christie is a former u.s. attorney. he is mentioned as a possible running mate for mitt romney. this is just over an hour.

>> good morning. i and the vice-president of government studies and director of technological innovation. we are pleased to welcome chris christie to the brookings institution. he was elected governor in november 2009. he was sworn in in january 2010. he graduated from the university of delaware. he joined a law firm and was named partner thereafter. he started his political career by being elected and serving as director of board in 1997. in 2001, george the bush nominated him as u.s. attorney for new jersey. the position he held through 2008. it was in that role he drew attention for his efforts in battling corruption, corporate

crime, human trafficking, and gang violence. he directed his attention to ethics. he spearheaded investigations. he was able to build 130 convictions. what you may not know it is like many natives, he is a dedicated bruce springsteen fan. he has attended 129 a concert. that dates over 36 years. that is a bipartisan issue on which everybody can agree. [laughter] he will make opening comments and then we will have a moderate discussion led by a senior fellow. he could direct the economic studies at brookings.

it is also being web cast. yours can ask questions during the discussion at #bichristie. please join me in welcoming governor christie to the brookings institute. >> thank you for welcoming me here. i appreciate the opportunity. two weeks ago i signed my third balanced budget in a row since becoming governor. it increases spending on k-12 education on a record level, a $12.8 billion. it increases aid for tuition assistance for children who need it, supports our most vulnerable including veterans,

and makes a significant down payment on our pension obligation, the largest single contribution that any governor has made to our pension system in its history, $1.1 billion. i used my line item veto authority to veto $360 million in special interest spending. 2013 is still smaller than fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009 budget. pretty good budgetary success. we are happy with it. we feel we can do better. there is one thing that did not happen. we will continue to talk about it. that is tax cut for middle- class new jersey people.

the president is going to propose extending tax relief for middle-class americans. in new jersey despite problems that we have had for taxes that have happened, it's a tax cut was left on the table. i was advocating for a 10% income-tax reduction. new jersey has one of the highest. we believe that reducing rates across the board would be one of the best ways to make new jersey were competitive with our neighbors. our tax rates are higher than the state of new york, connecticut. our neighbor in pennsylvania has a top rate of 3%. when you're competing in the job market we are competing in,

states are fiercely competing with each other. two ways that they provide infrastructure and higher education. you are competing on two levels, competitiveness that has two parts. what tax incentives are you willing to get to retain companies or track companies? what is the tax environment once they are there for them and their employees? that is the reason why i think tax reductions are so important in the environment. we are competing with these other states that have said that but it may lower rates. some instances like pennsylvania and delaware. we're not competing well because of this. i advocated for an across-the- board income-tax cut.

i have a state with a great sense of humor as you may know. not just because of native sons like jon stewart but also because our voters elected a conservative governor but retained the democratic legislature. i think it is wanted to see what what happens. we will talk about that this morning. the state senate president came back with a counter proposal, a credit of 10% against whatever amount of property taxes. there were certain limits that i will get into. there are certain limits put on in terms of income eligibility. as we moved along i began conversations about finding some way to compromise to be able to bring a tax cut package to the people of the state.

we came to agreement. we came to agreement and the late spring on a 10% income tax credit that folks with incomes under $400,000 a year would exempt any business and come through schedule c on the federal returns. it would apply equally. we would increase our income tax credit. it will be increased from 20% above the federal level to 25%. that will mean everybody who was employed in new jersey would be giving tax relief. it would be fiscally responsible. we had more setbacks. when the senate president went

back to his caucus and went over the assembly, they decide what was much more important was that it was more important for me not to be able to go to the republican national convention in tampa and say that i got a tax cut for the people of our state a tax cut than actually give the people a tax cut. we're going to have to fight about this over the summer. i am looking forward to it. i call them back in special session. they thought they were leaving for summer vacation. our constitution allows them to be called in for special session. i did. i gave them a speech on the importance of trying to reach a bipartisan compromise on this issue. they are making our state more competitive and giving our cares much more relief.

it is more important than the politics. especially for a speech that i have not even been invited to give. i do not even know if i will be speaking at this convention. they are real concerned about that. i offered my hand a compromise to the democrats on the issue of taxes and it was slapped back. the question for executive leadership is what do you do? there are two options. option number one is to go in the corner and hold your breath and say i'm not working with these people anymore because they are mean and not nice and they do not want to compromise. i'm going to send out really nasty press releases. or you can shrug your shoulders and say the job you were given was more important than your ego or the politics of the day. you can continue to try to fight to get a compromise

reached. i think the evidence of the last 2.5 years will show you that i have consistently, along with a number of leaders, pick the latter rather than the former. it is important to review that with you so you get context. where was new jersey when i became governor in 2010? a week into the job my chief of staff came to my office and told me that if we did not cuts $2.2 billion from the current budget of 2010 that we are seven months and to within six weeks that we would not make payroll for the second pay period in march. in new jersey, they would have to get out ious. i do not know how you define

broke. but that looked like broke to me from where i sat. we had two choices. we could either negotiate with the legislature. they made clear that it would happen through tax increases, immediate retroactive tax increases, or because new jersey's constitution is the most powerful constitutionally in america - america's caesar, i really liked that a lot -- i can act by executive order and impound funds. for those of you have watched me either closely or vaguely, if you believe that i picked option number one you did not earn your invitation here this morning. you need to leave. i pick option #2 and 132400

lines of the state budget. i found $2.2 billion in cuts and made them by executive order. i went to the legislature and presented them in a joint session. after i was done the speech was about 40 minutes long. i went up there. i said you left me with this huge problem. i needed to fix it. you wanted to raise taxes. i am not going to. i just made $2.2 billion in cuts. i fixed your problem. you can think me later. have a good day. i left. you can imagine the atmosphere. i was called all kinds of names like napoleon bonaparte and julius caesar. i admire them so much. the next day i saw the president.

he is the senate president. he is the most powerful democrat in the state of new jersey. he is the president of the ironworkers local. like me, a shy and retiring guy. i said i saw all those things you said about me. you said you really turned me around. i am going to vacate the executive order. that is all you need to know about new jersey politics. he said do not overreact. i did not think you did all that bad. it is politics. we inherited a huge problem. 158 tax increases in the eight years before i became governor. 115 tax increases at the state level in the eight years before

i became governor. that is a tax increase ever 25 days for eight years. if you want a definition of how to kill the goose that killed the golden egg look at our economy in the 1980's and 1990's. we have an unemployment rate over 10%. 155,000 private-sector jobs lost. highest tax burden in the country. highest number of government workers per square mile in the country. all of those things were dropped in our lap only came into office. when you are confronted with that with the democratic legislature you have to make some very specific and difficult choices. we moved into the fiscal year 2011, which had projected deficit of $11 billion on a $29

billion budget. 37% deficit. the largest of any state in the country. there was a call for higher taxes. what we did is proposed a budget that cut every department and state government, everyone without exception. we have to make significant cuts to close the budget deficit of $111. we did. folks sent me what has become in vogue lately, a millionaire's tax surcharge. you have to understand the history of millionaires' tax. we are the have a millionaire's tax. in new jersey it is special because we have special new jersey math.

the tax applies to all individuals or businesses which have over $400,000 in income. that is the millionaires' tax. $400,000 in income. when you're trying to market your state, that raises difficultly. how do you market your state? i would go around saying listen, come to new jersey. if you are not a millionaire but you want to feel like one come to new jersey. we will tax you like one. [laughter] even tell all your friends ip the millionaires' tax. we already had a millionaire's tax. this proposal was for a surcharge on top of that to raise it to 10.75%.

it took place as only below hawaii at that point. in terms of top tax rates. i vetoed that tax increase because i thought it made is not competitive. the senate president came down. i viewed it with the bill. i said "here it is." they do not call it a tax. maybe people will not read it. i just said wait a second. sit down. i do not want you to waste your time. we went ahead and continue to push for our budget. they said it would be dead on arrival without a tax surcharge. that june with democratic votes, 99.8% of the line items as i

presented. i tell you this to set up the idea about what executive leadership can do if you set out your principles but also showed that you are willing to compromise where appropriate. they were testin me in the first six months. i was a new governor. they have been in charge for a decade. they were the veterans. i was the newcomer. legislatures will always test executives and see how much they can get away with, how far they can push you, are you willing to stand for your principles or are you not? some people say when you stand up and fight that you are being obstructionist. that becomes true only if you're unwilling to compromise. the story of new jersey is really broken up into two parts, that first six months and then the two years since then. that first six months they were testing me.

in the two years afterward, let me go through with you some of the really bipartisan accomplishments that have been put forward by this governor and the democratic model. i call them back into special session for the fourth of july weekend. we have the highest property taxes. we needed a real cap. after a lot of negotiation, we passed a 2% cap on property taxes. a hard cap. only three exceptions. it is already working. last year property-tax is rose. only 2.4% is the lowest increase in property taxes in over 20 years. we then moved to reform the

arbitration system that drove enormous increases and public sector salaries, up 5% to 7% increase. we created interest arbitration. we capped the amount of money that arbiters could be paid. they had a small amount of time to make a decision. they were capped at 2%. we then moved to deal with the biggest problem i think for any of the state and the country or federal government. that is entitlement costs. in new jersey that is represented by our pension system and our public-sector health care program. when i became governor our pension system was underfunded by $54 billion.

our public sector health care system was underfunded by $67 billion. that is four years of budgets. september of 2010 i put forward a very straightforward program on how to deal with pension and benefit reform. it was this. raise the retirement age. increase the contributions made by employees to the pension system. until the funds are solid over the next 30 years , increase the penalties for early retirement. the state would be making its payments to the system. on the health care side most new jersey employees paid nothing for health insurance, zero.

