question in my view of whether or not the republicans are serious about wanting to cover the people. if you don't want single payer and you don't want an individual mandate, you don't want a system that works. it's just that simple. and we might as well take it down to the floor, and we'll vote no and you'll vote yes, and it will die somewhere in the black hole between here and the senate. thank u. >> thank you very much, mr. mcdermott. you really opened a lot of questions to me. you talk about everybody in. is this what the obama care does? everybody's in? >> obama care takes -- it gets about 70% or 80% of the people who are not covered today will be covered. that's not everybody. i wish we had -- i would like single payer system where everybody in the country was covered, everybody paid taxes,

and when you were sick you went down. that's what every industrialized country in the world has done except the united states. we decided we would try this individual mandate business. and we'll see how it works. i think we'll ultimately come to a single payer system. but that's myelief about the ultimate course of this. because i don't think when you stop -- when you start fighting erybody being in, you are simply saying, you want some people to get it for free. and that's not fair. you call this the fairness act. well, it is not fair for people to get it free if they have the ability to pay. and if you have the ability to pay, you should be paying. and that's -- i think that's the only way it's going to work. >> mr. young, he's arguing that republicans designed this plan. now he's saying, well, this plan doesn't have everybody in but isn't it true they have penalties for those that choose

not to get in? >> that's right. >> the plan was designed for everybody not to be in, which he claims is the frailty othe syem. >> that's right. that's what our supreme court has characterized as as a tax. all we're doing in this bill, it's a matter of fairness. and you'll hear that throughout my testimony here. the president has proposed offering some relief to businesses, large businesses with respect to the employer mandate. and we just think that the same sort of tax relief, especially during these down times and great uncertainty about implementation of this law, the same sort of relief ought to be offered to individual working americans. and so despite all the otr issues that my good colleague who's thoughtfully presented and quite passionately, won't surprise folks that we don't agree on every one of tho points. but netheless, my testimony here is going to be focused fairly narrowly on these two

pieces of legislation, not the broader health care debate, but instead the equity, the fairness of allowing this delay -- which incidentally i think is appropriate for employers at this point -- but allowing it for employers but not allowing it for rank and file americans. and i'm open to and i suspect i'll hear some counter points with respect to that in the course of this hearing. and that'shy we do these things publicly. so i think that will be healthy. >> mr. mcdermott, why did the president announce that they were backing off this implementation? >> i think it was his judgment after listening to business complain -- i mean, once again funny to me is the republican party is against the president asking or responding to business. business complained about having to report. the president listened to them said, all right, i'll give you a year. but you're going to have to

start doing it next year. i don't know why. i was not privy to those conversations. i didn't listen to them. i think that there is obviously starting any social program as big as this, that's to affect 30 million people, is not going to be without its glitches. there will be glitches, i don't care what we do. when the republicans started the drug benefit, part d of medicare, there were glitches all over the place about people getting in and did they know how to choose which program and everything else. but we got it up and running and it's running now. and it's working just fie. and that's the way this bill will be. it's going to go into effect. i think the thing that -- i understand why the republicans are troubled. they know that this is going to start on january 1 no matter what we do on the floor of the house. the individual mandate will be in because the president isn't going to repeal it.

the insurance reform, guaranteed issue, is already in children are covered to the age of 26 on their parents. we've already got insurance companies giving rebates to people because they are not spending all the money they take in on health care. they're doing it for -- they're making more profit. we are all kinds of ways in which this bill is already in effect. and there really is no way for the republicans to stop it at this point. i understand the frustration on your side. but i think that this is a very poorly chosen one. because it goes at the heart of whether you really want anything to work. because if you take away the individual mandate, you're really saying you don't want anything to work. >> you know what's interesting is, i think that the american people recognize it isn't going to work. and i think business had a loud voice. it sounds like to me that the

american people that, this president has not been listening to them. and it's not surprising when you do the things where you quit listening to the american people, it's amazing the things that -- gentleman mr. young? >> all right. just briefly, mr. chairman, to build on a remark you just made, i think it's good that the president listened to business in this case. and so i do want to commend him for that. i think procedurally there was flaw in the fact that heidn't work with congress. and that's why we're sanctioning that act in the employer mandate delay bill here. but with respect to listening to the american people, rank and file americans that are hurting during these difficult times, a recent poll suggests that 12% of americans support obama care's e individual mandate. so i wish the president, i wish

