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 benefited, and now have

insurance, and can now afford life-saving treatments, will go back to the days of when they did not have insurance. this is a 56 -- the 50 sixth attempt to repeal the affordable care act. we need to work on ways of improving it, not having nothing unavailable to replace it. >> thank you, very much. all three of you have come to this panel today to help us understand more about your ideas. 180 days is because we do not know what the supreme court will say. i think there is a serious threat egg and at least a part of the health care bill as a result of the law not being

utilized as prescribed by law. it is not to wrap us into a circumstance in which we cannot adapt to whatever the supreme court says. that is not a frailty. dr. burgess, mr. scott just said that just about everyone has insurance today. you just made that statement. is that right? dr. burgess? >> i do not know where the data comes from. i believe that may be an overestimation of the facts. >> do we know the facts are? >> there are reportedly 9 million people who are covered under the afford will care act. that includes people such as myself, who previously had a

height that dockable policy and lusted in the run-up to the afford will care act. i purchased health insurance through healthcare.gov. i've probably counted as one of those people who got insurance. technically, my interest was going to run out at the end of 2013. i got it through an exchange. i did not receive a subsidy, i want to be perfectly clear about that. i do not think it is readable to count people, who, like myself, who lost their insurance, and because they wanted to be covered or were concerned about signing the individual mandate purchased insurance. i don't think you get set claim that as a reduction of the uninsured. the medicaid expansion has resulted in an increase in coverage at the same time. it has also resulted in a significant increase in expense

by the taxpayer. >> mr. scott, just about everybody has insurance? quite access. -- >> access. 10 billion more people have insurance -- 10 million more people have insurance. we're going in the right direction. >> i cannot answer your question. what mr. scott said is true. the number of people who are covered has increased dramatically. i mentioned 12 million uninsured americans who got covered in 2014. that is 12 million people who were not insured previously. those 12 million people had no insurance previously. some of that is medicaid expansion.

as dr. burgess said, the amount of money is equal. >> those are not people that lost -- >> i think those numbers do include the 4.5-5.5 million people who lost insurance and they previously had when the health benefit -- >> it is not a net number? >> they had insurance but -- >> my understanding is that those 12 million people were uninsured and did not have coverage before. in any case, what mr. scott said is true. the number of people getting covered has been -- >> he said that just about everyone has insurance. >> that is the goal ultimately. >> user not say access. i am just trying to understand. >> we are in the second year of enrollment, more and more people are enrolling.

whether we get to 95%-96%, we are not there yet but on the way. >> only half the people would theoretically be insured. >> at 24 million. >> the goal was to get to about 95%-90 6% americans who would be insured. i think we are on the way. >> the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. >> think you very much. just a couple of things in response. my first question to you mr. burgess. what is csx, assuming the repeal words of pass, and become law -- as unlikely as we think that might be politically, what would be the affected -- effective date? >> 180 days.

>> i saw something that it would be affect -- effective at the end of the year. in other words, giving the supreme court time. my friend, mr. scott, mentioned that this is the quote 56 time. i do not think that is exactly right. any of those things made law. that means they passed the senate and made it to the president. that would be requirements for 1099s, that is counted as one of the quote repeal attempts. we have had a number of other things. collectively, we have saved about $62 million. i think we have had to both change the law where we can find common ground, and you are correct, we have tried to repealing a number of times as well. the reason -- i agree very much with my friend from new jersey about not having an alternative.

i have signed onto an alternative every year since it passed. there have been several alternatives. some of them including 20 or 30 cosponsors. it has not been a unified republican but when you get to 40 names, your document something serious. i think what has prevented that from happening is the fact that we need -- new it would not get through the senate and it would not be signed by the president. i think now you're seeing a lot of movement because of the supreme court. because this might collapse on itself. we better have something ready. i suggest that to both opponents and proponents. i do not say this with any kind of strong feeling as to what the supreme court will do. i am not an attorney, and i cannot predict what they will do. speaking about an alternative is prudent for both sides. wherever you are now.

