representation that was made to them, and it is their hope that this congress as part of that solution. i have every confidence that we can do this so that we can then patient- physicians to meet one another and have an absolutely terrific system without a government telling us what is right and what is wrong. i yield back. >> thank you. >> you allow me to participate in these very important hearings. to my friend and colleague, to join with the sunshine pulpit, and that is what all of us are, we have really tried hard to improve the quality of life for americans, and we have these hearings to see whether or not the storms or impediments, to see whether we are doing the right thing.

i want to welcome all of you to help us make certain that if we are on the wrong track, you can help us by improving the work we are doing. it is my basic understanding, that with the exception, the other four witnesses support repeal. you believe we are to get rid of this. i assume, out of the four, with the exception, right now, none of you have a small business. you do not make payrolls and you do not have responsibility for healthcare and pension benefits. is that correct? i would assume further you are not just volunteering your thoughts.

the three of you are experts in what you do, unlike mr. falk, and you get paid for what you do the same way doctors and lawyers get paid calling you lobbyists would not be a stigma but a label as to what your business is. am i correct in that assumption? >> no, i am not a lobbyist. a nonpartisan policy research institute. what i articulated, alternative to the affordable care act [indiscernible] >> you would not be here if you were supporting and trying to improve the health care. you are here basically -- your income is based on the fact that that is your professional position.

>> i would strongly disagree with you. >> do not disagree. just say what it is. >> my positions are on the record and i write them everyday on the internet. >> i am asking you whether you get paid for advocating your position. that is all. i do not doubt you are a professional. >> i do not get paid to advocate a particular position. >> when you were working for the person running for president, did you get paid for advocating a healthcare system within? >> i did not. >> you are a volunteer professional. >> i volunteered for the romney campaign. >> in the positions you take on health care, you do not get compensated? >> not for taking any particular position. >> what you are doing is volunteer contribution to help us understand your position. you are not a doctor, but you do have a professional position?

>> i have articulated my view about the affordable care act. >> you have done eloquently. it appears to me it is mr. falk's opinion that would help us understand what we have done. incidentally, my son is a marine. i cannot say anything unkind. i want to thank you guys in the marines for your service. but whatever they put in your water, i could understand you are just as excited about your business as you have been for serving our great country. i want to thank you for your service. with all of the people you hire, part-time and full-time, what is the breakout in that? i know you have more part-time than full-time. >> 15% of my employees are full timers by choice.

most of the people i employ are part-time employees. high schoolers and college kids, >> if you needed full-time, you would hire full-time. supply and demand. >> i offer them as many hours as they want. >> ok. you said those who work full- time, they get healthcare. >> i offer healthcare. >> they accept it? >> not all the time. it is because i am a nice guy. it is about providing an opportunity for my employees. i want to take care of them because they are valuable to me. >> time is expired. >> can i just ask one closing question? >> perhaps after. [laughter]uld be no.

>> you may have different views and different beliefs because you are here because you care about the issue, you are at committees in the issue. we are pleased you are here with us today. >> thank you. a macro question, if we can. since the enactment of obamacare to this point, when the employer mandate has been temporarily suspended for a year, what do you think the overall impact of the enactment has had on gdp growth? what is your thought on the impact of slow growth we have had in the gdp over the past few years relative to the implementation or the proposed implementation of this enactment? what impact on the decisions, our job creators, relative to

the decisions to hire and expand? >> i do not think i have seen an academic estimate of that. it is a subjective response i will have to give. there has been a lot of information coming through the system, even at the federal reserve level, where they noted employers have responded to the incentive of the healthcare law by limiting the hiring. the direction is clear -- it is negative. the size and quantity of it, that is harder for me to put a number on that. there have been many reasons why the economy has performed poorly. this is one of the reasons. >> i would add what we have seen is a substantial shift from full-time to part-time employment. we have record high numbers of people who are part-time workers

and lower numbers of full-time workers. that is a transition i would expect to continue as small employers wrestle with the mandate. another reason why it would be great policy to repeal the employer mandate. >> we keep data and produce it monthly on the status of small business economy, and it has been clear over the last few years things have not gone well. the difficulty is trying to pull out what is the macro economic issues from the problems put forward by obamacare. we cannot tear them apart as to which is which. it has had impact on their general view of the requirements before them.

