conversation, no. if you are standing out in public any number of other people may see you there. >> if i were standing on private property -- >> this is part of what jones talks about, the trespass issue. >> they ruled 5-0 it was an overreach. >> are you collecting that data? >> we are not. >> let me ask the nsa. not. are we have not done that. as indicated earlier, the director of nsa has given an affirmation to the congress that before such time we were to reconsider that we would come back to the congress. >> going back to you, mr. cole,

what other bits of information fall in this gap between metadata and content? what is the third category? what is the right word for it? >> it is just a third category, mr. chee fits - chaffetz. these of the telephone records we were talking about uncovered by the 215 program. , the actualtent conversations themselves, and any number of things that may follow between those and it is not just a third category but probably a continual. >> what else would be in the continuum? sorry? >> what else? >> it's hard for me to hypothesize a about the many things that are out there and where they would fall in the continuum. todayre's a report out about license plates and that information being collected by

thousands of camera readers stored about a specific location. does that fall within this category? >> in which category? >> license plate readers. >> it comes down to the expectation of privacy which is what the court based its ruling on. >> do you believe i have a reasonable expectation of privacy on my specific whereabouts. >> it depends where you are and how many people see you. >> to have a reasonable expectation of privacy on private property. have a reasonable expectation? >> depending on whose property it is, your own or somebody else's, how many other people are there. these are all of the issues that would go into that. >> mr. chairman, this is something we have much more thoroughly understand. there is guidance out there and i think the committee should be

able to see it. i yield back. we will have another hearing and you can ask even more questions and a classified manner about questions you could not get answered here. we thank the gentleman. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina and thanks him for presiding for some time as well. >> thank you. i was listening to our witnesses and the colleagues discussing these issues and my mind went to a guy by the name of joseph hard. i don't know if he's with the department of the u.s. attorneys office or narc, but he was the lead prosecutor in a case called the u.s. versus to missy mcveigh -- timothy mcveigh. in the role the records played in him being able to prosecute against that horrific fact. i thought to myself, ok we ask

you to prosecute the crime after it takes place. what if we challenged you with the responsibility to present -- prevent the next act of terrorism? to beools would you need able to prevent crime as opposed to across cutie in the aftermath? this is a debate between privacy and safety but0 it is also the difference between prosecuting something after it happens and then preventing it from happening in the first place. he used the hotel records, business records where mr. mcveigh went to purchase certain materials. tedious, difficult case to prosecute and the role of business records played into it. this is what i would like to ask . i don't want to ask specific

questions. i want to go to where the people of my district are who are not trained attorneys or law enforcement officials. you would agree that the constitution says the minimum standard by which government must conduct itself. >> yes sir. >> v minimum standard. >> and congress has the power to set higher standards. you cannot put someone to death under the age of 18 at the time they committed the offense. that does not keep congress from saying we will raise it to 21. >> that's correct. >> who gets to decide whether or have a fellow citizens reasonable expectation of privacy? >> it depends on the purpose for which you are deciding. if it is interpreting the fourth isndment, the supreme court the ultimate arbiter. for the purposes of determining what the appropriate behavior,

to regulate the actions of government, that is congress. >> you say the supreme court is the ultimate arbiter. are the exclusive arbiter? cam the people weigh in on what they think they have a reasonable expectation of privacy? absolutely. >> the supreme court does not have the benefit of public input. to get itsic manages voice heard in cases. >> i hope they would listen to it. weigh andis not to balance. if you are on private property but there is a helicopter above picnic.eing at a you have no expectation of privacy in your face. i do not think anyone would argue you have an expectation of privacy, but that does not mean our fellow citizens want the government to protect facial imagery data. >> that's exactly the right way

to frame it. the fourth amendment as interpreted by the court if the minimum constitutional standard, but the congress, based on input from the people and whatever sources can determine that is how they want to regulate the behavior of the government. >> and technology can impact that? you can impact someone's reasonable expectations? >> absolutely. >> culture? factors comese into play. >> there are business records that you cannot record with a subpoena. you cannot get medical records with a subpoena. >> there are statutory restrictions on what you can get . >> you cannot get tax returns. moreu have to go through a elaborate process. >> both of those are business records. stands forthat it the proposition that you have no expectation of our the sea because there is a third party

just came up with two examples. >> map is a case interpreting what the fourth amendment meant. he other vehicles you have given our cases where congress has gone beyond the minimum requirement. >> there was also a banking statute in play in miller. my time is up. my point is this. all of us are asked back home by people who are not as well trained in the law as y'all are. there is a growing skepticism out of the conduct of government and to extent that the people can weigh in on what they have an expectation of privacy, you scalepect to see that balance back towards privacy and away from public safety unless we do a better job of regaining their trust and explaining why these programs are necessary.

i could not agree with you more. it's absolutely right. as the deputy director said before, in the intelligence community we try very hard to keep in mind the protection of the national security and of privacy and const to schnell rights of americans. we think we strike that balance in the right place, but if people than the congress determine its the wrong place then that's a discussion many to have. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. on that note, we thank the panel for giving a lot of answers. i think there were some that could not be answered here today and therefore you might anticipate that we will have a subsequent hearing in a classified setting to ask additional questions. whether it is you four or someone else, i don't know, but i want to thank all of you for helping us to engage in a very thorough examination of the issues related to these two sections of the law and i excuse

you now. thank you again. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] span, the house debates a measure to delay the affordable care act's employer mandate. then the house ways and means committee hearing on the earlier decision to delay enforcement of the mandate. obama are, president congratulates consumer financial protection bureau director richard cordray on his recent confirmation by the senate. on the next "washington journal." ribble.tative reid they voted to delay the employer mandate and the affordable health care at discussing that with congressman bill pascrell. the effort defined american pow's and mia's.

lacy from theo pow/mia families. passed two bills to delay provisions of the affordable care act. one of the provisions requires that individuals urges health insurance and the other requires that certain employers provide health insurance to their workers. the president has said he will veto both bills. now, part of the debate on the laying the employer mandate. it begins with the democratic whip steny hoyer. >> i rise to speak the truth. this bill and the other are not real. they are purely partisan

politics. they have nothing to do with reality. that, my friends, and mr. speaker, the american people ought to know that is the truth. bills take time with no and everybody in this house, the majority leader grand 434 know these bills are going nowhere. are the 38th and 39th efforts to repeal the affordable care act. attempt which has been made to 37 times already with no substantive alternative to assure quality, affordable health care for all americans.

this is political messaging -- nothing more, nothing less. it is a gotcha game. the president has taken action to make sure that businesses, some 4% are affected by what the president did and your purported bill to make sure that they could do the paperwork properly. administration took the right action. your first bill is not necessary and you know it. it is a set up so your second bill, which takes away the individual mandate, which america ought to know, mr. speaker, would undermine the very benefits that are today being enjoyed by seniors, young children with pre-

existing conditions, and by so many millions of americans enjoying the benefits today. the individual mandate, as the heritage foundation pointed out so many years ago, a position they have now changed of course, it was essential to make sure we could bring costs down. "the new york times" ironically today said that there is a possibility that premiums are moved to 50%. i would tell my friends in the press and the media not to take any of these votes for real. they are a gotcha votes. there are maybe some people who vote yes to confirm the opinion but then say we don't want to undermine the affordable care act -- as all of you who have voted so often your willingness and intent to do -- but then they will vote no on the individual mandate. my, my.ill say -- my,

there were four businesses against all of you individuals. that added i'm sure is written already. that is what this is about. gotcha politics. isn't it a shame? when millions of americans have no health care, when millions of americans have no jobs, when people are being furloughed in the defense sector undermining the security of our country in virginia and maryland undermining our national security that we spend our time here on this floor with gotcha politics. whatsoeverectation that either of these bills will ever become law. this is simply messaging. for thesimply saying

people who have been for the last four years trying to repeal so affordable care act and many people were absolutely positive that president obama was going to go down to defeat on the horns of the dilemma of the affordable health care act and it didn't happen. the american people said we don't buy that argument. providing americans with healthcare is an important objective. we believe making sure that kids and individuals with existing conditions can get health care. to make sure that seniors are not driven into poverty by paying for expensive drugs to keep them alive. sure that people get preventative health care and are not this incentivized from doing by additional costs. speaker, i hear you tapping.

can i get 30 seconds to conclude? >> i yield the gentleman additional 30 seconds. >> i thank my friend. ladies and gentlemen, we need to come together and talk about how forward.ably move speaker banner said when the president was reelected that the affordable care act was here. what you continue. day totinue this very repeal you're going to the affordable care act. maybe that is good politics for .ou, but it is lousy substance that's the truth. this is a gotcha vote. the press ought to disregard and constituents ought to disregard anything other than the fact that this is a vote to and the affordable care act, rejected -- reject this politics. click the gentleman's time has expired. the chair will remind all

members to direct their comments to the chair. the gentleman from georgia is recognize. >> i'm pleased to lead one leader to the majority leader, the gentleman from virginia, mr. cantor. >> i thank the speaker and i thank the gentleman from georgia for his leadership. today toer, i rise support the fairness for american families act. mr. speaker, it's interesting here on the floor to hear the leadership of the minority continue their cries of objection based on the claims of politics and process. we are talking about substance he here. what we hear our objections about our position. somehow insinuating that we don't care about people's healthcare. well, mr. speaker, i would say that's it's exactly the opposite. substance.ing about we are talking about ways that

we can improve the prospect of quality healthcare for americans. republicansyears, have been warning the american people about the devastating impact obamacare will have on both jobs and healthcare. appears that democrats and even the president himself are beginning to agree. decision by the administration earlier this month to delay the employer 2015 is a clear signal that even the administration does not believe the country is ready to sustain the painful impact that this law will have. fortunately, others, including some of the law's most ardent supporters are starting to realize the same. just this week, democratic leaders of the house and senate were sent a letter from the

president 73 major unions warning that if changes were not made to the affordable care act it would destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the back bone of the american middle class. mr. speaker, to me, that israel. that is not just games. continuing, these union leaders claim that the affordable care act was enacted without being destroy and it would the very health and well-being of our members along with millions of other hard-working americans. these consequences resulting from employees having their hours cut and their health benefits jeopardized represented what these leaders described as "nightmare scenarios." speaker, i submit again that it is real, not just a game.

it is now explicitly clear to people across political lines that promises were made and now broken and obamacare is not working. this is the direction we need to take. this is common ground. if we have bipartisan agreement that things are not working under obamacare, let's work to improve the situation for americans. that working americans have to suffer the financial burdens of an overreaching government run health care system while the same consequences for big is this is our delayed? the white house won't offer an answer to that. believe they've run out of excuses and run out of ideas. are starting to backpedal. the fairness for american families act will extend the delay of these mandates to all americans. no families health, well-being,

or employment should suffer while businesses get a break. i sincerely hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would join us in this effort to bring basic fairness to everyone. i would like to thank the theleman from georgia, gentleman from indiana for his hard work on this issue and i urge my colleagues in the house to support this legislation and i yield back. click the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. >> mr. spake her, i yield myself 30 seconds. to report on the seventh congressional district of virginia where the promises has been kept. 4500 young adults have health insurance on their parents plan. 10,000 seniors have received help with their drug costs. 112 thousand seniors are now eligible for preventative care

at no cost. 288,000 people in the seventh district now have an assurance that does not have lifetime limits. the promises have been kept in the seventh district. i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. .ecerra >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. the least inductive congress ever. that is a title in today's "washington post." congress, in case you have been living on another planet, does not involve that much these days. againe we are debating for the 38th time a bill to repeal all or part of our nations health security law. we have heard this broken record 37 times before and it sounds the same and it goes nowhere.

