tv Ways and Means Committee Marks Up Health Care Bill as Congress Awaits Cost... CSPAN March 8, 2017 12:32pm-2:33pm EST
they're going to get what the president and the republicans have pledged they're going to give i think is entirely germane, i think it is something you actually august to give the benefit of the doubt for giving peace of mind to the american public. part of what is going on is the failure to follow regular order. we have no cbo scores, no public hearings, it's trying to get jammed through on something we all worked on for weeks and weeks and months and you had six solid years not to chip away at but to reform, flush out, deal with. mr. chairman, i don't think that's how you want to do
business. i think you are a serious legislature. i've enjoyed working with you on a number of areas. i truly believe that making good on the president's pledge that it's going to provide better care for more people at less cost, let's roll up our sleeves. let's do that, but we august to have -- ought to have that guarantee up front and i don't think it's inappropriate to consider an amendment of this nature at this time. >> thank you. i would note regular order is and has been -- the bill was posted two days in advance, the public has been able to read the 50 plus page straight forward bill. we are following regular order we are also following germa germaneness rule, the amendment is not germane because it violates house rule 16 clause 7
because the contingency treated by the amendment requires a determination about health care coverage, the nature to have substitute which is renumeration, point of order is sustained. the amendment is not in order. anyone else wish to offer -- >> i would challenge the rule ofg the chair? >> so the member appeals ruling of the chair. >> questions on the motion to table the chair's ruling all those in favor signify by saying aye, no. >> it is agreed to. a role call vote is requested. the clerk will call the role. mr. johnson.
>> mr. nunez, aye. >> t barry, aye. >> mr. ross cam, aye. >> mr. buchanan, aye. >> mr. smith, eye. >> miss jenkins, mr. paulson, aye. >> mr. march aant aye. >> miss black, aye. >> mr. reed, aye. >> mr. kellie, aye. >> mr. re-navy, aye. >> mr. mean, aye. >> miss gnome, aye. >> mr. holding, aye. >> mr. smith of missouri, aye.
>> mr. rice, aye. >> miss swieg aarswiegart, aye. >> miss colar ski, aye. >> mr. car bellow, aye. >> mr. bishop, aye. >> mr. neil, no. >> mr. leven, no. >> mr. lewis, no. >> mr. dog ggedogget, no. >> mr. thompson, no. >> mr. larson, no. >> mr. bloomen hour, no. >> mr. kind, no. >> mr. pass cell, no. >> mr. crowley, no. >> mr. davis, no. >> miss sanchez, no.
. the clerk will report. >> 33 ayes, 16 nay. >> the motion is approved. >> mr. chairman in less than two days that the bill text was released the president, vice president and secretary of health and human services consider the language today is still open to work in progress. perhaps this is truly lip service to conservatives wanting to take away coverage from more people. >> mr. crowley -- >> mr. chairman i'm get to go my question, mr. chairman, is this a discussion draft that we have before us, which these comments seem to indicate or is this in
fact the markup of the final bill without any hearing? >> thank you, these are recommendations to the seco reconciliation. >> mr. chairman, are we actually deliberating now the final bill before the ways and means committee as you know it? >> we are deliberating on the recommendations to reconciliation to be forward today but committee through regular order. >> mr. trump administrated the wonderful new health bill is out now for you and negotiation. it's said a frame work for reform and that the white house is certainly open to improvement. secretary price said it's a work in progress so i ask is this wa final or a draft proposal? >> thank you mr. crowley, that question has been asked and answered. >> only two choices.