we have some data suggesting recently they are becoming concerned about political issues increasingly rather than economic issues. political is a very wide term. >> mr. falk, you indicated you think it is important to provide health insurance to your full- time employees and you also indicated part-time employees are offered the opportunity to work more hours if they want to. does that working more hours at some point lend to the prospect you might get to a point where you would hit the 50 full-time employee threshold? if so, what that means in terms of your ability to conduct your businesses, your 12 units? >> definitely it is i have taken

into consideration. i do not think i will go over that threshold immediately. >> what has been happening with your current insurance amy adams ins -- insurance or the health insurance providing? has that steady and has that gone down? >> it is true. it is not a myth my insurance premiums that we share the premium on, it cost them more and me more every year. >> could that be tied to the continuing pressures of the obamacare requirements that the health-insurance industry continue to pay billions of dollars to the federal government each year and it is passed onto employers to pay those premiums, the lifting of the policy cap, part of the enactment, the extension of coverage to those, do you think all of those factors continue under obama care lend themselves to increasing premiums for the

job creator on the street? >> i do not know. mr. rangel was good at pointing out all of these panel members were experts on health care. they have until july to get 12 businesses up and running and there is a website they can go to figure it out. i am sure they would be overwhelmed. this takes up all of my time right now. >> thank you. i appreciate it. >> i want to commend you. this is a remarkably important topic as we move forward with the calamity confronting the country right now. republicans are for positive health reform, reform that recognizes patients and families and doctors ought to be making medical decisions and not washington, d.c.

i would encourage my friend to take a peek at it and embrace positive solutions. this was talked about being all about politics. you talk about politics. here is an announcement from the administration coming out a blog post from the irs. we have governance by blog post, that delays the reporting requirements for employers for a year that happens to fall after the 2014 election. talk about politics. i would encourage my friends to open their eyes to the political activity of the administration. you said, "if you actually care" you would throw more money at this program. with all due respect, if the individuals who wrote this law

"actually cared" about the health care of this country, they might have investigated the consequences for the physicians taking care of those patients. they might have talked to folks trying to run a business and create jobs, instead of doing what we have clearly identified and it has been admitted to by folks on the other side of the aisle when they are honest behind closed doors, this was not supposed to be the final product. it does not change the law one iota. mr. falk, i want to commend you for what you are trying to do out there to navigate the remarkable waters of this destructive law. you mentioned in response to mr. thompson, you said, there was concern about getting information. you were having difficulty doing that, and he did not allow you to respond.

i would like to give you an opportunity. >> one of the things i wanted to respond to him about, i have been to conventions and we have had a briefing about health ear every time but every time it is different. the target continues to move. with every new policy or extension or consideration they are giving to someone else, i still do not know what to do. he is right. there is a website out there. healthcare.gov. it just got announced publicly a couple weeks ago. i understand that. i will look up all the information i can. i am engaged. i do all of these events and conferences on business. 75% of small-business owners probably have no idea what is going on. they do not know about healthcare.gov. >> it is a wonderful, beautiful site, but does nothing to assist you. when you spend all this time trying to comply with government regulations like this and rules that are incomprehensible, what are the consequences to your business and job creation?

