once they get to where they have this because the bill is repealed, this will go back into place, because that is the way they make money, you see? no disrespect. the insurance companies are going to keep these protections in place.

>> i do want to associate myself very strongly with your comments and the comments of mr. sessions. i won't repeat those things that you said but, i'm not going to be asking any questions either. i do think some comments that have been made need to be responded to. i saw as often on the floor and occasionally in the rules committee, but i want to say to anyone who has not read the book 1984, who hasn't read it in a long time that i really like to urge people to read that book. because i think we're living through that experience described in that book. it talk about things being

rewritten. it's just sort of fascinating to heart comments being made here. i think mr. pallone in particular gives great examples. you say only the insurance companies will gain from the repeal but the reason the insurance companies -- obamacare is a great handout to insurance companies to my perspective. you want to make us look like we're supporting the insurance companies. it was you all who went hand in hand with the insurance companies. you set it up so they couldn't lose. you made them regulate utilities. they're guaranteed a profit every year as a result of the individual mandate. it's the democrats who are helping the insurance companies and that point has not been made. you talk out of both sides of your mouths and that's a perfect

example of what goes on in the book 1984. allowing them to do that, allowing them to create this regulated utility helps the insurance companies. then you say only they gain from the repeal. no mr. pallone. the american people gain from the repeal of this. we gain our freedom again. the difference between the liberals in in country and the conservatives is the issue of freedom. you and your colleagues want the government to control every aspect of our lives. we do not believe in that. we want this to continue to be the greatest country in the world and what makes us the greatest conduct -- country in the world, the rule of law and the freedom that we have along with our judeo-christian belief and our catholic system.

and obamacare is an assault on all of those things. the president said in 2008, this is the greatest country in the world. now help me change it. i just thought that should have been played over and over again because i think that's the attitude that many of you who side with the president on everything feel. i also like to say that you encourage stop looking backward. i hope you give that advice to your president, to president obama. he continues to blame president bush for everything that's negative in this country. if you want us to stop looking backwards, i hope you will talk about that. i would say to mr. andrews, i appreciate the fact that you said company have created four million jobs in this country in the last few years. thank you for not being like

other witnesses have been who have come to this committee who said i or we have created these jobs. the administration has not done that. it is the private sector who have created the jobs. the other thing i think is important to talk about is the fact that somebody mentioned 98% of americans get insurance under this bill. however, before obamacare was passed, there were only about 10 million americans who wanted health insurance who couldn't afford health insurance. it was 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 healthcare, i love that expression that you all use

when you want again government take over of some issue. let it be comprehensive and that's the code word i think for that. my colleague from new york mentioned that college grads need to be covered by obamacare because they can't get jobs. well, republicans have sent over 30 bills over to the senate that would create an environment for creating jobs. we on the republican side know the government doesn't create jobs. but we help create an environment. we need to look at not the symptoms. we need to look at the causes. the causes that are forcing so many young people not to be able to get jobs after their college education is that the economy is in such bad shape and we're 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 don't care about women. we don't care about children. if we don't vote for government take over of our lives. but i like to point out to my colleagues that there were many democrats, over 30 democrat who voted no on the obamacare bill. i suspect that there will be some democrats who will vote to repeal it when we vote to repeal it. i'm sure my colleagues aren't going to impugn their motives or impugn their integrity when they do that. i don't do that. i think 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. our colleague mr. price has pointed out, we want patient-centered healthcare. we want patients and doctors to make decisions. not a 15 member unelected, unaccountable board of people to be deciding who is going to be getting healthcare in this country. that's what you have when you have a obamacare. that's 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 so well stated. in many cases they are being taken care of. hsas, were in existence and yet obamacare does everything possible to destroy them. it doesn't allow for association health plan. doesn't allow for reliability

reform. it doesn't allow for purchase 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 lambasted that program on one day, they'll scream about how it's not paid for, on the other hand they say, we have to close the donut hole. what is it guys? you voted against it when it came up before. i probably would have voted against it too because i don't like more government programs. come on, you're being hypocritical when you say we got to close the donut hole. even my colleagues probably need to read the book 1984 and maybe they'll see a little bit of themselves in the things that are in there in terms of how you

re-write history and how you make things sound great that aren't 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 healthcare. i yield back. >> boy. you know. dr.foxx, it's funny how you hear about impugning. i'm pretty sure i've been called a big totalitarian who wants to take everybody's freedom away. we ought to be careful about some of the rhetoric we use.