mr. dog getyou're recognized five minutes. >> along the party lines to block my request and to cover up president trump's tax returns. this is an effort to give the committee another opportunity to consider the intervening events since that vote was taken and to incorporate a request regarding president trump's tax returns into this legislation. since we considered the matter last month our colleague mr. pass crecrell who i know will w to speak separately on this amendment has sent a let tore you urging the committee to use its authority under current law to obtain a copy of the tax return and review it in closed executive session. mr. pass cell's request was
signed by 165 members of this house and has for the fist time had two republicans step forward to join mr. sanford and mr. jones. in the intervening period since we considered this matter the need for mr. trump's tax returns has become more urgent. they could reveal russian entanglements. every new revelation about russian contacts including meetings with the russian ambassador by attorney general sessions heightens the need to see the returns. i will admit that we democrats have perhaps approached this in the wrong direction that we've gotten it backwards. the question we should have been asking from the out set to make it easy is will any trump campaign surrogate who did not meet with the russians please raise your hand because this keeps coming out week after week. with revelation after revelation. it just is not sufficient to say
there's nothing to see here. first it was paul manafort then ousted national security adviser michael flynn, now the attorney general jeff sessions who met with the russian ambassador at the republican national convention. jared kushner who joined flynn for one meeting. if there's nothing to see here, mr. trump then we need to see the tax return. president trump said at a press conference last month that he has no deals with russia. while that may or may not be true right now he may have never been able to close a real estate deal in russia we can take him at his own word in his meeting on the david letterman show in 2013 when he said quote well, i've done a lot of business with the russians, they're smart and they're tough. i would certainly agree with i'm on the tough part or take the word of donald trump junior who
in 2008 saying quote rugssians make up a disproportion ateat disproportionatesection. -- >> accountability ought not to be a partisan issue, and shouldn't be in this committee. there's nothing more important than ensuring our democracy and checks and balances, that's what this is about. we have a statute that goes back decades that authorizes this committee to take a professional review of all of mr. trump's tax returns and of course it will take professional expertise. this is a president who brags about how he has bent the tax code to his whim in the past who reportedly didn't pay penny in
taxes and came off better than the insurance companies will come off after this title is approved. how did he manage to do that and what will it look like if he is over seeing the internal revenue kn service? now, there was a recent analysis by one reporter, series of reporters that said under what they think is in this bill though they don't have a score and they don't have all the da that that president trump stand to rake in $7 million. we can explore whether there's one of those tanning issalons, d is going to benefit from the
tanning, and the two tax breaks near $7 million. i think it's important to adopt this amendment. i know mr. pascrell has further comments and i will yield back. >> thank you, does the gentleman insist of his point of order? >> well, mr. -- >> dust toes the gentleman insi his point of order? >> it violates house rule 16 clause 7 because the amendment to section 6103 of the tax code recording confidentiality which only addresses numeration. >> does the gentleman offering the amendment wish to speak on the point of order? >> mr. chairman, i would like to speak on the point of order but would yield a point of my time
to mr. pass crecrell who author these letters. >> thank you. . thank you for yielding thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker, you have stated that in section 6103 of the tax code that it was designed to protect privacy but failed to address the full legislative intent of 6103, it was put into the tax code specifically so our committee, the ways and means committee would have oversight of conflicts in the executive branch of government. the congress recognized that needed this authority after that scandal i talked about in 1923 and in 1924 it changed.
what could be more important than the sitting president's -- of interest. that authority ring hallow when you just voted to disclose the confidential tax information of 51 taxpayers in 2014 a disclosure that was in no way essential to present in your case the department of justice against lois learner. we have very short and selective memories, mr. chairman. where were your privacy concerns then? and these are ordinary citizens applying for nonprofit status not public figures working for the american people. you also argue that the committee's authority only to
oversee tax administration. there is no such limitation written in section 6103 granding authority to this committee. the ways and means committee to review tax returns in closed session. and as i mentioned the authority was put in place to examine conflicts of interest. now mr. trump's conflicts of interest, they go through many, many issues whether it's azerbaijan, the china trademarks, whether it's -- there's a whole bunch of them here, good stuff, mr. chairman, you ought to read about it. march lar dp mar-a-lago, whatever they call that place down in hidden valley, argentina, the relationship that the president has with the president of
argentina, very interesting you should read about it sometime. the defense department rentals. "the apprentice" show, the dako access pipeline, the dubai golf course, i hope i said that right, mr. chairman, the dominican republic, the canadian hotel, we just heard about last week, let me just bring it back home on january 11th, the president -- president trump -- our president, the president of the united states of america announced he would place control of his assets in the hands of his two adult sons and a long time associate. the plan would also supposedly terminate new foreign deals, undermined by a recent renouncement that the organization would move forward with expanding its golf course in scotland.
