mr. hastings and mr. mcgovern, both of whom have raised this serious charge that somehow if members don't come before this committee that they don't care about their amendment, and maybe it is my implication of that mr. hastings has said that he did not mean to directly say that. but the point is we would have complied, we would have complied with the direction for a new america item that said bills shall be reported by 10 a.m. for a meeting open rule in order. now the thing that is disturbing to everyone here is that as we look down to mr. polis isn't here this moment he stepped out, these are members of this committee who have never once from this committee had an open rule reported out. never before in the history of the public have we gone through a congress where there has been not one single open rule, and every day that goes by, madam chair, i should say that we have set this record, never a session of congress that was last year, and now as we are headed towards the end of march, we are still with

mr. hastings. >> mr. chairman, it has been mentioned by our colleague that she could point to in the bill where it does what she and mr. franks are saying, and i would like to-- it to be pointed out to me where it is in the bill. >> mr. chairman, i would like to insert for the record a letter from the national right to life relative to-- i am sorry. >> i'd early disagree. this has been hashed out over and over again between the principles that have that passionate concern, and i too express myself with those that do have this concern. one thing i have learned over the course of the year is that you are not going to be able to legislate in this arena and i want to carry you all where i usually go when with this discussion comes up. but, i lived in the days when a woman did not have the right to choose, and women did some pretty tragic things under the circumstances of pregnancy. and i don't know how we can legislate anything here that is going to cause us to avoid that particular consequence, but i am in a

mr. hastings and mr. mcgovern, both of whom have raised this serious charge that somehow if members don't come before this committee that they don't care about their amendment, and maybe it is my implication of that mr. hastings has said that he did not mean to directly say that. but the point is we would have complied, we would have complied with the direction for a new america item that said bills shall be reported by 10 a.m. for a meeting open rule in order. now the thing that is disturbing to everyone here is that as we look down to mr. polis isn't here this moment he stepped out, these are members of this committee who have never once from this committee had an open rule reported out. never before in the history of the public have we gone through a congress where there has been not one single open rule, and every day that goes by, madam chair, i should say that we have set this record, never a session of congress that was last year, and now as we are headed towards the end of march, we are still with

mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr.speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in opposition to this flawed piece of legislation. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dreier: the distinguished vice chair of the republican conference. the gentlewoman from washington. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dreier: the gentleman from south carolina, mr. brown. mr. brown: i rise today to revise and extend and to give note that i'm against this flawed health care bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dreier: distinguished ranking member of the committee on foreign affairs, the gentlewoman from miami, ms. ros-lehtinen. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you. i would ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in opposition to this flawed health care bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dreier: the distinguished gentleman from texas, mr. neugebauer. mr. neugebauer: i ask unanimous consen

mr. hastings from florida. >> thank you mr. chairman. our chairlady is to be complimented for her patients and that is for patients especially with all of us. two members of our distinguished panel, one that is in here now commented that the rules committee is a different committee in regard to time and that's very true. i will try not to take a lot of time but i think it's important that we try to put in context some of the discussion that has been ongoing. this is pretty widely known. i came here with some really -- celebrity of having gone through a process interestingly enough all the way to the united states supreme court on three different occasions that we were fond of saying and our legal team that the hastings case is made pavlov. but i'm 47 years a lawyer, 13 of those years was spent as a judge. i have interpreted the united states constitution rather recently and i hear my colleagues, i respect all of you for your differences and your ideological devices but the lack of the matter is most of you talk about the constitution as

mr. hastings that after that vote is when the supreme court made clear and emphasizing the importance of live, your phone call and comments on washington journal and then on news makers. we'll be live at noon to preview today's healthcare vote in congress. >> this morning, we'll talk about the house vote on healthcare with two california

mr. hastings talk about sections of the constitution that were implicated in the process are undergoing but the substance i believe is discussed right in our section 1 of the 14th amendment to the constitution which guarantees each and every one of us equal protection of the laws. people with prior illnesses are not getting that equal protection, so if this bill does nothing else, then to assist individuals who have prior conditions, it has advanced the ball for americans from coast to coast and i see my friend would like to say something and i will offer him, i will yield to him. i would say we have now gone almost six hours on this thing and this is my first opportunity to say anything that i will yield to my friend. >> i thank the gentleman. i am trying to take time at the end of your time. >> i would like to say something else. i have another daughter who just turned 23 and under the federal plan, she can no longer be part of my plan. under my law firm, a lot of people say you guys in congress, you have better insurance than anybody else. where i practice law in denver, colorado my insu

