, i think six weeks is the maximum. men, it is generally understood that this is something they need to. it is hard to be a parent. regardless of who you are. you go to work, your tired, you come home, maybe don't sleep very well at night. this is not something that is specific only to win it. there are obviously added problems for women in terms of they are the ones who give you -- give birth and breast-feeding. it is something we need to think about her father's as well. since we have the majority of two-parent households have both there to work. host: the house is getting ready to come in. can the u.s. ever fix it's best that maternity leave system? we appreciate your time. guest:, thank you. host: we are taking you live to

the house proceedings, and we will see you live at 7:00 a.m. eastern, 4:00 pacific. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., february 3, 2015. i hereby appoint the honorable charles j. fleischmann to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 7, 2014, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. -- pursuant to the order of the house of january 6 2015, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes, but in

no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, for five minutes. mr. mcgovern: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, too many people in our country, the richest country in the history of the world, are hungry, and it's a sad reality. and hunger has many faces -- children, seniors, veterans, the disabled. one group that experiences hunger and is often overlooked is working families, millions of people who work for a living don't earn enough to ensure their families have enough to eat. they don't earn enough to ensure that their kids have access to quality childcare, and for millions of working families every single day is a

struggle. we in this chamber ought to do more to help. in his state of the union address, i was pleased to see the president identify specific ways to support working families, tripling the childcare tax credit, increasing the number of slots available and investing in high-quality, affordable childcare programs. these are investments that are important to all families, but especially working and poor families. we know that the early years of a child's life are critical to shaping healthy cognitive emotional and social development. ensuring that all of our young children have an opportunity to thrive in a safe, nurturing environment is one of the best economic investments that we can make. it is the right thing to do, and it pays huge dividends later on. families know how expensive childcare is today. in 2013, the cost of full-time care for an infant in a childcare center was about $10,000 per year, more than the cost of instate college tuition

in many states. and many of the best childcare programs cost much more than that. but for poor families, the cost of quality childcare can be an untenable burden. for these burdens it may mean being forced to paying rent, getting medicine or buying food. and no parent should find themselves in the difficult situation of having to drop their child off at a program that is unsafe or of poor quality just so they can get to their job. parents shouldn't have to choose between safe childcare and keeping their job to pay the bills. for poor families in particular, it is a daily struggle to balance everything and still make ends meet. mr. speaker last week the census bureau released figures that showed one in five children in this country received food stamps last year. let me repeat that. one in five children in this country relied on snap. that's 16 million children who relied on snap to keep them from going hungry last year,

more than at the start of the great recession. now we know that our economy is improving slowly, but the gains aren't shared evenly among all americans. too many families are struggling to make ends meet. and we know despite some of the false rhetoric the majority of snap participant who is are expected to work and are able to work in fact work. families with children have even higher rates of employment than other households on snap. more than 60% of families with children have someone in the household working that are on snap. mr. speaker, they still make so little that they qualify for snap. without snap these families would not be able to put enough nutritious food on the table for their children and for themselves. being poor is hard. it's expensive and we should do everything we can to support working families expanding and

investing in childcare is an important step toward achieving that goal. i urge the republican leadership to support the president's initiatives, to expand and improve access same time i urge the republican leadership, i plead with them to refrain from cutting food and nutrition programs that are essential to a child's healthy development. it's the right thing to do, to support these families, to support food and nutrition programs, to support quality childcare programs. it's the right thing to do for all american families and it's especially the right thing to do for our low-income families who have not shared in recent economic improvements and who face tough choices every day. families should not be forced to choose between good, safe childcare and putting food on the table. that is a false choice and quite frankly in this country it is shameful that they have to have that choice. i urge my colleagues to make a

renewed commitment to end hunger now. we have the resources. we have the food. we have everything, but we lack the political will. hunger is a political condition. we can solve this problem in a bipartisan way if we choose to, if we make it a priority. there are millions of our citizens who are depending on us to do more than we are doing now. i hope we live up to that challenge. we can and we should do much better. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, amidst all the controversy gripping congress, certainly we should all be able to agree that the full faith and credit of the united states should not hang in the balance every time there's a fiscal debate in washington. this nation now staggers under $18 trillion of debt, nearly