i'm not a golfer, mr. chairman, so i don't know too much about that. trump went on to assert that being president exempts him from having conflicts of interest. how the heck do you like that? the director of the office of government ethics certainly no lackey recommended divestiture from his business holdings. instead, trump's efforts were meaningless, saying, quote, i don't think divestiture is too high a price to pay to be the president of the united states. and i'm sure you agree with that, mr. chairman, but i won't ask you. trump continues to benefit from his business empire regardless of who is in charge of the day to day operations. as long as this is the case, possibility that outside actors will attempt to influence his
policies by supporting or denying his business interests will be a very, very, very serious danger. >> thank you, mr. -- >> the ethics -- >> all time has expired. before i am prepared to rule, i know mr. pascrell you're sincere in your position in reference letter that you and others sent to me and without objection i would like to enter it into the record, the response from chairman hatch and myself that basically point out that what you request would be an abuse of authority of the tax writing committee. >> mr. chairman -- >> with that, i am prepared to rule. >> mr. chairman -- >> it is in the jgerm maiane? >> not at the moment. i am prepared to rule, the amendment is not germane. it is beyond the narrow subject matter of the subtitle.
>> mr. chairman, would you yield? >> when the order is sustained, amendment is not in order -- >> hold on. >> on that, i would request an appeal of the ruling of the chair and record vote. >> yes, sir. an appeal of the ruling chair has been made. a motion to table has been made. the question on the motion to table the appeal of the chair's ruling, all those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed no. the ayes have it. the motion to table is is agreed -- >> mr. chairman, point of order. going to ask you a question -- >> roll call vote. >> if i may continue to finish through this process. >> sorry. >> so i roll call is requested. clerk will call the roll. >> mr. johnson. >> aye. >> mr. johnson, aye. mr. nunes? mr. nunes, aye.
mr. teeberry? mr. teeberry, aye. mr. reichert? mr. reichert, aye. mr. raskkom? mr. raskkom, aye. miss jenkins? mr. paulsen? mr. paulsen, aye. mr. marchant? mr. marchant, aye. miss black? miss black, aye. mr. reed? mr. reed, aye. mr. kelly. >> aye. >> mr. kelly, aye. mr. renacci? >> aye. >> mr. renacci, aye. mr. mehan? mr. mehan, aye. mr. holding? mr. holding, aye. mr. smith of missouri? mr. smith, aye. mr. rice? mr. rice, aye. mr. swigert? mr. swigert, aye. miss walorski?
miss walorski, aye. mr. curbelo? mr. curbelo, aye. mr. bishop? mr. bishop, aye. mr. kneneil? mr. neil, no. mr. levin? mr. levin, no. mr. lewis? mr. lewis, no. mr. doggett? mr. doggett, no. mr. thompson? >> no. >> mr. thompson, no. mr. larson? mr. larson, no. mr. kind? >> no. >> mr. kind, no. >> mr. pascrell? >> no. >> mr. pascrell, no. mr. crowley? >> no. >> mr. crowley, no. mr. davis? >> no. >> mr. davis, no. miss sanchez? >> no. >> miss sanchez, no. >> mr. higgins? >> no. >> mr. higgins, no.
>> miss sewell? >> no. >> miss sewell, no. miss chu? >> no. >> miss chu, no. miss jenkins? chairman brady? >> aye. >> chairman brady, aye. >> the clerk will report the vote. >> 23 ayes, 16 nays. >> the motion to table is agreed to. mr. pascrell, you've not yet struck the last word on the amendment to the amendment in the nature of substitute. would you like to do so? >> thank you, mr. chairman.
mr. chairman, i said this was going to be a long, tedious process, mr. chairman. and i know you have the responsibility today of maintaining order, and getting through a very difficult task of presenting the bill, which is the alternative to the affordable care act. please believe me when i tell you my sympathy is with you. please believe me when i tell you that anytime the subject matter of the president's taxes come up, the tax returns, it is meant with a heart felt wish we will get through that as well. i'm not here to conflict in any way be conflicting what your responsibilities are. i respect you too much for that.
