timeframe. to achieve this goal we have already narrowed our focus of investment in our child surprivel program to 24 countries that account for 70% of under five child death and maternal we have delivered and 8% reduction in child mortality more than doubling the baseline rate of reduction in child deaths. another notable example of this new model is president obama's commitment to africa. this year's budget includes 134 million dollars in resources to take that initiative forward.

president obama reset the goal for that initiative at the african leadership summit. those resources will help bring tens of billions of dollars in private investment to the african power sector. this budget request includes $1.02 billion devoted to the feed the future initiative. the state aid managed portion of that will be $970 million. in addition to bringing more than 70 companies to co-invest with us in countries around the world this program has directly helped more than 7 million farm households move out of poverty and improve nutrition for more than 12 million children, who otherwise would go hungry, not by giving out food but by helping their families stand on their own two feet.

since 2014, the president's budget has ensure that we meet more hungry people at their hour of need. look forward to working with congress to get that done on a bipartisan basis this year. in doing so, we hope to renew the unique policy partnership between the food producers shippers humanitarians, and the world's children who suffer through crisis. this is important because smart result oriented humanitarian assistance is needed now more than ever. last year was the first time in our history that we were recalled -- called to respond simultaneously to for large-scale emergencies around the world, not including the ebola epidemic. in syria, we supported more than 300 field hospitals.

in the philippines, we reached more than 3 million people with emergency assistance. in west africa, we cut down to medically on the number of new cases of ebola from more than 100 per day in liberia to less than one per day over the course of the last week in liberia. using the $2.5 billion appropriated for the ebola response and preparedness fund, the budget request includes resources for the global health security program to work alongside a range of countries to make sure that threats like ebola did not emerge again. even as we respond to these crises, we know it is critical to support civil society and human rights around the world. this budget will provide 2.4 billion dollars for democracy, human rights, and governance programs. in addition this budget will

include nearly 200 million dollars in central funding for science, technology, and innovation through the u.s. global development lab. the lab has delivered extraordinary results, including redesigning the personal protective equipment for ebola responders, building data resistance -- assistance to tackle ebola. those types of results can be replicated across a broad range of what we do if congress provides strong bipartisan support. finally with $1.7 billion in u.s. aid administrative expenses, this budget allows us to invest in our most important resource, our staff. this request represents 7% of our total programmatic responsibilities and we urge

congress to fully fund our operating expenses. thank you for your time and attention. i look forward to questions. >> every year i have the same question. the figures you provide do not match up with the cbo. if you can't answer these, maybe someone can get back to me. according to the cbo historical page, the total budget authority for function 150 was $62.12 billion and this year it is $46.47 billion. that would be a reduction of 25%. what is getting cut in the budget? >> we will let our budget experts go to the tables with you, but our request overall includes other agencies such as treasury and others that have international affairs activities -- it is a 6% increase.

i can't speak to the specifics but we will make sure you get an answer. >> in terms of highlights of things that are being cut, what are they? >> overall, our budget request is increasing. >> nothing is being cut? >> there are cuts in the budget, but the numbers are going up because there are more and vast crises we are dealing with. even though we maintain a robust package in pakistan, that has come down based on what we think the needs are and what we assess the capabilities are. we have a level of funding for iraq. we have level funding levels and programs where we think we need them. we can get into the specifics and walk through the table with you if you like. >> the cbj summary tables of

blanks for just about all the fy 2015 estimates. i'm guessing that is because the crumley bus -- cromnibus. >> there is a process that after we get an appropriation we work through regular order every year with our appropriators to decide on the allocations. that process is happening. >> will we not get that break down -- when do you expect to have that breakdown available? >> i would say in the spring. it takes quite a while to go back and forth. >> i have two granular questions. >> more granular than that? [laughter] >> much. the economic support fund for egypt are budgeted that $150 million for fy 2016. it is a blank for fy 2015.

it was $200 million in fy 2014. for many years, it was like $255 million. what explains the decision to ask for less for fy 2016 then you had in the 14? -- 2014? >> it is a good question. we do know from our engagement with congress that they intend the fy 2015 level to be about $150 million. we are working with this request and we have settled at that level. >> somewhat obscure, but i see that you have funding for thailand, but thailand had a coup and i wonder why you are programming funding for thailand for fy 2016 given the coup? >> we will have to get back to

you on that one. >> i would like to ask highlights. [indiscernible] [indiscernible] >> the one -- the $1 billion for central america -- in the central america response to the child migration crisis, we have included 120 million dollars specifically for mexico, for the southern border. that is separate from the $1 billion. our funding levels are pretty similar to last year. >> could you please talk about colombia? >> it is about the same level. a slight decrease based on the increased capacity of the government to take on those activities. we will follow-up with you after this. >> how about human rights for

cuba? >> the cuba funding is very similar to last year. $20 million in democracy programming. the only difference in our funding request to cuba is that we asked for $6.6 million to do some operational upgrades at our facilities. >> venezuela? >> i don't have the numbers, but we can follow up with you. >> clarification on the western hemisphere. i thought we had asked for more money for columbia. there is a slight increase, not a decrease? >> i'm pretty sure there is a slight decrease in columbia. we will make sure you have the right numbers. >> could you focus little bit more on the priorities for asia? >> sorry. we have an increase of 8% for

the asian region, vis-à-vis fy 2014 appropriations. we cannot compare to 2015 without the allocations we are going through with congress. over the 2014 appropriation, we at proposed an 8% increase. >> talk about whether it is a priority of the administration. -- the pivot is a priority of the administration. >> when you look at the budget overall, it is clear that the eighth of pacific -- asia-pacific remains a priority because of the level of increase. the numbers really tell the story. that is a trajectory that has increased. >> specifically, where does the

8% go to? >> all of the details are in the congressional justification on the website and the call you will have afterwards been they can get into that level of detail with you. >> can you get into more detail for the anti-isis operations? >> it includes the work that we are doing to counter isil with our partners in the region and deal with the syrian humanitarian crisis and stabilize the region and ensure that there is the possibility to work against it. lebanon, jordan, other partners in the region are taking a lot of the responsibility for the crisis. >> we have time for just a couple more. >> can you tell us what is the budget request for afghanistan and pakistan individually? >> good question.

i'm flipping here. the afghanistan request is $1.5 billion for assistance. i have the breakdown here. $1.2 million in security. -- $1.2 billion is in security excuse me. the rest is in civilian assistance. the total amount of the request is $2.5 billion. that includes our platform. $1.5 billion is the number for assistance. for pakistan, it is $804 million. ok. >> thanks very much, everyone. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> administration officials will

be on capitol hill this week to look at president obama's budget request. shaun donovan will testify before the senate banking committee. that is live on c-span 3 today. on wednesday, ashton carter will be at the senate for a confirmation hearing. he previously served as deputy defense secretary and will replace chuck hagel, if confirmed. we will have live coverage on c-span 3. the house will take up a bill to try to repeal president obama possible care law. they have attempted to reveal the health care law and number of times since it became law in 2011. watch live house coverage here on c-span. the senate will vote on a veterans suicide prevention measure.

they will also debate a homeland security department bill. in the afternoon, there will be a procedural vote on whether to move the legislation forward. that will be live on c-span 2. >> the house rules committee met today to discuss procedures for a bill that calls for the repeal of the federal health care law that was signed into law by president obama nearly five years ago. the pending bill sponsored by representative byrne of alabama also mandates that relevant health committee's draft legislation proposing alternatives to the existing law. representative byrne appears before the committee chaired by texas representative pete sessions. this is one hour and 45 minutes. alternatives to the existing law. representative byrd appears before the committee chaired by texas representative pete sessions. this is an hour and 45 minutes.