there is more consequence to this partisan agenda than just wasting the american people's time and adding to the record of the least productive congress ever. wasting the american people's 38 times wasting the american taxpayers money. according to cbs news reports, this of to vote over and over again 38 times on these partisan bills have cost the american than $50 million. that's an expensive ticket to political theater. what are the facts on this legislation? the congressional budget office, our fiscal watchdog, they say this about hr 2668. under insurance premiums this legislation for individually purchased coverage hr 2668 higher under and in addition the number of people with health insurance coverage would be reduced.

translated the cost for health insurance and health care for americans will go up in the number of americans with coverage will go down under this legislation. "new yorkday's times." many new yorkers will see big savings on health plans under the current law. individuals buying health insurance on their own will see their premiums tumbled next year in new york state as changes under the federal health care law take effect. the facts. healthcare insurance costs are going down but this would repeal part of the health care security law. this is the least productive congress ever because instead of voting on a jobs agenda to grow our economy are voting on the 38th time to do nothing. this house is out of touch with the american people and it's time the house caught up with

the american people and worked to get americans back to work and provide them with more health security, not less. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. georgia.ntleman from >> i ask unanimous consent that a letter today from the national federation of independent businesses in support of hr 2668 be inserted into the record. am pleased to yield one in half minutes to the chairwoman of the republican conference, the gentlelady from washington state. gentlelady is recognized for a minute and a half. >> i rise in strong support of the fairness for american families act to protect families and individuals from a healthcare law that is unworkable and making it harder. i support delaying the individual mandate because it

attacked everyday hard-working american families, like my family at home, and yours across this country from higher premiums, fewer choices of doctors, lower quality of healthcare. we see this time and time again at work i'm at picking winners and losers and ignoring his constitutional duties to uphold the law. lose,ime individuals families lose, america loses. administration's decision to ignore this is no different. how is it fair to delay on unworkable law for big businesses but not for individuals and families? the very people who are going to have to pay the price because of law.unworkable health care this is making worse, worse for for there, worse economy, worse for america. i urge my colleagues, republicans and democrats, to do what's fair for american families and i yield back. gentleman from

washington. >> mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds so that i can inform thebody of the effect on fifth congressional district in the state of washington. 7000 young adults are on of health insurance and 5600 seniors have had benefits surrounding their drug who lacked9,000 health insurance now have it. all of this is because of the affordable care act. minutes thetwo gentleman from texas, mr. green. >> the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. rise in strong opposition to the further republican attempts to undermine the affordable care act. the administration announced that they were delaying the employer mandate for one year. i don't support this measure, but it is within their authority to do it.

power of the decision of the department of treasury does not justify delaying the implementation of other portions of the law. implementing this is too important for american's security. low-cost, high-quality health care right around the corner. the risk pool will be skewed so that the coverage is less affordable for those who choose to purchase it. delaying the employer mandate will have a higher impact on states like mine but are refusing to expand medicaid. if an employee makes between 100%-one hundred 33% of the federal poverty level, they will receive no subsidies and now they will not have to care for them for another year. is a small number, but in a district like mine, the highest rate of working uninsured in the country, it's a big problem. individuals in0 our district who lack health insurance will have access to quality affordable care without

fear of discrimination or higher rates because of a pre-existing condition. our country has waited too long for real healthcare reform. industrialom our partners providing. i oppose both of these bills and i yield back my time. >> the gentleman from washington reserves. >> i ask unanimous consent that a letter dated july 15, 2013 and the bill be inserted in the record. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the house chairman administration committee, candace miller. >> the lady is recognized for two minutes. for think the gentleman yielding. it appears the obama administration is finally come to the conclusion that the employer mandate is a job killer. many have speculated that the obama administration's decision to delay the employer mandate until after the 2014 election

was due to fear that job that's and reductions that would result from the implementation would negatively impact the president's party at the polls and does seem that those fears are justified because recently, the teamsters and other labor reid andote to harry nancy pelosi stating that the implementation of the obamacare act but at risk the 40 hour work week, healthcare, and the take- home pay of their members. agree that the employer mandate is a job killer. in eliminating the employer mandate, it would not stop the individual mandate that requires every american to purchase government approved insurance that they may not want coming cannot afford, and cannot be provided by their employers. is that fair to american families? the legislation that we are considering today, mr. speaker, would give every american the same one you're reprieve that he

has offered to businesses. we extend this help to all american people in the president has threatened to veto this bill. mr. speaker, the president is not a king. here's a president. he does not have the authority to change the law and delay the employer employer mandate on his own congress. i would say to the president that we delay the job killing employer mandate and also extend the same relief to all of the american people. the president and members of congress who vote against this bill will have to explain to the american people why they heard the concerns of business but not those of the people. we have heard the people, we share their concerns, we stand with them. i urge my colleagues to stand with them as well and support this vital legislation. >> the gentlelady yield back. the chair would remind all members to make their remarks to the chair and refrain from improper references to the president.

>> i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a report on the effects of the affordable care act on the 10th district of michigan. minutes thetwo gentlewomen from illinois. >> the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. there is a word in yiddish, translatedchutzpah, to nerve. his mother and father, he throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is abortion. but it is also a pretty accurate antics of the the republican party today. after throwing up roadblock after roadblock, obstruction after obstruction to obamacare, they are now trying to delay access to care for millions of americans on the grounds that we are not ready. republicante

obstructionism, we are going to be ready. we are ready -- and not a day too soon. for those who have been locked out of coverage, hit by annual benefit limits or face pre- existing condition exclusions, imagine the worry that will be lifted off the shoulders of americans that have pre-existing conditions that will not exist once we pass this. this is just another republican roadblock progress, another obstructionism. mr. speaker, is time for the republicans to to stop efforts that will prevent americans from getting the health care they need. i yield back. click the gentleman from washington reserves. >> how much time remains for each side? click the gentleman from georgia has 18 minutes. the gentleman

from washington has nine. >> i am pleased to yield one minute to the chairman of the judiciary committee, mr. .oodlatte click thank you, mr. speaker. it is with great pleasure that i knowledge the great work of the gentleman from georgia on this issue and thank him. are asking one question -- why was the mandate on them delayed? place systems are not in for the businesses to abide, why do they think it will be in place for the individual mandate? if a delay is good for businesses, wise and not good for families in the sixth district of virginia and across the nation. when they for to obamacare as a train wreck, they only quote one of the chief architects. this announcement proves even the administration knows that obamacare is headed towards devastation. to get businesses and american families off the train headed towards disaster.

we need to delay the employer mandate and the individual mandate, but most importantly, american people need a full repeal of this train wreck legislation. i yield back. >> the gentleman from washington is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i yield three minutes the gentleman from california who help write the bill four years ago and is here today to defend it emma mr. miller. >> the gentleman from california. >> inanimate consent to revise and extend my remarks. i stand in opposition of the latest republican attempt. if these bills passed today, fortunately they will not become law and is just another waste of this body's time. americans are sick of it. the 38th time will not be the charm. the 38th time we have voted redundantly to undo the act, rather this extends the length

they will go to take away the basic health protections of the american people. for three years, many of the deep opponents have invested heavily in the failure trying to deny funding to agencies to do their job as instructed by congress and they spread misinformation and lies to purposely confuse the american people. i have obstructed education efforts to make sure their constituents don't understand their new rights and benefits under the law, but this is dangerous for america's families, dangers for the businesses and economy. the affordable care act is the law of the land and its here to stay. early evidence suggests it is already having a positive impact on the lives of millions of americans. young adults are getting coverage through their parents policy where before they were kicked off arbitrarily. now with the individual mandate, millions of individual americans will be able to afford health care insurance they cannot today without the legislation, the law

of the land, the affordable care act. children with pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied coverage or life-saving treatment. billions more taxpayer dollars are being recovered through fraud. health care costs have dramatically slowed. claims are coming in lower than anyone had predict did, most recently reported in new york state, for an individual who would get their insurance because of the individual mandate. for the first time, affordable to those individuals since they have been required to have it. in january, the pre-existing conditions that determine health costs will be banned. no longer will you be able to rule people out because of existing health conditions. this is all good news and it stands in stark contrast to the claims that we have been hearing from the other side for three years. why would any responsible elected official try to hide the rights and benefits from the american people?

my friends on the other side of the aisle are preoccupied with willntling this but they move heaven and earth to protect the most powerful to try to score some fleeting political points. esther speaker, playing politics with the affordable care act has become something of an olympic sport for the majority in the house. these votes are nothing new. they are about sabotaging the law of the land to satisfy a radical element of the majority party. now is not the time to reverse course or go back to the days when insurance companies were in charge and people were thrown off their policies and policies were taken away in the middle of treatments and children were not allowed to participate and individuals could not afford the policies at that time. today, they will be able to. i yield back the balance. click the gentleman from washington reserves. >> i asked unanimous consent that a notice from the national taxpayer union dated july 15, 2013 in support of both hr 2667

and 2668 be entered into the record. i am pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, and other member of the ways and means committee. >> i'm sure our listening audience at home is wondering who to believe. we are hearing charges of all ah.acks, claims of chutzp my friends on the other side of the aisle, this is not politics. this is law making. you would waste time to be thated to a body to cede power to an executive branch, to do that which you were elected to do. if you believe, as the president believes, which is that this law is not ready to be implemented,

which, for various reasons, hhs and other agencies are not able to certify that businesses are not able to comply then join us in doing what the president wants to do legally. join us in giving power to the president that which he is claiming unilaterally. do what your constituents have elected you to do, lawmaking. mr. speaker, we heard claims wereer today that women being discriminated against and women's premiums were rising at a faster rate than men. that me tell you what this bill does to young people who are really getting discriminated against because of obamacare. over premiums are going up 400% because of a rating provision in this bill. young people are paying a disproportionate growing cost of healthcare in this country because of discrimination factors called community rating. young people have gone to

college, busted their tail to get a degree do not want to stay on their mom and dad's insurance until they're 26. that's not why i went to college. they go to college to get a job. this obamacare legislation and so many other of the president's policies are killing jobs in america. it is my half of the people who graduated from college are still unemployed or underemployed. i urge passage and a yes vote. click the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from georgia. >> how much time remains? click the gentleman from georgia has 15 and a half minutes. the gentleman from washington has six minutes. >> i'm pleased to yield one minute to a member of the energy and commerce committee, a fellow from the state of georgia. like the gentleman is recognized

for one minute. i thank the gentleman for aelding and i have in my hand pocket constitutions. they should be vested in the congress of the united states which shall consist of a senate and the house of representatives. it does not say anything there about the president. mr. speaker, if you notice, a lot of time the weaker the weaker the- the argument the louder the volume. they have a weak argument. no question about it. has alreadythe bill passed. well, if it's already passed, what right does the president have to change the law without coming back to the congress? we're giving them the opportunity to do that. of course, we are also giving the young people in this country the opportunity to get the same break that these large fortune