this entire body and folks on both sides of the aisle -- i'm hopeful this has a bipartisan vote -- but i wish we would listen to that % that are not happy with the individual mandate. >> ms. fox? >> thank you, mr. chairman. there's a lot that needs to be said about the comments that have beemade here today. but there's so little time. you know, i've looked at this statement of administration policy. and i find it petty remarkable that the president himself wants to delay the mandate for businesses and then says that hr 2667 is unnecessary, that hr 2668 would raise health

insurance priums and increase the number of uninsured americans. my understanding before obama care was passed and we had pretty good data on this, that there were approximately 10 million americans whoanted insurance but could not afford insurance. i know the numbers that were bandyed about were higher than that. but when you broke them down on the number of peoplewho are eligible for medicaid, eligible for insurance through their employers, the number of people who were illegal aliens who were not americans, when you took those out ofhe mix you really came down to about 10 million americans. when mr. mcdermott talked about how many people are still

uninsured, would be uninsured under obama care, i remembered i had read that cbo said that under obama care 30 million nonelderly americans will remain without health insurance in 2022. it's an article in cns news. and mr. chairman, i'd like to put this into the record if i could. >> without exception. >> so before obama care, there were approximately 10 million americans who wanted insurance but couldn't afford to get it. under obama care, that number goes up to 30 million americans. and there's another article in the "washington post," june 7, 2013, it says analysis by the

journal health affairs. and one of the coauthors, stephy woolhandler said even if the law were fully implemented there woulhave been 26 million uninsured people under obama care. so i find some of the statements that our colleague from the state of washington is making pretty remarkable in terms of saying how many people are going to be covered, how many people e going to be not covered. i also wonder, mr. mcdermott, if you just consider the whole congress irrelevant. because that's what you're saying. yo know, the president can't pick and choose which laws he wants to implement and which ones he doesn't. he has been doing that. and we've been dealing with that on a case--case basis.

but for you to say that 2667 is irrelevant tells me you think you're irrelevant and that the congress is irrelevant. i'm not sure why you're still here if you think the congress is irrelevant. i don't think the congress is irrelevant. i think article 1, section 1n the constitution means something. i believe the founders intended for the congress to be the most powerful branch of government. and i think that most people think that. anyou say everybody who's looked at 2667 says it doesn't matter? well, i'm here to tell you not everybody thinks that. and i think you'll see with the vote that we have on the floor that not everybody thinks that it doesn't matter. you talked about the employer

mandate wasn't really essential in obama care? that it would leave -- only 5% of the people were not covered? well, you've made my point about the fact that very few people who really want insurance in this country are not being covered by insurance. so you made that point for us. you've also said the whole thing rests on everyone being in the system. and that's the kind of mandate that's not appropriate in this country in my opinion. and you also talk about fire insurance. and i find that analogy one of the most curious analogies that could be made to obama care. because i've often used the analogy of car insurance and

fire insurance. why we don't need the federal government involved in health care. because fire insurance, homeowner's insurance, that's handled at the state level. not a the federal level. and i point out to people, if you look at the rates for homeowner's insurance and car insurance, car insurance handled also at the state level, is it those rates haven't been going up 12%, 14%, over the last several years. in fact, in many cases those rates have gone down. so to make an anagy that we have to have mandated health care at the federal level because there's mandated fire insurance? i assume you mean homeowner's

insurance. there's just no comparison there. those things are handled at the state level. where they should be handled. and your last -- one of your last comments about the fact that there's a black hole somewhere between here and the senate? that is just too deliciousot to comment on. because there is a black hole. and the black hole is the democrat-controlled senate. because we pass great bills over here, and they do go into a black hole. and that black hole again is the democrat-controlled senate. so i think you've made our case here today for why we shouldn't have obama care to begin with. because it isn't an appropriate thing to be done at the federal

level when you talk about homeowner's insurance and you talk about car insurance programs that are very good programs that protect a lot of people. but they're handled at the state level. and their rates have not gone up significantly. and they're very well-run there at the state level. so i would say again that the comments that you've made go against all the things that you and your colleagues have stood for on obama care and the mandate that we do these things at the federal level. and again, i would say if you think you're irrelevant, you might want to think about why you're here and why you are engaged in our activities here in the congress. i don't think we're irrelevant. i think again the founders intended us to do our work.