>> these guys are experts but are not creating any jobs. i am trying to grow my business. i am fortunate enough to be a large enough small-business owner that i have an administrative assistant but i do not have a government relations person on my staff like microsoft has. i have to shoulder all of these burdens to find out what is going on with health care and how much it will affect me and my employers and my business. my business provides me an income for my family, the profit that i make. if the costs continue to take out the profit, i will decide to close out my lower performing units because they will not make enough money and it will take jobs away. >> exactly. mr. roy, i want to touch on the

point you are making on workers. i have had employers tell me they are decreasing the number of full-time to part-time workers because of this law. 322,000 increase in part-time workers to 8.2 million in june. can you describe consequences happening in the real world, bringing about increasing part- time workers and how destructive that is to jobs? >> we have heard talk about what the right thing to do is or what employers do if they care. we have not heard a lot about what the incentives are. they are clear. it is to structure part-time workers so they do not have to offer coverage to part-time workers. >> thank you. >> thank you. i want to mention. we have two chambers in our area.

about 2000 each. 90% are 50 employees or less. i was very active with them. 137,000 businesses. in that chamber. 93% or less, 50 employees or less. the number one issue in the last 13 years or 15 years, the number one issue is the rising cost of healthcare. in our area, we had one employer that has been somewhat successful. his cost last year went up $1.5 million. the other end of the spectrum, when we do town halls, we all do town hall meetings, one woman stood up and said, i have six employees and my health care costs has gone from $1000 to $2000 for a family of four. that is the thing that is crazy. it is unbelievable.

they said they would cut the cost 25%, and i'm just looking at a reality with a lot of businesses that if they get their bill every year -- if pharmacists will came at 27% increase. he negotiated out 12%. the employees are kicking in more and the coverage is not quite as good so they get it down to 12%. that is a reality. this is doing nothing to bend the cost of healthcare, even though it was supposed to come down 25%. i want to go to one point you make, and that is the uncertainty that people are feeling about not growing and not creating jobs. you said healthcare costs are going to double or triple. how did you say how healthcare costs are going up substantially, and give me more background on where you get your information from. >> health insurance is increasing for everyone but it will increase for people who shop for themselves, the

individual or non-group market. that is where the affordable care act heavy regulation will drive up the cost of the insurance plans of the market by two to three times for some workers and on an average -- you period period >> you are saying a worker might pay what now and what they will pay in the future? >> in california, where i have done extensive research, the average increase for runs of civilized individuals will increase by about 70%. >> that is what i'm hearing. i want to applaud you because we need to be competitive in this country with china and india, more people willing to take risks, more people willing to sign a note at the bank, so i applaud you and what you are doing. you said something about planning. everybody, i have always done some kind of planning.

one of the factors is his cost going forward for employees. it used to be 22% someone said. now you hire someone for $50,000, almost 40% in terms of his experience. in terms of your business, how many jobs have you not created or businesses you might not have opened as a result of dealing with the uncertainty? >> from 1998 to 2008, about 1.5 locations per year on average. i have opened up to locations and that was just last year. i would say i probably could have opened up another six to eight locations. as i get bigger, i can probably move more aggressively as i get bigger, i have chosen not to do that because of the uncertain

economy and the regulation changes that happened with taxation and everything else. it is the most important regulation right now that is on my mind. >> i was going to mention you said multiple entities. is that a huge issue, or is that in a list of five or six things, is that at the bottom of the list? a lot of people, they own a is business, his family related or the son owns a business, and they are very good turned about the uncertainty. >> we do not know exactly how big it is. i call it a sleeper issue because we just do not know exactly how much, how broad this extends. of all small businesses that have 20 or more employees, only 35% have a single owner and most have multiple owners.

then you talk about business owners, and 39% of them own multiple businesses. they do this in combinations. >> your time has expired. >> thank you. >> you are welcome. mr. smith is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i know you have great respective and expertise on both sides of the issue. these discussions are healthy and need to be had. we know the american people want our health care system to work and there is growing skepticism the more it gets involved and the more expensive it becomes, and people can be harmed. that is a growing concern, one i think we all share. mr. jos, you are an expert on the healthcare bill. i appreciate that. you probably study that a great deal. this component we have discussed here today, we are told is not ready for enforcement. do you think there are other components that might share the

same view of yours? are there other parts that perhaps you think need to be delayed as well? >> i think the administration is in triage mode. they do not have the resources to implement all of the provisions on time. >> it is a lack of resources? >> much is. another part is the way this law is intended to be implemented, the states would take much of the responsibility. for political reasons, the states have declined to do that. i think they are under a lot of pressure and are trying to decide what needs to be done right now and what can wait. there have been other provisions. another that relates to business is nondiscrimination. which says that for businesses who are insured, they cannot offer a better package to their