these programs run anywhere from $15,000 to $19,000 a year per employee. they got them until they died. we needed to do something there. we could forge a simple task. we said everybody should pay 1/3 to cover the cost of your premiums. that seems to be fair. somewhat in line with what is going on in the private sector. many people would jump at a program like that at the moment. where did i announce this plan? i went to the firefighter convention in new jersey on friday afternoon. it was quite something. 2:00 in the afternoon. i suspect much had been liquid. those firefighters were ready for their governor. they were booing like crazy. i said you can do better than

that. they did. i decided to eliminate the speech i was going to give them. i said this. i understand you are angry. you feel betrayed. the reason we should feel betrayed is because you have been betrayed you have been betrayed of those that said they can give you increasing benefits you do not have to pay for. they made you those promises to get you to vote for them. i understand why you're angry and why you felt betrayed. why are you doing the first guy to tell you the truth? there is no political upside to tell you the truth. if we do this program and your pension is there to be collected and you have health insurance you are going to be on the internet looking for my home address to thank me because we did this together.

i probably only got 1/3 of the audience to cheer me. it was probably a big deal. i got out of there as quickly as possible. i went to over 30 town hall meetings and campaigned for that plan. ultimately with thousands of protesters on the front steps of the state house and in the galleys, in a bill sponsored by the senate president, only eight of the 24 democratic members of the senate, only 13 of the 47 assemblies voted yes, those reforms passed in the assembly and and the senate and or sign into law by me and will save over the next 30 years of $132 billion for the taxpayers of new jersey and will return

those funds to solvency. it took not just leadership but courage on the part of democratic leaders to move them forward without a majority of the caucuses voting for them. they did it because they knew it was the right thing to do. that is the environment we have created. it would not have happened if the executive did not lead first. i did not run around a campaign for it. it then would not have happened. executives lead. legislators can be persuaded. this year we have been able to pass a number of important initiatives. i put forward that the war on drugs has been a failure.

we are warehousing addicted people every day in prison, giving them no treatment and sending them back out and wondering why the rates go up and why they do not go better. you can certainly make the argument that no one to try drugs in the first place. i certainly am in that camp but tens of millions of people do. some people can try and walk away from it. for other is the first time they tried they become an addict. they are sick. they need treatment. i said what we need to do is for all first-time non-violent drug offenders, we have to make drug treatment mandatory. if you are pro-like as i am you cannot just be pro-life in the womb.

every life is precious. every one of god's creatures can be redeemed. they will not be if we ignore them. i believe that this program which was passed overwhelmingly by the legislature this year and will be phased in over the next five years will allow every person who comes into the criminal justice system in new jersey with a drug addiction to get a year a mandatory drug treatment in house. i believe the results will show after this is fully implemented. it will be stark. people can be treated. miracles happen every day. lives of mothers and fathers are restored to the heads of their families. sons are restored to their family. we return fabric to our families. to those of you concerned about

economics, it costs as $49,000 a year to house a prisoner. a full year of drug treatment cost $24,000 a year. it makes economic sense also. that is just a collateral advantage. the real reason to do it is we have an obligation to understand that addiction is a disease. we need to get people a chance to overcome that disease and restore dignity and meaning to their lives. that is not a partisan issue. it is a bipartisan issue. we reorganize our higher education system in a way that three previous governors tried in special interest be down every year. i said we have a deadline. if we do not do by july 1 i will never let it happen. the press weighed in and said it was arbitrary.

it is rushing. it got done. it would have gotten done if i had not set a july 1 deadline. bit intimidated the special interest to believe that they could always defeat a legislature and divide them much harder than absolutely committed executives. for the first time in 100 years we have also performed to our teacher tenure laws. new jersey's teachers union is one of the most powerful in america. new jersey's teacher union collects $130 million in dues every year. they do not spend a nickel on teacher salaries or pensions or

health care. all of that money is used to support their political operations. they spent for their first two years over $20 million in negative ads against me on the philadelphia television trying to say that my proposals were anti-teacher and anti-students. we continue to press on. guess what happened in? the teachers union came to the table. we negotiated the tenure law which is over 100 years old, the oldest in the country, and has now been reported to say that teachers get to years of partially ineffective ratings then they lose tenure. we are putting accountability back into the system. test scores must be evaluated for. as well as peer review.

now principals and superintendents will have the opportunity to manage their school systems in a way which allow them to put students first. there are not tolerating failure. imagine that. that was accomplished also in a bipartisan way. it took a two. five-year fight. we accomplished it two weeks ago. i said that the obligation of a governor would find that space between compromising your principles and getting everything you want. there's always a boulevard between those. that is the boulevard a compromise. sometimes it is narrower. it is always there if you are willing to try to find them. i would not ask anyone to compromise their principles too

much. i also have to give everyone an acknowledgement that you do not get everything you want. then you can find and enforce compromise as an executive. i can walk into gum at the same time. i can fight with democrats publicly and privately over issues of principle where we cannot find a compromise and at the same time hold conversations with them on issues where we can enforce that. this illusion that you see in this town that somehow that cannot happen is just an excuse. it is an excuse a failed leadership. you have to be able to walk into them at the same time. you have to be able to find a compromise. people send us to the jobs to get these things done.

are people in new jersey noticing that i say this. the last public poll before election day 2009 and ask that question do you think your state is moving in the right direction, 19% said they thought the state was getting in the right direction. in the last public poll, 63% believe their states is moving in the right direction. in the same poll only 67%believe our country is moving in the right direction. they are discerning report two different approaches. what i outlined is the new jersey approach. it does not make every day a happy or easy day for sure.

the state is getting better. 85,000 new jobs. the best year in home sales in 2012 is 2007. our best job growth year of last year since 2000, we had a decade of joblessness. 2009 we had zero net job growth. 2011 was our best year since 2000. 2012 is outpacing 2011 already. people are noticing. things are happening. in the end, leadership is the only thing that will make the difference. it is the only thing that'll make the difference. leadership is not about obstructionism. leadership is also not about

keeping every time you get pushed. leadership is about new ones and communicating to people here is what i stand for. on these issues i will not be moved. on other issues, leaving room for discussion and accomplishing principled compromise where it can be. that is why i have great respect for them. democrats do not agree on a lot of things. we have worked together. we put the business first and politics second. that is why it is disturbing to me what they have done with the idea of tax reduction. the closer we are getting to a presidential election in 2012 and a gubernatorial election in 2013, at the old politics may be creeping back again. that is when it is more important for the executives to

fight to continue to find compromise. all too often the leadership positions across the country executives have decided to throw their hands up and say "they are bad. i cannot deal with them." then do not ask for the job. no one ever told you it was going to be pleasant or easy. the job of an executive is to make sure they you get the job done and you find a way to get the compromise. not on every issue. some it'll be impossible. my experience is more times than not you will find it. i hope new jersey is setting an example. states are seeing more and more of this. hopefully this infection of compromise will eventually spread here. i am not nearly as hopeful

about that as i am that it will spread to the other states. we need to continue to talk about it. i am coming to this place, washington d.c., because i want people to know that their government can work for them. they need leaders willing to take risks. risks with their own parties. let's with the public to vote for them. in the end coming here is my philosophy. i have this reputation of being pretty blunt and direct. people wonder where that comes from. we all come from our parents. we are all part of our parents whether we like it or not, good or bad. i had an irish father who is 79 years old. if he were here he would be sitting up in the front. he would tell you all about his grandchildren. he would be hugging you at the

end of the conversation. on the other hand, i had a sicilian mother. for those of you who have any sicilian relatives you know this is a different kettle of fish. in the automobile of life, my father was a passenger. my mother was the driver. she set the rules. she was the person who set the tone in roles. she passed away and died of lung cancer. she was a lifetime smoker. at the end of her life my brother called and said she was back in the hospital in great condition. i flew the red eye home that night from san diego and flew back to new jersey. she woke up.

without saying hello to me she said "what day is it?" what time is it? she said to go to work. she said this is a workday. go to work. i said i will make up the time. she reached over and she said go to work. it is where you belong. there's nothing left unsaid between us. she is giving me permission to let go. it was the last great gift she gave to me. that is more important not for the moment but for what it says about the way she raised us. my mother taught us that there should be nothing left unsaid between you and the people you trust.

you should not wait for the deathbed moment to get everything out because you might not make it. you need to tell them when you're happy and angry. we need to tell them when you feel great when he felt terrible. you need to share everything with the people who trust you. i know of my mother were a live issue of the same the same thing. she would say they trusted you to give them the most important job that they could give anyone in new jersey. tell them what you think. tell them how you feel. i think that is what leadership needs to be about. we should not be listening to political consultants. we should not be listening to the voices to say just use the party doctrine and do not stray.

at the end of the day i love this job. i had plenty of great titles already. i was u.s. attorney. most importantly, husband, father, son. if it means that i lose if i choose to run for reelection, so be it. at least i will be able to tell my children that i spent time trying to do something significant. i will say when you go into the voting booth if i am on the ballot, you will not be able to say who is this guy and what did he really think? i will not be a mystery. it cannot lead by being a mystery or an enigma or aloof. you cannot lead by being a program. when they trust you they will follow you.

that is the experience of new jersey. i'm happy to take some questions. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you up for coming today. we really appreciate your visit. i will set up one question. as everybody knows, the problems we face is with our fiscal on sustainability. any guidance you can offer is most pressing. you stated the first job is to set out your principles. i want to focus on taxes. i think that is where a lot of

the disagreement comes from. we think the republican principles of our federal taxes. we have a compromise from the simpson-bowles commission. it was a spirit of principles and compromise. i am curious what republican principles are. are republicans willing to pay for the marginal tax rates? >> i do not think there is one republican position. i think that is a game that they tried to play. they do not want anything to happen.