and i think it's totally inappropriate that the president thinks that he can be congress and president. because he's overstepped his bounds, i think, in this area. now, we may by passing this delay in the mandate help out our constitutional problem here. but it's not because we want to help the president. it's because we in the congress should be doing the right thing. that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you very much, gentlemenwoman from new york's recognized. >> it may be relevant here or not to point out that the reason we did health care is that health care was almost 20% of gdp and rising. and we simply could not afford

it anymore. and what this plan has done and everybody kept saying nobody knows what's anytime. the democrat caucuses read it three times line by line. we know it is going to save money. the hospitals are already changing in many cases th way they provide care. they are all for it. they are all getting ready. many people with pre-existing conditions, and i know i've mentioned before the woman that i met in the campaign who had had cerebral palsy, born with it, and had never in her life, as a mother and a housewife and doing the driving and the cooking and all the things, around sharp objects and everything she did had never been insurable because of her pre-existing condition. and until she got to be 65, she had never known what it was like to have any health insurance. and i think that's very important.

people who ran into a lifetime cap because serus head injury could let you do that very quickly, and people who ran into the yearly cap, and one of the most important things i've done, as was alluded to, is 85% of the premium dollar now has to be used for insurance. and, frankly, while i've not been terribly offended because i want people covered, but you pointed out that each of us pays $1,000 a year more in uncompensated care. that would all begone. so i -- what in the world is so frightening about this bill? i don't know. but my state, i'm happy to say, is movg along, getting ready. we've got insurance companies and doctors and everybody out doing hearings all over the place and explaininging it to everybody. it's going to work in new york like it works in massachusetts,

and it has -- we've had a good experience in massachusetts. how well it's worked. but for some reason there's sort of a 19th century mind here. i seriously think that, you know, we have trouble with science and other things, that we're moving backwards. but the idea, i honestly think i could say this -- i've held, done most of the rules on the 37 votes so far. i could just put one of those statements on repeat, press the button, and leave the room. you know, we're here, and our job is to be here and to do this, anthis will be the 38th and the 39th time. and we will do the best that we can to try to explain it, but for goodness sakes, there must be something else this country cries out to see done and taken care of that the house of representatives can get around to. thank you. >> gentlewoman yields back her time gentleman from utah is recognized. gentleman has no questions.

gentleman from florida is recognized. >> mr. chairman, i agree with what was said. i done think anything any of us says is going to move the needle in either of our favors. i do find a few statements that dr. foxx made to be rather astonishing, and i suggest to you, dr. foxx, i do not know about north carolina, i really do not, but there are four of us that serve on the rules committee from florida, and on the subject of homeowner's insurance, and i might add and car insurance, i've owned a home off and on, maybe rented for a while, and then i owned a home and a double wide trailer, then a home, and i had to have insurance in each instance. and i don't know of a single

year over 50 years that i've lived in ft. laud eerdale that insurance has not gone up. i do agree with you that it is has not gone up 12 % or 14% in some instances, but if we were to take car insurance, most of the people and mr. webster would be better to this than i since he served in the florida legislature and i did not. but a whole lot of insurance companies after health insurance andrew just plain old skedaddled and weren't around anyre. then we created something called citizens. that taxpayers are paying for, and there's a substantial deficit and even citizens has had to have substantial increases in order to meet that test. automobile insurance, the same thing.

people that operate businesses operate for the purposes of having a profit. and toward that end, they look wherever they can to get that profit. and a lot of times it is that they don't want to run the added risk. senator graham and i long before former congressman klein and others came to congress, fought the battle of wd insurance. i don't understand what part all of these people in this congress do not understand that disasters are going to occur everywhere in america and around the world and that we need a specific committee in this congress that deals with it so that we don't have to wait for long periods of time to address floods or famine or any of the issues, earthquakes or fires, that we are confronted with on a regular

basis. i do have, mr. young, not knowing you, and hoping that i do get to know you over the course of time, i done know what you did before you came to congress. and would you be kind enough just to -- >> i would, indeed. i was a management consultant for a couple of years for an indiana-based company. i would go in and redesign business processes and try and -- i worked in particular with state and local governments so that we could provide more value to constituents at lower costs. something i think we ought to be focusing on here at the federal level and you'd agree. i was a small town attorney for a number of years. a part time, very part time deputy prosecutor in a rural community. and i was an officer in the united states marine corps. so i have a variety of different experiences, and i've studied a bit of mieconomics in my time, too. all of those experiences inform

this legislation. >> and you had health insurance all those times that you were in business and certainly when you were in the military? you were covered by the programs in the military, but just as a young attorney, and the other things that you did, youhad health insurance. >> my recollection is is that for the vast majority, at least, i had -- >> did you have any -- >> the vast majority of the time. >> did you have any time unless your insurance company provided an exception or a high deductible, did you have any time that your insurance went down? >> i did not which is the importance of -- and you would agree, the importance of doing health care reform the right way so that we actually control costs. i know you'd agree with tha point, and i won't be speaking at length, perhaps we could speak offline at length about how to best accomplish that, but what i do think there needs to