if the supreme court does come down, it will destroy exchanges in some 30's they in the blink of an eye. i will give you a chance in just a minute, but let me finish my remarks. to the point that my friend mr. burgess made. i think you do have to recognize, this thing has never been popular. we can argue whether it should or shouldn't. it has never been popular. you cannot find a poll that shows it has been popular. i think we have had multiple elections where this has been a major issue. if it were popular, my friends may well be in the majority. it is just not popular. that comes from two reasons in my view. first, the matter in which it was passed. it really was not passed the way a normal hill is. it did not really get through the senate the way it should. we did not eat passe

conference and send it back. i think the matter in which the project was hijacked, after a special election in massachusetts, is one of the reasons why the resistance in this case has been so strong. the second reason is because of the manner in which it has been implemented. this is my view. we obviously had a disastrous rollout that did not work well. we have also had the business mandate, which is in the law unilaterally suspended by the administration. the idea of you get to pick and choose which part of the law you want to enforce -- -- i think we are in court now over that issue. again, i do not know how the court case will work out. i do not think this will take a lot of time. i think the two sides position is well known. i think the idea of getting an

alternative ready is pretty smart. whether you are the administration and supportive of this, or not, and you are opposed. the supreme court may well make this unworkable. finally, i would ask my friend to reflect, it does not go away because we did not operate in the appropriate weight while he passed it and we have not enforce that uniformly and fairly. those are the reasons for the continue opposition. with that, i give my friends a chance to respond and i will probably yield back after that. >> i know mr. scott wants to say something to. i would just say this -- i do not want to get into polling. as a l legislator, i would like to think that i'm here not just because of the polling that is out there. i do want to say that if you feel very strongly that somehow things will be different in constructing -- instructing the

committees to come back with an alternative, it is really something that you are striving to do. again, i know that was in the bill for years ago and it never happened. then, put some sort of deadline. a requirement the committees get back to you. you mention the supreme court and when they might make a ruling. one of the criticisms is not only that this is every -- a repeat of what happened four years ago, but there is never a timeline to report back, no deadline. it seems to me that if you are serious about lacking these committees to come up with alternatives, there should be a deadline. it should be some sort of reporting requirement. it is something i do not see here. i do not like to talk about process, but i guess that is what the rules committee is all about. it is legitimate for the house to take up a senate bill and passed it. i know maybe it would have been nice to have a conference.

but that is certainly something you can do. and it was done. i think the process was legitimate. i do not know why we are criticizing the process. that has always been a big thing for dr. burgess, the process. the process was perfectly normal, in my opinion. christ we will agree to disagree. that is perfectly normal. i have never seen anything like that ever. to do that was overwhelmingly hostile. no wonder people feel like they were hijacked. they just do. that has not go -- gone away. that is not me making. my town hall meetings are probably different than yours. mine are very different. i am not to say there is no said -- no support. there is some support for some elements of it, but not much in

my part of the world. it does get back to the process and the way it has been implemented. where i do agree with my friend is i think we should have an alternative. and we did have an alternative. i suspect most of my friends up here on my side have had their names on an alternative. i agree with you, i think we should have something ready. it is a lot more imperative now. i think previously, forget it. it was not going to be taken out and it was not be passed by the president. to my friends on my side of the aisle, let's be real, you are not going to repeal something called obamacare when someone called obama is the president of the united states. it is not going to happen. this rifle shot approach is the better way to proceed, in my view.

i think now because of the zipper in court is a chance that this might happen. i think my friend is correct. we better be we are the majority in both houses, largely because of the flaw in my view. we better be ready to present an alternative should the supreme court at. we need to have done a better job on that. i do not want to just be critical of my friend. i know my friend, mr. scott, had something to say as well. >> i think it would be helpful to have this replacement available, as you discuss repealing. so you know exactly what you are doing. repeal first, you do not know what you will get. there is one alternative that was offered in virginia in the last election. the washington post analysis of that plan was under the