i would say this. i think simpson-bowles should have been pursued. i think it was an absolute mistake of leadership, lost opportunity, and not to push it. you got republican and democratic votes. the lowering of marginal rates both in the elimination of loopholes in the testing of other deductions is absolutely acceptable in the current context. we also have to get the spending side as well. that is where you get democratic opposition. i do not think that you can just deal with the tax system. we have to deal with entitlements. if we do not do with entitlements in an honest way we will never get there. i agree with many of the general principles.

i do believe that lowering the marginal rate makes sense but only in the context of eliminating loopholes and means testing other deductions in order to make sure you have a system there that operate in a fair way. it has to be combined with entitlement restraints. but we do not have entitlement restraint we are lost. >> you talked about your budget. i am curious to know. we had a supreme court ruling on obamacare. everyone is talking about the mandate. the other component was on medicaid. this has a direct impact on the state. >> directly it is wait and see.

i was glad the supreme court ruled that extortion is still illegal in america. that is a relief. obamacare was extortion. you expand your program to where we tell you. if you do not, we're taking all of your money. that is extortion. it was in a whole bunch of nice words but it was extortion. i am glad it supports this. it is still illegal in the country even when done by the president of the united states. it seems to me that a place like new jersey we had the second most expensive medicaid program in the country behind new york. our question is going to be how much more do we really need to expand our programs? we have some of the most

generous benefits already. that is the announcement we are going to make. we're also like to make it on the exchange issue as well. all of these things will be made in the context of two things. what makes it better for the people of our state? what is the most efficient way to do it? i have our folks working on it. >> what is the timeline of this decision? >> probably by the beginning of 2013. i do not know what other deadlines are going to be put on us as well. i am sure it'll be a vigorous back and forth. >> let's take questions from the crowd. if you can please make it a question. >> i am not a resident of new jersey. although yesterday on the new

jersey turnpike i thought i might become one. my question had to do with the federal state relationship. i wanted to see if i could get a few comments from you and views from the state's side. in washington we seem to see things differently particularly in areas such as education and health care insurance. is the federal intrusion into areas that were more traditionally state responsibilities helpful or hurtful for new jersey? >> i think it is generally hurtful. i would say on issues like health, the idea that the federal government would give a one size fits all health care program and think it will work just as well in new jersey as montana, we know that makes no sense.

it makes no sense just from a that perspective. the health challenges that i faced in the most densely populated state with that kind of urban population, i faced from health care challenges then montana. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

span video library -- watch the form online at the c-span video library.

>> the eurozone's monetary union will stick together to the current tour moral but the next years will be tough economically for the region. carlos ghosn talks with alan murray at a wall street journal formed. this is just over an hour. >> let me thank you all for coming back to the viewpoints breakfast. it is great to see so many distant this -- distinguished new yorkers. i want to thank carlos ghosn, one of the two icons of the business community, for being our guest. i also want to thank our wonderful sponsors for their continued support of these

events. we will give the opening word to javier of bcg. >> good morning. i am the senior partner and managing director at bcg. i lead our detroit office and global practice. as you can hear from the way i speak, i am not from detroit. welcome all of you. i am happy to welcome carlos ghosn from the nissan alliance -- renault-nissan alliance to be with us. bcg sponsored this series on the east and west coast since 2008. i would like to take the opportunity to thank iese, our cosponser for being with us in

this series. i do not want to spend the next few minutes giving you a list of the accomplishments carlos ghosn which you are all very familiar with. but i would like to give you a few cheap -- traits of his personality. the first thing i would like to say is he is probably the most american of the japanese business leaders. he succeeded to be nicknamed mr. 7-11 for the long hours he spent in office but he is the only foreigner who is the hero of a japanese manga which is the equivalent of our marvel comics. this i believe is the only real equivalent of "iron man" and " captain america." first first met in --w e

met in 1997 and paris and he was about to make a speech at a conference where bill gates with the speaker. i'm sure that evening, he decided to become as famous as bill. in 2003, he was voted the man of the year after the stunning turnaround at nissan. he they collected recognition all around the world and just last year, cnbc listed him as business leader of the year. he also thinks the big. if you take renault, nissan, -- one car out of -- one car out of 10 sold in the world are part of the renault-nissan alliance.

nissan is above 8% of the u.s. market. for someone who travels across continents several times a month in his corporate jet, i think carlos has no anxiety. you probably know that the nissan is the first zero emission volume car produced in the world. in investment of $4 billion which means he has no anxiety about the future of this technology. the last thing you probably all know, carlos is very smart. in 1990 when he was the ceo of another company, he required an integrated goodrich.

it was a very successful and i think he decided never to do it again. he made sure he did not fully integrate so that he could be the ceo of three companies. renault, nissan and teh renault- nissan alliance./ without further ado, let me hand off to alan murray, deputy manager of the "wall street journal" who will facilitate today's discussion. >> thank you very much. [applause] javier mentioned electric cars. there is really no one in the world who has been a big proponent of electric cars. you have put your money where your mouth is and invested billions of dollars getting

something like 11 factories in eight different countries. wired magazine said you are either a brilliant visionary or you are as crazy as a loon. which is it? what electric cars? >> every time you face a challenge, you are always considered a lunatic or somebody who is a visionary. this kind of statements, i have had that throughout my career. the last time i had them is when we meet this alliance with renault and nissan. these kinds of statements we got like two muileles do not make a horse race, and if you throw billions of dollars in the ocean, that would be better than putting them into nissan. let me tell you -- our industry

for many years has been considered as a bunch of conservative people not looking forward, addicted to oil. we have been called as an industry extremely conservative, sticking to our short-term interests and not looking into the future. there is an issue today which is too much dependence on oil and we have a good solution. we have the zero emission car. the electric car is one of them. fuel cell is the second one. you cannot expect that people are going to be here waiting for electric cars. you have to sell the concept and have many people using it, trying to get accustomed to it and little by little, it is coming. it is not only driven by consumers but by the government.

it is a very significant in the global world. the state council of china three weeks ago decided there will be 5 million electric cars in china by 2020. coming from europe, 5 million electric cars -- all car manufacturers are being called to say if you want to expand your operation in china or building the plant, you better come with a new energy car. i think the future is for zero emission. i still stick by my 10% of the market at least where the car is offered in 2020. we will just have to be patient enough, steady enough, strategic enough to make ends meet. >> i want to come back to china in a minute but let's stick to the u.s. market, the one the people in this room know the best. last month the numbers were around 500.

you have to be disappointed. at one point, you said we would sell and lease 20,000 electric cars in 2012. it looks pretty disappointing. >> you are coming to the monthly sale of one car in the west. i am looking at the global sale of many cars coming. looked at the big picture. last year, we sold 25,000 nissan, the most electric -- the most electric cars sold in history. if you focus on one particular month and one particular market and say you only sold 400 or 600, it is disappointing. we cannot get all of our targets right every single month. it will not happen like this. but the trend is the trend for people getting accustomed to it

and the infrastructure being built little by little. the anxiety be put into its own perspective. there are still a lot of people are hesitant about electric cars. all of the people buying this nissan vehicle are extremely happy. that is very important for us. we have a very innovative car and innovative technology to read the amount of call -- probably had to face is very limited. >> you are talking about a fraction of their total global -- 1/20th of 1% to read you ever hear from shareholders? how about focusing on the 7 million cars terry >> shareholders to not say that. the media says that. -- shareholder do not say that. the media says that. [laughter]

they are happy. the results of the company are good. we are hitting all of our targets and are growing a lot. for me, we are not growing because of the electric car but it is one engine of growth for the future. this is our responsibility but making sure that we have enough fuel and and and for future growth. future growth is coming from this new kind of technology which will become a big engine of growth. in china, 5 million electric cars in 2020, that will be a tremendous -- >> let's talk about china. you have a joint venture with a chinese company. how much of that 5 million cars a do you think you can capture? >> if i can capture most of them, i will be very happy but obviously they will be

competition. you cannot only say i have an electric car, come see it at the detroit motor show and the car disappears. you have to have them on the street. the only zero emission cars driven on the road in the united states -- [inaudible] a nissan leaf. you are coming from zero to 5 million, a lot of investments will have to be made in factories and motors. people have a choice. >> general motors announced it was not going to take its electric technology to china because it was worried about intellectual property theft. does that concern you? >> the fact they are not going to china? >> no, intellectual property

theft in china? which china is the largest market for the car manufacturers. 18 million cars sold the second- largest market in the united states with 13.5 million cars to read with the perspective of growth of the chinese market which is obviously significantly higher than of any other country because they're building the infrastructure and a half below the number of cars per inhabitant. you can go into a country like this being afraid to share the technology but you will have to either go in or you do not. when you go in, you work with a partner you respect. thickly we have no complaints to make about bringing in of the technology and cars.