i don't agree with the responses you've given me on my letters, but that's beside the point right now. we are not going to go away, mr. chairman. and we're going to expand as i predicted we would do. and many members, have come to me, on your side of the aisle, that will not vote with us, in this committee, or on the floor of the house, but they agree that the president should provide us tax returns. when you look at the ethics committee chairman saying what he did about the president's response to all of this, it is almost cavalier that the president has done what he's done. and i'm just trying to get to the facts of the matter. there are just too many conflicts here that i'm bringing before the house, which i haven't even opened up and talked about yet. when i bring them up, there
might be some folks here that are going to be embarrassed about it. i chose to do this the objective way. you know that. i didn't go into the newspaper, in the first letter i sent to you, i didn't have a press conference. i chose to talk to you eyeball to eyeball. because i think that's how we do things in patterson, new jersey, eyeball to eyeball. i asked for your good faith. you can dismiss this all you want. it goes to the very heart of everything we're talking about. conflicts of interest. when we are supposed to be here working for the people. i don't think it's delaying time. i don't think this is obstruction. i'll ask you again, public, reconsider your position. it is time we have to stand up,
mr. chairman. it is time that mr. trump does what every president has done since gerald ford. nothing more, nothing less. but we will get to the center of these conflicts of interest that the president has not divested himself is a scandal in itself. and we have every right since we're talking about check and balances, and extending our own authority and power under the constitution of the united states to look into these matters and for you to argue, which you have every right to do, that we're going too far and we're creeping into the president's secrets, i find humorous. since you set the pace in 2014 when you looked at 51 tax
returns, private citizens trying to get their own exemptions. you know, mr. chairman, i told you this could be easy or it is going to be difficult, but we are not going to stop. every ounce of energy in my body is going to be working on this. i'm not here to distract and i'm not here to disrupt, mr. chairman. i'm here to try to get your confidence. i want you to have confidence in what i am requesting, so you will take a second look at it. that's my objective, no secrets. no secrets here. the only secrets that exist with the president of the united states of america. and you are defending that, behold those secrets. you're defending that he has every right to keep that enforced. there is no law that says the president must do this, we never had a president with 560
investments all over the world, 125 standout conflicts of interest, we have every right to examine that. some day, somebody is going to ask you for your income tax returns. maybe an opponent. >> all time has expired. >> maybe an opponent. >> mr. pascrell. >> yes, sir. mr. crowley? you're rised for five minutes. >> we're all familiar with the movie the manchurian candidate. i suggest we call it the cyberian candidate. an article written by adam davidson, i don't have it with me but at some point i'll ask to have it -- ask unanimous consent to enter it into the record, mr. chairman. there is an interesting story about the trump tower in baku,
azerbaijan. i think it is pertinent as it relates to the president's taxes. azerbaijan is a former soviet state, it is determined as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. their transportation minister ziya mammadov earns a salary of $12,000 a year. but he's a billionaire. he's one of the wealthiest oligarchs in azerbaijan, probably one of the most wealthy oligarchs in the former soviet union. his family were the main sponsors and builders of the trump tower in baku, in azerbaijan. the original n original build was supposed to be $195 million, built in the
middle of nowhere, nowhere near the resort areas or water front properties. in the middle of nowhere, in train yards. in may of 2012, prior to mr. trump running for president, the trump organization joined in cooperation with mr. mammadov and his family in the construction, lending his name to that building. trump's lawyer said according to mr. davidson that the baku hotel project raised no ethical issues for donald trump because the company, the trump entity, the company had never engaged directly with mammadov, merely a licensed sword of his name. they earned $2.8 million solely for the rights of his name. but there were other lucrative
contracts that were signed and entered into, including the contract to manage the hotel for an undisclosed fee. an undisclosed fee. we don't know what that income to the president was, because it is undisclosed. we have to see his taxes to know what they were. american companies including hotels that do business overseas before they invest, they conduct rigorous risk assessments, back ground checks, take a close look at what they are investing in. and the enormous resources that they expend to find out what the practices of the companies they're engaging with overseas are. this is standard practice for any american corporation doing business overseas. the mammadov family has ties to the iranian revolutionary guard. the largest supporter of state sponsored terrorism in the world. they're the folks that brought us the 440 days of hostage.