i would urge my colleague to maybe replay some of her speeches because that was pretty harsh. my colleague, mr. sessions talked about taxes. let me just say for the record, my constituents in massachusetts 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 care act actually provides my constituents with a tax cut. so, i should also point out, mitt romney who is the co-author of the massachusetts healthcare plan last week said that this was not a tax. think this week he changed his mind. whatever. you own him, he's yours, good luck. he'll be all over the place on this by the time his campaign is over with. but the bottom line is that this notion of making sure that everybody has the freedom to

have access to good quality healthcare is something that motivated me to vote for this bill. because everybody in this country doesn't have the freedom to be able to afford good quality healthcare. the status quo was unacceptable. the status quo was bad. now i'm glad to hear that we don't have to worry about anything. the insurance companies are all have our best interests at heart. so we can repeal all of these requirements that band descriptions against children who have pre-existing conditions. my colleague pointed out, the provisions that forbids insurance companies discriminating against women. if we lift all of these requirements of the affordable care act and take we're all of these requirements on insurance companies, they actually behave responsibly, they will just do that.

one of the reasons why we need to do this because insurance companies haven't behaved responsibly throughout the years. too many of our citizen have paid a heavy price for that. you know, i wanted to begin by comments by saying, enough already. this is our 31st time repealing some part or all of the affordable care act. that was within the first things you guys did when you came to power. you guys are all on record, if this is all about politics, i'm reading politico today, gop plan push for hot button vote. you got it 30 times. the fact of the matter is, you if there is a campaign issue for you, fine. if you and mitt romney want oto the -- to run on platform saying we will leave it up to states to

decide whether or not it's okay to discriminate against kids with pre-existing conditions. if you want to run on platform and say we will stop closing that donut hole. if you run on the platform saying, let the insurance companies and individual states decide whether or not women should be discriminated against. if that's your platform, go at it. i welcome that debate frankly. but the fact of the matter is, i don't want lots of time on this. i want lots of time on a jobs bill. you stalled and stalled on the transportation bill. we finally got that done. that should have been passed months ago. that would have put tens of thousands of people to work. we should be spending hours tomorrow on debating the president's jobs proposals or jour job proposals. but seven hours or eight hours

on this? it's not going anywhere. this is not going to happen. mr.andrews? >> i think my friend from north carolina was exactly right in referencing george orwell. i could think of no example of orwellian rhetoric than the use of the death panel when this bill was adopted. the misrepresentation. who decide who gets a heart transplant and who doesn't. it was false and it is false. the other thing i would say i'm a little saddened about my friend from north carolina and yielded it back before she took any comments. it was hurtful to

hear her refer to the president of the united states as, your president. i would simply say this to you, i wouldn't agree with hardly anything he did. but george w. bush was my president. ronald reagan was my president. i'm just saddened by the fact that we somehow reached point in this country for whatever reason, we don't have one president that represents all of us. we should get beyond all off that rhetoric and beyond this bill and talk about what really matters in this country which is jobs as you said. >> being amazed how much foxx and i have in common. i think the thing that bothers me about what she said is this notion of freedom. in other words, my idea is

freedom of speech, freedom of religion. it's not the freedom to have healthcare. the problem i look at it from a responsibility point of view which is what the republicans often talk about. monday, it's not fair if you will, that people not take care responsibility for their own lives. why should so. of us be paying these large premiums and bills for people who don't decide to have health insurance? i also think that the other thing you said that i don't agree with, there are a lot of people out there that want health insurance, millions probably 30 million and can't get it because they can't afford it. there are others who are underinsured. we not only talking about these 40 million people who have health insurance under the affordable care act but also another 40 million who are