highly compensated employees. that raises a lot of difficulty issues, which we could probably spend another hearing talking about. that position fortunately says nothing happens until they put out regulation. they are trying to put that out. they do not talk to me anymore than they talk to you, but i think they decided they are going to focus on what is essential, which is the premium tax credits, the individual mandate to keep the insurance markets from collapsing, getting the exchanges up and running. >> when you say the premium tax credits, is that the small business tax credit i constantly hear from folks back home, that it is so complex? >> this is the individual tax credit. the small business tax credit is already out there. >> do you feel there are a lot of small businesses eager to take advantage of that?

>> a nonprofit that my wife is on the board of has taken advantage of that and found it allows them to extend insurance to their employees. you are right. many have found it is limited to very small businesses with lower wage employees. i think the administration is moving ahead with the resources and the time they have to do the essential, to get health insurance to those uninsured and who need healthcare. >> thank you. mr. dennis, if you could reflect on the small business perspective on the small business tax credit. the feedback i get is it is much more hassle than it is worth and as to the complexity of our over complex tax code. >> yes. the small business tax credit, i

do not want to call it totally a fiasco, but it has not done very much. part of the reason was is that it was not structured very well. it is complex. the second one is, it is a bait and switch in the sense it brings you in and gives you credit for a while and after a while it goes way. it gives you this incentive to make an obligation, if you will. once you have made the obligation and it has gone on for a year or two, then it is gone. so, it has not been successful in the sense of very few businesses have taken advantage of it. there have been a few businesses that have taken advantage of it. in all likelihood, they would have been offering healthcare

anyway. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. kelly is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i thank the panel for being here. i am a small business person. but i think, when you look at this whole activity taking place now, and i think the piece that is missing most is the relationships you build with the folks working for you. being an employer and having associates, we had 100 and people at any given time. the relationship is a lot different. it's not a front-end machine. it is a person. what we are talking about today is people. is it fair for everybody? does it make sense for the american people? is it providing what it was supposed to provide? now the infrastructure is being delayed.

it is not being walayed, it is being delayed. people need to understand, you as an individual, you are a good guy. and i am sure the people you pay, they think i'm a good guy, but only if i could pay them. they were for me because they can provide for their families. this piece of legislation has made it so difficult for people that get up every day and walk into their business, that have to worry about payday and have to worry that you have to sign the front half of the checks are your employee can sign the back half of the check and that better be able to work. what is missing here, and i find it unusual and outfit running $17 trillion in the red is able to sit down and give anybody business advice. give me a break.

most of the businesses we run are not only family-owned but they are family operated. i've got to tell you, i have been to baptisms and first communions and weddings and i have been to funerals. we follow each other the whole way through life. these are people. these are people we get to know. they are part of who we are and that is what makes us successful. this law separates you. you are no longer able to be the good guy. you are a guy now keeping them from attaining something because the government mandated it be done. now, you do not have to worry about that. why? it is not because small business asked for it -- give me -- be honest about this. i think the american people have witnessed this and they now know if it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, this is a duck. it is a bad piece of legislation that has not served its purpose.

if you like your duck, you can keep it. if you want to sit down, i am 65, and if i want to decide what my medical future is, forget that. that will not happen. now, the individual mandate is still in place. because you live with these folks, you work with them every day, and you work how many hours a week? >> 80. >> and i know, on fourth of july. we are open on fourth of july, too. it is not just about that. you run your own business, and it does not matter whether it is the first or the second 12. but you live it. that is my point. we have driven a wedge between you and the people who work with you, for you, and toward your mutual success. tell me how hard it is. there is so much uncertainty with this. this is what makes it difficult. we do not know tomorrow what else they would hold back on.