mr. hastings that after that vote is when the supreme court made clear and emphasizing the importance of exactly which and that's the point i'm making today. anyways, thank you all very much. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> and the house rules committee in recess at the moment. members on their way to the house floor, a series of floor votes for votes under way. the house rules committee meeting today to consider changes to the health care reconciliation bill. this is one of two health care bills the house is considering tomorrow, one passed by the senate in december and a second reconciliation bill making changes to the federal student loan program. and today again house rules committee setting floor debate parameters. now and mit economist jonathan gruber, he recently spoke at the college of the holy cross in massachusetts about health care policy. professor gruber specializes in health care economics and helps run a number of the provisions in the bills being considered by congress. this is an hour and 20 minutes, we will show you this

mr. hastings. he just said banks on the subsidization of what about banks? excuse me? don't believe in subsidizing rhodes i believe in building roads. i don't think that we should be subsidizing rhodes. i'm saying we tax work, gross savings and productivity and subsidize all of these things which we get much more of when we subsidize and that is the point being made about this whole issue a and that's why i hope there will be a realization that the strike expansion is going to exacerbate rather than improve and i thank my friend for yielding. >> i met with a large employer in wisconsin. this employee is in a low-margin business. it's a private employer. they have two primary competitors were publicly traded and publicly traded competitors told this employer they're going to dump their people in the exchange because the cost of insurance is so much more than this 2,000-dollar penalty and the private employer who employs 7,000 people told me i don't want to do that. i love my employees, like the idea of giving them health insurance but the difference in the cost is more

mr. hastings: thank you, moik. the people have made it clear to congress that they want health care reform that lowers costs. not a government takeover of their health care system. i support reforms that will lower the cost of health care and increase choices for americans. but the fact is that the bills being pushed through congress won't achieve these goals. they instead lead to higher spending and more government control. instead of listening to the american people, democrats in congress have made it clear that they will do whatever it takes to have their trillion-dollar health care proposal become law. these bills making their way through congress ignore the clear desires of americans to scrap the government takeover of health care and they ignore the clear desire of americans to start over again. congress must instead focus on commonsense solutions that reduce costs, increase choices and help more americans afford the coverage they deserve. the bottom line, madam speaker, is that congress needs to start over o

mr. hastings that after that vote is when the supreme court made clear and emphasizing the importancv-be companies? be on the side of the american public? thank you. >> thank you. mr. sessions of texas. >> thank you mr. chairman, we have an opportunity well on this committee to offer our own opinions and i think it's a misnomer for anyone to say that this is about insurance. what this bill is about is about how the government will play out the health care system to all of americans and i have several questions i'd like to go through. the first observation i'd like to make is that sitting on this panel sometimes i'm not have problems but i don't think it's been straight forward and when we talk about the bill. sometimes we talk about what might be the senate bill and sometimes the house bill and remix those up about what's in the bill and what's actually going to be voted on. so the first question i'd like to ask you to view as you choose to because i think it's a huge issue for this body that we should have despised us knowing what's in it or not i think that debate should take place abo

mr. peters: thank you for assembling this special order. i'd also like to thank chairman larson and hastings for chairing the house task force which i think i'm a member and others are members of tonight here as well which is doing important work to make sure we're creating jobs in this country. we all know that small businesses employ half of all private sector employees and are responsible for creating 60% to 80% of all new jobs over the last decade. they create more than half of our nation's nonfarm g.d.p. small businesses employ 40% of high-tech workers and small businesses create 13 times more patents per employee than large firms and improving access to credit is a key aspect of helping these small businesses grow and create jobs and ensure that america remains a global economic powerhouse. i am pleased that the american recovery and reinvestment act provided $30 billion in tax relief for small businesses and increased the percentage a business can write off in capital expenditures by 50%. additionally the total amount a business can write off has been doubled to $250,000, allowing for