underinsured and can't get coverage for the things know need coverage for. they will of a basic benefit package and be able to buy affordable insurance with the subsidy and the benefits provided under the aca. finally with regard to the insurance companies, when i say you repeal this, the insurance companies will benefit. i say that because go back to what i said before. they go back to discriminatory practices, pre-existing conditions, lifetime limits. not because they're evil necessarily. i'm not suggesting that. but because if you don't take in everybody and guarantee everyone has insurance because you have a much larger pool, they almost forced to go back to the old ways in order to make a profit. it's not a question of who's evil, what i'm saying, you allow us to go back to the old system where all of these discriminatory practices take place and that's how the

insurance companies make money. not because they are bad people but because that's the only way they can make money under the old system. the way they make money under the new system is by covering everyone which is a perfect responsible thing to do. i yield back. >> let me just say this to conclude. i been here a few years and i say this respectfully dr. foxx. think her comment in using 1984, which i read some years ago, illustrates how very difficult it is to get anything done here. we frame the issue in terms of 1984. it is so misguided and so totally polarizing and if that's the mind set of this republican

party, we will never get anything done. >> i appreciate that. i just conclude with a couple observations. one on january 20th, we voted on the first repeal. we were promised that the republican majority here in the house which runs the floor, which have a bill that will preserve patient's ability to keep his or her healthcare and preexisting conditions with affordable healthcare. we haven't seen that on the floor. the other thing is that, dr. foxx mentioned the president of the united states rightfully said this is the greatest country on the planet and we all agree with that. that somehow you can't try to make the greatest country in the world even better is a little bit stunning to me. we all got elected because we want to improve the quality of life for the people we represent. that's what we're here for.

that's what the president of the united states suppose to do. this is the greatest country in the world. if we can guarantee everybody in this country the right to have good quality healthcare, i think it makes us even greater. again, i understand what's going on here. the hot button issues. i would just request that you give us a less time on hot button issues. we should be spending a little bit more time on jobs, little less time on hot button issues. i yield back my time. >> thank you. i don't intend ongoing through the philosophy of this particular bill or issue here. with one caveat, before i came here, perhaps i'm different from the rest of my delegation.

i thought that perhaps the way we do things in washington is the way it ought to be done. i appreciate the comments which have been made here because i didn't realize how incompetent i was state legislator and how much i didn't care about issues. the fact that utah requires healthcare until age 26 as family plan, decades before anyone back here. however, i do have a specific parochial question because i never received an answer for. i don't know what wants to receive credit for this program. now that we know that it is a tax. the tax will be collected by the i.r.s. i have a center in think district. they've very good people that do a good job.

they are pressed to the max right now. if this program were to go through, who will be actually -- how are you going handle the process of having the tax verifiedogram and having people examine those types of things? will you indeed outsource this program as have been done in other programs? because the president's i.r.s. ci is not there. there are some who suggested it will be between 12,000 and 14,000 new people just to handle the program. when our tax program when from a class tax to a mass tax in world war ii, we did triple the number of i.r.s. agents to handle that. i know the i.r.s. employees who do a good job. i have handled the increase that will be mandated by in particular program. is it the purpose and is it the

process or the plan simply to outsource these jobs to a private sector or is it to increase the number of i.r.s. employees? >> it will be handled responsibly. we will have the intelligence within this body to make sure that the law is implemented effectively. >> what was the purpose and plan to discuss it in the first plan? >> don't talk about conjuring up some master plan. there's enough intelligence in this body to rise to the occasion. >> let me ask the question. are you going to -- is the process is to outsource this work or hire more people inside. that's a legitimate question. >> the answer is, that will be determined -- i don't think there's any plan to outsource. there's a lot of outsourcing being done. that isn't being contemplated.