headline, "health care plan worse than obamacare." if what you're going to replace with is worse people may be informed of their vote going in. it is out of order. supreme court, governors, state legislators, when they were designed -- deciding whether or not they would set up exchanges they had list of pros and cons. the idea that tax credits would not be available was never mentioned, to my knowledge, in any state as a reason to stay exchanges versus federal exchanges. the legislative attempt is perfectly clear. there should be no problem in the supreme court. >> i am not sure that it is clear. i seem to remember an architect of this telling audience, i

said -- suspect that his testimonies will be used, that states were forced to adopt stay exchanges. in many states, that was not the case, i think that is the crux of the issue. i will leave out to the supreme court as to whether it is clear or not. i would suspect -- i do not want to get into the supreme court, i think it will be a split decision either way. there will be pretty smart legal people on both sides of this issue. there already are. each side seems to think they know what will happen. again, my experience of going to the supreme court is a crapshoot. i yield to my friend mr. burgess. >> thank you, mr. cole. on the issue of polling

popularity, courts can not always be guided by polls. we used to have this notion of government with the consent of the governed. no one was asking for this. as a consequence, it still remains unpopular. i yield back. >> that was well stated. for me that was a good point. if it has been around for four years, and it is still unpopular, i do not think it will magically become popular. we on my site have a responsibility to be ready for it. i think both sides better think about it now. i yield back. >> i appreciate his comments. the gentleman from massachusetts is mechanized. quite let me say what is popular and not. it could not be that unpopular

given the fact that president obama won the reelection. over the republican candidate whose health care plan was essentially take to tax breaks, and call me in the morning. people knew what this president stood for, and what this bill was about. i think most people believed that everyone in this country ought to have health care. i know some in your party, mr. burgess, do not believe that. i think when people say that health care is a right, you see as a radical idea, but i think most people believe that. this bill or 42 energy, commerce, -- is that correct? >> there is jurisdiction involved.

>> is energy and commerce committee formed yet? credits when i was talking with committees, i was talking about the bill directors. there is awfully knowno -- >> is there a hearing or markup? >> no. i did not even here, what's it called? >> is the education and workforce committee organize? and[indiscernible] >> is mr. ryan going to testify? christ i do not expect testimony. >> i do not want to take your time, but i had a dialogue with mr. ryan wendy 30-40 rule came

up. he said there was no plan to do a repeal. >> we were told during previous hills that we had to have close rules because committees have not organized and they cannot possibly get together to have hearings. clearly that is not an excuse that could be used in this case. given that, mr. burgess, are you and the other chairs of education and workforce, and ways and means, asking for an open role? [indiscernible] >> i think usually we have a chairman, peer and say that we want a closed rule or they want to modify open rule. you are on both. if i call for an open rule would you support?

correct i think everyone knows the answer to that question. historically, i have opted for -- >> all right. so, we have a bill before house that has had no hearings in this congress. we have 58 new members. we have no markups. this comes up for the rules committee and we will probably have a close rule, no amendments. so, even if people have good ideas for replacement or tweaking this bill, they will not have the opportunity. four years ago, the house passed a repeal bill that included instructions for the house committees to cement a republican alternative to the affordable care act. that was in 2011, 4 years ago. what happened? it has been for years. why are we not here with alternative. >> mr. -- i do not think that

was ever signed into law. >> the house signed it instructed the committee here to do -- it was a resolution and apparently told us they need to be signed into law. we were instructing committees here to do that. this is such an urgent thing. where are the repeal bills? why we going through this again? does anyone know what happened? >> i think what has been stated, what is different this time is that there is a supreme court challenge. it will be heard in march. we will receive their wisdom at the end of june. it will change the landscape. >> so, linkage to this bill is similar to the one that was passed by the house four years ago. in addition, i guess republicans

have submitted an amendment that you plan to solve execute. this amendment instructs the committees to submit their alternative plan rather than reported to the house. we have consulted with the house parliamentarian, and i'm not aware of any president in history of the house that was cut off in procedure. when committees are asked to cement our plan, who are they submitting it to? what does that mean? >> i was not familiar with amendment and to the referenced it. >> for the benefit of my colleagues in this committee, because we are the rules committee, we're supposed to make rules, as far as i can tell, the real difference between chris ryan -- requiring committees to submit an report,

submitting means that they would have to vote. it is not clear. maybe you would alleviate my concern. it is a process concern. in practice, bills that do not go there committees are showing up here. they go to the floor, and people just have to take or leave it. i'm worried about -- you expressed concern that the democrat process was not open enough. you have a process that would allow hearings to not even -- -- committees to not even hold hearings. the word is submit and not report.