500 companies may be getting in regards to delaying the employer mandate for one year. let's give them the same 12 month break that we are giving to employers. pass this bill. it's a good bill. we have the authority to do it. not the president. like the gentleman from georgia reserves. >> i asked -- i yield myself 30 seconds. i asked unanimous consent to enter into the record the health care reform law as it affects the 11th congressional district of georgia. >> without objection. 8500 young adults are still getting insured on their parents plan. 8500 seniors are receiving prescription drug discounts. seniors are now receiving preventative care without having to pay for it.

i reserve the balance of my time. >> the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognize. >> i'm pleased to yield two menace gentlelady from tennessee who prior to coming to congress worked as a nurse. diane black, a pivotal member of the ways and means committee. >> the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. >> the president has previously described his health care law, of ruleste, "a new set that treats everybody honestly and everybody fairly." but now, according to president obama, if you are a big financial institution or government contractor, you don't have to comply. if you are a tennessee family trying to make ends meet, you do

or you will get taxed. to add insult to injury, this president now has the audacity to say that he will veto the house legislation delaying the employer mandate and the individual mandate that we are considering today. first of all, the employer mandate delay was proposed by him. why would he veto his own idea? why would he turn his back on the american families merely asking for the same relief that he said he's going to give the big is this? business? this is a pathetic excuse for leadership and i suggest we call his bluff and pass this legislation to protect the american people in their livelihood from obamacare. it is not fair president obama to give businesses an exemption from his costly health care law without making the same allowances for individuals and families. i call on president obama and

congressional democrats to do the right thing by supporting the authority for mandate delay act of the fair miss for american families act to protect the american people and ensure fairness for all. thank you and i yield back the remainder of my time. from tennesseedy yields back. the gentleman from washington is recognized. >> i asked unanimous consent to effecto the record the of the affordable care act on the sixth the district of tennessee and i now yield a minute and a half to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. >> 90 seconds. >> thank you, mr. speaker, and thank you to the manager and dr. mcdermott who has been a mainstay of good health care in this congress for a very long time. he is managing as well with the gentleman from georgia who has practiced medicine. we can have a disagreement.

the vigorous disagreement that we have, i must say, mr. speaker, the weight of truth falls on what we have done on behalf of obamacare. the snow. when you get on a sled, and rolls down and you are happy. you come to a successful and. we have rolled down and we keep on rolling because the affordable care act is allowing young people to have insurance, reducing the cost of prescription drugs for our seniors and allowing a state like texas, the highest number of uninsured to have some hundred 21,000 plus in my district now with insurance. it allows about 10 community health facilities to be able to begin enrollment this coming september and be able to outreach to those families who will now have coverage for them and their children. let me be clear. how many times do i have to say no, you cannot have your way? the supreme court has ruled that this is the law of the land and

there is no reason whatsoever to go back on a plan that has allowed the new york insurance rates to go down on health care. these are large companies who have said they just need to look at it to streamline it. that is to make it better. it, 13 millionne americans will not have insurance. act is goinge care well. people are insured and americans are healthier. underlying bill. when will you ever understand? it's over. it's over. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> i'm pleased to yield a minute from half to the gentleman pennsylvania. >> the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. extent to revise and extend my remarks. i think dr. price for his work on the site and i rise in

support of the legislation. president obama made many promises. he said if you like your coverage that you could keep it. to promotewould try economic growth. workers andsylvania families are experiencing just the opposite. a mom who works at a food service company in the beaver, pennsylvania, called to me to talk for one hour about how the laws impacting her family. her hours cut by almost half thanks to the employer mandate. her husband's job security is now also at risk. the lost hours, income, job security have made it difficult for them to afford the necessities of life and make it almost impossible to send their daughter to college next year. president obama recently proposed postponing the employer

mandate. in doing so, he has conceded it is not workable. if businesses deserve a break, why do the rest of the american people not deserve it? we need reforms that increase access to care and reduce costs. aday's legislation is necessary first to achieve the kind of reform that american people deserve. i thank the speaker and i yield back the balance of my time. like the gentleman from georgia reserves. the chair would instruct at the gentleman from georgia has 11 and a half minutes left in the gentleman from washington has four. >> i reserve. >> the gentleman from georgia. i may inquire to my friend if he has any remaining speakers. >> there are some other individuals who have respect -- requested tuesday that they are not on the floor. if they don't show, i'm prepared to close.

>> ok. the gentleman from georgia reserves. >> in which case i reserve. if the gentleman from washington will close, i will do the same. i think for the indulgence of my friend. i'm pleased to yield one minute the gentleman from ohio, a gentleman who is engaged in the health profession. like the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. delay certaino provisions underlines the very rule of law. if president obama pick and choose what he wants to enforce, what keeps them from doing the same with other legislation? while this is determined that the signature piece of legislation is too complicated for businesses, the individual mandate still stands. businesses get a break but they get no relief from the burdens

of this law. why do hard-working individuals from theve relief hardships of the affordable care act? tothey stand by the decision delay one mandate, is an unfair to delay the other? realistically, a delay through onlyull repeal is the workable solution. don't americans deserve equality under the law and fairness for all? i yield back. georgiaentleman from reserves. the gentleman from washington. close or reserve? >> we have no more speakers and i am prepared to close. >> the gentleman from washington is recognized. >> i have in my hand here a letter signed by 30 economists from harvard, yale, m.i.t., stanford, rice, university of chicago all of whom say we need

a mandate. mandate were taken out of the law, the affordable care act would be dead. now, what they say is the individual mandate does not specify what care people receive. it simply requires people to pay a reasonable amount for any care they may ultimately receive. no less a conservative than -- the republican nominee for president -- noted when the signing massachusetts's equivalent of the individual mandate "some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate, but remember someone has to pay for healthcare that must, by law, be provided. either the individual pays where the taxpayer pays." everyone in this body spends

$1000 a year beyond their own theth care costs paying for uninsured in this country. people walk into the emergency room. they get taken care of because the hospital cannot refuse them and the doctor cannot refuse them. so they are taken care of and it is passed on to you and me. the individual mandate says everyone should pay according to their ability. going on, mr. romney said, "a free ride on the government is not libertarianism." everywhere they have tried this without subsidies and mandates has failed. the five states that have tried comprehensive insurance market reform without an individual mandate, healthy people choose to stay out of insurance and six people -- sick people take it up in the

premiums go up. that's exactly what the cbo says. individualg the mandate, you want to drive up the cost on the people who now have insurance. a very strange political position to be taking. say i listen to all of these people. if you spend two years ranting about the affordable care act and you run a campaign and spent hundreds of millions of dollars to rant against the affordable care act, it's not surprising that people may be a little confused. school in in medical 1963, the american medical association spent three or four years ranting against medicare. when people went out to enroll for medicare, they got the door slammed in their face. all people said they did not want that kind of government health in their house.

well, let me tell you something. if you tried to take medicare out now, you would find you would have taken on a really ugly junkyard dog. you're not going to take out medicare in this country now. you can't confuse people for a while, but as they seek, and as i reported in everybody's district, it's already affecting have insurance because of pre-existing conditions. it is affecting kids who did not have insurance from their job but are now on their parents insurance. limits onay lifetime care. it took away all of the things that people worry about when they want health care. they now have it. you are saying let's take the individual mandate out and have the whole house come down? that's what these economists have said. i ask unanimous consent to enter

this letter into the record. >> without objection. the gentleman's time has expired. >> a lot of people have come to the floor on the other side of the aisle to speak about this piece of legislation. individuals from the states that have passed legislation to implore congress not to continue with the individual mandate -- alabama, arizona, -- those who did not come down to the floor. we get asked by people on the other side about where the jobs bill is. in addition to all of the remarkable pieces of legislation on jobs that we had indeed tosed and sent to the senate gain dust, this is a jobs bill. i don't know if our friends on the other side have not talked to their employers back home. employers large and small, they all say this is damaging job creation. we had one before the committee

thatmy friend and i sit on said he would not be able to expand his business. he could not because of this bill. this is jobs legislation. we get people on the other side to say this is just about politics. mr. speaker, you talk about politics. the president is saying he's the reportingnd requirements for the employer mandate for one year and oh, by the way, that happens to be after the 2014 election. talk about politics. some of my friends on the other side act as if this is something that we have indeed supported in the past. we appreciate that the administration has awakened to the challenge of this

administration. they recognize it does not work for business and job creators because of the uncertainty and fewer jobs being created. they have promoted a delay of one year for the employer mandate. that uncertainty remains for those employers and they will not be able to hire significant individuals. that uncertainty and that oppression of government-run health care isn't just for business. also true for individuals. i would say i just encourage my friends to read the bill. read the bill. this is the bill. it is very short. easily read, it simply changes the year requirements for the individual mandate from one eight years to lay in 2015. that is all it does. it equalizes the trade for individuals as for businesses. many of them have not read the bill because if they did, they

would recognize this will has no change in it for cretins is -- pre-existing bills -- illnesses and injuries. it has no change for 26-year- olds being covered on their parents health insurance. no change for lifetime limits, no change for gender equity. no change for out-of-pocket limit. no change for anybody's insurance being taken away. all the bill does, all it does, is simply say individuals ought to be treated fairly and equally just like this and says, that we ought to delay the mandate for a year, and i him my and i yield support back the balance of my time. >> all time for debate has expired.

the previous question is ordered. those in favor, say i. the eyes have it. third reading. >> a bill to delay the application of the individual health insurance mandate. >> one c of rule 19. it is postponed. one c of rule 19 will now resume. ther 2667, a bill to delay application of the health insurance mandate. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey to seek recognition. does the gentleman oppose this >> i most certainly am. instructions to report to the house. at the end, a following new

section, protecting employees and families. nothing in this act shall be construed to help in -- employers seek insurance coverage -- >> point of order against the motion to recommit. the gentleman from new jersey. five minutes. >> thank you. this final of amendment, which would not delay consideration, is to be sure that no one covered by their employer today suffers as a result of the bill. make no must take. the purpose of the underlying bill is to unravel the affordable care act thread by thread and make sure it collapses under its own weight. make no mistake about it further. is for gotten around

here if that's what this congress does. we are not a debating society and a perpetual political campaign. we are a legislative body that makes the decisions that affect real lives of real people in significant ways. it is very important all members understand the consequences of what is being done here today. a lot of americans whose lives are not being impacted today. unemployed1 million in this country who are hoping next week might be the first week they get a paycheck in a long time, this house is doing nothing. for families of student loans over 5 million of them who have seen their student loan rate double on the first of july, this house, consistent with its practice, is doing nothing for

them today. for the millions of americans waiting for their lives to be of an out of the shadows antiquated immigration law, and 68% voting in favor of change in that law, this house is doing nothing for those americans once again today. -- it ishis will doing a lot to affect a lot of other americans. if everyone does not stay in paying for the health care system, the woman who has breast cancer and the little boy with asthma can be denied because of their pre- existing conditions, or it can it will notfected help them. deferred for -- the person who paid for the health insurance

policy, if you're one of the millions of americans who got a , to stop insurance companies from overcharging americans, if these folks have their way, this bill will affect them because they will lose the rebate. if they are among millions of senior citizens able to go for an annual checkup for a cancer screening, an annual checkup for their health and not pay anything for it and recover from mostses, this bill certainly will affect those americans because it will repeal those benefits. for those seniors caught in a doughnut hole created by the medicare program created by the then majority a few years ago, who have seen their drug oferage cost drop the cause

rebate that help them offset that coverage, they will be upset by the bill because the rebates will disappear and this will cost them more again. if they are one of the thousands or millions of young able able to stay on the parents health insurance policies until they are 26 years of age, their lives will be affected and is no because they will lose that and if it ended early that rate. this congress has a real responsibility to americans who want to see us move beyond this endless debate. move beyondsee us this and get to work on the real problems in the country. let's put americans back to work and drop the cost of a college education and fix our broken immigration for -- system. let's repair the voting rights act tantalized by the united states supreme court a few weeks

ago. wese are problems to which should turn our attention but here we are again, the 30th consecutive attempt to repeal the affordable care act. vote for our constituents and the american people is to vote yes on the motion to recommit and no on this underlying bill. i yield back. >> i withdraw my point of order and seek time. >> withdrawn and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. let me just say, obamacare is already forcing workers to lose coverage. cbo has said employers will drop health care coverage. cbo has said employers will lay off workers and reduce coverage. that is already happening.