be some equity here. some fairness between how we treat businesses and how we treat individual working americans and so that's my purpose of this legislation. >> to have those continuing discussions. >> likewise. >> few of us make any attempts to really get to know each other, and that's half of the problem around this joint to begin with. but that said, i want to, again, join mr. mcder mont and indicate that i as well as three other members i know, and i havenknow slaughter, and i, all the years i've been here, advocate single payer. i came to congress advocating it. that's why i find such deep resentment in the fact that the word, or words, obama care have come in the minds of some in america to mean something

negative. when, in fact, all president obama and others that tried and failed to get health care for people who didn't have it or were trying to do was provide health care. so i've said, you weren't here, we really should call this thing hastings/obama care because i advocated universal health care before i knew barack obama's name. you understand? and so, and i know jim mcdermot did as well. i understand all the nuances to this. ththing that is distressing is more than anything the pre-existing condition area. i know that further delays are only going to cause added misery. there are people who are really,

really, like miss slaughter just said, really happy that now they can be covered. particularly people with little children who have conditions that they would not be insured on. and somehow or another, i just see it as our responsibility, whether it's 10 million, whether it's 30 million or 40 million. whatever figure you use. i just see us, if everybody is pulling together, us having a better way to come to the implementation of this law. and if not this law, what law? is what i continue to ask. i do not accept as gold, my chairman of this committee's reflection regarding what the republicans were ready to do. i'm here now, 21 years, and i haven't seen a republican plan yet that comes t the table and says that we will be able to cover all of these people in a

meaningful way. sometis wonder whether any of y'all have ever been to an emergency room or whether you've seen many of the physicians -- i find it interesting, doc, you're a physician. dr. burgess is a physician. i learned something by virtue of having to go to an emergency room the week before last here at the washington hospital center, and then later to go to the george washington university emergency room. and a physician there told me something that i did not know. and that is that all of the residents, residencies of physicians, is under the aegis of medicar he pointed out to me there's no blue cross, blue shield or aetna residence program in hospitals. yet i find physicians here in this institution that did their residencies under that aegis would want to get rid of medicare. i could go on and on. i'll leave it at that.

i am going to adamantly oppose this, and i do believe that mr. young is approaching it from the standpoint that i find reasonable, and that the very same time, quarrel wh the fact that we're going to have to get on with implenting this law, otherwise we're going to start all over again and have to implement something, otherwise i promise you erybody in this room that health care insurance is going to go up, and it isn't because insurance companies are bad people or hospitals or physicians are bad people. or that attorneys and malpractice are bad people. it is the nature of business that it goes up. i haven't had it go down any time in my life. anybody in here that had their insurance go down, raise your hand. thank you, m chairman. >> gentleman yields back. i thank the gentleman. i'd also like to be supportive of the comments that the

gentleman made in regard to us getting to know our colleagues. in particular, i believe if i could extend to the gentleman from florida that the gentleman, mr. young, who i have gotten to know and i know the gentleman from the state of washington has gotteno know him, we're occasionally together in the mornings maybe three or four days a week. it has offered that opportunity, and i would commend it to you, and i really respect your desire to do that, and i hope that he equally would accept that challenge, not just your side of the coin. and my knowledgef mr. wrung is he'll be very eager to do that. i've gotten to know some other members including the ntleman, mr. polis, a little bit better because of some opportunities we've had together. and i think it helped our relationship, al, also. so i admire you very much and hope the gentleman as a new member of this body, second termer, that he'll get a chance to do that. i thank the gentleman very much.

gentleman, you're recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate it. my friend, mr. hastings' point about hastings/obama care. it's my understanding they did consider that, but our colleague, doc hastings, really objected vehemently. so i thought it might put his seat in jeopardy. so they cked off at the last minute. i have a question about the underlying legislation because it really gets in this concept, then a couple of others. to refresh our memories, do either of you happen to know, one, roughly what, let's say, young person in good health, early 20s, early 30s, whatever you want to say, no problems. what health care would cough that individual that we're now mandating, have to get it? and two, what the fine is if they choose not to do that. >> i'd be happy to answer that. and there have been different estimates, but to be a bit

imprecise here, perhaps my good colleague from washington will want to be more precise in this regard, but several thousand dollars is what they can anticipate their cost being. the fine, $95 under this law upon implementation first year which would be january 1st if, in fact, we don't pass the bill i'm here to represent today. >> so, and if you disafr agreag that, mr. mcdermot -- >> if you're talking about the provisions of the law. >> yeah. >> the fine for an individual for the first year is 95% -- $95. $285 per family. up to 1% of their income. second year, $325 for an individual. $975 for a family. and in the third year, it would be $695 and ,085 for a family.