$7.5 trillion run up during this administration. the interest on that debt is one of the fastest growing components of the federal budget. if there is ever any doubt of the security or reliability of that debt owed by this government, interest rates would quickly rise and our precarious budget situation could rapidly spin out of control. ernest hemmingway put it this way, he asked how do you go bankrupt? two ways. first gradually, then suddenly. so it is with nations. now, the debt limit is how we regulate the nation's debt. it's the national equivalent of a credit card limit. that limit has to be periodically adjusted. it's appropriate for congress to take responsibility when it is raised, but when it is raised it's also appropriate for congress to review and revise the policies that are driving that debt. the fundamental problem, under

both democratic and republican congresses, is this process is fraught with controversy. the bigger the debt the bigger the controversy and the bigger the controversy the more credit markets are likely to be spooked into demanding higher interest payments to meet their greater risk. given the size of our debt, that could produce an interest tidal wave that could sink our budget and our nation along with it. i'm today introducing the default prevention act, with 43 co-sponsors to guarantee that sovereign debt of the united states government will be paid in full and on time under any circumstances, even total political gridlock. it simply provides that if the debt limit is reached, the treasury secretary may continue to borrow above that limit for the sole purpose of paying interest and principal that's due. it is an absolute guarantee that the debt of the united states will be honored. most states have various laws

to guarantee payment of their debts. three years ago in testimony to the senate ben bar nanky praised these -- ben bernanke praised these states. this act passed the house in the 113th congress, but it was never taken up by the senate. well, now we're approaching the expiration of the government's current borrowing authority. we will soon have serious discussions over the level of our debt and the additional measures necessary to bring that debt under control. we all hope these discussions will go smoothly, but we all know that sometimes they don't. the default prevention act says loudly and clearly to the world that no matter how much we may differ and quarrel, the sovereign debt of this nation is guaranteed and their loans to this government are absolutely safe. last session, the democrats opposed this measure charging that it's an excuse not to pay our other bills. well, do they actually suggest

that all these other states that have guaranteed their sovereign debts for generations, some for centuries, have ever used these guarantees as an excuse not to pay their other bills? on the contrary, by providing clear and unambiguous mandates to protect their credit first, they actually support and maintain their ability to pay for all of their other obligations. the most outrageous claim the democrats made was that this measure paid china first. well, what nonsense. more than half of our debt is held by americans, often in american pension funds. this act actually protects americans far more than chinese or other foreign investors. but whether our loans come from china or tim buck tuesday -- timbucktu, without the nation's credit we can't meet our other

obligations. principle disputes over our debt will happen from time to time. then-senator barack obama vigorously opposed an increase in the debt limit sought by the bush administrations. when these controversies erupt, as they often do in a free society it's imperative that credit markets is guarantee that their debts are secure. it will give congress the comb it needs to negotiate the changes that must be made to bring our debt under control before that congress authorizes still more debt. i would urge its speedy consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. this is the week where the president submits his budget. and we're seeing a great deal of conversation about many of

the provisions. one area that's greeted with positive reaction is his emphasis on infrastructure, on rebuilding and renewing america. this is a debate that is one that is important. it's long overdue to focus in on solutions. it's an area of potential agreement. the need to address the fact that america is falling apart while we're falling behind. somewhere on the order of 25th in the world rankings where once we had the finest infrastructure in the world. that's no longer the case. the american society of civil engineers gives us a d. it's going to cost $2.2 trillion to be able to bring us up to standard, and the longer we wait the worst the situation. it is costing each american