>> the members and the staff and the american people who are very interested today in h.r. 596 to repeal the patient protection and affordable care act and health care-related provisions of the health care education reconciliation act of -- the 2010 act. we all remember that we were told the house had to pass obamacare to see what was in it so now we have learned what is in it. since then it's become more apparent not only to the american people but to the physicians patients and taxpayers alike and so we recognize why we are here. we are here because of the problem. obamacare is a problem. the problem for taxpayers and that's a problem for job creation across this country

perhaps most of all it's a problem that we have held a hearing after hearing after hearing in his rules committee and we will highlight it again today. we also know that if you like your doctor you can keep it doctor. if you like your health care plan you can can't keep her health care plan either. obamacare races cost on the average middle-class american family and business. in fact the average family health care premium has now increased by $3000 during these last few years of the obama administration and the deductibles are up as well. just a few short years ago as the president was selling this he said i will look at congress and say not one dime of taxpayer money will be involved. time after time the american people have been misled and so we know today just as we knew then when we talk about the millions of jobs that were on

the line what we should have said is full-time jobs. we know the president do his strong economic policy has contributed to 11 million jobs since then but we have failed to tell the other side and that is that they are mostly part-time jobs, minimum wage jobs and now it's not a net figure. finally we know that obamacare raises taxes on the average american people and it has cost us thus far $1 trillion and $2 trillion in the next 10 years. that was expensive, and work your poll, unpopular and should be repealed however i realize there are people that disagree with this position today mr. prologue who was before the committee today was argued so vigorously in and a jump in energy and commerce committee and his favorite committee rules committee dr. michael burgess is

here to help us work through not only the legislation but the intricacies that the rules committee needs to be aware of as we talk about such important national policy. i want to thank both of you. i would like to yield time to the gentleman from massachusetts for an essay that he would like to bake. c thank you mr. chairman and let me say that ranking member slaughters not here today because of the snow. she is snowed in rochester otherwise she would be here. the other thing is look this is the 57th time we are going to have a vote on repealing the affordable care act. i think it's a colossal waste of time and i'm not even sure this is a serious effort. i have a letter here from douglas elmendorf of the congressional budget office. they can't even give the cbo score on this because it was minutes away than they need more time to put it together so we will consider this another cbo score. the other thing is four years

ago my republican friends passed a bill in the house that required all of the appropriate committees to report back to the house legislation that would constitute a replacement for the affordable care act. that was four years ago. i don't know what the hell people have been doing. maybe we can sue them because they haven't done their job but going through this one more time is to me a waste of taxpayer money. i would just say one thing. i think the affordable care act is a good bill and i'm proud i voted for it. millions of people have health insurance today that didn't have it before then. you may think that's a problem. i think that's good and i'm glad people have health insurance. we controlled the rate of increase in health care costs. i think that's a good thing. being a woman is no longer considered a pre-existing condition. that's a good thing.

you may think it's a problem but i think it's a good thing. allowing young people to stay on the parents health insurance until they are 26 years old until they get a job you may think that's a problem but i think that's a good thing. we are no longer talking about theory here. we are talking about real people and when my colleagues are proposing and begin i don't think it has a chance of going anywhere but proposing if we are to follow this to a larger conclusion you are proposing is taking away health insurance from people who otherwise could not have access to it. i think it's a terrible terrible way to do business and again i will go to the testimony and we'll have a debate on the floor and i don't know what else is going to happen but if you have a better idea then bring it forward. so far you haven't done anything other than tell us what you are against. i will stand bye bye my photo but that i yield back my time. c the gentleman yield spec is time to want to answer one

question the gentleman has today as you alluded to. i don't know the correct number but 56 votes before today was a result of committees taking seriously what we had said four years ago that committees would report out those parts that obamacare that do need to be repealed. >> with respect mr. chairman the 57 votes i was alluding who are basically a repeal, not replace and four years ago you had instructed a vote if i recall correctly instructed committees to report back what you are for. we are in a different congress now but if you want to replace this with something then come up with a better idea but going through this exercise again is really a waste of taxpayer money. c would the gentleman yield? >> i would be happy to yield. >> it is my time and i would ask the gentleman that he was

referenced and has a journal and a statement? >> i would yield to you anyway. >> i appreciate the gentleman. when you talk about those numbers 16 of those changes that's anything that would change. if you count the 56 anything that would change the law and i think even the gentleman would recognize no laws perfect. this law is less perfect than most but 16 of those have been signed into law by the president so if you are going to count the 56 acknowledged 16 of them have been signed into law by the president paid i yield back. >> i think the gentleman and i want to thank both of the gentleman from managing commerce rules committee who are here today. mr. blunt you are no stranger to this committee and we appreciate you being here. your presence is often regarded well. many people listen to you and i will tell you that you represent the viewpoint that this committee appreciates you coming and giving testimonies. mr. burgess i have a suspicion

that you're impacted a will be in on this as a physician practicing physician with enormous interest in patient safety and health is well respected and widely known and it's an obligation i think you have to show up today and do your very best. i know laura is probably at home watching on tv and making sure you smile once more. without objection both will be entered into the record and the gentleman from texas is now recognized. >> i have a statement prepared by the energy and commerce commission that will report to you. it will simply be a matter of time before the program will gain popularity and support from the american people. washington democrats have been been -- and acted by congress such as medicare and the 1960s

were the prescription drug program signed into law by george w. bush. however mr. chairman supporters of the affordable care act have been proven to be wrong. today a majority of american people continue to oppose the presence health care law. the affordable care act is not held in high regard such as the medicare program. i would suggest the affordable care act would even hold the same support would ever hold the same support as medicare because it was passed on a purely partyline vote and written behind closed doors in one of the most secretive backs of legislating in this country's history. in addition america's opposition to the affordable care act is only growing as our constituents learn more about the law and experience this law. today more americans believe they have been hurt by the affordable care act than those who say they have been helped. only 7% of americans believe the health care law will reduce their health care costs.

americans also reject the law says the president and is congressional supporters have made promises that it simply proven to be wrong. do you remember the president promising that i promising that if you like your health care plan you can keep it or what about the promise that you can keep your doctor or premiums for american families would go down by $2500 under the president's reform plan? all of those assurances repeated over and over again by affordable care act supporters have proven to be a mirage. in fact promising americans can keep their health care plan was recognized in 2013 as the lutemack of the year. americans continue to reject the presence health care law because it's also hurting their family budget and the economy. a mere 7% of americans think the law will reduce their personal health care cost. reducing health care costs is the number one health issue for middle-class families.