so it's graduated in. it's sort of saying, okay, if you want to sit out a year and watch this, that's fine. just pay your fine and you can go on down the road with no health insurance. that's fine. but you're going to pay something. everybody has a responsibility to pay, but we're going to raise the ante every year until you get the picture. >> well, you've laid out rational decision-making earlier in your comments about, you know, why wouldn't people just, you know, not do the insurance and make -- i fail to see how this fine is going to encourage people to do this anyway. if the rational thing, financially, is to say, hey, i can show up at any time and get the insurance. why not just pay the fine? >> well, if you didn't make an individual mandate and require that people be in, you could never cost this out. >> i'm ju suggesting is the

fine -- and asking, i guess, not suggesting anything -- but if people are going to behave, quote, rationally economically, which is what you suggested, it's still cheaper to pay the fine. much, much, much cheaper to pay the fine. so why won't they do that, and why won't they do that indefinitely? even with the gradual increase at the family and individual level,t's still cheaper to pay the fine than it is to go buy the insurance. so we either have this fine too low, or -- >> one of the things, you're old enough -- >> i'm very old. >> -- to know that there is a point where the wheels start fallinofthe wagon. now, for young people, they think the wheels will never fall off. a lot of people in this room who can't imagine that they would ever have big health care bills. but somebody easily in this room could ha leukemia. now, they paid the $95, then they go to the hospital and it

costs them at the hutch cancer nter in seattle, to get a bone marrow transplant costs $125,000. they paid 95 bus. who pays that $125,000? well, they wind up with a bill from the hutch cancer center to pay for that. now, if they thought that $95 was a good bet, it will turn out they weren't very smart, and there are lots of young people who are in motorcycle accidents and all kinds of accidents, skiing accidents. when my kid got out of cllege, he said he didn't want to have insurance. i said, jimmy, you go up to group helt and you're going to buy a policy. he said, i don't have the money. i said, i'll help you because one of the days when you're skiing and come off the corners and drop 100 feet into the snow, you're going to break a leg and get a spiral fracture and cost

$50,000 d you think i'm going to pay for it. that doesn't make any sense. we're going to get you an insurance policy right off the top. not everybody has father who says that to their kid. so kids will make this bet. 95 bucks. hey, nothing. give them the money. forget about it. some of them are going to get clobbered. >> i think you're right. some will get clobbered. east of them will withe bet. that's the problem, i think, with the system in terms of its operation. i think most people -- by the way, i think this is going to happy where companies are concerned, too. it's still cheaper to pay the fine per worker than it is to provide full health care. i'm not arguing for higher fines, but i think we're going it be confronted with the dilemma. i think companies are pretty quickly -- i know companies now that won't go above 50 because of that provision. i think otherompanies will try to figure out ways where maybe they can keep their existing workforce on but pay the fines for new people and overtime almost work themselves out of the insurance business. i think there's a lot of

unforeseen consequences. and i think individuals that make, quote, rational economic decisions, in many cases are going to decide not to participate in this program. just pay the fine. it's just cheaper because you can always at the end of the day come in. so, but that doesn't really, u know, that's not a point that undermines the authority here. i want to ask you both another question. i am very curious. my good friend from north carolina sort of raised this issue. do you thi the president has the constitutional authority to waive parts of the law that he chooses to waive? we, i assume, have different opinions. i'd like to hear your rationale. >>bsolutely. i don't know if you were in the room -- >> i was pot nnot. i arrived late. >> it gives him general leave to give waivers when there are parts of the law that he thinks needs a waiver for a certain period of time.

and that's what he used. he's not the only president who's used that. bu used it. clinton used it. >> did you agree with it when bush used it? >> what? >> did you agree with it when bush used it? >> i didn't know. i wasn't trying to tear up the law that mr. bush was using it for. he was using a tax law. there are lots of times when we write a law, we think we've thought of everything, but the reason that section is in the law is because we're smart enough to know we haven't thought of everything, and the president's going to be stuck on the hook when we're not around here and he's got to make it work. so we gave him the flexibility in that situation to do that, and that's what the president did here. >> let me ask that same question to mr. young. do you think the president has the constitutional authority to, you know -- >> let me first start with a bit of humility here. right? i do have a law degree. i have practiced law.