$323 a year on average damage to their cars because of inadequate infrastructure. to say nothing of thousands of lives lost because of unsafe road conditions and the potential disruption of business and commerce americans are spending millions of hours a year trapped in traffic and america's highways, which are how we deliver products to stores, to factories, are increasingly congested and causing cost of delay there. now, the president's proposal is a bit complicated. it deals with other tax provisions that virtually everybody thinks are a long shot at best to be enacted. this is part of the pattern the administration has had in the past of offering up things that in theory would make a

difference but are unlikely and usually they are pronounced dead on arrival. likewise, the proposals of some of my republican friends for their approaches, wrapping it into their version of tax reform, have been consistently declared not possible. . we have one simple common sense approach that should be taken. it was highlighted again today in an editorial in the "washington post," but it's also been written about in "the new york times," "l.a. times," "usa today," bloomberg news in papers large and small across the country raise the gas tax. it has not been raised in 22 years, and in that time it's lost a significant portion of the purchasing power while america's needs grow.

for 60 years the gas tax has formed the backbone of how we deal with america's infrastructure finance. user pays. people who benefit the most pay the most. and it has served us well for over half a century. but over the course of the last 10 years it is no longer adequate. the fixed amount that hasn't been increased, the erosion due to inflation, increasing fuel efficiency of vehicles all combine to mean that we are falling short of the mark. we have been required to transfer $60 billion from the general fund just to maintain our already inadequate levels of funding. and the current patch expires in may. the clock is ticking. there are opportunities to make a difference. it's interesting, it's not just the newspaper editorial writers

who focus on this as the simplest, most effective, commonsense approach. we are finding in the other body a number of senators, including republican senators, who indicate that they are open to finally readdressing and updating the gas tax. my colleague on ways and means committee, from ohio, wrote a very insightful article in recent roll call where he made the case for our moving forward with increasing the user fee, to be able to maintain our roads and bridges, highlighting the costs and consequences. mr. speaker, there is an opportunity for us to move forward. this does not have to be something that's complicated or partisan. this is something that ronald reagan in 1982 called upon the congress to do where he in his

thanksgiving day address ask congress more than double the gas tax. tip o'neill and ronald reagan did it. we can do it today. i strongly urge my colleagues to address this simple commonsense approach and help us rebuild and renew america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, mr. speaker. this morning i feel compelled to speak again about the necessity of increasing the knowledge and the notice given by the f.d.a. food and drug administration, and centers for disease control, on what seems to be a surge in the getting of measles by many

across this country. the numbers have gone past 100. it is clear that measles is a disease that quickly spreads. and it is also clear that science, medical science affirms the value of vaccines. i believe it is extremely important today to again ask the f.d.a. and c.d.c. as i did yesterday in a letter to raise the level of warning and concern to parents schools, counties, states, and the entire nation on being able to provide information to encourage vaccination, if that is what is the ability to have, if you are of the age, if your child is of the age to be able to receive that vaccination, to do so. over the last couple weeks, we

have seen measles spread with enormous numbers. we have seen the numbers grow in california and then spread. we have heard of cases where the measles started in an entertainment facility. people moved around the country and one example in particular, i think is potent, because the father of the children has been speaking out. he is a pediatrician, and he he is calling upon families to vaccinate. and particularly the m.m.r., which is the vaccination dealing with measles. unfortunately, an innocent visit to a clinic, which a child needs to do for pediatric services, exposed an 8-month-old to the possibility of measles. and his 3-year-old sister who is suffering from leukemia. now as i understand it they are in isolation.