do you know what submit means? >> i think it is quite clear. i said before, if they were serious, and i'm not suggesting that there needs to be an alternative, but base of my dialogue with mr. cole, i think there is an obligation that if you want to repeal something that has had such an impact on the american people, whether good or bad to come up with an alternative. if they were serious, they would for a deadline and there would be a reporting requirement. i think submit is a way of getting around reporting. >> have you dealt with this process of submitting rather than reporting question mark >> i would agree that submit represents the entire lack of process. report means vote. submit means the chairman

publishes a letter. no process, no nothing. no suggested in -- suggestion that anyone report it. >> i just try to get a sense for what we, in this process committee, are doing. we have had this debate 56, 57 times already. everybody already knows where everyone things on the affordable care act. we will have that debate tomorrow on the floor. in terms of process, it is troublesome that we are a point now where we have committees that had been organized and constituted that are not holding hearings, and not reporting on bills. then, the self-executing rule substitutes the word report with submit. the only conclusion that we can come to is that that is a way to be able to skirt regular order. again, i would urge my colleagues to rethink some of

the linkage here. maybe if we want to regular order, we would not have this confusion. >> i will go further and say that look at what this bill says in directing committees, the bottom line is that we have seen different piece mill bills on the part -- as mr. cole mentioned. the point is, they have this direction, things that the affordable care act already does. providing people with pre-existing conditions access to health care. reforming medical liability situation. i have never seen the republican s ever come up with a comprehensive legislation that would need these goals.

i think the reason they are saying submit is because there is no intention of doing this. >> i would just say that i know the gentleman, mr. burgess, does not appreciate the formal care act, but committees met, held hearings, and did markups. that all contributed to the final result. i'm just simply saying here, we ought to be careful that we do not totally obliterate the process here. i worry that is what we are doing. another closed rule when there shouldn't be. a license to continue to get around regular order with this warder -- ward submit. with that, i yield back my time. >> benjamin from georgia is recognized. >> thank you, mr. gentleman -- mr. chairman. i think the three of you for

being here. i would not there to make the choice of who is the expert a month the three of you. i want to ask you about the president's veto. he says the the affordable care act is not only working, it is fully integrated into the american health care system. my understanding is that it is not fully integrated. while the statute require that it be fully integrated, there are still numerous pieces that are not yet functioning. am i mistaken about that? or is the president mistaken? >> if i could respond. i think you are very mistaken. remember, a lot of what we discussed here is at the high end. the affordable care act is so much more ingrained. for example, the affordable care

act includes the indian health care improvement act. that is the build i sponsored and champion for 14 years and makes all kinds of improvements to the indian health care system. the affordable care act has all kinds of grants that are going out for community health services hospitals, and make changes in the way they do business. i would say, yes. we would have to be here for hours to talk about the ways that it is integrated. i do not think there's any way you can actually repeal it practically without causing total chaos. i'm trying to be nice here. you are bringing it up. yes, it is very much integrated. for years now. there are a lot of things happening related to the macro things we're talking about. >> i think you talk about the

point that so much -- so many of us are concerned about. what we talk about the affordable care act, we think about all the people who now have coverage under the formal care act pe. in those numbers, we talk about this fully integrated and incredibly complex, hard to pull out, even if you want to. and everywhere has led to an improvement in insurance coverage for americans. at the numbers that i look at tell me that expanded medicaid counts for half of those. we got about as if we had done something. we need to do something. i dare say that your indian health bill, if you are mr. cole were to sit down and talk about it, you would be in agreement. christ he actually cosponsored. >> he actually cosponsored.