by any measure the affordable care act as a failed attempt at addressing the number one concern of american families. we also know the job is hurting daschle -- the laws hurting job christian america and the health care law will reduce the number of full-time equivalent workers by 2.5 million people in the american action for a barge the affordable care act regulations are reducing small-business wages by over $22 billion annually. reports also continue to raise questions about the security, privacy and functionality of healthcare.gov. there are no shortage of reasons reasons to reveal -- until reveal -- repeal this law and that is likely the house should pass h.r. 596 a bill to repeal the president's failed health care law. however simply repealing the law is not enough. that's why h.r. 596 instructs committee chairman to craft better solutions to reform health care in america. they there are better ideas to actually reduce health care

costs for the american people. we can do this and protect americans with pre-existing conditions and help foster better coverage options for the american people. republicans have and will present ideas to strengthen our health care system and empower patients with more choices. the first step down that path is passing h.r. 596. i yield back to the chairman. >> thank you very much dr. burgess. i appreciate your testimony before the committee today. your health care bill that you have had now for a few years. >> i can't say it's growing on me but you see we have spent some time together. >> anything you have in writing will be written to the record. the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. i have to say listening to my colleague dr. burgess who has tremendous respect for is very

disconcerting because first of all he starts out and spends most of his time talking about spin in the sense that he mentions polling data and information about what's popular and what's not popular and i really don't think we should be driven by that. i think as mr. mcgovern said we are talking about the statute which has been on the books for several years that actually is working. people are continuing to sign up for obamacare for the affordable care act and the exchanges and i also feel i know it's groundhog day and we are back here again for the 57th time, i don't know what it is. >> i'd like to make an observation. >> groundhog day was always important to me so i can't help but mention it. >> perhaps we should limit

references. >> i will call it fantasyland. let me call it fantasyland instead. when i go home i keep going to enrollment events. we were out one last week for or the week before. two or three actually and i see all these people coming out to these enrollment events some which we have had another center sponsored by different nonprofit organizations and we are excited about the fact that they have health insurance and they have a tax credit or subsidy that pays for the opinion that millions of people are signing up. i hear what you say about how this is such an awful thing i don't know who you talk to. i know you may have polling from different groups but i don't think pulling is the key. my evidence may be more anecdotal but people are excited. they come out to these forums and they are signing up in record numbers. they talk about solutions dr. burgess. i go back to what my colleague mr. mcgovern said. four years ago when republicans

first took the majority they passed to repeal bill almost exactly like this in the house and they have all these directions to committees to come up with alternatives and none of that happened, not an energy and commerce committee not an ways & means, not an education workforces to suggest get solutions because you will track these committees to come up with alternatives and many talk about what you are asking them to do in terms of goals are things the affordable care act already does. i do want to get and that the details of all that. mr. chairman if i could mention a few things statistically. we now have health care coverage under the affordable care act for millions of americans who are otherwise uninsured and what the republicans are suggesting is to take that away. you talk about taxes. this bill and repealing the act would repeal all the tax credits and subsidies and help people pay their premiums.

in my opinion is a tax increase on average person who is getting health care subsidized or getting taxes to help pay for it. the other thing that bothers me is i know a couple of weeks ago when we have the 30 to 40 day rule on the floor and mr. ryan was there at the time i asked him, my understanding was in your conference and i don't want to say what you do in your conference because i'm not there but my understanding was based on reports coming from the conference that the gop conference in the house decided they weren't going to do her repeal. they were going to come up with legislation to make changes like the 30 to 40 power for which i don't agree with what they put to to rest beside the others now write repeal. i don't know the right-wing or the tea partier the new members wanted on the record but all of a sudden we are back to repealing it. that is why mention groundhog day because i thought that was over with. obviously it isn't but anyway

just a few facts and i wheeled back. baca is benefiting many people. let's review the numbers. 12 main uninsured americans got covered in 2014 the first your coverage was in effect according to cbo. in 2015 9.5 million consumers are signed up already for the health insurance marketplace and that enrollment goes until february 15. since the beginning of open enrollment at october, 9.7 million additional people have enrolled in medicaid or chip and 129 million americans can no longer be discriminated against for having a pre-existing condition. but there is more. over 8 million seniors have saved more than $11.5 million on prescription drugs is 2010 than average of $1407 per student. 37,000 seniors have received free preventive services with no

co-pay per the solvency of the trust and has been extended by 1310 years traditionally cbo states repealing the bill would cost taxpayers $109 million in route 19000000 people of health insurance so again instead of bringing these bills to the floor which the president has said he is going to veto so it's a complete waste of time let's get back to real things here. if you want to make some changes i did like the 30 to 40 world but that was a legitimate thing to bring up that you want to. if you want to work with us to come up with changes that might be helpful and expand care and access i'm all for it but to come up with his outright repeal just a waste of time. we should be dealing with the real issues, stagnant wages figure out how to pay for childcare, dealing with the high cost of college tuition and thinks the president talked about in his state of the union and he also talked about today in his budget bill. we will address these issues and

dr. burgess and i'm more than willing to work with you. you are probably one of the most bipartisan people that i know on the republican side. i can't emphasize enough mr. chairman. i feel like we are wasting our time is very unfortunate. i yield back. >> the gemini of spec is time. mr. bipartisan right there in the middle of the crowd. [laughter] let's hope there's a crackle of the airwaves in louisville texas to be broadcast there. your primary opponent, good gosh. mr. pullum thank you very much. as always you and i both know you are not only welcome here but we appreciate you taking time to get on our dance card in without objection the gentleman is recognized. say i think you mr. chairman and although we sometimes disagree you have always been very

cordial and given everyone an opportunity to be heard and i appreciate that. mr. chairman ranking member slaughter i appreciate the opportunity to testify before the committee. on the new ranking member on the committee and protecting affordable health care for america's workers and families is a top priority. the fact of the matter is the affordable care act is working we should not repeal of perhaps those who want to repeal the affordable care act have a short memory and it's important to remind ourselves what was taking place when we pass the affordable care act. before that insurance coverage was shrinking. there were months in 2008 in 2009 where 14,000 people a day were losing their health coverage in 1999 to 2010. the cost of premiums for employer-provided health insurance increased by 138% and workers earnings only went up 40%. those who were employed often --

and to their job because of a lost their job were left their job they would lose their health insurance and so someone wanted to retire could retire because they needed their insurance. every american family with insurance have a hidden tax of approximately $1000 per family for covering the cost of finishing care when people go to the hospital and don't pay of those that do pay payroll extra. it's a thousand dollars for every person with health insurance. if we repeal the affordable care act to go back to those days. thankfully workers have the peace of mind of knowing they have options of employer-provided insurance is not available. they can enter the burger place that is not affordable they get tax credits to help them pay for their insurance. they know their dollars are spent on insurance are going to health coverage. 80% rule and provides 80% has to be spent on health care and not

corporate jets and ceo bonuses. for those who have insurance they experienced the lowest growth rate since the affordable care act passed in many years. the vast majority of large employers to provide insurance to their employees suffer less of an increase in payments to the cost-shifting because now everybody just about everybody has insurance and so on and on and on mr. chairman the program is working. otherwise uninsured children and young adults have insurance on their parents parent's policies, senior citizens are benefiting from the lack of helping in the doughnut hole. repealing of the law we have to explain to people who have benefited why we have to go back to the way it was. i understand there will be a delayed delay in the effective date of the bill that may be