workers in this country are suffering. even the union has said so >> the president will talk about the affordable care act, obamacare, tomorrow. we will have live coverage here

on c-span. we do not know enough about our first ladies. scratch the surface and you find lives that often surpass their husbands in order to. -- fortitude. our original series examines the public and private lives of these women and their influences on the presidency. watch the presentation weeknights in august at 9:00 p.m. eastern. >> the house ways and means subcommittee held a hearing to delay the enforcement of the horrible care act mandate there theye law requires provide with health insurance beginning in 2014. the president's action delays the mandate for one year.

a congressman shares this to our meeting. class the subcommittee will come to order. this is our second hearing on the controversial decision to delay for one year president obama's affordable care act mandate, forcing local businesses to offer health care or pay a tax era today, at last, we will hear directly from the treasury department. is it not unfair to grant business relief but still force average workers to comply with mandate?te yucca -- how is it ready for my family, my child, my loved ones? families and workers are worried wondering why the white house is not listening to us. this is not fair. the president has proclaimed the law is working the way it is supposed to.

the white house treasury health and human services continue to repeatedly assure their -- the public everything is on schedule. ,ere is what is not on schedule small business exchanges delayed. mandate on employers, delayed. income verification is postponed. insurance verification, delayed. this is the affordable care act work the way it is supposed to? the goal of the july 4 holiday blog posts would downplay the latest embarrassing omission of failure, it accomplishes the opposite. it is nowhere near ready. wastemporary relief welcome news but did not solve a series of problems our local businesses are struggling with under obamacare.

the president's health care law and its troubled implementation is causing more confusion and uncertainty, which will continue to stop local businesses from hiring. workers are seeing fewer hours and smaller paychecks and that is not fair. businesses are struggling to pay for higher health costs under obamacare. that is not fair. our neighbors are struggling to find full-time -- full-time work, more than 20 million in america. that is not fair. now workers who depend on affordable health care for their families and loved ones do not get the same special treatment businesses are getting the the white house. how is that fair? how are workers supposed to comply with the law? federal law says before getting affordableve to get coverage that meets government approval. are they supposed to contact their employer? what if they get it wrong.

one witness laid it out clearly. they could face a fine of $125,000. no wonder the law remains unpopular with americans, with a poll saying 60 x percent of americans want to see the individual mandate delayed, even prominently, union leaders are predicting obamacare will shatter health care benefits and destroy the backbone of the middle class. why is the white house ignoring the voices of middle-class americans? wired into average workers? this is washington so we can predict someone will attempt to dismiss these by saying, it is all just politics, that republicans are trying to repeal obamacare. it is the white house that delayed the important mandate, not republicans. others will claim the employer mandate is not really important, although, in this committee,

they fiercely defend the mandate as one of the pillars of obamacare. others will hysterically claim that postponing the mandate will harm children with pre-existing conditions and young people wanting to stay on the parents plans until age 26. but those laws stay firmly in place. if we treat workers the same as businesses have been treated by the white house. today, the treasury department the knowledge meant it is not ready for businesses is the first step. the next step is to acknowledge the same problems exist under obamacare for individuals and the same relief should be given to families and workers. that would be fair. before i recognize the ranking member for the purpose of an opening statement, i ask all remain in a written statement for the record.

>> thank you. welcome. i want to thank you for coming to talk to us today. i cannot necessarily promise you a kind reception. appearblican colleagues very upset by this decision, its support. they are so upset, they already put bills out there to repeal the mandates. but they are not even following regular order in congress. they decided to use the delay to target a much more important provision of the affordable care act, the individual mandate. it seems they discovered a repressed populism. they reserve for special occasions. agenda.s their repeal and replace is a great

way to tell voters what they want to hear. we will keep all the things you like, closing the prescription doughnut hall, adding to discrimination based on pre- existing conditions, and get rid of all the things you do not like, eliminating free riders and telling the employers to pay their fair share. easy to see because they do not intend to fulfill the replaced part of it. if they did, they would have to come face-to-face with the hard truth -- ruth that one makes the other. the individual mandate makes possible the ability to give people insurance. guaranteed insurance, debt -- coverage without a mandate is not insurance at all but an elected bill payment. given the opportunity. not putd -- who would

off paying until they need to use their insurance if they knew they could get it at any time? some states have tried to implement with all benefits. washington state has been through this. in 1993, we put in a universal mandate and insurance reform denials for pre- existing conditions. without any leverage to keep healthy people out of the insurance rolls, when they repeal the individual mandate, only the priciest remain and insurers began a financial death spiral. under mitt romney, the republican presidential got itte, massachusetts right with employer mandates and subsidies. when the insurance industry had guaranteed customers, it took

everyone without decimating the market. romney called the individual mandate, "the personal andonsibility principle" everybody in this country should be personal response -- personally responsible for themselves to the extent they can and he explained it was essential to getting everyone the health insurance they deserve and need. while his stance may seem bravely bipartisan now, this idea of the mandate came from the right. george w. bush made it to make his health care proposal work. in 2000, jim sat on the committee and was once the chair of the subcommittee. as well as a member of the rnc see. he supported an individual mandate. here is what he said. "we need to think of a better way to deliver health insurance to everybody in the country. that means an individual

mandate. gingrich supported it. and the majority -- the republican minority made it the foundation of their alternative in the early 90's. although it back to 1989, the a think foundation, tank no one would accuse of being moderate, much less liberal, released a proposal. --n president nick shen nixon relied on the mandate program, personal responsibility and eliminating free riders is usually the hallmark of conservative policy making. people should be responsible for themselves the reason they want to get rid of the safety net? people should be responsible for themselves. after decades of republican support for an individual mandate, what has changed?

republicans no health reform only works if everyone has skin in the game. , doome point, i have to ask they really want it to work? do they want to help some americans get affordable coverage echo if you do not accept republican ideas, what is left? i never wanted the mandate, personally. todoes not make much sense me. i thought for a sinker -- single-payer system that recognizes our government has a social and financial stake in the health of all our citizens. a private insurer market system one. the republicans won the debate when the aca was put in the way it was. this is a compromise we found. everyone participates so no one is denied. and new -- endless futile attempt to repeal will not help anyone know were to nonexistent replacement plans.

atwill do it this afternoon about 3:00 30 or 4:00 --, do they really want it to work? 3:0 or 4:00. let's get on with the show and let people and their coverage they need -- >> i yield back. >> senior adviser to the secretary and deputy assistant secretary for the u.s. -- treasury. you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. on july 22, -- on july 2, there would be relief 2014 with free provisions added to the internal revenue code by the affordable

care act. first, the information reporting requirements for insurance companies, employers, and other entities that provide health coverage. second, the information reporting requirements for employers subject to the employer shared responsibility provision. and third, the employer shared provisions. july 9, we published formal guidance. notice 2014 -- there he five that describes the transition relief. after reviewing written comments on the employer and insurer information requirements and after related discussions with employers and other stakeholders, employers and their representatives have requested relief for 2014 because of the difficulty and

cost of complying with requirements, a desire that it be simplified and the times necessary to adapt information gathering and reporting systems and implement reporting effectively. we recognize the best of -- vast majority provide health coverage to their workers and we want to make sure employers will be able to comply effectively and efficiency -- efficiently. the president announced an additional year 2014 will be provided before the employer and insurer requirements began and this is designed to meet two concerns addressed. first, to allow for additional dialogue to symbol five the new reporting process consistent with implementation of the law, and second, to give more time, which many have requested to

adapt as they move forward to making coverage available in the -- in their workforce. employers and other reporting entities are encouraged to report voluntarily in 2014 and allowing time for real world testing for reporting systems that year full implementation in 2015. employer reporting is integral to the shared responsibility provision for employers and because of the 2014 transition possiblet will not be for the irs to match up information for employers with information about invisible -- individuals claiming a tax credit for 2014 with the result the transition relief will make it impractical to determine which employers oh responsibility payment for 2014. we have extended the transition

relief to the employer shared responsibility transitions so no payments of that sort will be up soon -- assessed in 2014. in preparation for the provision in 2015, employers and others are encouraged to voluntarily report and maintain and expand coverage in 2014. the transition relief does not affect and please or other individual access to the tax credit available in 2014. people will continue to be eligible by enrolling in a qualified plan in the marketplace. if their household income which is within a specified range, nor does this transition relief affect the effective date of other provisions, including the individual responsibility marketons and insurance reforms. while the 2014 transition relief i employers would make it impractical to implement the employer responsibility

provisions, it would not have a onparable effect implementation, which is a practical matter necessary for implementing the insurance market reforms that guarantee access for individuals. this act is projected to provide coverage for tens of millions of americans and treasury is implementing together with other departments to build on the progress already made to better and more affordable coverage. we appreciate the opportunity to further work with the committee to achieve these big -- objectives and i look forward to answering your questions. the a andll learn it's your blog post on the eve of the fourth of july, july 2, to be exact. major blockbuster decision not made in just one afternoon. when did the department make the decision obamacare was not ready for businesses?

, myet me start by saying relate tolities policy, health tax policy. others are responsible for media relations, congressional relations, public affairs, so, i would be happy to put you in touch with the appropriate people on detailed questions of the motive announcement and timing. >> you are well respected. you have a long and distinguished record and we are pleased you are feel -- here. the title is the hearing on the delay of the employer mandate. the timing is based on the policy, the decision it would businesses. for this is not a press issue. when did treasury make the final policy decision that

obamacare would not be ready for individuals and must be postponed? >> treasury made the decision that employers request for more time to comply with the reporting requirements were valid requests shortly before this transition relief. >> sometime in june? >> the decision was made yes, sometime in june, but it was --sidered over a >> a while before that. >> for a while. it was very carefully thought --ough by a whole variety >> early june, mid-june, late

june, just before the announcement? >> i cannot really be more specific. made in a verys deliberate way. it was obviously something that took into account any body of evidence, requests from whooyers, input from those do the reporting. >> once the treasury department made the decision in june, when did it inform the white house of that very important decision? >> there was a continuous process of consultation, as there typically is. this reflected the usual coordination between departments. >> you are saying white house reform throughout long,

deliberate considerations? >> the white house was certainly onormed and we coordinated wasanalysis of whether this an appropriate direction to go. >> i have questions about this whole timeline. the american public certainly does. june 7, when the president proclaimed the law was working close to, had you already been in contact with the white house you were considering delaying one of the twin pillars of his health care law? are onrketplaces target to take enrollment and to start their open enrollment time. fax i understand we have been

following the timeline carefully. beenny deadlines have missed. you just testified and kept the white house informed throughout the whole process. was the white house aware of your decision to postpone this when the president told the american public everything is great? i am trying to understand if there is a disconnect. has beenite house closely coordinating in this whole policy area, as have the other departments involved, hhs, the department of labor. >> when did you inform hhs and the secretary of your decision that obamacare would not be ready for businesses. givee decision was to employers more time for reporting.