fortunately, i was able to find an exit strategy from the practice of law. i ran for office. >> you may want to rethink that strategy. >> yeah, that's right. i'll tell you. but i'll s this. there are competing views out in the public domain respect to this question. it's one that desves very careful consideration and public debate. this was not debated publicly. we had a blog post posted by the administration making this, frankly, this incredible change. now, my own instincts, my own thoughts with respect to the constitutionality of this, is that the president has gone too far. that this is a, the affordable care act, bhaum caobama care, i comprehensive packe. you can't have an individual mandate without the employer mandate, without the, you know, all this stuff is supposed to work together because how are we going to know if someone is, in fact, eligible for an individual

mandate subsidy if you don't have an employer mandate in place, for example? and there's no clause, to my knowledge, in this very large bill, comprehensive bill, dealing with 12% of our nation's economy and growing at a rapid rate. there's no clause that allows you to separate out particular pieces. so i think that in the interest of comity, in the interest of transparency, and in the interest of better law making, this would have been better handled here in a public forum, which is why i think it's important we as a congress, we as a body sanction the delay of the employer mandate. >> you actually made me anticipate, actually, my next question, which, again, i put to both of you. because i have to tell you, if i accepted that this was constitutional and wise, i would still have a very hard time with how it was done. i mean, to put this on a blog, to do it when the president's

ou out of the country on a holiday weekend when congress is, you know, it's clearly meant to deceive or diffuse, you know, political tension. it's disrespectful to people who have an opposite opinion. it's not worthy of an administration that considers itself transparent and open. it doesn't mean you have to agree with him, but to do it this way and not think you were going to get a negative reaction and further erode confidence from your opponents, you know, i just think that's a shaby way to behave. it's not worthy of the administration, the president to now something of this magnitude with no, hey, we're considering this, we'd liketo know what people thi about this, you know, let's be in town, have a -- just to drop it, you know, on a time that was clearly meant to get the least possible news coverage and attention? put the opponents at the most possible disadvantage? and frankly, be less than

forthright with the american people. look, if you really strongly believe we have to do this to make this work better, fair point. argue it. don't drop it out on a blog. don't try and do it behind the backs of the american people. my guessis it made what was already an unpopular law, law that never has been popular, you know, more unpopular. and it probably fed the cynicism and skepticism amongst the american people. i mean, react to that if uyou want. can anybody give me any other logical explanation as to why this law would have been changed, or this announced this way at this time in this manner other than to be less than forthrig and honest? >> i -- i don't want to try and psychoanalyze the administration or the president, in particular, so i won't do that. with respect to motives, i'll

leave that for others to judge. i do think that as an institution, as a body, in a bipartisan way, we ought to be concerned about our role as the legislative body of this country. i think there has to be some deference, some comity, some cooperation between the branchs on something so important, and, you know, that's setting aside the very important legal reservations i have, and my own read of this, take it for what it's worth, is lega bounds were also passed here that should not have been. so nonetheless, i think the underlying poll icy of delaying the employer mandate based on all the negative feedback the administtion has received with respect to the mandate and the law, more generally, i think it was the appropriate thing to do. that's why i think we should two two ahead and pass that bill. in the interest of fairness, afford the same sort of tax relief to individual hardworking

americans that the president has proposed we give to big business. it's my hope on both sides of the aisle, we can come together on this issue that will be very popular among the american people. >> please? we went on quite a while, so you certainly deserve a chance to respond. >> well, i would say the authorization says accept where such authority is expressly given by this title to any other person of officer, employer of the treasury department. the secretary shall prescribe all rules and regulations. that's the authorization. that's where he gets the ability to write rules and regulations as he sees fit. i -- there was a recent 4th circuit court last week in which the justice said that the employer mandate is no monster. he really, he said it's not important to the fundamental functioning of this bill.

that's why they took it out in the massachusetts case, as i said earlier. they repealed it just the other day and the governor, governor patrick of massachusetts, signed it into law because it was going to be done in the federal one. he said, we don't need it up here, we're doing just fine, we didn't have anybody run away from their responsibility, their employee so i -i might share a little of your concern about the way the announcement was made. but the president certainly had the authority to do it and i think hexecuted it within the law. >> my friend always knows his facts and makes a good argument. i appreciate, by the way, you have some concern. i suspect privately, and, look, i understand, i've been in difficult positions on the other side. i don't think anybody in this room would have advised the presidenof the united states to make this kind of announcement in this way. i mean, any competent practicing politician on either side would say, don't do it that way.