>> so we will increase the number of i.r. i.r.s. agents. >> maybe so. mr.bishop, we don't need to conjure up straw people. we will handle that. there's enough intelligence in thiszi7f body to respond to th. >> mr. levin i'm asking what the plan is. if you don't have a plan, say you don't have a plan. if it is outsourced say it's outsourced? >> the answer that there will be implementations. some of the provisions are not in place yet. some are. you want to repeal what is in place. that's what you want to get rid of. now you conjure up what will happen with some provisions that haven't yet been implemented yet. the subsidy provisions and others haven't been implemented.

that is for to you repeal what is already in place. >> here is my understanding. here is the way it will work for taxpayers. when a person files their 1040, if they are provided health insurance through their w2, their w2 reflect the fact they have health insurance. if a person does not have a w2, then he or she has on file a schedule that they have health insurance. if the person doesn't have that, there will be a penalty assessed as part of their federal tax which will be added on. whether that requires more employees or not, i do not know. but i do know that the treasury department has presented a budget that assumes this will be the law and provided the person power to get the job done. >> how many employees do they increase? >> i do not know. i will be happy to check the

record appropriations request from the department. i'm certain that the commissioner of the i.r.s. is taking this into account and again, -- that's the way it actually works in the real world. >> i appreciate that. i realize in the real world that the i.r.s. center that we have in my district is maxed out right now. if the past other programs added to their responsibilities were indeed outsourced. >> i would certainly join proposing any outsourcing. >> if it's indeed what you started on say and backtrack if the goal is not to outsource, that was the result of my question. that's a legitimate answer and i appreciate for that. i do recognize though that historically, every time there has been an increase in the role in the i.r.s., there have been an increase in the number of agents need to do that kind of

work. i don't think that cannot be denied. >> when the mortgages deductions were added to the tax code, was there a spike in i.r.s. agents? >> there was outsourcing. >> when the mortgage interest destructions? was there a spike in i.r.s. agents? do you know? >> i'm making the assumption it was. i maybe inaccurate in that. >> look, we've got a whole bunch of people know better than i that i tried read the bill. there's 17,000 new i.r.s. agents authorized with the healthcare bill. there are 17,000 new i.r.s. agents authorized through the ways means and components of the bill. i know mr. rangel was the chairman at the time, good god gentlemen, you're here as subject matter experts. you should understand and answer the questions appropriately. 17,000 new i.r.s. agents authorized and as early as last

week, the white house through omb, they will begin that hiring process now. >> i will yield back. i told you my question was parochial. i have people working on that issue and asked me that question. >> the gentlemen began by referring to himself as a modest legislature. what was the last position held by the gentlemen in utah? >> i walked out on my own power. they called me speaker at the time. >> history during that same period of time, mr. chairman, i would like to with unanimous concept, enter the record the statement of the administration policy. i might add chairman, this one does not say as many have in the past, that staff would recommend or to the president that it be

vetoed. it ends with if present with hr69 we will veto it. >> i would like to say, i hope you have a copy of that to the gentlemen sitting to your right so he can understand the staff recommendation and statement. it's very clear that the president would -- >> thank you mr. chairman. 17 months ago, the house took the extraordinary step of adopting a resolution instructing house committee to do some things with healthcare. since that time, as it's. mentioned here, we voted 30 times. tomorrow will be 31 to repeal measures having to do with affordable care act. i wonder how well the committee have followed 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 to committee now. i'm not talking about you as individuals. >> it look as mr. pallone has to leave. anyone has questions before we allow him to leave? no questions in particular. mr.pallone thank you very much. >> let me go to the next question. has your committee reported a bill that will provide for a permanent doc fix that the house instructed you to do? >> the ways and means committee held tens of hearings on this

legislation and others 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 like to do it in a bipartisan fashion. >> then i take it as a no. >> let me answer that. excuse me gentlemen. >> apparently the individual doesn't want to answer. >> i took your answer as a no as i put it. mr. levin? >> look. if the committee is considering studying the truth of the matter is, no legislation has passed through the ways and means committee will make any considerable dent in the number of uninsured. >> that will be true also of

having to do with pre-existing condition. >> there's no legislation except affordable care act. >> let me go in another direction. as a lawyer and as a 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 i might add, ideologyically, i agree with some of them and i disagree with some. i don't have to put my history on the record as i wept to the -- went to the supreme court as an individual on occasions.