-- we ared treasury thrilled to hear and you have a great reputation. there is no question. you know what the topic of the hearing is. did the treasury department inform hhs? >> i have not been involved in all the conversations. all the meetings. of thel the phases decision-making process. not expect any human being to be in all those meetings. informed?he hs >> i would be happy to take that back to people involved. >> was any member of congress or staff informed of the decision ahead of the july second blog post? >> my role is not congressional

relations role. i am not able to give you a good answer to the question, a reliable answer to the question. i am more than happy to take it back. clearly, obama care is not ready for businesses, we sit here today, do you think the affordable care act today is ready for implementation for workers and their families? >> definitely. >> definitely? the exchanges are set up? >> is not supposed to be implemented today. but i take your question to the, will -- is it on a path to be ready when it needs to be ready january 1, 2014 >> the reason i ask is that you probably there is postpone

>> i do. and the authority to postpone the individual mandate, correct? if you can do one, you can do both. >> mr. chairman, the questions of legal authority are ones we take very seriously and deliberately. >> you research one on the employer mandate and the individual mandate, it did twin brother. so the answer is, yes? we would not necessarily apply the same analysis to any other provision. a decision to provide transition relief while the treasury has taken, on a , under of occasions

different administrations >> our big worry is you have the legal authority to postpone this for businesses and you knew at the time the individual mandate is not ready, either and not available for workers. why did you make the decision warren buffett gets relieved from obamacare but joe sixpack does not? why does an average worker have to comply with the law on time and on schedule but the businesses who have lobbyists and the ability to talk directly to you in the white house, why do they get relief and why did average workers not get the same relief? >> we believe the workers today are getting tremendous benefit from this law. >> do you think labor unions represent workers? >> of course. , under leading question.t a just kind of obvious. so labor unions -- the leaders

have come out full force this week obamacare will shatter their healthcare and undermine the backbone of middle-class americans. the majority of americans are saying to the white house, "we are worried and we want to spoke owned for us, as well. is the white house listening to the voices of average workers are just the voices of business? >> the white house and administration as a whole is certainly listening to the voices of average workers and it is the average workers who are the driving motivation for this very critical health care reform that provides premium tax credit. >> you are asking to be treated as fairly as diseases are. warren buffett gets a break and joe sixpack does not. a deaf single mom working at the restaurant does not. final question. there are a lot of missed

deadlines already. we expect there will be more. the labor day holiday is coming up. accounts any twitter of interns we should be monitoring for any more announcements of the affordable care act? mr. chairman, if i may, the tax benefits of this law for individuals are a historic proportion. the insurance market -- insurance market reforms, limiting exclusions and so forth, are of historic significance. the focus is really on the american people. >> those provisions stay in place if the individual mandate is also postponed, correct? >> it is problematic. >> but the law stays in place because

postponing an individual mandate has no impact on children aged to the debt age 20 six. -- age 26. >> i think health policy experts across the political spectrum have made clear that if you do not have individual responsibility, personal individual responsibility to maintain health coverage, that the key insurance market reforms the american people deserve and are so eager to have, will not be workable. >> experts also say, if you cannot verify that your employer is offering affordable coverage, or government approved coverage, that it is very difficult, without major fraud possibilities to force workers to buy government healthcare.

thank you. >> you are being treated to a .olitical trick confusion is the greatest way to kill something. triestinguished chairman to confuse. the fact is, 95% of the people in companies over 50% are now providing health coverage to their employees. is that correct? 95% of employers, approximately with more than 50 employees, are providing health coverage. many of them have been doing so for a long time. >> the experience in massachusetts, when they put it in employer mandate, companies drop their insurance for their

employees? >> the evidence in massachusetts suggests companies did not drop their insurance and that in general, companies retain their insurance for employees. >> the figures show they increase their coverage for that time. this business about an employer andate being the linchpin the whole thing comes down if we take that out, that is clearly not the issue. ofis a reporting question how many people you have working 35 or 40 or whatever hours. on the other hand, the essential mandate is to the insurance pencil. if you are going to look and cover everybody in the room, you have to have everybody in here paying into the program. either theel,

government pays it or individuals pay it. otherwise, we this whole group over here that just sits out and says, i will not join this ring. i will wait until i get sick and then i will jump in. what is the effect on the insurance industry of having 10, 20, 15% sitting and jumping in whenever they are sick? the effect of adverse selection tends to be to drive up the costs for the insurer and hence the premiums for the individual and that without some protection against people waiting until they are sick to acquire the insurance and protection against people who then get ettore, dropping the insurance after they feel they do not need the immediate care,

to the really critical pre-existing condition, the guaranteed availability of coverage, and the other, fundamental insurance reforms that protect people. whyhat probably explains governor romney, a noted conservative republican, put the individual mandate into the program in massachusetts. basis, on an insurance it would not work if you did not have everybody in. that has been the experience all across the country. , 93, we put ine an individual mandate and guaranteed issue, we gave the two pieces and then the legislature took out the individual mandate and left a guaranteed issue. within three years, we had no individual sales, individual coverage in the state of washington. all the companies left, every

single one of them left. that is really what is at stake here, it seems to me. to say the employer mandate is connected to that is a ruse to get us into a big argument about bringing the whole program down. youhere anything you feel have had a chance to explain? i give you another minute or so. >> there are a number of things. am sure we will get to those. one point building on what you just said is the guaranteed issue, the ability of people to get insurance, small business is to be able to get insurance for their people, the guarantee that if you get sick, you will not be deprived of your health coverage, that the pricing will prohibitive because somebody in the small-business

workforce is sick or or the individual, someone in their family, needs a lot of care, those insurance market reforms, including protection from pre- existing condition occlusions, will go into effect together with the marketplaces, the access to coverage, the tax benefits that assist people to afford coverage. all of that will go into effect at the beginning of 2014 at scheduled. it is the employer reporting and responsibility that are getting transition. thank you. time has expired. mr. thompson? >> thank you. you have already answered some of the question. you said the law was not supposed to work as it was supposed to and you decided to delay an employer mandate. why was there an excuse to notify people about that

significant exchange? is and that an unusual method to passing on such important information? tomy responsibilities treasury our policy, as opposed to communications. i was not involved in the decision as to how to accompany the formal guidance that, in the usual way, reflected a treasury decision, how do -- how to accompany that. >> you do not control the way you announce things. let me ask another question. the announcement of the delay and employer mandate came as a big surprise with less than six months to go. what do you think that means for business owners who are planning decisions as well and do you think you have more or

less certainty as to where federal policy is headed and do you think they are more or less confused about what will be in place in 2015 and will it only be a year delay at the could be two years or five years? >> i am happy to answer all those questions. >> go ahead. >> first of all, the business community were the ones who requested additional time. to everybody, all the stakeholders, not just the business community, representatives of individuals, individuals themselves, people spectrum of those involved in our health care system. it was the employers who provide the vast majority of coverage to american workers, who told us, we could use more time. we are implementing these reporting provisions. we are implementing the systems

we need for employer responsibility. in the course of our extensive back and forth with them, a lot of interaction, they have increasingly, over the past few months, made the point that they need a little more time in order to implement this smoothly, and they could use, if possible, some simplification or greater flexibility in the timing of the reporting provisions. >> how many companies do you hear from? >> we heard from individual companies and associations that represent hundreds of thousands of companies. i know congressman congress heard from them, too. there have been requests for more time to do the

implementation from a wide range of organizations, particularly in the retail industry, in the restaurant sector, food service, but even more broadly, across american industry. organizations like the chamber the retail industry leaders association, then asked her -- national restaurant association and the national retail federation, they have been saying for the last year and have testified before congress, that a little more time for implementation, a one- year delay, is what most of the ones asking for more time, have focused on. a one-year delay would make a tremendous difference in their ability to implement a system changes they need to make, efficiency and some -- efficiently and smoothly for

their workers. >> individuals do not have the same problem? havengressman, individuals a very different way of interacting with the system, all of which is geared to deliver benefits to them. i am happy to lay that out and discuss it with you and your colleagues. but the individuals reporting requirements are much more akin to what people do now on their 1040 tax return. >> it will just cost more. thank you, my time has expired. >> thank you for being here today. i said this last week when we had a hearing. i am not particularly tickled by the delay. i would rather have the delay than rush this thing through and get something that does not work.

the truth of the matter is, this is work we are seeing, good results, and i have got a list i was given today just in my district. 7500 adults, now have health through the parents plans, and more than 6000 seniors are getting discounts on prescription drugs, 100,000 seniors and 190 1000 individuals are able to have preventative services and 224,000 individuals are saving money through rebates from their insurance and 38,000 kids with her existing conditions now have access to health care coverage. this is good stuff. further, in the new york times this morning, there was an article that says the states andove their rates for 2014 that they will see at least a 50% lower on average than those currently available in new york today.

these are all indications things are going in the right direction. i am ok with the delay to make sure they continue to go in the right direction. inave been having meetings my district with business folks, trying to provide information on how businesses and employees can inefit by obamacare, and found it remarkable the number show up to mythat meetings with employees far lower than the 50 full-time employees, they are the overwhelming majority of people in these meetings and have no idea, for the most part, that they are under no employer responsibility provisions. when they come to these meetings, for the first time, it seems, many of them are finding out not only do they not

fall into this provision, but they may have access to a marketplace where they can get insurance for themselves and their employees at a much more competitive price. and, i pointed out the new york times story. but this is true, the lower rates are true in california and montana, and the district of columbia. we have got a good story to tell and i would suggest my the other side of the aisle who are critical of this, instead of having more floor votes to try to repeal the good work we are trying to accomplish, that we do better outreach and make sure folks understand the benefits of this in help them get enrolled these money-saving healthcare providing programs that are out

there. you mentioned in both your testimony and to one of the questions, that the number of by thees affected employer responsibility portion, i think you said 95% of employers have fewer than 50 full-time employees. is that correct? we are talking about five percent of employees impacted i this provision? 95% of employers, roughly, have less than the 50 employee workforce. the number of employees is different. a lot of employees are concentrated in businesses of different sizes. not uniformly distributed. your point is well taken that the majority of employers are

either not subject to the employer responsibility at all, or, in the case of the employers that are over 50, in terms of their workforce, and are subject to employer responsibility to offer coverage, 95% or so of those have been providing coverage, and already provide coverage to their workforce. >> the businesses that contact you and the businesses you work cooperatively with in spoke -- postponing for a year this provision, was -- what is it they are looking for? why do they want this delay? do they think congress will repeal obama care, or do they want to make it work for employees? >> the time is expired. if you could respond in writing to the question. >> thank you. >> thank you. i have got a couple tracks i

want to go down. i will ask you specific questions. if you could give me specific answers, i would like that because we only have five minutes. the law is that if you liked what -- what you had, you could keep it with health insurance. i would like to assume in doing your analysis to delay this, you ran other analyses as to what the effects would be on federal revenues and health insurance and the like. did the administration do the analysis on the employer- sponsored health insurance market and whether or not insurance levels will be changed? was there announces that look into whether or not employers would stop drop their -- start dropping coverage echo >> mr. ryan, there was, indeed, thorough analysis, both within the administration, and, --

>> we are familiar with the private sector analyses done. would you please share the administration's analyses about the employer market that led to this decision? i was saying, there was clearly analysis within the administration of the impact of the affordable care act as it was being considered by as well as extensive analysis by the congressional budget office. by myriad private sector analyst, e, let's -- economists, the impact of affordable care act on jobs, -- ,> jobs, revenues, spending where is that analysis done by the administration this year? >> the analysis by the administration is continual. at treasury, at

omb, and other offices within the administration, including hhs, -- >> i assumed you would do that. what we are asking for, is, share that with us so we see what you saw which helped lead you to the decision to delay the employer mandate. that is my request. share the administration analysis on revenue and spending and insurance coverage levels within the private system so we can understand more. that is question one. you are nodding your head. we would expect that. here is question two. >> if i may, the analysis is continual -- >> i understand that. >> it is not that there is necessarily a particular written report that is rendered at each

point in time. but the analysis of all of the effects -- >> clearly, you have an analysis to see the impact of the law and the reason for the delay. we would like to know what went into the decision so we are better informed. >> of course, we would be more than happy to share with you --t went into wicca -- into >> stop. we are running out of time. we have a new data hub that is supposed to be set up to verify a person's information. it connects information from hhs, homeland security, department of justice justice, state governments and other agencies. big undertaking. if a person goes into the tohange against subsidies verify whether they qualify or not, they have to have been

offered employer insurance. adequate been offered employer insurance. they cannot get subsidies. income rule, an which you are now allowing them to a test to the income. how can you not include you will have a lot of fraud and confusion and abuse whereby individuals will get subsidized, exchanged tax credits, when they were not qualified for it?