>> it is not just there is regulatory uncertainty because the law makes so many dramatic changes. it is also that the regulations have been coming out piece by piece and contradicting each other. this is not even about small businesses, but states, the states trying to roll out these exchanges. usually democratic states. the democratic states, the directors are saying, we designed the exchange and built it and then the hhs comes around and changes the regulation and we have to go back and start over and rebuild our systems from scratch. that has happened so many times over the last 12 months that at a certain point, a lot of these say we give up and we will like ignore hhs and if we do not, we will not meet the deadline. it is not merely the law is poorly designed and businesses

are facing this. state governments are facing this because the law is so complex and this is exhibit a. >> it is about the relationship that exists between the owner of the businesses and those who work with them. both parties participate and both parties benefit. it will be hard. >> time has expired. this has been an eye-opening discussion. clearly, we need to get real answers from the treasury department and we will do so next week. we will have 14 days. i have asked witnesses to respond in a timely manner. thank you again. the committee is adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

quacks at the daily white house reporters briefing, questioned jay carney. period period >> what authority did the white house decides to implement that law a year later than the law it elf calls for? >> our experts can provide the specifics for you on this. >> i highly recommend any issue, finding examples of rules and labors and that kind of thing. this is not an unusual process. him him

this is the cry, the hollering you hear is reflective of a political and partisan effort? >> you are talking about the republican effort to complain about listening to business, to postpone the deadline that affects 4% of businesses with 50 or more employees. when they have done everything they can to undermine the law from day one. they do not want to see it implemented. they have made that clear. you can pretend this is about tom harkin, but you know it is not. the fact is, we have demonstrated since the passage of the affordable care act that we will make improvements where the improvements make sense. we will be flexible in its implementation were being flexible makes sense everybody

who has written about this has noted the comparison to a passage that was a top priority of president george w. bush when it came to domestic policy. it passed and a lot of democrats opposed it and it passed and democrats did not want it passed and engaged in efforts to undermine it every step of the way. instead, once it became law, they engaged in an effort to make sure the people they represented enjoyed the benefits of the law. i suspect most constituents who would get insurance for the first time in their lives or the first time in a long time, if they are made aware of the possibility of enrolling in the marketplaces would expect their representatives, their senators, democratic or republican, would help them in the process, rather than doing everything they can to prevent their constituents from enjoying the benefits of the act. >> if the white house could simply decide to delay the implementation of certain aspects of bills to be passed.

>> people who suggested, if there is anything unusual about the delaying of the deadline, the implementation of the complex and competence of law, they are deliberately sticking their heads in the sand or are willfully ignorant about past precedent. it is not serious. we are going about the business of implementing this law in a way that maximizes the benefits available to the american people, that minimizes the difficulties in the implementation process, and we will keep at it. >> also on wednesday, senate republicans held a news conference about the decision to delay parts of the healthcare law and it began with john. >> good afternoon, everybody. thank you for joining us today. i will be followed on the

program here by john cornin, the policy chairman, and senator jerry moran, the chair of the and rsc. the obama administration was forced to admit this last week, that obamacare is not working as was advertised, and they announced they would delay the employer mandate. democrats are endorsing delaying a key component of obamacare to protect businesses from the log they defend. we are glad they are acknowledging the onerous and costly burden, but we believe it is past time the president acknowledges the burden placed on everyday americans, and those already struggling to make it in this sluggish economy. if democrats to believe businesses deserve relief from obamacare, what about the rest of america? i was joined by my colleagues

in sending a letter to president obama urging him to permanently delay the implementation of obamacare for all americans. it continues to crush jobs growth and it is past time for the administration to listen to the concerns of americans who are struggling. in june, we saw the involuntary saw the involuntary part-time unemployment numbers increase by 322,000 due in part to the obamacare mandates. republicans believe we must prevent the house of cards from falling on american families, not just businesses rather than a partial delay for some, america needs a permanent delay for all. >> thank you, senator thune, for leading this. for those who believe obamacare