there is the thought of someone traveling on an airplane with measles. and unlike a number of other diseases, measles spreads extremely quickly. stories have been told or examples have been given that if you have measles and you're in a room, you leave that room and maybe you coughed or done something, and an hour later someone comes in the possibility that you still may be exposed to it. riding on an airplane, you may expose a whole number of persons to measles if you are, in fact, infected. so i think it is extremely important, though we realize there are differences of opinion i'm glad to find in the political landscape that this is not a political football. and that in essence we come together and recognize the importance of having this information and encouraging vaccination. i'm asking for the state and city health departments county

health departments across the nation to provide their own information to parents and schools. and i wonder whether or not there is need to again, reassess the importance of reinstating the obligation and the responsibility of all families who have children going into a public school systems -- system that they be vaccinated within the realm of their own health condition and assessment by the proceed tishian. mr. speaker, this is an importantish -- pediatrician. mr. speaker, this is an important issue. as an example of health care to those around the world need to show the importance of preventive medicine and protecting our children. we have worked on these issues in many ways. we have fought for a vaccine for h.i.v. as has been said in the past, they are looking for a vaccine for ebola because we understand

how that can intervene and in those instances save lives. in this instance, not knowing the condition of individuals we know that this disease can be damaging. so it is important that we focus on educating the public. i believe an alert should go out that we have a problem and that we should be working with our local health facilities and disciplines and districts to be able to establish best practices and protocols and parents and others should be informed to make intelligent decisions. more importantly, i think this is an issue that should be quickly assessed on behalf of the c.d.c. and f.d.a. mr. speaker it is important for the children of america that we provide them the safety and security for their lives. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina, mr. clyburn, for five minutes. mr. clyburn: thank you very

much mr. speaker. mr. speaker in one of his great books, martin luther king jr. asked the question, where do we go from here? chaos or community? mr. speaker, today, 50 years after selma, that question is still in need of an answer. one area in need of aggressive action is persistent poverty. and i want to thank president obama for sending us a budget that equalizes the tax code and if substantially enacted will prove us closer to what dr. king often referred to as the beloved community. statistics show that there are nearly 500 counties and thousands of communities in the united states that are classified by the census bureau as persistent poverty areas.

there are so identified because 20% of their populations have lived below the poverty line for the last 30 or more years. there are diverse communities, including caucasian communities in states like west virginia kentucky and tennessee, native american communities in states like south dakota, alaska, and oklahoma. latino communities in states like arizona, new mexico, and texas. african-american communities in states like south carolina, alabama, and mississippi. there are urban communities in states like new york and hot heart -- heartland communities in states like missouri. 139 of these counties are represented in this house by democrats.

331 by republicans. and 18 are split between the two parties. combating persistent poverty should matter to all of us regardless of party, geography, or race. in early 2009, as we were putting together the recovery act i proposed language to require at least 10% of funds in three rural development accounts to be directed to efforts in these persistent poverty counties. this requirement was enacted into law. in light of the definition of persistent poverty counties as having 20% poverty rates over 30 years this provision became known as the 10-20-30 initiative. use the 10-20-30 formula, the recovery act funded a total of 4

655,000 projects in consistent poverty counties totaling nearly 1.7 billion. i saw firsthand the positive effects of these projects in my district. we were able to undertake projects and create jobs that would have otherwise languished. among these investments were a $5. million grant and -- $5.8 million grant, and $ million loan to construct 51 miles of water lines in britons neck in marion county, south carolina. there are many other success stories. in lawrence county, mississippi 17 $17.5 million was spent to install a water line. elevated tank, and two wastewater pump stations providing potable water to rural michiganians and created badly needed construction jobs.

in 2011, i joined with our former republican colleague then representative jo ann emerson of missouri, to introduce an amendment to the continuing resolution that would have continued 10-20-30 for rural development and expanded it to 11 additional accounts throughout the federal budget. to enhance economic development education, job training health, justice, the environment, and much more. i want to make one thing clear about the 10-20-30 approach. it does not add one dime to the deficit. it simply targets resources from funds already authorized or appropriated. over the past 30 years, the national economy has risen and fallen multiple times.

during these economic downturns we have been rightly focused on getting our economy as a whole on track. we have not given adequate attention to these communities that are suffering from chronic distress and depression-era levels of joblessness. mr. speaker, i would hope that as we undertake this budget we will find ways to work together to move our nation closer to dr. king's dream of a beloved community. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today.