:

>> i'm happy to welcome back one f my heroes, congressman john ewis, and one of my other dear friends from so many battles battles withs, not each other but battles we have oined together, jim sensenbrenner and i welcome everyone to this hearing that all americans, our right to vote. he title to today's hearing from selma to shelby county to restore the

protection of the voting rights historic of the effort to protect our voting rights and expresses to continue to work together to affirm the .oting rights act rom its inception to several reauthorizations the voting rights act has always been a bipartisan effort and i hope continue. part of that tradition is right here. ohn lewis and jim sensenbrenner, two highly respected members of the house a representatives, one democrat, one a republican. both om different states, with a shared commitment to voting rights. to working orward both of them as we seek to protections of the voting rights act after the .helby county case the historic struggle for individual voting rights reached point in on the edmond

pel pelvis bridge march 7, 1965. i had just gotten out of law school. saw a group of peaceful marchers led by a young john statebrutally attacked by troopers, called bloody sunday from the graphic photographs. a catalyst for the passage of the voting rights act. lewis later said your voice is almost sacred the powerful nonviolent tool we have to create a more perfect union. and to millions of others, he is a hero. being here for today. republicans and democrats in the senate and house of representatives joined ogether to pass a reauthorization landmark voting ghts act with overwhelming bipartisan support.

we were able to do it, one it, iswe were able to do a courageous chairman of the how congressman mittee sensenbrenner, a true leader of that effort. video at that time as a ranking member and watching what on, i could say we would not have been able to eauthorize that without his leadership in the house judiciary committee. was proud to work with him back then and i thank him for coming here to testify today. and nk that he and i congressman lewis were very happy when we saw the president that in the roase garden. holder heldy versus that it was outdate and the five justices who struck down the coverage formula in section four acknowledged discrimination

in voting continues to be a problem. roberts said voting discrimination still exists. no one doubts that. that is why we are here today. the spraopl court has called on supreme court has called on congress to update the voting rights act. together as rk america americans. in other parts of the world trying to obtain the right country with a free right to vote. be denied hould not by just the application of electrical laws. when the architects of the the lic wrote the words of constitution and declaration much independence they were -- ng a provider promissory note for every american.

when we vote for our children or the children to restore voting rights act to uphold the constitution. one's right to vote in this nation should be suppressed or denied denied, yet we continue to see that discriminatory practice today. everyone of us, i don't care what our political alliance, we opposed to tally suppressing votes. that.t's work together on senator grassley, with me and i congressman lewis has something to say. >> it is very right for you to this hearing, mr. chairman, after a significant decision by supreme court and extent of which congress has a duty to do it in our checks and balances of government. the voting rights act guarantees right to vote

for all voters regardless of race or language. protection of other rights. the law is necessary to address history.l i have voted to reauthorize the act. appreciate the testimony of our congressional colleagues and welcome both of them here and point out specifically for representative lewis your bloody ation in the sunday helped to lead to nacting the law and creating your enduring place in history. thank you for being here today. e should be pleased that our country has made advances in voting ations since the rights act was passed. the act contributed to the doubt more progress must be maintained and should be made. a hearing such as this will help that. voted to reauthorize in 2006. much has changed since then. was oter turnout rate

higher last year among registered african-american other classes of people. more african-american and candidates than ever are winning elections. that because the supreme court has found these facts of constitutional significance. we are here today largely because congress failed to heed warningeme court's 2009 that the differing treatments of states and preclearance coverage formula raised serious constitutional questions. so.ht justices said the ninth would have struck the will you down at that time. could address today new coverage formula to address toes concerns. created a formula based on 21st century realities dramatically different conditions that existed in the 1960 and 1970's. as it did hen ruled many people believe that section wo is the heart of the voting

rights act. unlike section five, it rohibits voter discrimination nationwide. unlike section five, section two to challenge procedures before they take injunctions.h over the years the preclearance process led to many fewer proposed election law changes. since the last reauthorization objections have been made. in have been no objections raised to any changes in seven 16 states that are covered in whole or in part and n three of the states that are fully covered. 9.86% of summations have been approved. additionally, the racial gap in registration and turnout is her in the states originally five than in tion the case -- than is the case nationwide. thecourt has given congress opportunity to draft a tpnew constitutional coverage formula. disagreed with a member of

this committee who said as long a majority ns have in the house democrats don't have 60 votes in the senate be no preclearance. have sm and defeatism never before characterized reauthorization of the voting rights act. blaming republics for blocking a bill that doesn't exist the majority should bring proposal to update the coverage formula in a constitutional way. e should cover the whole country. we could identify jurisdictions discrimination in the 21st century and where section two is inadequate. options.y be other i look forward to seeing what is brought before the committee. pass we mustill to respect the constitution's pronouncements. ruling in ased the part on the 10th amendment saying the constitution provides

that all powers not specifically federal o the government are reserved to the states or citizens thereof. point out the word "specifically". a formulation of the 10th amendment i have never seen before. only ns that congress can enact laws that fall win the power of the constitution pecifically gives it such as the enumerated powers of article one and 15ed amendment which is constitutional basis for the voting rights act. the ruling requires congress to greater respect for the limitations of its power as against state authority. language that must be kept in mind if congress considers voting ion amending the rights act. the court last month also ruled constitution's election clause congress may regulate "how federal elections but not who may vote in them." left to the ns are

states. threaten the integrity of voting such as voter utional identification laws. overwhelming majorities support the requirements and know right to vote is denied when a the vote is canceled by vote of somebody ineligible to vote as when an eligible voter blocked. the supreme court has just ruled hat "it would raise serious constitutional doubts if a federal statute precluded a obtaining the information necessary to enforce qualifications." this hearing is very important mr. commends you, chairman, for yholding it as son shelby hearing. you, mr. chair, for holding it as soon as you are after shelby hearing. >> we will start with john lewis. at a personal point i

remember with great fondness when i roduction received the civil rights award, award.phrey i thought it was one of the career in thef my senate to be introduced by you. we have seen recently so many times on television the scenes of 50 years ago. glad your heare, congressman lewis. >> i want to thank you mr. ranking member and members holding mmittee for this important hearing and inviting me to testify today. unanimous n, i ask scent my full statement be -- consent my full statement be record. in the since first being elected to congressman sensenbrenner has been a tireless champion of the voting rights act. proud and pleased to be with

today, my friend, my brother. i said it before and i say again four and five are the heart and soul of the voting rights act. today t oday of the supreme court decision broke my heart. it made me want to x-ray. i felt like saying come, come the shoes of people who try to register, try to vote live to see the passage of the voting rights act. know you know that history but t is important for the record to note what life was like before the voting rights act of 1965. when i first came to washington, 1961, the same year president barack obama was born, blacks and whites couldn't sit beside each other on a bus through virginia,

carolina, through mississippi ama, into new orleans. we saw signs that said white only. colored in many parts of this country people were denied the right to because to vote simply of the color of their skin. they were harassed, intimidated fired from their jobs and forced off of farms and plantations. who tried to assist were and n, arrested, jailed even murdered. before the voting rights act stood an inimmovable line. n occasion a person of color would be asked to count the umber of bubbles in a bar of soap or number of jelly beans in a jar. in 1964 the state of mississippi age black voting population of more than 450,000 16,000 were t

registered to vote. my state of alabama was 80% african-american one was able to register to vote. not one. selma is located in dallas county, alabama. 2% of this period only african-americans were registered to vote in this county. ou could only attempt to register on the first and third month. of each occasionally people had to pass test.alled literacy before the voting rights act -- james g men i knew and mick dy goodman scherner -- were working to register african-americans to vote. they were arrested released to jail to members of the clan in middle of the night and they

were beaten, shot and killed. on march 7, 1961, jose williams person of dr. martin luther king and i attempted to eave a peaceful non violeviolet march from selma to montgomery. right to e vote more than 500 men, women and children were chased, beaten beaten, bloodied and trampled by eers, some riding horseback. became known as bloody sunday. a little over a week later lyndon johnson came before a joint session of the congress and spoke to the nation. saeid, i speak tonight for the dignity of man and for the democracy. and he presented the voting rights act to congress. of hard work, congress posted the bill and on 1965, president lyndon

johnson signed the voting rights law and gave me one of the pens he used to sign that bill. period and these struggles like it was just only yesterday. to this day i truly believe that e are a better country, a better people because of the voting rights act. we have made progress. we have come a great distance. but the deliberate systematic harder and ake it more difficult for many to participate in the democratic exists to this very day. only hours after the decision announced by the supreme court, before the ink was even states began to put into force efforts to suppress voting rights. and, mr. chairman, as you quoted, in a democracy such the vote is precious.

it is almost sacred. powerful most nonviolentolve. voting belief the rights act is needed now more .han ever before a bipartisan congress and epublican president worked to reauthorize this law four times. cannot be on those citizens whose rights were or will be violated. it is a duty and a responsibility of congress to life and soul of the voting rights act and we must do now.d we must do it we must act and we must act now. do it on our watch at this time. you, mr. chairman, mr. ranking member, and members f this committee for the opportunity to testify today. thank you so much.