proposed in the bill but given 180 days we have to come up with a meaningful replacement yet. there is no reason to believe delaying a 180 days makes it any more likely that there will be an actual replacement. all the people who now have insurance all the people who now can afford lifesaving treatments will go back to the days where they wouldn't have insurance and wouldn't be able to provide that coverage. this is the 56th attempt to repeal the affordable care act. it's a distraction we need to work on ways we can possibly improve it. not just toss it out with nothing available to replace it. mr. chairman thank you for the opportunity. >> thank you very much. all three of you have come to this panel today to help us understand more about your ideas as well as those which are presented today. i'm sure the gentleman mr. burgess if i gave him a

chance would say this but in fact 180 days we don't know what the supreme court is going to say. the supreme court and i believe there is a serious threat against at least part of the health care bill as a result of i believe the law not being utilized as prescribed by law so it's not a circumstance where we can adapt to whatever the supreme court says. i consider that not a frailty or fallacy in the bill. mr. burgess dr. burgess and mr. scott said the statement just about everybody has insurance. he just made that statement. is that right? dr. burgess? >> i don't know where that data comes from but i believe that may be an overestimation of the

facts. >> do we know what the facts are? >> reportedly 9 million people are covered under the affordable care act and that includes people such as myself who previously had high deductible policy and health savings account, lost it in the run-up to the affordable care act so i purchased health insurance through healthcare.gov so i am probably counted as one of those people who got insurance. technically my insurance was going to run out at the end of calendar year 2013 so yes i have a third exchange and did receive the subsidy. let me be perfectly clear about that. i don't think it's reasonable to count people who like myself through no fault of their own lost their insurance in them because they wanted to be covered or were concerned about

the individual mandate purchased insurance and don't get to claim out as a plus-up in the number of uninsured or the reduction of the number of uninsured. medicaid expansion has resulted in an increasing coverage. the same time it is resulted in a significant increased expense to the taxpayer. >> mr. scott just about everybody has insurance. oh access. >> we have the lowest uninsured rate we have had i believe administer the united states. 10 million more people have insurance and so we are going in the right direction. >> mr. chairman i'm not going to give you i can't answer your question as far as manifestations but what mr. scott said is true. the number of people who are covered has increased dramatically and i mentioned

12 million uninsured americans who were covered in 2014. that's 12 million people that were not insured previously. that's 12 million people that had no insurance previously. some of that is medicaid expansion but those are definitely people that did not have insurance before. >> as dr. burgess said the amount of money is equal. >> if the gentleman would yield i think those figures include the 4.525 million people who lost insurance that they previously had when the central health benefit. >> it's not in that number. they have insurance but not on that side. >> my understanding is people that were uninsured and didn't have coverage before but in any case but mr. scott said is true. a the number of people that are getting covered has increased. >> that's not what he said.

he said just about everybody has insurance. >> that's the goal ultimately. >> he didn't say access. he said just about everybody has insurance. i'm just trying to understand. >> we are in the second year of enrollment and more more people are rolling out whether we get to 95 or 96% at some point we are not there yet. we are certainly on the way. >> we understood only half the people who were uninsured would be theoretically insured. it's about 24 million and 24 million. >> the goal was to get at some point, not yet to something like 95 or 96% of americans would have insurance and i think we are on our way. >> the gentleman from oklahoma chairman cole is recognized. that thank you very much. appreciate mr. chairman and a couple of things in response with the three of you had to say in i appreciate it very much but a quick question to you

mr. burgess. assuming the repeal were to pass and become law unlikely we all agree politically what would be the effective date? >> the plain language of the statute says 180 days. >> i think i saw something that would be effective at the end of the year. in other words get the supreme court time to make its determination. i say that for a couple of reasons. my friend mr. scott mentioned this as as quote the 56th time. i think that's not exactly right. neither of those things became law and they pass a democratic senate were signed by the person and those were things like repeal of the requirement for 1099 which would have been multibillion-dollar exercise. that is counted of one of the repeal attempts. we have a number of other things that have collectively save $62 billion. i would suggest we have tried to

change the law where we could find common ground and you are quite correct trying to repeal it multiple times as well. i agree very much with my friend from new jersey's remark about not having alternative. i sign onto an alternative every year since it was passed. they're up in zabul turns up some of a them having 12030 140 co-sponsors. when you get to 140 days and we are about serious alternatives. i think probably what prevented that from happening was the fact that we met was again -- going to get to the senate and be signed by the president. i think now you are seeing a lot of movement because of the supreme court because of the sense that this thing may financially collapsed on itself. i would suggest that actually to both opponents and proponents. i don't say this with any kind

of strong feeling as to what the supreme court will do. i am not an attorney and it's a hard body to protect sometimes what it will do but thinking about an alternative is prudent for both sides wherever you are now on obamacare. if the supreme court does come down it will destroy the exchanges in 30 odd states in the blink of an eye. i will give you a chance and just a minute let me finish my remarks. to the point that my friend mr. burgess made when we should look at polls in response to a point he made about my friend from new jersey. you have to recognize this thing has never been popular. we can argue whether it should or shouldn't be but it's never been popular. you cannot find a poll that shows its popular and i think we have had multiple elections where this has been a major issue. for popular my friends might

well still be in the majority. it's just not popular. that comes from two reasons in my view and this is only my view. first the manner which in which it was passed. it wasn't really passed the way a normal bill is. it didn't really get the senate in the way it should have. we did in each pass it in conference and send it back again and i think the manner which the process was hijacked essentially after a special election in massachusetts whatever it -- reverse the outcome as one of the reasons why the resistance in the case has been so strong. the second reason i think it's because of the manner in which it's been implemented. this is my view. we obviously have a disastrous rollout of this thing that did not work well but we have also had friends of the business mandate which is in the law. it's been unilaterally suspended by the administrations of the idea you get to pick and choose which part of the law you want to enforce what kind of timeline

i think we are in court now over that issue right now and i don't pretend to know how that court case will work out. that tells you how strong it is. i think the two sides position is well-known. the idea of getting alternative ready is pretty smart whether you are the administration support about this or you are not and you are opposed because again the supreme court may well make this unworkable. finally again i would ask my friends it doesn't go away because we didn't operate in the proper way when we passed it and we have an enforced it and implementation of it. those are the reasons for the continuing opposition. with that i certainly get give my friends a chance to respond and deal back after that. >> i know mr. scott wants to say something but i would say this. i don't want to get into polling

because i like to think as a legislator that i'm not just here based on whatever polling there is out there. i did want to say that if you feel very strongly that somehow things are going to be different and instructing the committees to come back with an alternative is really something you are striving to do. again i know that was in the bill 4 years ago and it never could happen in our or anywhere else then put some kind of deadline or reporting requirement that the committees get back to you. you mentioned the supreme court and when they might make a ruling. this criticism is not only that this is a repeat of what happened four years ago but there was never a timeline to report back. there was never any deadline and it seems to me if you are serious about asking these committees to come up with an alternative there should be a deadline and some kind of reporting requirement which i don't see here.