>> the house gaveling out. the house gaveling out. scheduled back in at noon to repeal the federal health care law. this is the first time that a repeal attempt has also called for coming up with a replacement . we have a preview of the work expected today and to the senate's work for funding the department of homeland security. this is from earlier on washington journal. host: a couple of high-profile votes going on. take us through the affordable care act vote. heated exchanges in last night's rules committee hearing on that vote. what is a legislation that will hit the floor today? guest: be looking at today? guest: thank you for having me. here we go again. the white house has threatened to veto the legislation. the key part is president

obama's domestic policy agenda. the larger debate here is there are some parts of obamacare that democrats would perhaps be able to -- that republicans would be able to take up some democratic votes on. of course, talking about the 40 hour work week, which would increase the requirement from the 30 our work week to the 40 hour work week as far as having to provide homecare, as well as the medical device tax. on the whole that is not what we are seeing today. this is a repeal of obamacare. it is the first attempt at a republican controlled congress to repeal obamacare. i would expect to see themif this fails, it will likely be a veto. i would expect perhaps a more piecemeal approach and chipping

away on obamacare as we keep going into the new congress. host: do we know what number vote this is on the affordable care act if we combined votes from last congress to this congress? guest: that is a great question. i don't actually have the number off the top of my head, but i can tell you it's been dozens and does's of times -- dozens and dozens of times, as we all know, that they have tried to repeal obamacare. what is interesting is that, if they were to do a piecemeal approach -- and again, there are aspects that democrats would be willing to support in tweaking obamacare. but a lot of the more hard-line republicans have said they don't want to do that, that they just want to repeal the whole thing. i'm interested to see that play out with republicans. because again, there are things like the medical device tax that

senator elizabeth warren, who is very progressive supports repealing the medical device tax. host: in our last minute or so, a shift over to the senate side of capitol hill, a vote today on funding for department of homeland security. how does this play into the larger budgeting debate going on? guest: yes, i don the immigration debate, too, right? -- and on the immigration debate, too, right? this is on president obama's executive orders from last december. that is set to expire in just a few weeks. there is a huge vote today for funding those agencies again. this is an immigration vote, really between the tea party

and the centrists republicans. it will be interesting to see how that plays out. host: you can watch all of these votes on a seat in networks and read about -- all of these votes on the c-span networks and read abou the house is taking of the bill to repeal and replace hr 596. it was debated last night in the house rules committee, which we will so and a moment. here is one exchange from tennessee democrat and texas republican during the meeting.

mr. burgess doesn't have the chair, i have the time. >> are reclaim my time, that is the procedure. >> a defamatory statement about my state, and i will not listen to it. >> you do not have to listen you can leave. i would not live in texas for all the team china. for all intents and purposes, i know what my state do. in many respects, it comes close to being just as crazy. they did not expand medicaid. i take umbrage with all of the thought of the number of people, 860,000 people in my state that are left in the lurch.

they say that we are not being as reasonable as democrats and republicans. with all the brainpower we could have done all that is necessary to ensure that americans are not in the position they are in with reference to health care in this country. >> i will await the gentleman's apology. i yield back. >> you will wait until hell freezes over. for me to say anything and an apology. i will apologize to you if i were directing my comments to you. i was commenting about the state in which you are a resident. >> the gentleman from texas controls the time. i do not see the value in a member of this rules committee hurling invectives against a state and its people.