>> you are not worried about intellectual property protection in china? >> i am not. i have no facts in justifying this year. i am talking about my own industry, my own business. >> he mentioned it range anxiety. -- you mentioned range anxiety. how will that be solved? >> you know that a lot of investments are being poured into the battery, a piece of technology of the future. we know how to produce energy, all we do not know how to store it. the technology is how can you store energy in a sydney but it the way, particularly in a system where you need high variation of intensity. when using a computer, you do not need a big battery but when using a car, you are accelerating. you need these 250 kgs of dicks

in order to move the car. a lot of investments are being made it into korea, japan, the united states. >> but we have not seen a breakthrough yet. >> it is coming. in terms of the chemistry and component being used, there are a lot of breakthroughs. today our main objective is not -- is cutting the cost. that is the most important thing. we want to be able to continue to sell electric cars without any incentive given by the government to the citizen. we will increase the range. all the leafs being sold -- we know every single leaf, how many miles they do, when they charge the car and how much time is charging. in the united states, people drive the car on average 22 miles a day.

the range of the car is 100 miles. even if you are in the worst condition -- driving up till, a 0 degree temperatures. you open the windows. in the worst condition, you will get 45 or 50 miles. people are driving 25 miles a day to day with the present technology. so these people do not have ranged anxiety. we are not saying the electric car is for everybody in the market. we are looking at 10% of the market, many people using a short distance. what you think range anxiety is more psychological? >> is a problem for the people who will never by the electric car. i do not have to worry about people who will never by the electric car. i have to worry about the 10% of the people who want to buy out that the cars telling me, do this a little bit better. these are the people i need to

worry about and make sure i am giving them more. people who are buying -- the love the concept. i can give you many names of people, very famous, using them in different ways to say we need to continue. somebody needs to break this glass and we need to get out of this addiction to the old transportation system. >> to operate in two of the toughest economies in the world -- europe and japan. let's start with europe. tell us about what you think the picture is there. we in the headlines, a los very discouraging. -- reading the headlines, it looks very discouraging. >> will europe break? i do not think so. i think the euro will stay. i think the europeans will find the solutions in order to hold

europe together. >> with some countries leaving? >> if the pence. for me if they have to leave, it will be to be on the side of the wild -- for a while and come back under certain conditions. to make sure you do not take a particular risk and you except modification on the margin. i do not believe europe will break and i believe the euro will stay there. i have no doubt that the next three or four years in europe will be at best stagnation. we will all struggle and we are preparing for tough times on the european and economy. >> stagnation suggests no growth, no shrinkage. the growth. within 1 percent, you will be within this range. >> not worse than that?

>> it can get the west. -- worse. this is my worst scenario. he meets always plan for the worst and hope for the best. for the moment, we are planning for the worst and the worst is now. the market is down more than 50% in france. more than 9% in europe. >> because people are not spending? >> there is so much uncertainty. every day, you do not know of the euro will stay or not if you will -- or if you will have a financial crisis are not. every single government that went in front, lost the election. people are uncertain. they are looking for some basic things to re-start a normal life.

>> when does that uncertainty and? >> hopefully within the next months, we will have some decisions to understand that this big armageddon in europe will not take place and we will have some sort of reasonable solution. it does not mean problems will be solved from one day to another. we might have for years of tough times of cutting deficits in being cautious on resources. we may have to go through this. for companies, it is a challenge because you need to look better than your competitors. it is not about complaining about the situation but to say he will go three or four tough years and make sure you will be strong enough to make it through those years and what comes after. >> in japan, the currency is as strong as it has ever been. much stronger than you thought it would be.

how do you operate an auto company and that kind of environment? >> i have been vocal on the level of the yen. companies usually -- japan has major corporations and a lot of them are very strong and competitive. companies did not suffer as much as the country does. companies adapt. if the yen is strong, i will invest my new cars a that a china or thailand or mexico. a lot of major companies are doing that. what happens is you are training investments outside japan -- draining investment outside japan. you have the questions about energy.

if he shuts down the nuclear power and replace it with what? this is a country living from people. the only thing japan has its technology, people. so energy is extremely important. so far there is no clear answer. i think the duty of people economically responsible for computing -- is to say what we think. the level of the yen that is unbelievable. we still produce 25% of our cars in japan. we are probably one of the least -- the percentage is probably one of the smallest.

>> toyota is not leaving. >> we are not saying we are leaving but we are making sure we are not being hurt too much by the level of the yen. when you sit down with people who are so-called experts in exchange rate and they tell you why the yen will be strong, when you put yourself as a common- sense person -- the strength of the currency translates the vigor of an economy, the vision for the future. we have none of that. none of that in japan. we are stunned by the fact that the yen is that 78 to the dollar. that is an historical high. so the country is suffering but

my duty is first to make sure nisei gets -- nissan gets unscathed. without forgetting the fact of we are a japanese company. we need to keep our roots in japan and make sure to fight. >> to talk about being a japanese company. you are the ultimate global businessmen. lebanese parents. born in brazil. schooled in france. a good bit of time in the united states and then this remarkable turnaround at nissan. in part by going against the things that were essential to japanese culture. the system of cross ownership. you for all of that down. i remember people at the time saying this is the wave of the future. there will be more and more executives like this. there have not really been. in japan, there were just four. howard stringer who was on the stage not long ago has had mixed

results. the fellow at olympus got chased out of the country. what did you do that no one else has been able to do? >> a think japan is famous red -- is being misread. i have been there since 1999. i still work there. i go there every month. i have a lot of love and despair for the country. i have the weakness to think this is shared. i am not being chased out of the country. japan likes change if change gives results. it is very simple. when i abide there and announced the changes i was going to make -- when i arrived there and announced the changes that was going to make, what saved me was the sentence i made after

announcing the changes. i am committing results. if in one year, this company is not profitable, i am out and with me, all the members of the executive committee. you have to categories of people. if people think i will hit the wall, i say okay, we wait until that is gone. then the experience is finished. it people are favorable, they say let's wait and then we will see what happens. women got the results, a lot of people were against the changes -- but we got the results, a lot of people who were against the changes said let's wait a second year. but you cannot save yourself by cutting costs. became with new products. be expanded. -- but we came with new products.

be expanded -- we expanded. if you produce results, you have a lot in front of you. i do not think the japanese people like the speeches were you promised the moon. we want to make change, show us the results on the short term and make sure your restate -- you stick to them. if you follow this, there is no reason you are not going to stay or prosper. nissan has an amazing case. people told me everything was not feasible in japan and we have done everything and we continue to do it because we were capable of demonstrating every single year that this was for the better of the company. >> would you pass honda? which are the important metrics

for you in measuring yourself against honda? >> we already passed honda. sales in the united states is different but in terms of revenue and numbers of cars, we are by far the second largest car manufacturer, japanese car manufacturer. we are number one in china and number one with the japanese. we are trying to be number one in all of the emerging markets and are following that. in the united states, we are no. 3. we are moving ahead. hopefully one day you will see us above 10% market share which is the first goal of nissan in the united states. >> you were the only person to ever run into fortune 500 companies at the same time. how does that work. there must be some tug and pull

between the two places, particularly the time like now where you have serious problems in europe. >> if i am doing this, it is because this was the best option for both companies taking conversation. shareholders can say i do not want to share my ceo was someone else. every two years, i am being voted as ceo of nissan's and that any moment, shareholders can say we did not want it. but they do not. they like the effect of having someone maintaining the two companies and making the synergies work. in 13 years without one single conflict. in our industry, we have a lot of casualties when it comes to mergers and acquisitions and

alliances. it does not work very well. for 13 years, people can criticize by saying you did not go far enough but we are still there and there is no other reference. so the system works. it will continue to work. based on good respect for some basic principles, not only as the booklet but in terms of practice. it is theft. every month you are moving from one company to another -- it is tough. every monday are moving from one company to another. but it is also exciting. when you move from one company to another, there are completely different -- >> you have managed japanese, french. you ran the sun here in the

u.s. and had managed americans. you are the most difficult to manage? >> it depends on what an ankle. -- on your angle. >> you can take whatever an gle you want. >> i think it depends for what. i think being a ceo in a japanese company is absolutely remarkable. i feel so good because you have the impression you can do anything you want. people are so different to authority and the respect, usually ceos in japan are not

very talkative. it people are extremely cautious about what they say. i'm coming from a latin environment. usually when you do something, people tell yes but they do something different. [laughter] you spend a lot of time trying to bring them back to your decision. in japan, know. you say something will be done, it will be done. it is very refreshing when you are a ceo. when you notice you are being taken very seriously, you're being much more cautious about orientation. in a latin environment, you are less careful because you know they're not going to follow. they will follow half way, there will be interpretation, i will spend a lot of time explaining what i want, etc. [laughter]

>> and france? >> if it is a latin environment. -- it is a latin environment. [laughter] >> will you be succeeded by one person or separate ceos? you have written about this and talk about it. succession is an important part of your thinking. >> it is. when the issue of succession came, i asked my team to give me the eighth instance -- security of all the ceos in the current industry. i am the second most senior of the car industry. the number one is unbeatable. he has been there since probably i was born. i know -- >> i want to make clear it as an employee of news corp., i not asking this question because i

think there is a natural -- >> let's take a look at that. so i am the most senior. maybe one day they say he will have to leave and someone else will come. then you look at aids. -- at age. it happens tat hat i am still oe of the youngest. there are two people younger than me. i must be no. 17 in terms of aids. age. terms of it is not a question of that. it is if shareholders are happy with the or not. -- with your or not. >> you see if contact by contact -- contract by contract?