again i don't like to talk about process but that is what the rules committee is all about. it's totally legitimate for the house to take up the senate bill and pass it. it would have been nice to have a conference but what did the house do? they simply took up the senate bill and pass it and that's certainly something you can do and it was done so i think that process was totally legitimate under the constitution. i don't know why we are criticizing the process. that has always been a big thing for dr. burgess but the process was perfectly normal in my view. >> we will just agree to disagree. that's perfectly normal because i have never seen anything like that at all ever and to do it in the teeth of public opinion that was overwhelmingly -- no wonder people feel like they were hijacked. that is not me making it up and

my town hall meetings are probably different than yours. i have no doubt my friend is accurately describing his experience and i can assure you mine are very different. i won't tell you that there is isn't support. there is support for elements of it but not much in my part of the world. again it does get back to the process and the manner in which it has been implemented. where i do agree with my friend and so far as i can co-sponsor one we did have an alternative. my friend mr. burgess has had his name on any number of alternatives unless the suspect in the member peer would have their name on that alternative. i think it's more imperative now. think doing it previously previously when he knew it wasn't going to be taken up by the senate and certainly wasn't going to be passed by the president. i've been quoted as saying accurately to my friends on my side of the aisle let's be real,

you're not going to repeal something called obamacare when a guy named obama's president of the united states. it's not likely to happen. this rifle shot approach which hasn't worked a times is the better part, the better way to proceed in my view. i do think now because of the supreme court there is a chance that this might happen. i think my friend is correct. we are the majority in both houses largely because of this law in my view so we had better be ready to present an alternative posthaste should the supreme court act. we need to have done a better job on that so i want to be critical of my friend. i know my friend mr. scott had something you wanted to say as well. >> if of your going to replace in repeal it would be helpful to have replacement available as you discuss repealing so you know exactly what you are doing.

what you may get is one alternative offered in virginia in the last election and the "washington post" analysis of that plan was under the headline to health care plan worse than obamacare. if what you are going to replace it with his worse people might be informed of their vote going in. it's a little out of order. the supreme court governors and state legislators are considering whether they would set up their state exchanges had lists of pros and cons. the idea that the tax credits would not be available for their constituents was never mentioned to my knowledge in any state as a reason to have a state exchange rather than a federal

exchange. the legislative intent is absolutely clear. there shouldn't be any problem at all in the supreme court. >> i'm not sure the legislative intent is clear. i seem to recall a principle architect of this plan telling us in telling multiple audiences and i expect to statements will be part of the supreme court case that this was designed in a way to force the states to adopt state exchanges that was meant to be that way. obviously in dozens of states that hasn't been the case and they have chosen not to do that. i think that is the crux of the issue but i will leave it up to the simpering court as to whether it's clear not. i would suspect and i don't want to get into supreme court prognostication. it will probably be a split decision either way so there will be smart legal people on both sides of the question. they're already art. each side seems to know exactly what's going to happen again my

experience is going to the supreme court is a crapshoot. my brenda's forgotten more about the law than i would ever knowing about courtrooms. i would like to yield to my friend mr. burgess. >> thank you mr. call and on the issue of polling popularity. correct, you can't always be governed by polls at least be guided by this notion that the government with the consent of the government. no one was asking for this, no one was and is a consequence it still remains desperately on possible. i yield back. >> i think that is well stated and that to me is a key point. if it's been operating for four years and is still of some popular than i don't think it's going to suddenly magically become popular. again we may have a decisive point that we on our side have responsibility in both my friends on the other side have pointed out to be ready for it. i agree with my friend from new jersey we should've done that a

long time ago in my view but both sides had better think about it now unless their crystal ball on the supreme court is better than mine. with that i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back is time and i appreciate his comments. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. >> by me say when you talk about what's popular and what's not they can be that i'm popular given the fact that president obama won re-election over republican candidates whose health care plan was to take two tax breaks and calm in the morning. people knew what this president stood for and what this bill was about. they believed, most people believed everyone in this country ought to have health care and not to have health insurance. i know some in your party mr. burgess don't believe that. they think when people like me say health care should be right is a radical idea but i think most people in this country believe this. we are in the rules committee. this bill was referred to energy

and commerce education and workforce and ways & means. is that correct? >> there are's dual jurisdiction. >> the energy and commerce committee is the energy and commerce committee formally organized at? >> when i was talking about the committees i was talking about the bill directed at committees to come up with an alternative. they weren't absolute no hearings. >> i mean right now. in this new congress. >> we have even had markets. >> is that hearing a markup on -- -- >> mr. mcgovern what was the word until last friday we haven't had anything. >> is education and workforce committee organized get it? [inaudible]

is mr. ryan going to testify does anyone know? >> i don't expect testimony. >> i don't expect ways and means us have a caring either. >> i want to take your time but i have a dialogue on the floor with mr. ryan in when the world came up a couple of weeks ago and he said something to the effect that there was no plan to do or a repeal. >> so we were told during previous bills that we had to have closed rules because committees have an organized and they can't possibly have gotten together to have hearings. clearly that is not the excuse that could be used in this case so mr. burgess are you and the other chairs of education workforce and ways & means asking for an open rule? [inaudible]

>> i think usually we have a chairman peer and they say they want a closed rule or they moped onto a modified open rule or an open rule. you aren't both of this committee and -- if i introduce an amendment to call for an open rule would you support it? >> i think think the gentleman knows the answer that question. historically i have not supported it. >> are right so we have a bill before us that this has no hearings in this congress. we have 58 new members and no mark-ups though this comes up before the rules committee and we are probably going to get a closed rule, no amendment so if people had some good ideas for replacement or tweaking this bill but they won't have that opportunity. four years ago the house passed naca repeal bill that included

instructions to house committees to submit a republican alternative to the affordable care act. allison 2011. i that was four years ago. what happened? wife four years why are we here what alternatives? >> mr. mcgovern i don't think that bill was ever signed into law. >> but the house passed it and instructed the committees here here -- -- it was a resolution that did need to be signed into law so we were instructing committees here to do that. if this is such an urgent thing where other repeal bills and why are we going to do this again? does anyone know what happened? why did none of the who committees report anything out of? >> i think what has been stated and what is different this time

is there's a supreme court challenge that will be heard in march and will receive their wisdom at the end of june which will change the landscape going forward for the affordable care act. >> so the language of this bill is similar to the one that was passed by the house four years ago but in addition i guess the republicans have submitted an amendment that i guess they plan to self execute. this amendment instructs the committees to end a word here is submit their alternative plan rather than report it to the house. we have consulted with the house parliamentarian and i am not aware of any precedent in history of the house for this odd procedure. i understand what reported bill out means but when committees are asked to submit a plan who are they submitting it to and what does that mean?