there's no reason that any member of this committee should do that. >> a portion of yesterday's house rules committee on the health care law is repealed. to hear it in its entirety, one hour 45 minutes, we will show as much as we can before the house gavels back in at noon. >> thank you very much. i want to welcome back the members, staff, and american people who are very interested in hr 5962 repeal the patient

and affordable care act and health-care related provisions in the health care reconciliation act of 2010 act. we remember that we were told house had to pass a obamacare to see what was in it. we have learned what is in it and it has become more apparent not only to the american people but to physicians, patients, and taxpayers alike. we recognize why we are here. because obamacare is a problem. it is a problem to taxpayers it is having an impact on job creation, and most of all it is a problem we have held hearing after hearing, after hearing about and we will highlight it again today. we all know that if you like your doctor you cannot keep your

doctor. if you like your health care plan, you cannot keep your health care plan either. it raises the cost on the average middle-class family and business. the average family health care premium has increased by $3000 during the last few years of the obama administration. deductibles are up as well. a few short years ago as the president was selling mess, he said he would look at congress and say not one dime of taxpayer money would be involved. time after time the american people have been misled. we know today, as we knew then, when we talk about the millions of full-time jobs on the line. we know the president has contributed to 11 million jobs since then. we fail to talk about the other

side, they are mostly part-time and minimum wage. that is not in that figure. finally, obamacare raises taxes on the american people, and that costs us $1 trillion and $2 trillion in the next 10 years because the laws expensive, unworkable, and unpopular and should be repealed. some people disagree. today mr. plume was arguing to a bigger slate that we would go to this plan. and the jammin from the energy and commerce committee and the rules committee with dr. michael burgess is here to help others work through legislation and the intricacies that the rules committee needs to be aware of as we talk about such important national policy. i want to thank you both and yield this time to the gentleman to massachusetts to any

statement he would like to make. >> ranking member slaughter is not here because of the snow. he is snowden in rochester, or he would be here. -- he is snowed in in rochester or he would the here. we will have a vote on repealing the affordable care act. it is a colossal waste of time and i'm not sure it is a serious effort. i want to hear from douglas elmendorf from the legit office. he gave me a ceo score because it was submitted late and they need to consider it. we will consider it without a cbo score. four years ago my republican friends passed the bill in the house that required all of the appropriate committees to report back to the house legislation that would constitute a replacement to the affordable

care act. that was four years ago. i don't know what the hell people have been doing, maybe we consume them for not doing their job. we can go through this one more time, to me it is a waste of taxpayer money. 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 did not have it before. you may think that is a problem, i think it is good. i'm glad people have insurance. we have controlled the rise and health-care coverage. being a woman is no longer considered having a pre-existing condition. i think that is good. allowing children to stay on the health insurance until they are 26 and get a job, you think that is bad, i think it is a good thing. we are not talking about theory.

we are talking about real people. my colleagues are proposing, and i don't think it will go anywhere, if we were to follow this to its logical conclusion you are talking about taking away health-care insurance from people who otherwise could not have access to it. i think that is a terrible way to do business. we will go through the testimony, as a debate on the floor, and i don't know what else will happen but if you have a better idea, put it forward. so far you have done nothing but tell us what you are against. i stand by my vote and yield back my time. >> i want to ask one question. up until today, as you alluded to, there have been 56 votes before today as a result of committees taking seriously what we said four years ago where committees need to report out those parts of the obamacare act which need to be repealed.

>> with respect mr. chairman, the 57 votes were a repeal and not a replace. four years ago you instructed a vote, if i remember, instructed committees to report back what you are for. we are in a different congress now, but if you want to replace this was something, come up with a better idea. going through this exercise again is a waste of taxpayer money. >> the gentleman from texas' time. it is my time. i would ask the general month if he was in reference to me. i would deal to the gentleman. >> i would have yielded to you anyway. >> 16 of those changes that is anything that would change. counting the 56, anything that

would change to law. the gentleman will recognize no law is perfect and this one is less perfect than most. 16 have been signed into law by the president. 16 have been signed into law by the president, if you are going to count to 56. >> i would think both of the gentleman from the energy, commerce and rules committee. you're no stranger, and we thank you for being here. your presence is often regarded well by many people who listen to you. you represent a viewpoint that this committee appreciates. esther burgess, i have a suspicion that your impact today will be a norm us, as always, as a practicing physician with an indoor miss interest and patient safety and health it is well respected and known. it is an obligation that you have to show off today and do your very best.