be honest. hold a press conference. say we have to do this to make the law work. invite people -- there may be appearance of unfairness here, here's why i don't think it is unfair. don't drop it on july 3rd, on a holiday weekend with congress not in session, you not in town and make it look like you're doing -- you look like you're trying to pull a fast one. when you are trying to pull a fast one, it's sure better not to look like it. that mystifies me. i have to tell you, just -- that is political malpractice. two quick questions. i've gone on very long. the chairman has been very generous. i know you guys will have probably different answers to this. first, do you think this is popular with the american people? i'm not saying this is necessarily how we should judge everything we do. all the polling, the law and this decision suggests to me it's not, and that may be the explanation for why it was

announced in the way it was. second, this gets to a point that mr. young made and that i agreed with. sometimes you have to just be fair or at least look like you're being fair. i think it looks incredibly unfair to let business off and individuals on. i just think it's actually going to erode, and i'm not for this law, done want to suggest that my opinion would change. i think it's going to erode the effort to erode faith in. my friend mentioned the prescription drug medicare part "dprogram, and, you know, strangely enough, that's always been pretty popular. it certainly had some challenges, but it's -- actually at the beginning it's always polled well. i can tell you as an old pollster. that's why bush ran on it in 2000. his threat to us was if he didn't pass it, he was going to pass your version of it. it was popular. it stayed popular. when you got into power, you certainly haven't tried to repeal it or change it. it cost 41% less than the cbo estimated it would. we'll see if obama chaare does

well. when i finish my point, i'll yield to my friend. we'll see if this prram costs 41% ss than cbo says it does down the road. >> i don't know about your constituents, but, you know, when i look at what has been accomplished already because of obama care, children no longer face discrimination due to pre-existing conditions. students and young dull adults gaining coverage through their parents' plan. medicare is stronger. americans no longer face lifetime limits on care. families are receiving rebates from insurance companies. soon being a woman will no longer be a pre-existing condition. i thinall those things are pretty popular, at least amongst my constituents. i assume amongst yours as well. i mean, let's appreciate what has been accomplished already. >> reclaiming my time, you know, if i serve you a meal of spinach, peas, turn yips, onion

dessert, and ice crea the ice cream part would be pretty popular. if you look at the meal as a whole, it's not. this thing has never been popular. as a pollster, may be right, we'll see. we're on this road. it isn't popular. it's never been popular. you know, it wovruldn't be a republican majority sitting up here if this thing was all that popular. we weren't all that popular in 2009. you made us somehow popular by 2010. and my good friend, the chairman, who played an incredible role in all that. and my good friend, mr. young, who chose to run in part because of this bill. so my last question -- >> can you give me one minute? >> an opportunity to respond. i'm sorry. >> i missed it. i know it was good because you're laughing, man. i mean, i just think it's not -- it's not fair. i mean, and if we need -- i can't imagine that the individual mandate is going to somehow be easier, applying to millions of people to implement then the business mandate. and i think individuals are always harder to track and more

diicult to deal with, and there's much more complexity. so if we need to delay part of it, and you know, it seems to me we ought to accept it. i think people are going to be awfully upset that somebody got off and the average american got stuck. you'reree to respond. >> i hear at this is not a popular plan, and that it's -- and the polls show this and that only 52% and all this kind of stf. but i watched from 2010 onward a continual barrage against obama care. we've had 8 attempts to repeal it. we've had all of that. we've had hundreds of millions of dollars spent in the campaign about obama care. and the republican candidate was

against it and his vic president was against it. and the people voted barack obama back in by a bigger majority than he got the first time. so you got to ask wrouyourself, unpopular is this program? >> i would yield to my friend always and his expertise and even when we disagree, respected. something i know something about is presidential numbers. this is the first president in american history that got re-elected with fewer votes, lower percentage and less electoral votes. so the idea that, i think people vote on a variety of reasons. >> i agree with that. >> not everybody voted on this. he didn't pick up ground politically because of this. he simply didn't because he wasn't re-elected with a larger majority. he was re-elected with a smaller majority. >> he didn't lose. >> i think that's a very good point, and in politics that may be the trump point. but he didn't re-elect the house, either. bring a house with him. so we'll see. this can play out with us for a

long -- there's a difference between murder andsuicide. so we can talk that in another on text, another time. but my friend, mr. young. >> briefly here, if i might with respect to t popularity of the law and e perception of the law. i believe that people would have a firmer sense of what the law is about had there been a public airing of all the issues. had this bill been compiled in a transparent way through the public hearing proces and so on. and done in a more bipartisan way. that's my personal belief. but we do have numbers. not based on narrow aspects of the law. we've actually done polling, or others have, with respect to the law more generally. we know that 48% of businesses believe that obama care will be bad for business. we know that a third of american families believe that obama care will make their family worse off. we know that the individual