.. this is a process concern. what is becoming practice as bills that do not go through committee shall appear. we go to the floor and people have to take it. you'd expressed concern that you did not think the process the democrats had was open enough. i am worried you will not even require committees to hold

meetings or do markups. under the language committee word is submit and not report. let me ask do you know what submit means? i think it is quite clear. i said before if they were serious -- and i i like them. i am not suggesting an alternative but based upon my dialogue, i think their is an obligation if you say you want to repeal something that is having such an impact on the american people whether good or bad, bad, to come up with an alternative. if they were serious they would set a deadline. >> have you ever dealt with submitted versus reported? >> i don't agree it suggests a total lack of any process.

report means the committee considered it. submit, i guess the chairman just publishes a a letter with know process, no nothing, know suggestion that the committee majority supported it, know suggestion that anyone supported. >> i am just trying to get a sense for what we come in this process committee arguing. we have had this debate 50 sometimes already. we will have that debate tomorrow on the house floor but it is troublesome or we have committees that have been organized and constituted that are not holding hearings. and then this rule

substitutes the word report with submit and the only conclusion we can come to is that as a way to start regular order. i would, again you know urge my colleagues to rethink some of the language. maybe if we went to regular order we would not have this confusion. >> i am going to go further and say that looking at what this bill says in directing the committee, the bottom line is we have seen different piecemeal bills as mentioned but the problem is they have got this direction that says all the comprehensive things of the affordable care act already does lowering health-care premiums to increase competition and choice, preserving the patient's choice to keep his or her insurance, affordable health coverage, reform the

medical liability system increasing the number of insured americans i have never seen the republicans for anyone in the commerce community come up with any kind of comprehensive legislation that would meet these goals. >> and i would just say that the gentleman does not appreciate the affordable care act, but i mean committees met and held hearings ended markups, you no which all contributed to the final result. i am just simply saying we ought to take care that we do not totally obliterate the process hear and i am worried that is what we are doing. another closed rule when their should not be. a license to continue to get around regular order with this word submit. with that mr. chairman, i yield back my time.

>> the gentleman from george's recognized. >> thank you. i appreciate you being here. i don't no who would claim to be the greatest expert on the affordable care act amongst the three of you. i want i want to ask you about a statement in the president's veto he says, the affordable care act is not only working but is fully integrated into the american healthcare system. my understanding my understanding is that it is not. their are still numerous pieces that are not yet functioning in the marketplace. >> i think you are very mistaken. a mistaken. a lot of what we discuss here is at the high end. the affordable care act is

so much more ingrained in the discussion. the affordable care act includes the indian health care improvement act, a bill i sponsored and championed four years ago which is making all kinds of improvements to the indian health care system. all kinds of grants going out for community health services hospitals to make changes in the way they do business. i would say, yes. they would be here for hours i don't think their is any way you can repeal this practically without causing total chaos. i i am trying to be nice but you are bringing it up. very much integrated for years and a lot of things are happening and related to

the macro things we have been talking about. >> i think you make the.that so many of us have a concern about. we have talked about how many people have insurance not about the changes to the indian health care system but to the larger who can afford healthcare. we talk about it as if the fully integrated and incredibly complex hard to pull out even if you want to has led to an improvement in insurance coverage. the numbers i look at tell me expanded medicaid accounts for only half of those yet we talk about it as if we have done something i daresay if you sat down and talked about it you would be in agreement.

>> actually cosponsored.u for the record that would have passed on its own with a huge bipartisan majority placed in that legislation. native american constituencies that otherwise would not vote for the bill and that was done to some of her democratic colleagues who voted know. they were furious. to pass a bill that otherwise would not have passed, and passed, and now we must deal with the consequences. the last congress had legislation that if it were repeal this particular section would immediately have a vote. >> very little to do with obama care.

let's be real. >> i'm trying to make the. i believe they're are so many aspects. it would be total chaos. >> i don't want to say your intent, but it would be chaos. >> on so many issues of health care the president started this debate and won the hearts and minds of the american people. i don't believe pre-existing conditions. the president persuaded america, through know fault of your own they're ought to be a program.

the to stay on they're parents program. he won that. and we're looking at a chance for i i believe the program will collapse on its own weight. that is what makes it so important to me. they describe it as a big messaging opportunity where folks are just preaching of political mantra instead of trying to make a policy difference. it took know effort at all to fully fund and expansion of medicaid. that was not clever. it took know effort at all.

more people we will buy healthcare plans if we required to buy them i law and subsidize 90 percent of the cost. that was not particularly clever. if you require anyone to do something by statute and subsidize 90% 90 percent we we will get more people to engage. their are difficult questions out their. they are still out their. we need to be able to come together. make the case, tells me this is the group that is serious enough about it to find that common ground. we're not talking about trying to give the president a black guy on his signature policy. we are talking about trying to deal -- you read through the requirements.

these are all things in the bill anyway. not one of us were defendant you ought to tell them that you are going to help them but we no that was a mistake. by my count it is 11 times most recently in the omnibus bill where we said maybe it was not a good idea to tell folks who are doing mission work in nigeria that they are required to purchase healthcare .gov compliant plans when they are overseas. maybe that was not a thoughtful answer. again as recently as three months ago it disappoints me.

people that i know and respect talk about these conversations as if they are some sort of partisan gamesmanship instead of a serious effort when the supreme court decides these subsidies will not go out the door to the federal exchange. i am glad we are beginning that conversation today. >> two points and i do not want to get ms. fox going. first again i think that the expansion has been successful. successful. you could have done it separately but i don't think it would have happened separate. now we are seeing some of the republican governors who previously opposed this doing it.

one of the examples last week i consider a conservative member of the body who decided to adopt the medicaid expansion. even in red states with republican governors that this expansion is taking place. to me that is an indication that it has been successful. i will get my friend from virginia -- i don't want to aggravate you, but we have had this discussion before. when you say that you can keep what you have, i don't think the president intended that you would be able to keep a lousy plant. >> i know. it is true that we have a generous benefits package and certain people may not be able to keep them.

the intention never was to say that if you have a skeletal plant you can keep it. that was not my intention. i don't want to speak for the president. >> you have had this discussion before. >> speaking from the heart. when government, those powers are derived from the consent of the governed, they never would have allowed for the fact that if they loved the way there life was today you insist they purchase something different. medicaid is struggling. a tough time finding doctors that we will accept those plans. there was nothing that raised reimbursement rates. >> temporary.

>> i don't even want to start on the temporary bait and switch is. my uncle, i will call him a big liberal he wears that mental proudly. you can hand out all the insurance cards you want to, but if you can't find a dr. who is willing to take that insurance card you have not helped anybody. i don't think it's something we ought to pat ourselves on the back on. we kick the can down the road. bipartisan things we would have had to have done to fix medicaid, we just dumped more folks on it. states did states did not bother us about further exacerbating a problem. maybe then we we will have that conversation.