i know laura is at home watching on tv to make sure you smile at least once. both of you will be on the record. >> thank you for the recognition. i have a statement that was prepared by the energy and commerce committee that i will share. when the affordable care act passed into law, it was said that it would be a matter of time before the program gained popularity and support from the american people. washington democrats say it would hold majority support like other major pieces of health care legislation enacted by congress such as medicare in the 1960's or the prescription george program signed into law by george w. bush. however, supporters of the affordable care act have been proven to be wrong. the majority of the american people oppose the law. the affordable care act is not

held in high regard like the medicare program. i will suggest the affordable care act will never hold the same support as medicare because it was passed on a partyline vote in written behind closed doors and one of the most secretive acts of legislation in this country's history. america's opposition to the affordable care act is growing as our constituents learn more about the law and experience more. more americans believe they have been hurt by the affordable care act thensay they have been helped. 7% of americans believe the health care law will reduce their health care costs. americans reject the ball since the president and its congressional supporters have made promises -- reject the law since the president and his congressional supporters have made promises that have been

wrong. that you can keep your doctor, or premiums will go down by $2500 under the president's reform plan. all of these were repeated over and over by affordable care act supporters and have proven to be a mirage. promising that americans could keep their health care plan was recognized in 2013 as the lie of the year. americans reject the health care law because it is hurting their family budget and the economy. a mere 7% of americans think the law will reduce their personal health care costs. reducing costs is the number one issue for any family. it is a failed attempt at addressing the number one concern of american families. it is hurting job creation and america. estimates say that it will reduce the number of full-time workers by two point 5 million

people, and the american action form fein -- finds that it is reducing wages by $2 billion annually. reports wage questions about. -- reports raise questions about privacy. there's no short of reasons to repeal the law. i think that the president's failed health care law should be repealed. repealing the law is not enough. that is why hr 596 in strokes the chairman to craft better solutions to reform health care in america. there are ideas to reduce health care costs for the american people. we can do this and protect americans with pre-existing conditions and have better coverage for the american people. republicans have and will continue presenting ideas to improve the health care system and empower constituents with

more choices. the first is passing hr 596. >> thank you, we appreciate your testimony before the committee. you have the health care bill in front of you that you have had for a couple of years. >> i cannot say it is growing on me, but we have spent time together. >> anything that you have in writing will be entered into the record, the gentleman is recognized. >> listening to my colleagues, dr. burgess for whom i have tremendous respect, it is very disconcerting. first of all he starts out and spends most of his time talking about spin. data and information about what is popular and unpopular. i do not think we should be driven by that.

we are talking about a statute that is working, people are signing up for obamacare or the affordable care act in exchanges. i feel, i know it is groundhog day, and i'm down here for the 56th or 57th time. you don't like my term? >> making an observation. >> groundhog day was always important to me. i will call it fantasy land. when i go home, i keep going to enrollment events. we are out one last week, or the week before. i see all of these people coming out to be enrollment events.

some we have had others are sponsored by other nonprofit organizations. they are excited about the fact they can get health care insurance, they can access it, and they have help paying for the premium. when i hear what you say about how this is awful, i don't know who you talk to two. you may have polling from different groups, but i don't think that is the key. my evidence maybe antidotal, but people are coming out and signing up in record numbers. and you talk about solutions dr. burgess, i will go back to what my colleague mr. mcgovern said. four years ago when republicans took the majority they passed and appeal just like this in the house and had directions to committees to come up with alternatives, and nothing happened. not in education and workforce ways and means.