>> that would have passed on a -- on its own. that has nothing to do with it. it was used as another one of these bills -- deal to pass a bill. now we have to deal with the consequences. he isn't entirely right. i ask introduced legislation that if there were repealed, this particular section would remain in effect. that had very little to do with obamacare, per se. my friend played a very big role in it. let's be real about why this was in there. >> i am just mentioning it because i'm trying to make the point that i believe there are

so many aspects of the affordable care act that had been integrated into the health care system. it would be total chaos if you just repealed it. it would be chaos. whites there is no question on so many issues of health care as they affect families in your district and mine, the president started this debate and he won the hearts and minds of the american people. i do not believe pre-existing conditions will ever come back into the conversation in america. i think the president persuaded america that is through no fault but your own you find yourself in a situation where you were paying -- playing by the rules, you cannot find a health plan to cover you, there ought to be a program for you. he won that debate. he won the debate on allowing children in tough economies, if they cannot get out to find a job of their own to stay on

their parents health care. he won that. certainly, the supreme court's edits a here insist as language is going to hasten it. that is what makes it so important to me that you are here. when i listen to some people describe this conversation they this writer as a big messaging opportunity where people are just preaching of political mantra. instead of trying to make a policy difference. it took no effort at all from this institution to fully fund an expansion of medicaid. that was not clever. we just broke a big check that our children will pay for. no effort at all in this and -- in this institution. if we require people to i health care plans by law, that was not

particularly clever. if you require any right to do it by statute and subsidize it, we can get more people to engage in that behavior. there are some really difficult questions that are still out there. really difficult question still out there that we need to be able to come together and talk about. the fact that you care enough to come to the rules committee and make the case tells me that this is the group that is serious and often about it to come together and find that common ground. we are not talking about trying to give the president of black guy on the signature policy. we are talking about trying to deal with -- you read through the requirements that committees would be held to. you said these are all things in the president's health care bill anyway.

if you tell people they can keep their insurance, they ought to be able to keep it. if they cannot, you should tell them they don't know how to choose their policies. by my count, it is 11 times now. most recently in the omnibus bill. we set, maybe it is not right to tell people 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 so we changed the rules. as of three month ago -- it disappoints me when people i know and respect talk about his conversations as though they were some sort of partisan game.

rather, it is a serious issue. and it will be serious when the supreme court says that 90 percent of these subsidies will not go out the door. i'm glad we are beginning the conversation today. >> can i just -- two points. i do not want to get mr. fox going here, but i have to mention -- on medicaid, i think the medicaid's expansion has been highly successful. i guess you could have done it separately from the spill, by do not think it would have happened politically separate from this bill. the fact of the matter is that now we are seeing some republican governors who previously opposes. one example what a governor who used to be part of his body. i consider him to be a rather conservative member of this body . he decides that adopt the

medicaid expansion with certain waivers. i think you are starting to see that 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 know my friend from did -- virginia, i do not want accurate you, that we have had this discussion before that when you say that you can keep what you have i never intended, i do not think the president intended for you to keep a lousy plan. we have had this discussion. in other words, yes, it is true. we have a very generous benefit package. certain people who had skeletal plans may not be able to keep them. the intention was never to say that you've you have a skeletal plan, you can keep them. that was not my intention. i do knowledge to speak for the president, but it was not my intention.

>> i have had this discussion before. speaking from the heart, it goes back to dr. burgess's point. when those powers are derived from the governed, it seems odd that folks would not have allowed for the fact that if folks did not like their life today, you would insist that they purchase something different. medicaid is struggling in my great state of georgia. we are having a tough time to find doctors who are willing to accept those plans. my uncle is a small town doctor in georgia. [indiscernible] >> i do not even want to start on that.

my uncle who is a all called -- i will call him a big liberal. he said, you can hand out all this insurance cards you want to but if you cannot find a doctor who will take the insurance card, you have not helped anybody. i do not think expanding the number of people in a broken system is not something we should pat ourselves on the back about. what we should say is we kicked the can down the road. we knew that medicaid was broken already. instead of doing what we should have done to fix it, we dumped more people on it. when it starts the trickle down to 90%, on and on, then maybe we will have that conversation. i think we're better than that. i think that this committee, and the people of the witness table are better than that. i hope we will have that conversation.