>> you bring us a sense of you for the thank ook that you signed to me "march" that you have. by all five of my grandchildren. mentioned earlier congressman a dear friend. we have been friends for years icon in a civil rights his own right and chairman of judiciary committee 6th and reintroduced the reauthorization of the voting ights act in the house and built a strong record indicating he need for reauthorization of section five. .e discussed it many times but his steadfast leadership and protecting civil

rights for all americans assured the bill would become law. i think as someone from the -- and i i can say was in the minority at the time, the majority in your party -- i can handle say we through have gotten had it not been for the work you house. in the so, i will continue to work with him and keep this a bipartisan and be a nonpartisan effort. congressman sensenbrenner, please go ahead. chairman, ou mr. ranking member and distinguished members of the committee. et me express my appreciation not only for your statement and senator grassley's statement, the statements that have been made by my colleague in the house john lewis of georgia. i'm not a civil rights icon. to put be a mechanic

together legislation that will work. did it in 2006. we are going to have to repair a parts this year. i'm certainly on board to try to last forhing that will a long period of time. the o deeply appreciate comments that mr. lewis has made ecause he is truly a civil rights icon for what he did to emphasize the need for voting the voting rights act that congress successfully and has 1965 reauthorized since. n 2006 i was proud to have served as chairman of the house judiciary committee when the oting rights act was last reauthorized including the coverage formula of section five. for the invitation to participate in this hearing on to provide my perspective the continued importance of the voting rights act. 1965 the voting rights act

was signed into law. at the heightssed of america's civil rights movement when citizens of part fighting ntries were each other and sometimes uthorities over how skin color impacts upon a person's place in democracy. voting in nature, the rights act sought to ends discriminational that prevented minorities from fully exercising their to vote.of racial discriminati prevented minorities from fully exercising their constitutional right to vote. it enshraourd that states and ocal governments do not pass policies to deny equal vote to right based on race. the united states should work to keep voting free, fair and accessible. rights why the voting act is so important. it makes sure that every citizen of our race has an equal opportunity to have a say in our great pate

democracy. 1982, i was pleased to help lead negotiations to reauthorize act then. rights the legislation cleared the 389-24.y a vote of that was signed into law by president reagan. signing the reauthorization, there nt reagan stated are differences over how to attain the quality we seek for people and sometimes amidst all the overblown differences tends to seem bigger than they are. but actions speak louder than words. this legislation proves our unbending commitment to voting that also proves that differences can be settled in a good will and good faith. said before the right to vote is the crown jewel of merican liberties and we will

not see its luster diminished. my most cherished eepsakes is one fof the pens president reagan used to sign the 1982 extension. nyone visiting my office will notice that this pen is proudly displayed. duty to support the constitution once again led me 2006 pherd the reauthorization of the voting rights act. hile i was chairman of the how judiciary committee we had dozens of hearings examining the effectiveness of the voting act.ts whether it should be extended and if so what the extension encompass. the committee assembled more testimony, pages of the entary evidence and legislative record accompanying of the voting on rights act extension in 2006 is the most extensive in

congressional history. bipartisan conclusion while we made dramatic progress in ensuring no american is denied her right to vote based upon the color of his or her remains work incomplete. again in a bipartisan fashion a 25-year assed extension. as we are here today because of court's ruling in shelby county versus holder, weakens the y election protections that both democrats have fought so hard to maintain over the years, the court essentially years and years of the extensive work of the and institu anch substituted their own judgment. to eliminate the law's existing formula for selecting which places are make changes to their election laws or procedure ithout clearance from the u.s.

departme of justice. although the court left in place five, a provision that requires states or parts of tates to ask permission from the federal government before making changes to their elections, that part of the law little or no effect without the formula in section four struck down. by striking down section four of rights act, and thereby gutting the act's is ion five congress presented with a challenge and historic opportunity. called together to restore the critical protections of the act by designing a new that will cover jurisdictions with recent and voting records. our constitution guarantees an cannot be kept from exercising his or her god vote because of race or color. though the voting rights act has successful, we

know our work is not yet complete. 12,000 ears ago we had pages of a record to prove it. iscrimination in the electoral process continues to exist and threatens to skwrupbdz my opinion the progress -- that has the progress been made the last 50 years. i'm committed to working to pass a constitutional response to the holder ounty versus decision. i look forward to working with nybody who wants to approach this effort in good faith. i believe that the voting rights successful of all of our important civil pass acts that have been ince the mid 1950's in eliminating discrimination. we cannot afford to lose it now nd it is our obligation as senators and representatives to continue it. thank you. i thank you both

very much. i wanted to hold this hearing before the august break because the t to be able to use august break to work the phones of t and talk to a lot people from vermont and people country to use that as a base to do it. the two of you and anybody else in the house join with those of us in the senate when we come back in the see what we can do. tight you both have a schedu schedule. ou are welcome to stay for parts in you like. but i would be happy to have the next panel up if you want to leave. >> we are due for votes pretty soon in the house. go. had better let you it is a long way over there. >> sometimes differences between he house and senate are the

difference between here and the moon. hopefully not on this one. i hope not. i have an office that is just a ouple of feet from the so-called dividing lin between the house and senate and i like we are able to walk back and forth across that us often as the three of have tkodone on many different issues. both parties, both bodies, will on this issue, if you protect the right of ote for everybody, one the greatest steps you can take to protect the democracy. here.k you both for being

panel, t up the next senator durbin, who is the chair subcommitteerights has held hearings on this. before we start, did you wish to say something? thank you and senator grassley for the hearing friend ratulate my congressman john lewis for producing and testimony that no one else can roduce because of his singular role in the history of civil rights in america. to congressman jim sensenbrenner who showed bipartisan alive and well when it comes to preserving civil rights. here, ou for being congressman sensenbrenner. it was seven years ago 98 house members 0 reauthorized the voting rights act by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. 21 hearings and 90 witnesses testified a 15,000 produced and s

congress passed the bill and resident george w. bush signed the reauthorization because we all recognized that despite real unlawful andmerica unfair discrimination in voting remained. urge some of those discriminatory practices first and in a series of hearings last congress and on the hill i chaired the first congressional examine new state voting laws that limited early oting, tightened registration requirements and riders photo i.d.'s. we then took the committee on road. atwent to tampa, florida and the invitation of senator brown away went to cleveland, ohio. we invited ces election officials from both to testify as es to the changes in state law that contemplated and implemented in those two states texas.ida and

mr. chairman, before there was at great ony taken, length we asked the election officials a basic question. instances of voter in states of florida and ohio that led to change the laws relating to how the people would register to vote and when they could vote and how they can vote. testimony was the same from election officials of both political parties. of voter no evidence fraud. none. in the anges took place context of reducing opportunity period.ple to vote, i'm not going to defend one person who tries to vote fraudulently. none of us would. but in those two states from -- ion officials of beth both parties there was no basis for the new state laws. when the time came to challenge federal court they

turned to the voting rights act. that asked the basic question the 15th back to amendment as to whether we are keeping our promise to make and free ially free for all americans. so is why this hearing is important and this testimony is so important. i'm just going to give three examples and yield. do we still need this? belongs omething that in a museum this voting rights act, in a civil rights museum somewhere? we still need it. isten to what we faced recently. in 2001, in the city of mississippi, an election was canceled because of unprecedented number of candidates ican decided to run for office. after the department of justice act to voting rights require the election move forward the town elected its first lack mayor and majority black city council. that was 2001. 2004, officials in walker

county, texas, threatened to black students after they announced their candidacy for county office. hen that threaten didn't keep them off the ballot officials tried to limit african-american by reducing early voting and only at polling places near historically black college with a large number of black voters. 2004, walker county, texas. in 2012 after the 2010 census voting frican-american population had grown significantly in the onsolidated municipal government of augusta, richmond, georgia, the georgia legislature passed bill to change the date of municipal elections but only richmond georgia county. it would have changed the date rom november when african-american turnout was known to be high to july when it was substantially lower. 2012, state of georgia. do we still need the voting act?ts

yes, we do. that is why this hearing is so important. brought the two opening witnesses and i'm glad the panel will follow and we will have a chance to raise questions. i think you are right to make this issue an issue to be onsidered by the full kphaoetd rather than just the subcommittee. i thank you for the opportunity. i can assure your will have a great deal of working to do this. luz irst witness is weinberg weinberg. urbaez weinberg. florida issioner in since 2005 and youngest person, decent.rson of hispanic please go ahead.

your microphone is on. the is a little button on front there. >> thank you. members of the committee thank you for the opportunity and invitation to submit my the need to restore the protection of the voting rights act. mentioned n, as you i'm a republican elected to partisan my city and non in northeast miami-dade. and only hispanic to hold that office. have taken statewide and national leadership positions. the governor appointed me to expressway authority and president of association of latino elected officials. account of share my the critical impact of the voting rights act in access to the

ballot box. as a result of the recent urge the urt case i committee to demonstrate your voting e to equal regardless of race, language and restore the o protections. whether to maintain the voting rights act is not a partisan issue. it is a nonpartisan issue. it is an issue for all americans democrat.epublican or all americans strongly believe in fair and equal electoral opportunities. experience serving as an elected official in south the da has afforded me privilege of being personally elections with ou policies make the franchise ethnic and language minority communities. since i moved to florida from puerto rico in 1986 i had a how row seat to observe the unfortunate repeated attempts to adopt policies that of putting history racial ethic and language disadvantage.s as

old why county has an at large system. switch n the voter can to single member could the first hispanic commissioner elected. election law he chan the department of justice identified that the commissioner favored a return to at george election because they recognized the growth of latino population would lead to their electing choice.es of their since 2002 osceola county has its faced charges that elector electoral methods would reduce eliminate latino voting rights. latinos are more likely to be vote knew third party registers. hey became subject to strict reporting requirements deadlines to return reg legislation and 2011.finals in this requirements were later withdrawn but the change left organizations like the

women league of voters suspending their voter operations in florida which meant a drop of 39% registration. florida 75 v.r.a. five counties were singled out for discrimination against latino oters and low participation rights made them subject to the preclearance process. latinos butnot just all voters statewide. 1980's ple, through the and 1990's preclearance was used ensure absentee about thing procedures didn't at unrepresented voters disadvantage. the preclearance process forced of the d tion disproportionate impact latino voters might experience because decisions to reduce our state's early voting period and citizen of the floridians already registered to vote. he successful application of

section five has occurred not only in florida in formal requests of preclearance the fact that the state policy akers had to anticipate full preclearance requirements influenced them to voluntarily reshape proposed new election laws. in n. the preclearance process has not only been by critical in ensuring the prevention of equal electoral opportunities. has no peer. it is uniquely tailored to irreparable harm to voters and candidates by requiring review for they could before a new law may be i..e e-- implemented. it is very much necessary in our 21st century america. on a personal note i arrived in here country as tpheuf born immigrant. -- native born immigrant one of millions of puerto rico who leaf the mainland for

a better life. i reg stored to vote as a young not spoken a word of english. i have three children. was proud of my oldest son john now registered to vote and voted for the first time two years ago. last year my daughter turned 18. two weeks after the election filed and ready to vote. jonathan registered a democrat. registered independent. their elected official mother is a republican. so, in my household we are latino, speak and sh, spanish, but first foremost we are americans and we ake our electoral process, exercising our right to vote and rights that the voting act are preserve and it is nonracial and n nonpolitical issue. show equal voting

rights for all americans and act restore these actions through the voting rights act. thank you. >> thank you very much. the tphebnext witness is mr. mi from the law firm of jones day in washington, d.c. where he focuses on appellate nal and litigation. he's testified before the times at a number of the invitation of our republican colleagues and welcome again, mr. carvin. mr. chairman, senator grassley. the committee is facing a erious question as is the entire congress. does shelby county's eufpb alidation of section five create a gap in the civil rights law that might expose minority unconstitutional discrimination. my comments today is that there is no gap. because section five is no longer needed to ensure equal voters ity for minority for one simple reason. you have section two of the voting rights act which has been viewed as the heart