would provide access to quality health care for all americans, the fact is it has not lived up to the billing. and, on some very fundamental issues, like saving costs, the president said the average premiums for a family of four would go down by $2500. that is not the case. premiums are estimated to go up dramatically when obamacare is fully implemented. he said if you like what you have, you can keep it. well, that is clearly not going to be the case because employers will be incentivized to drop their employer-provided coverage and then their employees will go into the state and federal-based exchanges, which are subsidized by the american taxpayer and the cost will balloon. what we are suggesting that, if it makes sense to delay the implementation of obamacare for employers, the penalty they

would have to pay if they did not provide coverage for employees, that it makes perhaps even more sense to delay the additional cost and the punitive impact of implementation of obamacare for individuals. 319 million people in the united states, they believe, they deserve a break from this legislation. again, it was something many of us had predicted. many of those who supported the passage of obamacare have had to now think twice about it. we have seen the repeal of the 1099 requirement. we have seen 79 senators have voted on a budget resolution. provided to repeal the medical device tax because of its negative impact. we have seen the impact on full- time employment has been dramatic and many employers are hiring people on a part-time rather than full-time basis.

finally, the participation rate, the number of people participating in jobs is at a 30 year low. this has had a negative impact. some might say unintended. others might say an unpredictable impact, but one that demands the administration delay the implementation of this onerous legislation for at least one year on consumers, and that is why i'm here to support it. >> the reason we wanted to work on health care reform, and it was something i was very concerned about, was the cost of care.

that is what the american people were looking for in health care, dealing with the cost of care. that is one of the president's original promises, that the cost would drop for a family by 2500 dollars and within his first year, in his first term as president. instead, we are seeing the prices go up significantly. this past friday, on july 5, they have come out with 606 more pages of regulation. you have seen the seven-foot- tall tower of regulations. they have added another 606 pages, and it will continue to raise the cost. the cost of care for families and insurance for families and that is what the american people are finding and what they believe. the other worst part is they believe it will lessen the quality of their own care. for every one person that thinks this healthcare law will help them, two people think it will hurt them in terms of their cost and quality of the care and that is why the healthcare law continues to be unworkable.

i will tell you that as a doctor. it continues to be unaffordable, and it is very unpopular. the law is unraveling. one of the threats to that was the president and the delay of a year announced. that was for the business component. we need to extend the delay for every individual so they do not have to live under the mandates of the president's healthcare law. we need to get back to the fundamentals of what we were looking for in healthcare reform, which is what people wanted, which is the care they need from a doctor they choose at a lower cost. all of those promises by the president have been broken. that is why we need to repeal the healthcare law and build it a step by step way the solutions to get the american people what they are looking for for health reform. >> it is interesting so many of the president's advocates have talked about how brilliant this is to put this off until after the 2014 elections.

if the road to the new healthcare plan the president signed into law three years ago is such a good road to go down, why would he not want voters to know about it? for 3.5 years, almost no regulation before the election in 2012. as soon as the election is over, within 90 days, there are 20,000 pages of regulations. if this is so good, why not let people know about it before and not after the election? and advocates in the last few days have said politically brilliant. put this off, have the election in 2014 without people knowing any more than they have to know about the new path we are on in healthcare. it is a path not working. one thing after the other, discarded. long-term care provision, the class act. i do not remember when the secretary said, this will not work.

i do remember most of us said it would not work when the bill was being debated. they did not try to implement that even though the law says, that is part of the law. the law also says the employer provisions will go into effect, january 1, 2015. they say, no, we will not do that. the small business exchanges, no, we cannot get that ready by the date we're supposed to have them ready. that will be another year. 3.5 years ago, the law was signed into effect. 3.5 years ago, executing the law became the responsibility of the president of the united states. now, every single election, we say, we really cannot put this information out there, or we cannot fulfill this part of the legal requirement until after the people have voted again.