>> yes. it is up to the shareholders. >> when the time comes, would you advocate a single ceo or two? >> i have been crucified as ceo of two companies. i would not wish for anybody to go through what i have been in terms of personal life. anything going wrong anywhere, you are responsible for it. in a certain way, it is not normal for be -- to be one ceo to large companies. i would not recommend this >> i would not recommended. you may have to do with because you are in particular circumstances where this may be

the best solution. we will go probably for mutual responsibilities. >> the u.s. automatic -- automotive industry has gone through difficulty in the . was that something that attracted you? >do you think you could have helped the u.s. auto industry? >> nobody envisioned something like this to help the industry. you do it because you see in interest for your company. ucla win-win situation -- you see a win-win situation. we could have done a great job except the fact that i do not

believe that you can do something like this if you do not have a neutral appetite for the move. if you do not have the neutral appetite, it does not work. if someone does not share your own region, you probably read it on the side and move forward. every single operation we have done was based on a neutral belief that thing together is better than being alone. >> you talked about the difficulties of running two companies. do you think you could have ran 3? >> you just have a different organization to run it. the amount of synergies' you can squeeze out of two or three large players in the car amazing.is

this is the key. we have 13 years of experience. we are making the japanese and french were together. nissan is a japanese company. now we have diaimer. they are our last partner. we are neglecting a lot of products together. we have three teams that are meeting with leaders every two months. we have incorporating committee between them. they are sitting around the table. they are going very smoothly. you can multiplied this. that is the way of the future appears you are talking about globalization. how can you be global and local at the same time? you can only be global if you

are stronger local. i can go over the world because i have my home somewhere. if i did not, i would not be able to get interest in the world. the roots are extremely important. you can look at the planet without fear. if you are afraid about the roots, you will consider globalization as a brisk. for companies, it is the same. company should not be threatened in their identity. they will look for alliances and corporations. if he think the other guy will eat you up. and you will work for someone you do not know, it will not work. i looked very carefully to what was going on. at that moment between the companies, it was interesting. i was looking at it from the reaction of the people. they are neighbors.

they are the cousins and the friend and the brothers of the people at nissan. they were telling the stories about the loss of identity. i knew that when people think that their identity is not being respected, no matter how rational you are, and no matter how much synergies' you will bring to the table. this is essential. when you answer this, there is no limit to what you can do. >> how did you do that? >> i would not compare ourselves to anyone else. what we said is the principle of the alliance is a 1, 2, 3, and we stuck to the principles all the time. let me give you a sample. i said i would never make a decision where there is no win- win between the two companies. i never did it no matter how much pressure i received. they would say you should go

this way. today, nissan winds. tomorrow, nissan luces. -- loses. people never remember when they win. they always remember when they lose. after a few years, you have people with a lot of grief that this alliance has me in and handicap. not giving people any reason to remember the negative stuff has been one of the basic elements. you need to be strong. tell people know, how will not go this way. i will be there in five years down the road. if you will pressure me, we will fall. >> we have had a great debate in this country. we are in the middle of an election.

did the government to make the right moves in billing of the u.s. auto industry? >> you can look at what happens before 2007. i do not think anybody was expecting that the united states government would become the shareholder of general myers and chrysler. we thought about mergers, acquisitions, alliances, but i do not think anybody has claimed even after the fact that this was one of the possible scenarios. the only reason it has been accepted very well by the person who was in charge, he said the only reason why we did it was jobs. perspective of losing 1 million -- it is not the jobs for general motors and chrysler, you are losing these suppliers.

people came to me and said your competitors are in trouble. when they are in trouble, i am scared to death because i have the same suppliers. if theywe were all scared. the fact the government bailed out the industry, not only do people understand the government is here to preserve jobs. for the competitors, it was the right move because it saved the industry and allow all of us to continue. >> it was the right thing to do? >> i think so. after, it is obvious. companies are doing better today. i am not trying to be in politics. i am talking about the fact. this would have been a disaster in terms of employment and also for the industry.

a lot of suppliers would not have made it. >> let's open it up to questions and comments. please identify yourself before asking the question. right here, please. >> you did not say what the concrete results are of your alliance in terms of synergies. as i look at it from the outside, they are two companies and have not done much together. that is probably wrong. the second question is does the merger in the future follow the alliance? >> the two companies do a lot of things together. we have common platforms and engines. we produce for each other. we have common information systems, common purchasing. it is based on cooperation in

projects. all of the engines on nissan cars in europe are from renault. nissan has been the most growing japanese carmaker the last three or four years in europe. one reason is the engine and technology is there. we did not have to wait for technology. we went to russia. renault to 25%. we have a clear signal from the russian authorities you cannot move up from 25%. after three years, they like what they have seen. they said we want you to take control but have nissan join. they considered nissan a good addition. we announced we would be moving

above 3% ownership. part of it is owned by renault. part of it is owned by nissan. the alliance has done a lot. it is not very visible. it is all the things the consumers do not care about. that is fine. the last thing we want to do is have two brands converging. the second question is if we would go to a merger. i do not think i will see a merger, even after i retire. if there's anything, it will be in the long run. i think the odds will be difficult to seek a merger. renault is a french company. nissan is a japanese company in its roots. the other is a russian company in its roots. this you need to maintain. the organization by which to maintain that can change, but you should never eliminate this basic element for a company

like ours. >> christie hefner. you have spoken eloquently about the balance between global and local with respect to the cultures and synergies. i am curious about your thoughts of the portfolio of brands and how you think about them across countries. in a world where marketing is changing, whether those strategies become more multinational, more local, or the balance is consistent. >> i think you are going to have -- you are seeing today both. we are becoming more global. i can mention one or two campaigns we're doing on a global basis. we're becoming more local. we're using different tools.

if you want to have a strong brand, we know one of the basics is to make sure your message is consistent globally. you need to use tools to project the image and promised to the customers. it needs to be the same no matter what country you are in. the culture and needs are different. you need to develop the concept in a different way in china, the middle east, or brazil. i am seeing both developments taking place. more tools are going to central marketing. there's more empowerment for people on the local level using websites and specific tools to reach communities.

>> other questions? >> i am with the environmental defense fund. you have talked publicly about transitioning fleets in developing countries to zero emissions. do you have a vision for how that will be financed? what role do you see the governments having in the transition? >> i do not see them doing it without the help of the government. we would never try to make this investment if we did not feel from the beginning there was a tremendous amount of interest from different governments. a tremendous amount of interest comes from the fact that many countries today are paying to the consumer a significant amount of money.

it is probably the equivalent of $9,000 in china. everybody is saying we want this experience to be successful. we are ready to support the consumer to get there. i think the duty of the industry is to think if we can keep this for a few years, we're lucky. you need to increase the volume and scale of production to cut costs. when you cut costs -- >> it is 2 or 3 years enough? if you have subsidies for two or three years? >> if you can maintain it to 2015, we will be ok. we will be competitive. i am not one to make you an

engineering speech. electric cars are more simple to make than a gasoline internal combustion engine. the industry started to make electric cars. this is the way the industry started. the battery was not at the level and you did not have the elements, you moved to a very complicated technology which is the internal combustion engine. now technology allows us to make it more simple. there are less parts on an electric car. it is an innovative technology, but there is less technology in an electric car. we know objectively electric cars should be less expensive than internal combustion. 75 million internal combustion engines being produced and sold every year. 20,000 electric cars. >> you have talked about the

battery problem. you have not talked much about the infrastructure problem. >> it is going to get there. as the batteries and motorists are evolving, the charging systems are evolving. you have slow charging it with your own plug. i have one in my garage in paris where i can charge for three hours. it is not a problem. in the united states, a lot of people live in their own house and have their own garage. a plug is easy. it takes eight hours. if you want shorter time, you have the fast charger. that is starting to beat balky equipment, $15,000. now is becoming smaller and less expensive. we're talking about $5,000 on the latest innovation. with the fast charging, you charge in 25 minutes today.

if you have a gasoline station and the government says they have to have a fast charger, it is a maximum of $10,000 investment. you are not adding a huge surcharge. you will get this consumer. now you have a network established with one fast charger. the range anxiety will go down. little by little, you will have all of these things. the chargers will get less expensive and faster. you will charge in a shorter amount of time. the first generation of cellular phone, two kilograms. $10,000 for a telephone. eight hours to charge it. 20 minutes for speaking.

people look at it and said it was never going to work. they were looking to the first stage performance of the technology which was revolutionary. we're looking at the electric car st. like the telephone, is bulky and big, but it will change. a lot of people are already getting investment going. we know we will have full dependency. >> you mentioned the twidgy in your garage in paris. it is about the size of this table. do you drive it around paris? >> this is anxiety. [laughter] you do not have to worry about it. you can put it anywhere for a motorcycle. it is a great car. when i charge it, i would pay

one euro. when you talk about reviewing the car, you are talking about 100 years. people will see the difference between the cost and convenience. it will become a fact of life. >> do people notice you driving around paris? >> nobody cares. [laughter] >> i have a media question for you. you are covered intensively by the media in japan, france, and the u.s. what is the difference in the coverage? what bugs you about the "wall street journal"? [laughter] >> ok, next question. >> the media is very different from one country to another, obviously. but they all have something in

common. when you have a positive article, a negative one is being prepared. you go up and down and up and down. with the media, a lot of attention in any country. in some countries, positive articles are more frequently than in others. the positive articles are probably more frequent in the united states than other countries. they are important to deal with, but you need to get used to it. it is a very special instrument. you want to make sure you have low expectations. i am sorry to say that.

you will not be disappointed about how objective the media will be. when you overcome this -- you overcome it with age. when i came to japan in 1999, i was lucky not to be able to understand japanese or read japanese, because there were plenty of negative articles about what i was doing. people would come and say did you see this? i would say i did not want to read it. i am going my own way. as long as you keep yourself to your own objectives, listening to your own people, you are going to be fine. >> and did you want to say something nice about the "wall street journal"? >> look at where i am today. >> on the electric car, what investments are you making?

where is the high-end engineering work being done? what other factors in deciding where you want to invest? >> most of the top level engineering for the development of batteries and electric cars and components in japan. some of it is being done in france. we're now building facilities -- we started building facilities in japan. we have facilities coming on board in the united states in tennessee. we have a battery plant in tennessee. we have a car plant in tennessee. the leaf will be assembled in the united states. it will help with the cost. we have a base in france for renault. we have a base in japan for nissan. the most advanced technology is taking place in japan and france.

the development to make new cars and a continuous improvement takes place in a different production centers, the united states, the u.k., france, and probably some in china. >> we have time for a couple more questions. one here and then across the table. >> the car is the second-largest investment for a family after a home. you spend probably 20% daily of your time on your car. entertainment, communications, how will that impact the car industry going forward? >> a lot. there is a lot of competition with partners. life has been changed these companies. the telephone has become a box for applications and marginally

telephone. the car is being seen as an object or the next big box of application will be centered around this. not a lot of people do not have a car. there are going to be a lot in the emerging markets, this is the first thing people want to buy when they access acquisition power. they want to buy a car. the competition to be able to communicate, work in the car -- we now have systems allowing you to sit in the car and the car will drive by itself. the only problem i have to solve is liability. that is why you are asking the person to stay in the car. you can imagine a car of the future driven by itself. the person sitting in the car

has nothing to do, just to make sure nothing wrong happens. you want to use this time. communication, the ability to do things from a distance is an essential element. there is another essential element. the population is getting older. one of the big handicaps of the older population is at a certain point time, people cannot drive. if you can release people from the necessity of life and just ask them to stay in the car while it is driving by itself, a large segment of the population is still going to be interested in car buying. we have a lot of research going into how to make the car much more communicative and how to reduce the task you have to do in a car to get the job done. the job done is the transportation. >> [inaudible]