of the act. it is very muscular and was by the body in 1982 to anything that could be characterized as purposeful discrimination because it anything with a discriminatory result. then and lyhooed hailed as a extraordinarily successful piece of legislation done much more than section five to eliminate unconstitutional voting discrimination. section five on the other hand was limited. t was limited in terms of the kinds of voting practices it got at. only changes in terms of the and in t was addressing terms of time. it was always a temporary supplement to section two. question congress has is not whether discrimination persists jurisdictions covered by section five but whether it is the kinds of discrimination that remedied by section two of the voting rights act. i submit there is not much that section two is

inadequa inadequate to the task. of logical intuitive points. we don't have preclearance requirements. doesn't seem to be necessary for two reasons. ne is we don't have it in most states. we don't have section five on top of section two in most states with respect to voting discrimination. e don't have any kind of analogous reclearance for other. employment, house being, ducational discrimination is dealt with through section two that prohibit certain actions preclearanceted by requirement even though for example employment discrimination is more difficult to prove than voting discrimination because it is done in private without the in the cess you have voting context. actually at congress -- with respect to first generation ballot access issues was the finding of congress in 2006, that those been dressed as

well in the cover jurisdictions nd noncovered jurisdictions so there was really no reason to extend section five just to get those ballot access issues. there was no argument even more than ion two is adequate in oklahoma and arkans arkansas, to eliminate their voting discrimination, no one in congress in 2006 found in arkansas was inadequate in brooklyn, or mississippi in part because congress found mississippi had the highest voters ofion of black any states but remained a covered jurisdiction. in terms of second generation was the principal ocus in 2006 they said the covered jurisdictions have done a better job than the noncovered jurisdictions in fostering and ity participation turnout but they are diluting at george rough

electoral systems and dark at racial decisions and jerry meadowlandsering. ection two is more effective dealing with second generation dilution than section five. section five can't attack at because it systems is only tricked if there is a voting change. is in at large system place he can't be got at by section five but can be by section two. an argument made which in my view is false and factual which is section two challenges to racial gerrymander i are too slow or not effective. that is untrue. n every state outside of section five people don't sit around before they bring the section two lawsuits and say have two or three elections to see how things go. they do exactly what they do in jurisdictions.e they go to court before the -- stricting machine is

machine and seek an injunction. vote ction two court had dilution work in november of elections in e 2012 and the section five court never issued a decision until in 2012.st so, the point is that section as courts can act and do act speedsly and effectively -- effectively. the only thing the demise of section five will help the compelled acial gerrymandering the justice department imposed to create the districts that were unconstitutional protect ed in donatitexas to large ough there was no minority population and end the partisan use by the republicans of the voting rights act. some of the strongest supporters of the vote being rights act ite been republicans because

is politically advantageous governor the majority minority the adjacent use districts present political opportunities. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. justin witness is levitt, associate professor of .loyola law school expert on constitutional law and voting rights. he joined the faculty of counsel at new york university school of lay and worked on cases -- school of law and worked on cases promoting equal access to voting , your statement addition to it will be put in the record. levitt, i hope i don't

think it is anything you have turn it over the senator whitehouse but i'll the floor.ck on but please go ahead, sir. >> not all, mr. chairman. much. you very mr. chairman, distinguished members of the committee thank ou for the invitation to testify. our constitution expressly gives enumeratede specific power and obligation to ensure hat there is no electoral discrimination anywhere in the country based on race or ethnicity. ongress has repeatedly attempted to step up to this responsibility, not perfectly programs but pragmatically. shelby county ripped a sizable hole in congress's work. that decision has refused americans less sure that won't taint their elections. that damage.rrect sweeping nationals statistics unfortunatelythat

there are still public officials electoral limit opportunity based on race or ethnicity. sometimes because of contempt. sometimes because of perceived political advantage. t is disgusting and it is illegal. and even with armies of lawyers t is very hard to fix using existing tools like section two. legal system the depend on responsive lawsuits the tools mr. carvin was talking about. there is a legal problem you saw, prove harm and it gets fixed. employment way the system, housing system, education works. laws areg and election different. these normal lawsuits attack one a time. at officials looking to limit political power based on race switch tactics. draws a lawsuit, shift to w or z. he official doesn't bear the

cause of this. the taxpayers do. it. taxpayers get sick of it is hard for them to toss them out of office because the tactic affecting the structure of how the elections work. laws are different. normal lawsuits are a little like ocean liners. complicated, expensive and slow to get going. years.an take and frankly i'm not sure which texas case mr. carvin is talking about. in texas still hasn't delivered a decision on the erits years after the original districts were put in misplace. based on o decision these lawsuits. in the meantime, when normal awsuits are taking all of this time to get going elections infected with discrimination are taking place. is when the contest

unjustice they become incumbent make policy and we are waiting to get the election structure right it doesn't fix policy that has already been passed. election laws are different. congress will 15,000 pages of examples. 2006, plenty more from 2008, 2010, 2011. including prominent statewide but local jurisdictions where most at risk have the resources to fight back. the examples are not just old news. the 09, two months after president's inauguration, chief justice roberts, justice kennedy said racial discrimination not arized voting are ancie ancient. uch needs to be done so that people of all races have an equal opportunity to share and participate.

congress has understood that much remains to be done. repeatedly it has recognized the exist tool kit of tools like section two are powerful but for pernicious electoral discrimination they are also inadequate. in 2006 congress stepped up to meat the continuing need which brings to us shelby county. the ruling of the supreme court had an enormous impact but eaves congress with plenty to do. the court said the formula congress used in 2006 to cover others for and not preclearance purposes was not sufficiently tied to current conditions. did not rule out a different formula. it did not rule out the ideas of preclearance at all. it did not rule out safeguards other than preclearance above the normal responsive litigation tool kit that exists today. problemt say we fix the of discrimination in voting. t didn't change the truth that the 15th amendment empowers congress, not the court, to in the first instance

what legislation is needed to enforce it. to congress again. polls show american people understand that this right still needs more than just ordinary protection. whatever that may look like. last 50 years republicans and democrats in overwhelming including majorities every member of this committee who was able to cast a , has ssional vote in 2006 stepped up to offer on a that extra asis protection these rights demands. delighted to over whatever assistance i can. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, professor levitt. we will begin the questioning senator durbin. >> when i read the decision noted the ty and logic and argument used by the to f justice it seemed suggest absent congress showing new evidence on a regular basis with some dealing

old problem in america that has away, that seems to be the majority argument in the case. think back to the last election cycle, there was an organization known as the merican legislative exchange council that was financed by major corporations and major went cal players that state by state to change the electoral laws to restrict the vote. to i visited two of those states. the state of florida and as i mentioned had electoral who ials from both parties couldn't point to a single instance of voter fraud that led to the changes. will some other design. many of these changes in state the ere challenged under voting rights act under section five. as to mple, voter i.d. whether it was discriminatory toward minority populations, and the or elderly like. so, i would ask you if you are there background

and believe it is evidence that votingrights acts -- the rights act and its protection of that basic right to vote still timely issue.nd >> thank you, senator. i am. i have had the opportunity to your committeeon about exactly these issues that you have been highlighting. concern and very much present. they exist not only at the level but county level, city level, municipal evel at all levels of government there are profound challenges. now xisting tools we have help. but i do not believe they are in sufficient. i believe that election laws are special and demand more. > i might ask for unanimous consent to enter an exhibit that emonstrates the financial supporters of the american legislative exchange council. they orporations once

learned the agenda of the council have withdrawn their embership and support but many continued and i would like to put this in the record. >> without objection. their right understood our constitutional, their right assembly, whatever they want to exercise to spends toir money for this pursuant change laws. it is legal and constitutional ut i think everyone should see whether the companies they are doing business with are using to restrict the right to vote through the american legislative exchange council. mr. carvin, professor carvin, you talked about section two and fact that it is there as the of protection we should not be so distressed by court's decision as it related to section four. considered by as justice ginsberg in the shelby noted oncision and she

age 14 congress produced evidence that litigation under section two of the v.r.a. was an substitute for preclearance. in other words, we addressed hat directly when we reauthorized the act. she gave two specific areas. section n occurs under two only after the fact when the illegal voting scheme has been place and individuals have been elected pursuant to it. advantages ing the of incumbency. an illegal scheme might be in several election cycles before section two plaintiffs can gather sufficient evidence to change it. goes on to say litigation as heavytion two place financial burden on minority voters. congress already also that ed evidence preclearance lessened the litigation burden on covered urisdictions because preclearance process is far less costly than defending against a claim.n two

so your argument that section seems a good alternative to have been addressed by justice ginsberg. respond? like to >> sure. quit factual and accurate the section you wait in two cases until elections have occurred to challenge it. of state is a good example this. there's never been a in ressional redistricting illinois that was not adjudicated prior to the first election and some were struck on section two grounds. he texas case they entered interim remedial order a year in advance of the elections. ection five and section two litigation on redistricted is indistinguishable. you bring in experts and -- > it is dramatically different in my state because when we put in a redistrict and reapportion map together we know it will be challenged. thatlicans an democrats do

for a living. it is not a situation of and trying aintiffs to get the money and evidence together. we are prepared for this. it is a regular ritual in my state and most others. underlawyered operation. the notion that these plans are through justice ginsberg said you have to wait for four electoral cycles. a lot different than some rephoetd rural jurisdiction that might be faced with the ame allegation of discrimination and have to bring together the lawyers, money and evidence to challenge it two.rstood section >> your argument with respect is not you have to wait for lections, you have to find a lawyer. we can both agree that justice ginsberg was flat wrong in you have to wait for elections to go by. as your experience in illinois the lawyers get together right after the map is passed and run to court. that is not true. it happen less frequently in rural counties? that may be true but that is the enforce every civil

rights law from title seven to title eight. you have a em if meritorious claim all the expenses are paid for by the under the fee shifting provision. we have political parties involved in redistricting. a civil rights group -- we have a lot of awyers -- >> professor levitt, i will close by allowing you a chance to respond. > it is odd to hear mr. carvin which is pure theory. i will say i have also been an i can n practitioner and tell you the facts on the ground look different. of charles town county -- charleston county, a case rolina, whether was brought where they got relief before the election and they will tell you no. brought in 2001. plaintiff asked for preliminary relief. they were denied. elections happened. happened again.

it was not until 2004 that the actually able to provide relief. the existing responsive litigation system we have is not expensive.it is i'm delighted mr. carvin will front money for civil lawsuits countries.he there are lawsuits i would love to bring now but i'm not independencely wealthy and can't four years to elect fees. there are in my home places that desperately need section two lawsuits brought where they are being brought, in part ecause the data is hard to get because the experts are hard to find and expensive to gather and as you mentioned in the most rural jurisdictions not armies of last waitg t would be wonderful if that were true but there are lots of jurisdictions that need there protection, something

other than the ability to file a responsive lawsuit after a law into effect in order to fight it. >> i care a lot about this after being a prosecutor for many years. in the state of minnesota, we are proud of our states. we have the number one turnout in the country. we have seen their registration which i will get to in a minute and people enforcing laws. and finding that when something goes wrong, we have an enforcement mechanism in place which you know is incredibly important i was also able to go with congressman lewis to selma. something happened this year which was incredible and 48 years after that march across the bridge in selma, the white police chief and montgomery took his badge of and handed it to congressman lewis and apologized to congressman lewis that the police had not protected them on that bridge that