they know people will not like it when they see it. if they thought people would like it, it would be out there. the other thing, besides waiving the employer requirement, they waived the income verification requirement. you all remember that up to 400% of poverty, you get assistance in buying some of your individual insurance. now you self verify what your income is. there is no way that is a reasonable way to ask people to qualify for a new benefit. you say what you think your income will be with no way to verify that? in many ways, that might be a bigger announcement made at the same time than the announcement that employers do not have to comply. our view is nobody should have to comply with this flawed law until it is improved or we find a better course to go down. senator thune's letter that

calls for a permanent delay is the right thing to do. let's get started again. let's make the best healthcare system in the world work better rather than head down a path that apparently the administration does not want voters to know before any given election where that takes us. >> thank you for joining us. i appreciate the comments of my colleagues. i am here as the ranking republican on the labor health and education appropriations subcommittee. we mark up the bill in full committee tomorrow. among a series of amendments i will offer to that bill are two i want to talk about today. i will offer an amendment that no money can be used to enforce the mandate on business within the affordable care act. i will offer an amendment that

says no money can be spent in this bill to enforce the individual mandate. first of all, we ought to give the opportunity for folks to weigh in on the president's decision to delay the business aspect of the mandate secondly, if businesses will receive relief from this onerous record- keeping time-consuming uncertainty, then individual families, our constituents, the folks back home up to have the same opportunity. delaying the implementation of the business mandate ought to be accompanied by the delay of the individual mandate. because of the president's decision to delay the business mandate, because they admit it is unworkable, it creates greater complications for individuals trying to make decisions having to comply with the individual mandate. it was mentioned the self verification, no question, it creates a significant

increase in opportunity for fraud and abuse in the system, that people announced what their income is to determine how much of a subsidy they need. there will be more individuals who need to comply with the individual mandate because there will be fewer businessess providing insurance for their employees. premiums will increase so insurance will become more expensive as a result of the decision to delay the business mandate and exchanges, according to the government accounting office, will not be up and running in time for individuals to access insurance through the exchanges. because of the year-long delay in the mandate on businesses, the burden falls more heavily than it otherwise would have upon individuals and families. tomorrow, we will have the opportunity to take the first step toward trying to change this damaging piece of

legislation that does not solve the individual or business problems they have in acquiring insurance for their families, themselves, or for their employees. it is becoming more clear the affordable care act, obamacare, fails to accomplish its intended purposes. tomorrow, we will have the opportunity to vote to delay the individual and the business mandate as we begin the process of trying to salvage a healthcare system that can actually benefit the american people. thank you. >> questions? >> i know, if you guys were running the show, this would never have become law, but short

of that, whether it is temporary or permanent delay, whether you like them or not, i know a number of your colleagues asked to look into the cost implications. can you talk about that? delaying them would add to the deficit or debt, or would you say it is worth it if we can save americans from these onerous burdens? >> i get my colleagues to give their thoughts, but my view is anything we can do to delay the impacts of this on the american people is a good thing. while we all acknowledge delaying the employer mandate for a year is a good thing, the individual mandate is set to kick in on the first of next year and that will hit 6 million americans with a $1200 tax increase. inevitably, you will see as many of my colleagues have noted, premiums going up as a result of the mandates in the legislation. i think we would love, in a perfect world, that we were not here. we think there is a better way to do this.

we are where we are. anything we can do in a significant or substantial way to delay the implementation of a bad piece of legislation that will adversely impact the american economy and jobs and raise health insurance premiums for people all across the country would be a good thing. the house will vote this week on delaying the individual mandate for a year. i support that. we were talking about permanent delay. we will like to see the thing delayed completely for everybody. the administration is coming to the conclusion even more, you had some colleagues describe this thing as a train wreck. i think the administration is coming to the conclusion, this will be difficult to implement and they want to take the parts hardest to implement and create the most amount of pain, the penalties on employers, and put that off, but hang the benefits out there to try to get people addicted to the good things they

think are in the bill. we think the individual mandate will cost people a lot of pain. there are a lot of other provisions in the bill, as well. >> can you talk a little bit about what you are planning tomorrow? >> beyond what i said? those two amendments will be front and center. in our legislative effort to amend the labor appropriations bill. in addition, i will offer an amendment that will defund the death panel, and transfer the money to be utilized for children's health research. we will offer an amendment to eliminate the $1.4 billion in the bill to fund the exchanges. 33 states declined to create their own exchange. this was not accounted for in the original affordable care act.