>> yes. on top of this, the cost base goes down. when you are connected, you will be more efficient, even driving your car. >> the last question right here. >> can you talk about your partnership with new york city on a taxi? is it unusual to work with a municipality to design a vehicle? how does that work strategically? >> we're very happy with the decision of the city. it has been a brutal competition. there was a competition on it. we're happy we prevailed in the competition. the city has all the data about how people use cars and what people want to see in taxis. this cooperation with the city to establish the specifications for a car has been extremely

positive. we learned a lot. we will be benefiting from it. after the city announced all the taxis of new york are going to become nissans and part will be electric, we have many other cities in the world interested in the product itself. for us, is a huge market. it is not only about new york. it is about many others. i think more and more for the car industry, the public- private cooperation can carry a lot of potential not only for the companies but also for the public. in 2013, you will see a new car in new york. you will see the difference is huge between the taxi you are using today. you will see the difference with the new tax will come.

you will see how much of a good job the city has done with us in making the car it for what new yorkers want. >> the final word goes to our sponsors. mike rosenberg from isa. >> on behalf of our partners, i want to say thank you to kathy and her team for doing a great job putting this together. alan, you asked great questions. to all of you for showing up. to carlos, for showing up today. i teach strategy and globalization. i do a lot of work on things. you do a lot of work on all of those things. nissan has had a clear strategy. you have always had clear ideas we do you have always had a clear ideas. it is what we teach in business school. you are making ground by looking ahead.

you say it is not a bet on the lecture cars. it is the cold calculation about the future. carlos, thank you very much. thank you all for coming. have a great day. [applause] >> before you leave the room, we will be back here on october 31 with the ceo of ebay. please join us. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> coming up here on c-span, the house rules committee sets the debate for the repeal of the health-care law. a look at the news of the day on "washington journal."

later at noon, live coverage of the u.s. house. members debate the health-care law repealed. the house of representatives will begin debate today on repealing the health-care law the president obama signed two years ago. that begins with live coverage on c-span. this morning on washington journal we will talk about the measure. also joining us, "the wallstreet journal." "washington journal" is live every morning. shreveport in march. april in little rock. oklahoma city in may. and this past weekend in jefferson city. watch for the continuing troubles of c-span's local

travel spirit the for the history and literary culture of our next stop -- louisville, ky. >> republicans moved forward with the debate today to appeal -- repeal president obama's health care law. yesterday, the committee said the guidelines for the debates. this'll be the 31st time the house has voted on whether to repeal, defund, or get rid of the law. this part of the meeting is one hour 50 minutes. >> the rules committee is in order. we are here for the repeal

obamacare act, is what it is entitled. we are happy to welcome representatives of the energy and commerce committee, the ways and means committee, and the education and work force committee. why don't we begin in that order? mr. pitts is here on behalf of the chair of the energy and commerce committee. the chair of the subcommittee on health. we are awaiting mr. malone -- mr. pallone. here is mr. pallone. please join your colleagues at the table. let me say that, without objection, any prepared statement that you have, it looks like you all have some beautifully-prepared remarks. without objection, i know they are all prepared but not in

writing. anything you have in writing, unless any member objects, does anyone object to have their statements appear in the record? i hear no objection. your beautifully-prepared remarks will appear on the record in their entirety. i did say all of that to encourage some nation. we begin with the energy and commerce committee. welcome, mr. pitts. nice to see you. thank you for joining us. >> thank you. since the supreme court has decided to leave obamacare largely intact, it is now the job of congress to repeal this wall. since the law was enacted, the american people have consistently told us one thing. they do not like obamacare. house republicans heard their voice. we pledge lowering health-care

costs for families and employees across the country. this bill is a reaffirmation of the important promise we made two years ago. bill law will only serve to undermine and worsen an already anemic recovery. americans want reform that delivers lower health-care costs and president obama told the country that his reforms with lower family premiums by 2005 hundred dollars by the end of his first term. in 2011, the annual premium for employer-sponsored family plans soared past $15,000. that is a sharp 9% increase from 2010. premiums will skyrocket as the rest of the law is implemented according to estimates from the cbo. americans worry that a 207-page bill from washington will

damage the health coverage that have. the president told the country that they like their health care plan. they could keep it. yet surveys of the employers tell us that businesses would drop coverage for employees in advance of the massive new government exchange program beginning in 2014. the cbo estimated that americans will lose health care -- employer-provided health care coverage because of the law. americans realize that too much money is spent in washington and the president told us that this law would cost us $900 million. two years later, a massive medicaid expansion is estimated to cost $1.80 trillion over the next decade. back loadings federal bench -- buy back loading federal spending, it doubled down on fiscal recklessness. americans want a medicare program that will be there for them and future generations.

the president promised to strengthen the medicare program and reform entitlements that are going bankrupt. the medicare program faces 38.9 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities, medicare savings should have been used to strengthen a program with shaky finances. the health-care lot of $575 billion to help pay for new entitlement spending. i could go on about other promises the president made on the individual mandate. it was not a tax. the irs will impose new taxes on medical devices, prescription drugs, health coverage, and tanning services. the agency will impose new savings on health savings and flexible spending accounts. they will face a tax for failing to provide government- approved health coverage and surtaxes on investment and in all, $800 billion in taxes will

crush americans' poor, middle, and rich with higher tax and medical bills. we know about the religious and first amendment rights issue. archbishop timid the golan -- timothy dolan wrote that organizations must stop providing health coverage to call for exemptions. many promises were made to the american people. the only way to honor and fulfil those promises is to support the repeal of obamacare. i urge that you report the bill to the floor. >> mr. pallone. >> thank you, mr. chairman and members of the rules committee. i am here to testify in strong opposition. i feel like this is an exercise

in futility. i do not mean it disrespectfully. i do not know how many times i've been before here, this committee, the energy and commerce committee. it seems like almost every other day, we have an effort to repeal the same thing over and over again. in the words of one of your republican colleagues, these votes mean nothing because "we have already passed repeals 16 ways to sunday." it seems like more than 16 times before my committee. it is like groundhog day around here. i am tired of it and i am tired of it. -- and i think the american people are tired of it. not that many people mention the affordable care act other than to say they like it. it was not the topic of the day. they were talking about the economy and want us to focus on the economy, creating jobs. not litigating these old political battles.

what is happening is that republicans waited, convinced that the supreme court would overturn the aca. when that did not happen, they figure they have to go back and repealed it again. it makes no sense to me. we had the battle. the supreme court said it was constitutional. we should just move on. that is what my constituents are telling me. solving the problems must begin with repeal of the affordable care act. once you have done that, what do you have to replace it? i said to mr. pitts and other gop members of our committee, every time they have another hearing, i never hear any proposal to what you are going to replace it with. what are you going to say to all of the american children who get insurance regardless of their illnesses? what would you say to the 3.1

million young adults who now have insurance over -- under their parents' plan? what would you say to the cancer patient who can continue their chemotherapy? if you repealed this bill, you are saying that these people are out of luck. republicans are more interested in protecting interests rather than patients' rights. only insurance companies gain from repeals. the repeal means that insurance companies would be put back in charge. they would be up allowed to deny health coverage to breast cancer patients who need to restart their chemo or put an annual cap on the amount of care for a lifetime limit on health coverage for people who are desperate. i do not understand this. i am not trying to be disrespectful, but it seems we have done that before. do not continue to do it. do not waste our time. the critical issue is not whether we should go back to the health-care system. we cannot go back.

the status quo was unsustainable. the issue before us should be to the accelerate economic growth. it is what all people have been talking to me about. they want the country to move forward. you have to stop looking backwards. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am honored to represent the ways and means committee in the presentation of this and i urge the reporting favorably out of this bill. i would agree with mr. pallone. the status quo is unacceptable. as a physician, it does not work for patients, doctors, employers. the president's law has made things worse. with the ruling that it is constitutional, does not mean it is good policy for the country. the chief justice of the united states supreme court said, "the court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the

affordable care act. under the constitution, that judgment is left to the people." as the people's representatives, it is important for us to act when people say they want something addressed. it removes $500 billion from medicare. it puts in place a 15-member board of non-elected bureaucrats to deny the payments of services for seniors. the president said over and over again, if you like what you had, you can keep it. they now will not be able to. many of them have lost the coverage they had before. it is more expensive than anybody imagined. it is that $1.76 trillion and only going higher. as a physician, it is destructive of the physician- patient relationship.

doctors and patients are learning that. the ability for us to innovate as a nation is a -- is compromised significantly by this bill. what has changed? the supreme court ruled it is being paid for by a tax that very few individuals in this chamber would have allowed to have been adopted had they known that it was going to be a tax. we believe there is a better way. we believe that folks back home are telling us the consequences of this bill. small businesses who have 40-45 employees and want to hire more say they cannot do that because if they go over 50 than they get into the matter a number where the government forces me to provide health coverage that they want. home health just talk to me two weeks ago and said that if this comes to pass, they are going to have to lay off up to 15 people in order to comply with

the cost of this law. the consequences of this are destructive not only to the health of you and me and every american, destructive to the health of our economy. this is about the economy and jobs. it will destroy 800,000 jobs if we allow this to go forward. the new issue is that the playing field has changed. the assessment of this law has changed. it has -- it is incumbent upon us to move forward and repeal the small. >> thank you. glad to be here again. let me just boil it down. "made it worse?" if you vote to repeal, you send it back to the insurance companies. kids with pre-existing

conditions can no longer be denied coverage. 17 million made it worse. over 100 million americans no longer face lifetime limits. made it worse? in terms of rebates for insurance company charges, almost 13 million americans are going to get rebates because of this wall. -- of this law. made it worse? over 5 million americans will have saved $4 billion in prescription drugs. made it worse? by the way, you voted for a similar provision regarding medicare payments twice. made it worse? four children, kids -- not kids anymore.

i called my kid's kids when they are not kids. over 6.5 million will remain on their parents' plan until age 26. you talk about repealed and replaced. all we have heard is repealed. there is no plan to replace. none. let me close by saying a word about this notion of a mandate that was changed from republicans, in the first place. this wall -- this law, build on private insurance but reform, was modeled under the massachusetts law proposed by mitt romney. i will sum it up this way. in so many respects, the mandate and otherwise, obamacare is romneycare.

the penalty under the tax provisions is held out by the supreme court. it is estimated it will apply to 1.4% of americans. 1.4%. so let me just close it this way. i am on the ways and means committee. there have been bills proposed to help create more jobs in this country. instead of are coming forth, the ways and means committee, with proposals for jobs, we come for the 31st time -- we do not, you do -- with a bill to up -- to repeal which is going nowhere. >> thank you very much, mr. levin.