this committee and the folks at the witness table are better than that. it is never more clear that the president has won some of these debates. i am happy to admit it but it is also clear that some of these programs are destructive to the fabric of the american healthcare system and folks on both sides of the aisle ought to be able to admit that. >> thank you very much. i do ask unanimous consent that the letter dated january 30 from the congressional budget office be made a part of the record and i ask unanimous consent the statement of administration policy also

be admitted and that at some time during the amendment process, in case i forget i would like to ask unanimous consent going forward that ms. jackson lee's statement be made to five. >> without. >> thank you very much madam chair. mr. mcgovern leaned over to me a moment ago and said something that is so very true. you kind of have to wonder do any of us on the rules committee recognize that this is the rule community? and he did not put it that way but i am saying that it would seem to me that we would come to our senses your and recognize our responsibilities in this

particular committee. the reason i raise it as an example when mr. scott and i came to congress in 1992 i did not no very much at all about the rules committee but how i learned about the rules committee was from a very vocal chamber in the media particularly radio and i was doing a lot of radio at that time. other than the community and mr. collins has heard me tell the story. i was being bombarded by people saying, why are you democrats doing all of these closed round? i kept trying to figure out what in the world they were talking about. time came many years after i became a member and i sought

democrats have closed rules and republicans have closed rules command that is wrong. wrong. and the most historic of the rules committee's in the previous congress, the most close rules that we have ever had, and now we are pairing for yet another put aside of the substance. earlier when the chair spoke he took the liberty that many of us do in offering either on the floor or here in the committee when we say with the american public think. i think with the american public thinks is that they are tired of hearing about this. my friend was correct when he said you cannot find the poll saying that person's favor this in any large

measure. so here the kinds of organization. i will quote from it. continue debate or moveon. after more than five years of debate about the split on whether the conversation should continue is important for this country. the debate over the health care law while 45 percent said they are tired of hearing about it and the congress should focus on other issues a majority of republicans say the debate should continue. the majority of democrats say that the debate should not continue. where are we, people? what are we doing here?

in that same poll my good friend from georgia would be interested to no that it also signified that we are about the business and their are an overwhelming majority of people that think all we are doing at this.is scoring political points. quite frankly i think we are better people and should return to regular order to the extent that we can. of course, every measure cannot be put forward and i, for one, clearly understand that. let me ask a question of doctor burgess. you made the comment on a

supreme court decision that is eminent and all of us anticipate at some time after a little while and probably sooner than later but it we will change the landscape. i i am not quarreling with your comment, but i am curious if you've been the case before the supreme court is either way going to change the landscape. is that what you meant? >> i simply stand by the statement that i made. congressman burwell will change the landscape. may i expand upon that? >> of course. >> king versus burwell occurs because a plain

reading of the language in the statute would i it was supposed to be reported in august 2012.

that was inconvenient for the administration. they postponed a date of the rule until november 10. that was a week after election day. the governors had a week to make up their mind after they saw the essential benefit rule. a week to make up their minds as to whether or not they would participate in the exchange. most said i do not know how to evaluate this, i do not know what financial obligation i am encouraging by accepting money for the exchange. they were given an exception by mr. cohen, that occurred at the time of christmas and thanksgiving. everyone's staff was out of town. they said we do not have enough data to evaluate. they were given another extension until the first of the year. mr. cohen said we've

got to know who is in and who is out, 36 states said no deal. had the administration worked with governors, we might be talking about different -- >> have the governors worked with the administration. not even your state, which i think is a crazy state. mr. burgess does not have the time. i have the time. [indiscernible] >> i reclaim my time. i think that is the procedure in this body. >> a defamatory statement about my state. i will not stand here and listen. >> you do not have to listen.

you can leave if you choose. i told you what i think about texas. i would not live there for all the tea in china. i know what my state did, which is in many states coming close to being just as crazy. they did not expand medicaid. for that reason, i particularly take umbrage with all the thought about the number of people, 860,000 people in my state, that are left in the lurch. i feel that it is because we are not being reasonable as democrats and republicans with each other. with all the brainpower that is here we could have done all that is necessary to ensure that americans are not in the position that they are in with reference to health care in this country. we pay more and cost more than most countries around the world. somewhere along the line it is wrong. let me give you a few facts.

10.3 million uninsured adults receive coverage in the first year of the affordable health care act. additional 8 million individuals enrolled in medicaid or chip in 2014, which is an increase of 14%. in just one year, there has been a 26% reduction in the number of uninsured adults in this great country of ours. we are still in the open enrollment period. from the hhs weekly snapshot of enrollment activity, there have been other 9.7 million applications submitted. representative burns'state of alabama, there has been many individual plans. like mr. pallone i've attended

enrollment process after process. as recently as the sunday before last, 400 people at that church enrolled. i agree with my friend from georgia, his point to the president's statement in the statement of the administration of being opposed to this, that it was fully integrated, i disagree with that statement of the president. i do not believe that it is fully integrated. i believe it is capable of being fully integrated. if people like me had our way we would have universal health care . i did not think this went far enough to help the american people. we have slowed the rate at which health care premiums increase and extended the life, this is someone has said nothing about

extended the life of the medicare trust fund by 13 years. we are helping our most vulnerable americans gain access to health care and saving money through preventative measures. instead of working to create jobs, raise the minimum wage, renew emergency unemployment insurance, address immigration reform or any other of the many urgent priorities our constituents sent us here to deal with in facing our nation, my friends on the other side are continuing their obsession with the affordable health care act. republicans have long claimed -- i heard this until it was pounded into me -- the affordable care act, the sky was supposed to fall. it would destroy millions of jobs and cause tens of millions of americans to lose their employer coverage. yet, since the affordable care act passed, businesses have

added nearly 10 million jobs. in its first year, 3 million people who were previously uninsured has gained health insurance coverage. you are not addressing some of the issues, it will reduce the deficit by $210 billion over 10 years and by over $1 trillion in the following decade. you have no other program. you have presented non-, whether you submit or do anything else, you have not shown us anything that is an alternative to this measure. we know that you are the party of no. but have serious concerns as to what your plan is for people to be an short. while you spend all the time in the 56 times we have sought to repeal the act trying to stop people from having insurance now you would come here and argue to the american people that those that have been

insured, you want to take it away. i want to stand here and watch that and i think you all know that this is not going to become law. . >> this is the. again, we are the rules committee. i made reference to this word submit as opposed to report. that had to be redrafted. we have a new version which removes the word submit. this is how this bill is being put together. if their if their is anything my friends on the other side of the aisle should be clear about is how to write a bill to repeal the affordable care act and here we are with yet another

version of the self executed amendment being dropped on us. it goes to what i was saying earlier. you want to open this process up and rely on regular order and not the drafting things at the last minute and changing things as we go along. this process is just as flawed as the underlying bill. i thank the gentleman for yielding. >> i thank you, and i repeat with the gentleman said. twenty-two years ago i i learned that close rules were not a good thing. it is just as bad now as it was 22 years ago. i will continue the mantra that we should return to regular order. thank you for your presentations. thank you mdm. chair. i yield back i

yield back my balance. >> the gentleman yields back. we have a parliamentarian hear to give us notes on what to say when people may not be saying exactly the right things but we owe to our colleagues, especially our colleagues on this committee a great deal of civility. i have been concerned in several meetings we have had recently about words that are being used in this committee in terms of being on the edge of impugning the integrity of other members. if we were on the floor the parliamentarian would be called upon to make a ruling on some of the words used in here relating to members. i want to say to the members two things: one, when i

1st came on this committee their was a five-minute rule for how long members can speak. it was viciously enforced for the majority. we have not done that. i am also very concerned, again, about civility in this committee and i want to say that we owe each other, again, being civil especially to our colleagues on the community. i just want to urge our members to be thinking about those two things and about the amount of time being spent on something that is considered a waste of time. >> one thing the gentle lady said, i don't ever recall a

five-minute rule on this committee and certainly not one that was viciously implemented. that was not a rule when the democrats were in charge and certainly not when the previous republican chair was in charge. i do not disagree with the gentle lady. sometimes i wish their was a five-minute rule but i want to make it clear -- [laughter] >> be careful what you wish for. >> i believe the time is mine in the sequence. >> doctor burgess is recognized. >> i do feel that i need to say is part and parcel, but their is no reason to impugn

the people of the state of this country and i will await the gentleman's apology. i yield back. >> you will wait until hell freezes over -- >> the gentleman -- >> for me to say anything in an apology. i will i will apologize to you if i was directing my comments to you. i was commenting about the state to five. >> i i believe -- [inaudible conversations] >> digital man from texas controls the time. i do not see the value in a member of this committee -- >> the gentleman from florida does not have the floor.