it is never more clear to me that the president has won saturday's debates in the hearts and minds of the american people. i am happy to admit it. it is also never more clear to me that some of these programs are destructive to the fabric of the american health care system. folks on both sides of the aisle should be a will too. we ought to be able to be better. madam chair, i yield back. >> mr. hastings you are recognized. >> madam chair, before i begin i ask unanimous consent of the letter dated january 30 from the congressional budget office, that it be made part of the record. i ask unanimous consent that the statement of the administration also be admitted. and at some point, when we are in the amendment process i

would like unanimous consent going forward i would like unanimous -- mr. mcgovern leaned over to me a minute ago and said something that is so very true. he said that you have to want -- wonder if any of us on the rules committee recognize that this is the rules committee. he did not put it that way, but what i'm saying is that it would seem to me that this particular committee should come to our senses here. for example, when mr. scott and i came to congress, in 1992, i

did not know much at all about the rules committee. how i learned about the rules committee was from a very vocal echo chamber in the media particularly radio. i was doing a lot of radio at that time. others on the committee have heard the tell the story. i was being bombarded by people saying, why are you democrats doing these closed rules. i've seen democrats have closed rules, and that was wrong. i seem republicans have closed rules, and that is wrong. now, i serve in the most his

store of the rules committee and with the most closed rules we've ever had. now, we are preparing for yet another put a of the substance of the measure. earlier, when the chair spoke he took the liberty that many of us do in our offerings, either on the floor or here on the committee, when we say what the american public thinks. i think what the american public thinks is that they are tired of. about this. my friend, mr. cole, was correct when he said that you cannot find polls saying that people favor this in any large measure. you cannot find many that say that those who do favorite do not want it. here is what a recent poll said.

i will quote from it. "continued debate or moveon was the question they put up. 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% say they are tired of hearing about it, congress should focus on other issues. a majority of republicans say the debate should continue. a 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 know that it also

signifies that we are -- there are an overwhelmingly majority saying all we are doing now is scoring political points. that is regrettable. i think that quite frankly, we are better people than that. we should return to regular order in this body to the extent that we can. republicans have the response billy of management, and of course, not every measure can be put forward as an open rule. i, for one, clearly understand that. let me ask the question of dr. burgess. dr. burgess, you made the comment that the supreme court decision, probably sooner or

later, we will hear this. your comment is that it will change the landscape. i'm not quarreling with your comment, but i am sure he -- curious if you mean the case before the supreme court is either way going to change the landscape. is that what you meant when you said it will change the landscape? >> i simply stand by the statement that i made. i think it very well will change the landscape. may i expand on that? king versus burwell occurs because of a plain reading of language in the statute. it indicates that states that did not set up a state exchange would not be eligible for the subsidies. although he has walked back,

another has alluded to that well, a primary architect of the informal care act. this is important because why did so few states actually decide to set up exchanges -- >> let me take back my time. i will come right back to you. why they did not is the politics. i will go right on. >> the reason they did not is the administration played highball with the governors of this country. they knew that there was an essential benefits rule in the fertile care act. it was supposed to be reported out. it was inconvenient for the demonstration. they do not want to have to talk to it in the days leading up to the 2012 election. they postpone the date of the rule. they postponed until november 10.

that was one week after elections. the governors then had one week to make up their mind, after they saw the essential benefit rules. they had to make up their mind whether or not they participate in the exchange. many said i have no way of evaluating this. i have no idea what sort of financial obligation i'm incurring by accepting the exchange, i want no part of it. they were given and it mentioned -- and extension. that happened between christmas and thanksgiving. they were given one other extension until the first of the year. at that point, they said, we just have to know, who is in or out. it was a deadline. are you in or are you out? 36 states that no deal. that is the problem. have the administration worked with governors, we might be