mandate is only favored by 12% of the american people. we know these things. and so, you know, i think it was the feedback that the administration was receiving from the well-organized business community as these numbers started coming in about the number of people who areoi to lose their insurance, and the average monthly cost increases. so the business community spoke up, and the administration responded to that. we offer a bill here today to sanction in what i regard as a more appropriate and legal way, sanction that action. and we also offer a companion piece of legislation that will afford the same sort of tax relief to individual american families that the president, that this administration, has proposed offering to big business. >> well, i thank both the -- i thank the chairman for being exceptionally gracious onhe

time, and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. i appreciate the gentleman. gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. >> thank you. >> gentleman is recognized. >> i respect both mr. young and mr. mcdermott. i thank you for being here. we're sitting around asking questions like this is all for real. this is show business right now. this bill is going nowhere. we all know that. this is, as the gentleman from washington state, pointed out, kind of a pr attempt. and, you know, quite frankly, it's getting a little bit tiring. it's getting a little bit old. it's boring. because we're kind of doing the same old, same old again and again and again. this is the 38th time. and, you know, we've got issues thatsequestration. i don't know about your districts. i have members working, national guardsmen and women, talking about cutbacks and furloughs. head start facilities being shut down. fo banks being shut down. community development block

grants being cut back. they're all expecting us to try to figure thisut or at least talk about it, at least to acknowledge this is a real issue. instead we're up here, for the 38th time, trying to in essence repeal the affordable care act. look, my republican friends, you lost in congress when this vote came up. you lost in the courts. you know, you've tried to repeal this already 38 times. you know, maybe the time has come to try to work in a bipartisan and a truly bipartisan way to make sure that, you know, everybody in this country has good quality health care. that's the goal. and, and with all due respect to the gentleman from texas, mr. session, when mr. hastings asked yoabout what you were going to replace it with, i mean, you guyses are in charge right now. we could be talking right now a about your replacement bill if you had one, but we're not. we're talking about yet another attempt to undermine the

affordable care act. and i, you know, i would -- we're going to go through all this, and now i'm going to incur all these reactions about how important all this is. i get it. the reality is what we're doing here is going nowhere. and i think, given the enormity of some of the problems that we're faced with in this country, that we're here debating this right now and not talking about how to fix sequestration, i think it's really, it's unconscionable given what the stakes are. and so i thank both gentlemen for being here. i appreciate your views, but quite frankly, we ought tospeaker john boehner her members to support key portions of the health-care law. my colleagues building a

stronger economy for all americans is our top priority here in the house. it is why we're working to simplify the tax code, expand energy production and told the administration accountable for abuses at agencies like the irs. that is why senate democrats have done nothing while the house has passed a bipartisan plan to make college more affordable and it is why we will vote tomorrow to make sure families and individuals get the same rate from obama carrot that the president wants for big businesses. over the weekend a democrat leader in the senate said the president's health-care law has been "wonderful for our country." are you kidding me? it is a wonderful, why are health-care prices exploding? why are millions getting kicked out of plans? why are some of workers losing jobs or getting better hours cut? the lot is not wonderful, it is

a train wreck. you know it, i know it, and the american people know it. even the president knows it. it is unfair to protect this -- big businesses without giving the same relief to american families and small businesses. the bills by congressman tim griffin will address this problem by delaying the employer mandate and individual mandate. i hope democrats and republicans will vote to do what is fair and protect all americans from this disastrous flop. i yield back. toa couple of live events tell you about. goes to capitol hill to deliver the central bank semi-annual report on the economy and monetary policy. you can see his testimony before the house financial services committee live at 10:00 eastern. senate judiciary

committee looks at the voting rights act in light of the recent supreme court decision that invalidated part of the law that allowed several states to change election laws without a balanced federal approval. a be a vast federal approval. in a few moments, today's headlines in calls and suites -- calls and tweets live on "washington journal." in about 45 minutes, we will be joined by republican representative john flemming of louisiana, vice chair of the gop doctors caucus to discuss the bills the house will consider today that will delay the health-care law mandates. the discussion on those bills continues with rep gene green, a

member of the commerce committee. then, a spotlight on magazines allows on hiss fel >> good morning, it's "washington journal" july 13. at 10:00 today, the house financial-services committee hears from ben bernanke and you can see that live on c-span 3. the senate foreign relations committee later will consider special assistant to president obama as the united nations representative and the house will take a vote on aspects of the affordable care act beginning with the employer and individual mandate and we will consider those topics. we want to turn your attention to a speech made in orlando last night with attorney general eric holder. it