i thought they were wrong in their rulings and i accepted that and i went about my business. i shudder to think that we will continue to as one senator said, two members of the supreme court changing their position does not make it the law of the land. today, it is the law of the atlanta. we have rights -- land. we have rights and responsibilities. among our rights is to continue here in this institution to seek to repeal, as you are attempting to do in this case and do some of us think will be helpful and continue about the business of following the law as it exists and try to do what we can to make it better. many of the things that you speak of, the cost of state insurance and matters folks like

me support. i advocated there should be collective opportunity for business persons to have health matters all the time i came here. i came here like florida pointed out, seeking single payer and a public option. i advocated universal healthcare before i heard barack obama's name. you all used the president, obamacare. that doesn't mean anything. it should be hastings/obamacare because i had something to do with it before he did. the simple fact of the matter is, you use it for politics and that's fine. most of us read subsidies, brave new world, the way we are acting

comes more in line with the decline and in the roman empire. if she want to muddy through those two volumes and see the parallel exists. the among them is the fact that people began to disrespect themselves. i personally apologize for those that have been disrespected justice roberts. i thought as a lawyer and i've read about half the opinion at this point, read the clip notes. i thought that he had in many respects, stroke of genius on establishing it as at the roberts court at this point. when i was a state court judge and i would handle divorces and husbands and wives will leave the courtroom and both of them will be mad. my bailiff would look at me and

say, you made another good decision. that's what happened here. tax on whom pete? when you say a tax, just on who among the people you're talking about? i question, i yield to you to tell me who is being taxed under this? >> i appreciate the gentlemen asking. the supreme court justice roberts, outlined that he believe it's a tax. >> what he said was, because it could not travel under the commerce clause, that in fact, it was a tax. you can name it anything you want to. what i name it in the final analysis and what we all know less than one percent of the people in united states will be affected. it's not everybody. you run out and say the word tax

and that's suppose to then cause everybody to shudder. if it means i'm taxed another $1000, so that the people at community center that's get turned away are the people that wind up at emergency hospitals will have them and let me stick a footnote there. emergency facilities where most of the people wind up and we wind up having to pay for that. we need to figure out a better way. 14 industrial nations around this world know better than us. our cost for insurance are alone is more. i ask all of us, 10 of us up here now, tell me the day your insurance went down in a year. anybody, raise your hand. did it go down about you pay $5000 one year.

did you have insurance during that period of time? >> thank goodness he a choice. >> i'm talking about florida and omaha. everyone gone up. whatever we do here, they're going to go up 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, i think heard you say dr. price, takes $500 million out of medicare. ryan's plan pretty much eliminates medicare.

who cares, what we need to do is get busy here. there's enough intelligence in this -- this institution to modify this plan. i want to say one thing about dr. foxx and see keeps saying all of these divisive things and what we are doing. the device has been degrading. it's political posturing. i was thinking last night there was a right wing university, then a whole lot of my republican colleague and some of my democratic colleagues that eligible to be the dean of colleges of hypocrisy. we carry on as if there isn't a real world out here. everybody knows how difficult and complex this issue is. we seen it in more ways than one. we don't have enough nurses. we don't have enough doctors.

you see all of this business about jobs. 660,000 new healthcare jobs have been created since and before the affordable care act came into existence. the third highest profession is healthcare delivery for these young people that don't have a job. but you are saying to them is that there's a new normal. you say rob, you had a health savings account. there are some people who don't have a savings because they don't have a job. somebody needs to tell the american people the truth aside from malpractice reform and cross state. you all have a plan. all you want to do is just go out to the november 6 election and say this you repeal something. repeal it then, when you finds that the deal go down that the american people aren't as crazy as some of us think. the most important thing i want

you all to do is stop disrespecting the supreme court the way that you have. people using -- i know the additional requirements for his safety. stop it. that's what you do. that's what my little granddaughter said. she says stop it. you tell the governor of my state to stop it. he won't the implement the health exchange program. there aren't going to be health exchange program anyhow. the federal government will implement it. anyway mr. chairman, i can't imagine that we are here with

all of the pain in this country, with all the misery that exist, with all of us knowing the significant number of people. you say dr. foxx there were 10 million people on insurance. there were 42 million people when i came here. yes it includes some people who -- wake up people and start telling people the truth. get out of the this back and forth mumbo jumbo here. i hope a lot of you lose, and i hope i win. thanks. >> we have a series of votes taking place on the house floor. these panelist have sat here very patiently for long period of time. it was my hope that we might be able to report out this rule that will allow for lots of debate on the house floor. it didn't work out that way.