working with -- >> have the governors worked with the administration, we might not be in this situation. i don't know about your stay, which i think is a crazy state -- and i mean that. [indiscernible] mr. burgess does not have the time. i have the time. i did not interrupt him, i reclaim my time. i think that is the procedure here. >> he made at this great story statement about my state, i will not sit here and listen. quite that is fine. i told you what i think about texas, i would not live there. for all intensive purposes, i know what my state did which is in many respects coming close to

being just as crazy. that is, they did not expand medicaid. for that reason, i particularly take issue with the number of people -- 860,000 people in my state who are left aside. i think it is because we are not being reasonable as democrats and republicans with each other. with all the brainpower that is here we very well could have done everything 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 plain wrong. let me give you a few facts. 10.3 million uninsured adults receive coverage in the first year of the affordable care act. an additional 8 million

individuals enrolled in medicaid in 2014. that 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. on january 28, there have been over 9.7 million applications submitted. in alabama, there have been 130 thousand individual plans selected. i have attended enrollment process after process. as recently as sunday before last, there were 400 people at a

church and rolled. i agree with my friend mr. woodall from george's -- georgia , and his point on the menstruation 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 have had our way, we would have universal health care. i did not think this went far enough to help american people. we have slowed the rate at which health care premiums have increased, and extended the life -- this is nothin something that no one has said anything about, extended the life of the medicare trust fund by 13 years. we are helping our most notable

americans gain access to health care and save money through preventative measures. instead of working to create jobs improve the minimum wage, i just comprehensive immigration reform, or many other urgent issues that are facing our nation, my friends on the other side are continuing their obsession with the affordable care -- affordable health care act. republicans have long claimed -- i've heard this until it found in to me, that the affordable care act -- the sky would fall. it would destroyed many jobs and caused tens of millions of americans to lose their employer coverage. since the affordable care act passed, businesses have added neary -- nearly 10 million jobs. in its first year, 10.3 million people who were previously

uninsured have gained health insurance coverage. you are not addressing some of the issues. it would reduce the deficit by over $1 trillion over the next two decades. you have no program, you have not presented one. you have shown us nothing that is an alternative to this measure. we know that you are the party of "no." we have considered -- serious concerns as to your plan. while you spend all the time during the 56 times that we have tried to repeal the acts, try to stop people from having interns now you come here and argue that those who had been insured, you want to take it away from them. i want to stand here and watch that. i think you all know that this will not become law. i will yield.

>> i think the man -- gentle man for yielding. i made reference to this word, cement, rather than report. in an amendment that will be self executed. that amendment, by the way, had to be redrafted because it was put together so hurriedly. we have a new version that removes the word submit. this is how the bill is being put together. if there's anything that my friends on the other side of the aisle should be clear about given the fact that we been doing this 56 times is how to write a bill to repeal the affordable care act. yet, here we are with another version of the self-executing amendment. it goes to the point i was making earlier, you ought to open this process up. you ought to rely on regular

order now that the committees are organized. we ought not be drafting things at the last minute and be changing things as we go along. this process is just as flawed as the underlying bill. i think the gentleman for yielding. >> i think you and i repeat what the gentleman says. i learned 22 years ago that close rules are not a good thing. it was not a good thing 22 years ago, and is just as bad now. we are getting ready to do another close rule. i will tell you the mantra that we should return to regular order. thank you, gentlemen, for your presentations. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the dominion that. -- gentleman yields back. we have a parliamentarian here to give us notes on what to say

what people may not be saying exactly the right things. we go to our colleagues, especially our colleagues on this committee, a great deal of civility. i have been very concerned in several meetings that 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 are on the floor, i think the parliamentarian would be called on to make a ruling. >> leaving the rules committee from yesterday, about 20 more minutes of it, you can watch online. as the house gets ready to gavel back in. working today on a bill to repeal the health care law. there will be a procedural vote on moving forward on the measure

in the first of two series today. one is at 1:30 p.m., and a second round of votes today expected at 4:30 p.m.}}} the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered today by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. loving god, thank you for giving us another day. all of congress today remembers the who are owic sacrifices and -- heroic sacrifices and accomplishments of the first special forces services force of world war ii.