last year, in the continuing resolution, we provided no increase in money for that purpose. the department of health and human services found the necessary money to do so. we will utilize the money that would come from the passage of that amendment to increase the support for nih, the health research. what i would say is in this time of significant fiscal challenges, in which we are trying to accomplish a number of things in the appropriations process, the committee should not be paying for the mandates under the affordable care act, when we recognize that the affordable care act is falling apart, train wreck to implement. we ought to be using the opportunity to fund the things we know could actually make a difference in the affordability of healthcare and increase the chances americans are healthier.

the appropriations process is the appropriate place for us to establish the priorities. the priorities are to do things that increase the health of americans, and not to increase the burden, the paperwork, the bureaucracy that comes from the affordable air cap -- care act and obamacare. i would expect democrat support and would welcome it. >> a follow-up on the appropriations issue more broadly. one of your senate republican colleagues said yesterday, if congressional democrats want to oppose the appropriations bill without additional obamacare funding, shut down the government. are any of you prepared for the level that, unless obama is defunded, we should have a

government shutdown? >> first of all, we are a long way from september 30. secondly, what we need to see for the first time in six years is for the appropriations process to actually work. produce a bill, amend it on the floor, decide if this idea that we only spend the amount of money we spent last year and then subject it to sequestration is not the way to do business. i think all of the discussions are premature and i hope the new chairman of our committee and the new ranking member senator shelby will be doing everything they can to make the process work right away. if it does, there will be plenty of opportunities to amend the bill on the floor in any way any member of the senate wants to. >> how would you propose to delay the mandate and address the requirement of people with preconditions?

>> they do not. asked senator thune said, the administration is trying to put themselves in the position where the benefit -- the penalties go away until after the election, and the penalties provided quite a bit of the funding to provide the resources for people to have assistance to buy their insurance, but they have made the other side of that equation where they're giving money away much easier to qualify for by just telling people you can sell for verify. there is no irs check, there is no -- i do not even know if there are any penalties if you verify wrong. say, i made $80,000 west year as a family, which is about the cap him around 80 thousand dollars, $90,000 for a family of four. this year, i think i will make about $40,000. then you get the benefit as a family making $40,000, when really you may be making a lot more than that. nobody believes that self verification means fewer people apply or you spend less money. so the greatest of all political

moments, you try to get -- you try to eliminate the penalties and do everything you can to exaggerate the amount of taxpayer dollars ago to people who who want to sell for verify their income and buy insurance, but none of these proposals pre- deal with the crux of existing conditions. we think we should actually suspend this bill. there are too many parts of this now that don't work. it is like trying to ride a bicycle with one wheel. there may be a few people that are good at that, but not very many people are good at that. so as the thing falls apart, one piece of the bicycle falls apart, then another piece, we have got to get a new bicycle. this thing is not going to work. somebody is going to get hurt. i think that what is going to happen is people who are going to get hurt are people who need healthcare and healthcare insurance, not people who need to be part of some experiment that is half-baked. >> if it'd get repealed or

delayed, there are ways in which you can deal with the issue of existing conditions, and we acknowledge that. that is an issue that would have to be dealt with. we got good solutions out there. republican solutions to that. >> thank you all very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> everybody did a great job, by the way. jeanne-span today, kirkpatrick -- "washington journal" is with your phone calls. at about -- in about 45 minutes, congressman kevin beatty, chairman of the house ways and means committee, will discuss the obama administration's

decision to delay the employer mandate in the affordable care act. we will also talk with house foreign affairs member ranking member eliot engel. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] host: welcome to "washington this thursday, july 11, 2013. the house votes today on a farm bill split in half with subsidies for farmers but without reauthorization of the food stamp program. there are still questions about the note loan rates also pending. yesterday, house republicans met behind closed doors to talk about immigration reform. "the new york times" headline on line is republicans in the house resist overhaul for immigration. we would like to get your response to this story. a