having said that, i recognize mr. woodall. >> it will be unreasonable to listen to m r. hastings and not have a few comments. 81 new i.r.s. workers will be hired solely to deal with the tanning tax to make sure the tanning tax is implemented. mr.pallone started off saying, my constituents say with you should lose all. i want to ask, i know mr. andrews was here when we passed the hipaa bill back in 1986. mr.levin was here at that time. you all voted no as the bill passed the house but voted yes when it came back. mr.pallone also voted no. there was concerted efforts there to deal with issues a bipartisan way. only two votes against it in the

house. it was done in a bipartisan way. the reason folks can't move on this was not known a bipartisan way. this was something rammed down the threats -- throats of people. my friend from new york say, people are going to like this bill. people have been looking a think the bill for two years. mr.pallone said why don't we just move on? the reason i don't move on because i have constituents tell me to get rid of this bill. >> mine is similar. the people say look you got to do away with it. it's not just patients and it's employers. we don't know what to do. all we got to do is to not hire and lay people off. my physician colleagues, my age, 57 and 58, are saying if this really comes through to all its

glory, that's the final straw. we're out of here. god help us for the workforce challenge we will have in the appropriate thing to do is to proceed and repeal this bill so we can move forward with patient-centered healthcare. >> mitt romney is associated with proposals of this type. he's associated as a governor who implemented in his home state. when kentucky tried something similar, it was a dramatic failure. they had to repeal the whole thing and start over. i was not here when you all passed this bill. in georgia, the folks we think about most often, she said what are you going to tell all those kids who have healthcare under this bill and you will repeal. in georgia our experience is,

there was a young woman under her charge, her parents couldn't take care of her. she was going to become a ward of the state and they ultimately adopted her. they had the misfortunate of adopting her right about the time the president's healthcare went into action. when we went to state insurance commissioner, saying where can i go to get insurance. they were told my the insurance commissioner we have insurance companies in the state like those policies last year. because of what congress passed and the president signed, every single insurance writer of policies for children in the state of georgia have left the state. not one child can get insurance in georgia. those policies are gone. i don't believe for a moment or one of you supported that intended that consequence. i don't believe it for a moment. but the laws of unintended

consequences run. you said, we all suppose to be here to improve the quality of life of people back home. i'm suppose to be here to protect their freedoms. if the speaker of the house -- we argue about the constitutionality. of single reform in this bill could have been implemented by the state of georgia, or the state of utah or state of massachusetts and not one constitutional challenge would have stood because the power of state to regulate in this is -- it's the p.o.w. of congress that becomes the question of why is folks who's heart in the right place. feel like passing back national solutions that ends up preventing their newly adopted 6-year-old any access to health insurance. what that arrogance

of knowing that we have the answer where other folks don't. is the state legislature back home working at all in this area? >> it haven't started yet. let me just tell you in a 2700 page bill and 13,000 pages of rules and writing as of today, we could have provided hhs secretary in front of our committee this year. i ask her how many people will you expand coverage to. she said we think about 30 million. i said i can do that in two paragraphs, 80% of it. that's the 26-year-olds and just expand medicaid already. the problem with medicaid, it's not the great story never told is, it doesn't pay for the cost of the care. the cost gets shifted so it just expanded a program that hasn't worked. tennessee, let me give you the example mr. woodall,

1993 medicaid program, we were spending $2.5 billion a year on that program. in ten years our democratic governor had to close it out and cut the rolls because we have tripled the amount of money that was spent on that program. it almost bankrupted our state. right now, added anything in higher education in 20 years because the money is gone to our tent care program. medicare came out in 1965 a $3 billion program. the government estimated at that time, there was no cbo, said it will be a $12 billion program in 1990. real answer, $110 billion. let me ask the question, you vote for medicare d when it came out in 2003? i came here to be involved in healthcare reform. that's why i ran for congress.