>> i appreciate the opportunity to be here. i served on the education workforce committee. i have been too a health care reform in the state of tennessee with a 10 care plan. in my district, three out of four people want this bill overturned and replace with common sense reforms. in the last two years, i had the privilege to serve with my good friend, rob andrews, on the health and pension subcommittee, and we held two hearings outside of washington. that is a novel idea, actually going where the people are. i have been to indiana and pennsylvania. let me tell you what is going on. we have a grocery store chain, 10,000 employees. i spoke to him on friday. he said, i have a lot of temporary employees that i higher because people get off

work in the afternoon. i work them 32-33 hours per week. i will have to cut those back in the 20's because of what it will cost my business. i talked to a restaurant owner in my state that has five restaurants. he is going to close two of them. that is 300 jobs that goes away. in my local hospital, i have been there 35 years. for the first time in 35 years, they laid off 100 -- they laid off 168 people. as a practicing physician, i realize that i have read the 2007 hundred-page bill. already, we have 13,000 pages of rules and regulations. does anybody in this room believe that those 13,000 pages are going to make it easier for me, as a physician, and easier

for that patient to come in? there is a much simpler way to do it. all of my colleagues have said cost is a major issue. access and liability are major issues. two of those three things we did not even touch on. we did nothing to bend the cost curve and we did nothing for liability. i am here in support of this bill. >> mr. andrews. >> i wanted think the ladies and gentlemen of the rules committee for their hours and hours of service. we are debating the wrong bill here. what i heard time and time again from my constituents was, why don't you work together and why don't you work together to get jobs created back in the u.s. congress. we could have a bill before us that cuts taxes for small businesses that create jobs but

we do not. we could have a bill before us that builds on the work we did due 10 days ago and puts more americans to work building our roads, bridges, transit systems, and the modest progress that that represents. but we are not. we could have a bill before us that addresses the very real problem that while the private sector has gained 4.2 million jobs since the health care bill was enacted, the public sector has lost about 600,000. police officers, teachers, firefighters, public works employees. we could be addressing that problem but we are not. here we are again addressing the repeal of a law that was debated and passed by congress, signed by the president in 2010, whose constitutionality was upheld by the supreme court about two weeks ago. it is the wrong bill. i do think we ought to have the

right record in front of us. ask people on both sides to dispassionately respect the record and use facts. we have once again heard the rhetoric pulled out that this is a job-killing --thank you. they turn the microphone on. it is usually the other way around. we have heard the rhetoric that this is a job-killing health care bill. since the president signed the health care bill, companies have created 4.3 million private sector jobs. we have heard that the bill hurts medicare because it would withdraw $500 billion from medicare. here is how it does that. it tells insurance companies that we are being paid 114% for the same services that are regularly medicare was paying

100% for. if this was such a bad thing, i would say to you that my republican friends have voted at least twice to do exactly the same reductions. we have heard that this is an enormous tax increase for the american people. the penalties for failure to have health insurance will affect 1.4% of the american people. that is the 1.4% who can afford health insurance but to opt not to buy it so that when they use an emergency room, they can pay their fill instead. the investment surtax that we heard from my friend from pennsylvania, small businesses are troubled. they are troubled by a lack of customers and a lack of credit. as far as this is concerned, if you have 50 or fewer full-time employees, you are obligated to

do nothing under the new health care law. finally, we have heard that this bill comes between doctors and patients. tell that to the breast cancer survivor who cannot afford a doctor when the insurance company tells her that because of for pre-existing condition, she cannot have insurance anymore. that is coming between a doctor and a doctor's patient. tele-tv medicare recipient who is receiving between $600-$800 per year in rebates for their prescription drugs and will no longer be able to afford their medicine. that is coming between a doctor and a patient. what is coming between doctors and patients is the poorly- considered destruction of these hard-earned rights of the american consumer. this is a debate we should not be having. we should be having a cooperative effort to create jobs in our country. if we must have this debate,

let's have it based on facts and not sale, this proven representations' of two years ago. >> let me briefly say that there are a number of items we have brought forward. you mentioned the issues of taxes on small businesses. we have had a number of measures focused on small businesses. the president signed those so every day we are proceeding with items that will address both of the issues that mr. pallone and mr. andrews mention it. the reason we are here is the court made its decision. as mr. price has pointed out, the chief justice made it very clear. they are not passing opinion on the legislation. they made a determination about constitutionality. that decision was made. it shows how important the united states congress is. frankly, an issue that is important to raise is the taxes. if we had had the kind of

straightforward approach on the tax issues, this would not have passed. repeatedly, we were told it is not a tax. on the issue of no alternative, i have consistently argued that there are five simple things that would have immediately played a role in diminishing the cost of health insurance and health care itself. some of the items, i do believe california has a structure in case to deal with pre-existing conditions. it is one that is worthy of consideration. i do not think that someone who is diagnosed with a massive tumor should be able to have millions of dollars in health- care the next day. i do believe that there can be a structure to deal with the issue. second, the expansion of medical savings accounts is

something that is proven to provide an opportunity for people to put dollars aside, to plan for their healthcare needs. association health plans. we passed, out of the house of representatives, when my party was in the majority, association health plans. it allows for small businesses to come together and get lower rates. that has been done. we consistently offered no alternative at all. it died in the democratic control of the united states senate. we also need to have real, meaningful lawsuit abuse reform. you have all mention that. the president of the united states stood in the house chamber and argued on behalf of meaningful lawsuit abuse reform. yet, we know this measure does not do that. the fifth point, which the

president said he supported, was for us to move in the direction that allows for the purchase of insurance across state lines. those five things that i consistently talked about for a number of years, which i believe play a role in immediately bringing costs down. i do not have any questions for you, but let me close by saying the following. we want to repeal this so that we can, in fact, replace it. there is a need. this is a need that has to be addressed. when we considered this, it was done under the most closed structure imaginable for an issue of this magnitude. without dredging up all of those old arguments, i will tell you that, for those who may have forgotten, there was a plan that was in place right up until we consider this that would have allowed us to self-enact this measure, reporting it out of this committee, taking it to

the floor i will tell you that for those who may have forgotten, there was a plan that was in place right up until we considered this. that would have allowed us to self and that this measure. putting it out of this committee and taking it to the floor and simply passing a rule, which would have passed this measure. what we want to do is what we have done in this congress, very simple. what we want to do is have the kind of process that we have had in dealing with issues, and we want to do it in a bipartisan way. we want to make amendments that our minority colleagues will offer. so i think that the notion, i see your hand up, and i am not asking a question. i am simply stating a response to what i heard in your testimony. we will after we hear this, after we get this through, we will do this. some of the things i just mentioned, the five items. democrats have supported it. and yet, this was not done with

the kind of process that the american people deserve. mr. pallone has been asking, but will you let me yield before asking him? >> all of these actions of common ground, why did you not inactive them? >> if i could reclaim my time, i do not know if i can reclaim my time or not. thank you. we did. we did. and i just said that. i do not know if you were listening. association health plans. it enjoyed bipartisan support here in this chamber. we passed it, when our party was in the majority. we passed it when people said our party did nothing. i have to yield to my friend. >> children with pre-existing conditions. >> if i can reclaim my time, if i could reclaim my time, i never said we did everything. what i said is i mentioned these five items that would play

a role in immediately reducing the cost of direct health care costs. we were often told, it was just said in the testimony that we had no ideas. there was no proposal to replace. when the republicans were in the majority last, we passed the plan for association health plans that would have allowed the small men and businesswomen of whom we regularly talk, we passed and sent it and told the senate, and it died there, ok? so let me first recognize mr. pallone. i am not asking a question. i am getting ready to ask. >> i just want to say, some of the things -- what have we done wrong? am i not allowed to question the witnesses?