if you are going to direct these committees come up with alternatives, and then you talk about what they're asking them to do in terms of goals. they are all things the affordable care act does. i don't really get into the details, but mr. chairman, if i could mention a few statistics. we have health care coverage under the affordable care act for millions of americans who are otherwise uninsured. what the republicans are suggesting is to take that away. you talk about taxes in repealing the act it would repeal all the tax credits and subsidies that help people pay their premium. in my opinion it is a tax increase on the average person who is getting tax credits to help pay for it. the thing that bothers me, is a couple of weeks ago when we had the 30 to 40 day rule on the

floor, i asked mr. orion, my understanding was in your conference, taste on the reports from the conference, the gop conference and the house decided they would not do a repeal. they would come up with legislation to make changes like the 30/40 rule, which i don't agree with. i don't know what happened. if the right-wing, the tea party, or new members want this on the record, but we are back to repeal. that is why i mentioned groundhog day. i thought that was over. if you fax and then i will yield back. the affordable care act is benefiting millions of people. in 2015, a .9 million consumers are signed up already through

the health insurance marketplace. that goes until february 15. since the beginning of open enrollment in october, 9.7 million individuals have enrolled. 3 million young adults have gained health care coverage. one ton or 29 -- 100 29 million americans cannot be discriminated against for pre-existing medical condition. an average of $1407 per senior was spent last year on prescription drugs. the solvency of the medicare trust fund has been extended by 13 years. it is estimated that repealing the law would cost taxpayers billions of dollars and rob 19 million people of health insurance. the set are bringing these bills to the floor, which the

president has already said he will veto, so it is a complete waste of time, let's get back to real things. if you want to make changes, i didn't like the 30/40 rule, but that was something legitimate to bring up. work with us to come up with changes that may be helpful to expand care and access and lower cost. i am for it. but to come up with an outright appeal is a waste of time. we should be dealing with issues like stagnant wages, the high cost of college tuition childcare, with the president talked about in the state of the union and today during the budget bill. we will address these issues, and dr. burgess, i'm willing to work with you. you are one of the most bipartisan people i know on the republican side. i cannot emphasize enough, mr. chairman, i feel that we are wasting our time, and it is

unfortunate. i yield back. >> mr. bipartisan in the middle of the crowd. [laughter] >> let's hope there is a crackle of the airwaves in louisville, texas. good gosh. thank you very much. we have not seen you in a while and we are delighted you are here. as always, we know that you are not only welcome, but we appreciate you taking the time to get on our dance card. >> thank you, mr. chairman. although we sometimes disagree you have always been cordial and have given everyone in opportunity to be heard. i appreciate the opportunity to testify before the committee. i am the new ranking member of education in the workforce.

the fact of the matter is, the affordable care act is working and we should not repeal it. those who want to repeal the affordable care act have a short memory, and it is important to remind ourselves what was taking place when we passed the affordable care act. before that, a four-year provider insurance coverage was shrinking area there were months in 2008 and 2009 when 14,000 people a day were losing their health insurance coverage. health care increased 138 percent and workers wages went up 40%. they were locked into their job because if they did not keep their job they would lose their health insurance. every american family with insurance had a hidden tax of $1000 per family for providing

the cost of those who go to the hospital without insurance, and then everyone has to pay little extra. if we repeal the affordable care act we go back to those days. take fully workers have the peace of mind of knowing they have options if employer insurance is not available. if it is not affordable in the marketplace they get tax credits to pay for the insurance. they know the dollars they spend in insurance is going to health coverage. the 80% rule says that 80% is spent on health care, not corporate jets and bonuses. those who --. they experience the lowest growth rate since the affordable care act passed. the vast majority of large

employers who provide insurance to their employees suffered less of an increase in premiums due to the cost shifting, because now everyone has insurance on and on, the program is working. senior citizens are benefiting from the lack of the don't hold. repealing the law, we have to explain to people who have benefited why we have to back the way it was. i understand there will be a delay in the effective date of the bill. it may be proposed in the bill. given 180 days, we have not come up with a meaningful replacement yet. there is no reason to believe that a delay of 180 days makes any more likely that will be an actual replacement. all of the people who have