the republicans weren't included in this debate. i yield back. >> mr. chairman that's the best place for me to leave it. there's not a single person in this room to cares more about the healthcare georgians and dr. price i do. >> let me say to everyone on the panel here. we have other member who have a right to ask you questions. we have a series of votes on the floor. i ask all of you to come back as the other members of the rules committee are looking forward. mr.levin was leaving. my gosh, he has so much to offer, i inferred as he was standing up, we were about to miss the vote. let me just say, mr. mcgovern will guarantee that not one of

us will miss the vote. >> how much would this increase the deficit by -- this bill? the repeal of the affordable care act? how much does it increase the deficit by? >> a recent figure, earlier figure was it would be very substantial. as mr. anderson said, this committee proceeding without having that answer. >> ball park, you have a ball park how much it increase the deficit by? >> no we don't. the congressional budget office is analyzing the effects of two changes. we don't know. in january of 2011, the congressional budget office estimated that repealing the law will cost in excess of $200 billion added to the deficit. i just think it's incredibly

irresponsible to go forward with this vote until the facts before the house. >> isn't it also correct, there's no offsetting? >> one thing the majority did in 2011 was to ignore the pay as you go rule. when the congressional budget office came out and said it would add $223 billion to the deficit, i believe tot offset with either a spending cut or some this committee facilitated along with a budget committee, a magic wand, well we will pretend those rules don't apply here. the first time they did this, they ignored the budget rule. now we they will go through is getting the pretense of the score. >> if we paid healthcare reform, it only pays for its repeal. >> this bill threatens to

increase the burden and debt our nation faces. i will go to you dr. price. second question for mr. andrews. it's my understanding under the affordable care act, this effects members of congress. members of congress ought to be purchasing insurance through exchange. my using if this republican bill passes, members of congress will get the government healthcare that they have historically gotten? >> the law states, the only people in america who must joining the ex-- join the exchange are members of congress. if this is repealed, the members of congress will stay in the federal employee health benefit plan. members of congress would in

fact stay in the hstb. one thing that is misstated about this bill is that it does not apply to congress. >> this repeal will prevent members of congress from buying insurance like other american families and instead give them a government healthcare there are that's basically right. members of congress will have their health insurance through the federal employee health benefit plan. >> not exactly what my constituents were urging me to do. i'll go to representative price. >> thanks, i wanted to briefly comment about the budgetary issue. the reason the budgetary language is in the bill, that allows us to have the bill scored through cbo. it is standard language that is used for this piece of legislation. >> once it's 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 with the cbo. >> i understand why we're asking discussion after you pass the repeal. i thought the way we're suppose to do things, you find out how much something will cost and then you take a vote on it and people vote yes or no. it's extraordinary, maybe unprecedented that congress is about to make incredibly important decision. the majority would admit they have no idea whether this repeal adds or subtracts to the deficit. the last authoritative rule adds in excess of $200 billion to the deficit. i really fail to understand.

i yield back. >> mr. webster. thanks to all of you for being here. we greatly appreciate your testimony. we were planning to go to ms. schwartz next. we have three votes on the floor. you were here filling if i assume for questions. the next panel is the budget committee. the committee stands in in recess. what we'll do is, any members, you wish to testify -- any members wish to testify please come back. we'll begin at the beginning of the last vote on the floor. committee stands in recess. >> the rules committee voted to

send the bill repealing the healthcare law to the house floor.

>> coming up today on c-span. the u.s. house starts debate on a bill to repeal the 2010 healthcare law. over on c-span 2 at 8:00 eastern, coverage from the associated builders and contractors conference. speak ors includes house speaker john boehner and rob portman. on c-span 3, politico talks with the mayor of cities democratic and republican national conventions. coming up in 45 minutes on "washington journal," congressman tim murphy republican in pennsylvania, support for a bill repealing the 2010 healthcare law. at 8:30 eastern, more about the repeal bill, congressman