>> the way we normally do. >> i was just going to say briefly, some of the things he mentioned are good ideas. we addressed malpractice and some of those things, but i think that the difference between those five and the comprehensive health care reform is that with the aca, you are going to make sure that they have health insurance. in some ways, i support them. but i do not think they are going to make that kind of a dent. to help some people on the edge, but they are not going to provide the type of coverage that they're going to get with the aca, and as far as the tax, i actually think that the aca

results and a tax cut, because in new jersey, people are paying about 1000 to $1,500 per year of their premium to cover people who do not have insurance. if everybody is covered through this mandate, which i know you do not like this mandate, it is actually a tax cut for the people paying those premiums, because they should not have to pay for the people who are irresponsible, in my opinion. >> i am just saying what was ruled on by majority vote. making a great deal of time available on the house floor. that is the reason i am not asking any questions. everybody knows how we stand on this. this is something that i want to see. i was just responding to the testimony that i heard and outlining some of the things i thought. so i would like to recognize mr.

sessions. >> thank you. i want to thank each of our colleagues who have taken time to be here today, and i think we will do the same thing, which is just to address things the way i see them. i do realize we are talking past each other. to say this is going to be a tax cut for many people, i have never heard that argument before. what i will do is that the supreme court says it is a tax. it is a tax. we know this, whether we like one of the supreme court says or not. as i have heard at least once today, marbury vs. madison. will we cannot escape is the cost. the cost is times two, so i would say to you if we do not repeal the bill, then we will have to figure out how we double the taxes, how we go and

pay for the bill. we already know, and we heard at least one of the gentleman said, i wish we were here finding a way to cut taxes for small business. we are. we are going to repeal the bill. i wish we could do something about roads and bridges. we are. half of this real cost falls on the states. states are having to pay the cost, and they do not coin money, so they are laying off people, and they have gone from essentially looking at bridges and education that now that are going to get into the health- care business. we talked about the loss of jobs. oh, my gosh, i am sorry there have been public-sector job losses. but we tried to say that there have been 4.3 million jobs added, yes, but those have

lagged behind the tremendously. 4.3 million have been created. anemic. and everybody knows this is anemic, and i am disappointed that everybody was trying to say we have done so great. in fact, we have not done great. somebody tried to suggest we had the same bill as republicans with how we treated medicare. that is not true. they said 55 are over, they would not be impacted. rather, we would plan for the future, and so anybody 54 and below would be impacted by the republican bill. today, every person, particularly those who are seniors, 80 years old, 90 years old, immediately hit by $500 billion in cuts in medicare, that is not the same as republicans. it is not ok to say they would

do it as republicans, because that is not true. the medical device tax. we spent time back in dallas, texas, during the break. granted, perhaps they are not as impacted necessarily by the bill. they are in the health-care industry. they are talking about chairs that they will have in their dental practice. they are talking about where bands that they will put in children's mouths. these are all going to be taxed with a medical device tax. also, dental care will rise very substantially. so i go back to this point. even at a cost of twice as much, would this be a good deal? heck, no. because if we did not take care of repealing it, we would have

to double the tax. we would have to take $1 trillion, not $500 billion. $1 trillion out of senior care. not the republican side, but people who are 80, 19 years old who are on it today. we would double the cost on states. they are already staggeringly high. we would double the tax on small business. we would double down virtually everything about this bill, and instead of huge budget losing 800 million more jobs, which is considered the government estimate, the private sector is over 1 million jobs are going to be lost between now and 2014, so i think when looked at, the alternatives are that we should repeal the bell -- repeal of the bill. we should go back and look at the testimony. mr. sessions, we are going to create millions of jobs at this

new bill. that is not the way it turned out. we have been looking back. we should go back and evaluate what we have done. we should find a way, the senate, the house, listen to the american people, and come up with a better bill. but this is a very complicated mess, and the last point i would make is, and i have heard insurance companies say many things we have been told will go back into the dark ages to retreat again, they of already agreed that they will stick with the status quo, some to argue these cases is, in my opinion, not the right way. i think we need to understand. it is either repeal or double

down on the taxes because the costs are twice that, and they will be very destructive if we are not smart enough to do something today. lastly, the american public will have something to do about it. everyone will be held accountable for their vote. thank god we have gotten to a point where our vote counts. i go back. >> thank you, gentlemen, for being here. it is nice to see you on this monday afternoon. you started by saying you feel like you voted on this about 16 times. tomorrow will be 31. this is going to end up just like the rest, nowhere. we do not have much work to do around here. but the jobs bill, i think we need reminding, those folks on the side that voted for the bill probably do not, but theodore roosevelt when he tried to do this with something in

line, the health care is approaching 18% of gdp. we cannot afford it. we could be heading towards where they say they want to bomb somebody. we had to do it. somebody threw a brick through my niagara falls district office window or threatening my children. that is not what i was here for. there has been more talk about this bill, abet them knowing nothing about what is in it. i am so sorry i have not had time to see this. but i would bet you that this is about the same. the world coming to an end. for goodness' sake, we are the only industrial country on the face of the earth that puts the burden back on our employers.

why can we not try to get to the point where we need to be where we have a single payer bill, which many of us wanted to do in the first place. we have watered it down. for the life of me, i do not know why it caused all of these lost jobs. they have fewer than 15 points, they are not even involved. if they had more than that, i think they get some deduction, some tax deduction. they simply cannot afford to do it. if this is a way to save money. billions of dollars. and the cbo says we could save if this bill went into effect.

remember, it has not. this is conjecture. we all know what changes would be made. we did note that it was going to be very costly to do away with it. am i right? it would be very difficult to do away with it. but more important, what is astonishing, i think before i finish, somebody has got to speak up for women in this country. you repeal this bill, and women will continue as they have from the beginning, single women particularly pay more money for the same insurance that a male pace. did you know that? do you want to go back to that? women's health. one other thing as far as i am concerned, as everybody knows, this was at large.

paying the tax or the mandate or the penalty, it is absolutely true. all of these years and yet been paying health insurance premiums, we are paying at least $1,000, i think more, because that is the figure we heard because the people who are not paying for compensated care. i would like my children's family to be able to save that money and pay for their own health care. i thought in a moment of madness that is all of the people decided not to have health care, they would also say they would never go to the doctor, who are, whatever happens to them, "i am not going

to the hospital," but we know they are not going to do that. that is not the way this country go is. but i would like to know, and i would like to ask, what is going to happen -- happened to the seniors who have already gotten what they get with no copayment. what is going to happen? 365 thousand, i think, you may have a better figure, who are on their parents' health care, but there are no jobs for them when they get out of college. what is going to happen? there are those that have pre- existing conditions, the way that they were born, and they are not in shareable in the united states of america.

if you have a critical head injury, you are going to use up your limit in almost no time, and you are uninsurable for the rest of your life in the united states of america. you go over your yearly limit, and you may not have insurance regardless of what happens to you until the following year. that is what we have got. i see hand's going up here. let me try to get off of my high horse, but this is the second time i have gone through this. its american people do not want health care, what was said to me, gee, i want my health care. i hope you guys will never do anything about it. what we know already, people opposing it. i think you are really biting off an awful lot to chew. i would like to save you from

yourself. let's reconsider. let's see if we can find something else to do this week. what do you say? and what is going to happen with all of these people taking advantage? >> i certainly cannot speak for the authors of the bill. i read the bill. thank you. i am not an author of this repeal bill, that is for sure. one thing i find astonishing about this is the congressional budget office has not yet scorned this bill. so no one can say whether the repeal of this bill will add to or subtract to the deficit. we do know that the first time of the 31 that there were an

attempt to repeal the bill, they said it would add far in excess of $200 billion to the deficit. now, there have been changes since then, regarding the class act and other provisions. so i do not know whether a repeal of the bill adds to or subtracts from the deficit, but neither does anyone else. so on would say, madam ranking member, it would seem that we should at least put off this consideration of the repeal bill until they said what is going to cost. i cannot think of a major piece of legislation that has ever been brought to the house floor in my tenure here where the congressional budget office has not given us a score and said whether or not it has added to the deficit. >> talking about replacing it, about what we would replace it

with. it might be probably nothing that we would go back to what we had before, but we are not making what here. while we are doing is making political points. that is what we should expect for the rest of the session. yes. >> there will be a lot of rhetoric, and you know as you look back, the republican party has had decades to come up with a comprehensive -- decades. there has never been a comprehensive health plan sponsored by republicans, and now the democrats have passed, so essentially, this is the answer.

>> i will not take personal offense to the republicans not offering a comprehensive plan. hr 3000. i would be glad to go over it with you block's stock and barrel. actually, we have got 30 million to 50 million folks insured. we see the portability and pre- existing and ways that allows them to have coverage that they want, rather than what the government dictates to them. you cannot have it both ways. you cannot say that the law has not taken effect or had any effect, but what are we going to do with all of those folks. they are a significant portion. to address the pre-existing is incredibly important, it is you never hear about folks being -- the walmart, the coca-cola,

these are not the folks who are challenged. you see the individual and small group market. that is about 18 million people. >> i know, and i know you have, women you have been diagnosed for breast cancer, but there is no treatment for it. that happens. >> exactly. if i made tangentially talk about breast cancer. you will recall what the task force did is to say that women under the age of 50 did not need a screening mammogram. it took an act of congress for us to say, oh, yes, they do, because that decision ought to be between a patient and a position, and what we need to do is do it like this.

>> let me point out, if i can claim my time, the congress of the united states, we said oh, no, you are not going to treat us. >> and under medicare and the opposition to it -- >> if i may? >> in terms of illnesses and injuries, the fact is there are about 80 million folks who are challenged with that, and it needs to be addressed, and the way to address it is to make certain that those individuals have access to the same kind of mechanisms as our folks in the self insured irina. they can let the insurance that they want, not that the government once for them. >> they have their choice. we are not going to debate the bill. as i said, we have great affection for you. you know that. i just feel badly for you when

you get home, and when you realize that they have to pay more, all of these other people that they have no access to health care because something happened to them. i just do not want you to have to face that. >> if i can just say one thing that you mentioned. i know that a lot of republicans give the impression that if this was repealed, all of the discriminatory practices, pre-existing conditions, all of those things are going to continue. the fact is they are not going to continue, and do not believe them when they say that they will, because the insurance companies bought into this in support of this bill knowing that everyone would be covered and that they have a lot more people paying into the system and therefore did not have to worry about pre-existing conditions and lifetime benefits and recisions and all of that. of that.