>> thank you, madam chair. i will be fairly brief. i want to thank the gentleman from new jersey, the jersey, the gentleman from texas and the gentleman from virginia for appearing before us. i want to thank you for your work on health care. we may disagree on how to get their, but i appreciate your contribution and how you fight hard for the people you represent. i appreciate you being here today. one of the things i think we all agree on is americans should have access to meaningful and affordable healthcare. their are ideas that are more affordable and sustainable including association health plans aggregation legislation fda

-- their has been so much their is not an actual replacement. many of us around this table i hope we can work in a bipartisan way going forward you know i know no healthcare has become one of those polarizing issues and that is unfortunate. i think the american people deserve better .. i i appreciate you being here today.

>> would you be surprised to no the same article says the uninsured rate came down to 13.4 percent before the exchange taken and did go down further currently according to the cnn article >> from the economy recovered more people got insurance, yes. >> have all of you had a chance to review the cbo statement? it is pretty voluminous. >> there is no cbo -- >> the cbo letter -- i'm sorry -- of earlier last year. >> if the gentleman will yield, the only thing -- the february cbo statement of

last year. >> the only thing i have says that the cbo estimates repealing the law would cost taxpayers a hundred 9 billion and leave 19 million people without health insurance. >> reclaiming. >> reclaiming my time for a 2nd that same study says it is because it takes away about a trillion dollars in taxes and says that their would be 2.5 million less jobs. working only for insurance the same argument could be made. >> that was part of it. >> a lot of people quit they're jobs. >> i reclaim my time. it talks about people

supplying less labor and ultimately to and a half million jobs would not be created because of this. and if you put the cnn study that claims 4 million people were insured and we lose 2.5 million that is one job loss for every two that are insured. >> especially for those people unemployed. >> i i would raise questions about the statistics. >> okay. >> the one thing i want to mention. the number of uninsured -- and i have not seen the article you mentioned. anyone who is undocumented is not included under the affordable care act. if your numbers are including the census census the census includes

the undocumented. but they are not eligible. you are talking about tens of millions of people. >> it is a cdc study that originally commanded the others national health interview survey. can. can i submit that cnn document for the record? >> without objection. >> i do frequent town halls and talk to my constituents. i guess my question for the gentleman from virginia and new jersey is, what is, what would you say to a woman like my constituent that now is trying to balance her budget unless hours because her employer cannot afford to employ her full-time because of the definition under law the reduction in labor.

>> 97% 97 percent of businesses covered by the employer mandate provided insurance without a mandate. i am sure they're are some that just don't want to provide insurance and will do everything that they can but i would suggest they we will not be able to get away with it because people we will up and quit. the economy is so bad right now that they don't have options. >> what would you say to the lady who lost her job, i guess is my question. go question. go out and get another job is that what you are saying? >> no, i'm no, i'm saying 97 percent of the businesses provided insurance without a mandate. i'm sure you can find some company somewhere that we will do everything they can to get under the threshold. i can tell you the reason that 97% of 97 percent of businesses provide insurance is they want the best workers and you are not going to attract good workers.

i hope that you gentleman will try to work with folks like me going forward, and i pledge to you that i will try to work with you. with that i yield the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back. >> thank you, madam chair. i think the chair for recognizing. we serve on the judiciary committee together. doctor burgess, from the perspective of our side of the aisle you always give a great defense. one interesting thing that you said you made the

comment about intent that the judiciary will rule on intent of the law. now that is the new standard, we we will have to go back to law school in chains the statutes because that is not the way it is supposed to start. if you look at it from any basic understanding begin with a starting point. it is is the language of the statute itself. the language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive. a cardinal principle of statutory construction. we must give effect if possible.

every part every part is presumed to be meaningless unless absolutely necessary. only where it is open to two or more constructions. the statute is clear. we get into the future look of this. we can have disagreements. i think that is pretty well stated. i believe what my friend from georgia rallied things to think about. of these things are not the way that this needs to proceed.

we will come back and see. i will be happy to yield. >> the interesting thing we can go back. the law will begin. that has become the problem what this means and when we we will enforce it. when we we will exempt and when we won't. to me that is not an option.

words on paper still matter. i matter. i am glad we are here. with that i yield back. i do acknowledge and appreciate all three of you the dialogue that took place hear. excuse me. excuse me. i have been asked to submit testimony on behalf of the gentleman from iowa. hr 596 before we move

further i would like to address an issue that was brought up during the hearing portion. questions around the change in the word from report to submit in the amendment. all part of the chair and tried to look up and made a few phone calls to find the practical application of this work. i talked with him. we are back to report.

what did it mean to back. >> i appreciate you doing that. >> there is no time requirement a glaring issue

that has paved the way. i think the gentleman. >> with that regard is important that the words do matter. >> the gentleman from north carolina. >> i've moved the committee grant hr 96. the reconciliation act. providing 90 minutes of debate divided among and controlled by the respective chairs.

the bills amendment will be considered as read. >> the gentlewoman from north carolina. >> an amendment to the rule. an open rule. the committees have organized. given the fact that they're were no hearings and they did not report legislation the least we can do is have an opportunity. participate in the process. >> i i think the gentleman for discussion. those in favor say i oppose

know. [roll call] >> the gentleman does not seek time. thank you very much. the gentlewoman from north carolina. the eyes have it. >> this fox, i.

[roll call] >> the motion is agreed to. the gentleman from texas will be handling this. i will be doing it for the democrats. i love texas. [laughter] >> the gentleman from massachusetts will be handling this. >> i love our united states and would say it is a great country and that for us to work together is important.

i want to thank the committee for its time today >> "washington journal" will begin in a moment. the house is in this morning at 10:00 a.m. eastern for general speeches. at noon, they begin debate on a measure to repeal the health care law that we just saw the rules committee working on. on c-span3, shaun donovan will testify about the president's 2016 budget request. live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern. coming up, we talk with house budget committee member bill pascrell. raul labrador on his stance on

immigration. later, claire suddath of bloomberg businessweek joins us to discuss maternity leave in the u.s. ♪ host: good morning. it's tuesday, february third, 2015. this year's budget battle is officially underway on capitol hill. one area where there might be some room for agreement between the white house and national republican may come in the billions of dollars in new funding the president is seeking for the defense department after several years of flat or declining budgets. this morning, we will break down obama's $585 billion defense spending request for 2016 -- 42015.