the hostage, the iranian hostage days. the iranian company, the azerpacilio, it is run, they were engaged to build this hotel. it is run by the irg, the iranian revolutionary guard. the u.s. government accused them of criminal activity, drug trafficking, money laundering, and terrorism. trump has proposed to officially condemn the irg as a terrorist group organization. but all this is hidden because of confidentiality and privileged information, just like his taxes. before corruption practices happened in 1977 -- it is a
violation if it is done unknowingly, even if the trump organization did not know they were in violation of it, they may be in violation of it. mr. chairman, that's why we need to see the tax returns. there are too many questions, too many links and now the iranian guard, mr. chairman, i yield the balance of my time to mr. pascrell. >> foreign corrupt practices forbids american companies from participating in a scheme to reward a foreign government -- >> your time has expired, mr. pascrell. are there -- before i and for other amendments, mr. neale, you're recognized. >> i'd like to yield my time to mr. pascrell. >> thank you, mr. neal. mr. chairman. the corrupt practices act forbids american companies from
participating in a scheme to reward a foreign government official in exchange for material benefit or preferential treatment. it also makes it a crime to unknowingly benefit from a partner's corruption if it could have discovered illicit activity but avoided doing so. the form we need to find out who the partners are. that is in your tax returns, mr. chairman. 2012, mr. trump referred to the foreign corrupt practices act as a horrible law. that, quote, unquote, should be changed. saying that if america companies refuse to give bribes, get this, you'll do business nowhere. this is amazing. this is is what the present president of the united states, who is pushing this sham bill
today this is what he said. i didn't say it, he said it. he said it. and assistant dean at george washington university law school stated corruption warning signs are rarely more obvious and i hope you're listening to mr. crowley of new york. never more obvious. and yet we're sitting here trying to figure out how we're going to help out those executives that run many of these insurance companies while rome burns and we can't get the president's tax returns. not yet. it's going to be embarrassing when the tax returns come out. they're coming out sooner or later. they're coming out sooner or later. i may have nothing at all to do with how they get out, but they're going to get out sooner
or later and then we're going to see how many people voted time and time and time again to deep six it, the request. to deep six it. all of you come from districts like i do. we are all accountable. i am. and you have to be accountable, mr. chairman, because you do have the character to do this. i yield back. >> mr. chairman. >> i yield my time to mr. crowley. >> i've spoken about one particular deal. we know the deal in florida where mr. trump purchased the property for $40 million, without any improvements, no one lived on the property for two years for an additional $60 million to a russian oligarch. too many questions, too many questions and not enough answers
as to what happened, what transpired. i think people -- no one begrudges anyone from making a buck on a good investment. i respect that. i respect this has been -- that have the acumen to do it, the gurt guts, the wherewithal to put up $40 million on a speculative property in florida and then sold two years later for $60 million more. some have suggested that it is part of a money laundering scheme by the russian oligarch. i know how much the state is under attack now. i have to give a great deal of credit to adam davidson and those doing in depth research into these transactions because they shed a lot of light about how much we don't know about president trump's finances. quite frankly, i agree with my friend from florida, from new
jersey, that we will not end this. this is not going to go away. we will continue this until my colleagues join us in this effort on behalf of the american people to disclose to the american people that the commander in chief of the armed forces, the president of the united states, owes it to the american people to show his work, to show how he made his money and show what connections do or don't in fairness to the president, do or don't exist between him and russian oligarchs. and mr. putin as well. the american people demand this, want to see this information. even people, mr. chairman, who voted for mr. trump believe he should give his taxes over to the american people for scrutiny. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you, mr. crowley. i know again you and mr.
pascrell are sincere in this position. whether you support those trump -- those returns being released or not, using this tool would be an abuse of authority given the ways and means and finance committee chairman. this provision was granted only to enable tax committees to carry out the responsibility to ensure the tax code is properly administered. that's the key, properly administered. these taxpayer protections are embedded in the section ordered to ensure privacy and prevent the abuse of taxpayer information. mr. levin confirmed this in 2014. that investigation just to remind everyone confirmed the irs misled congress and the american people, targeted americans, and resulted in the forwarding of three counts of l violations of law in the
constitution. to conclude, whether you support releasing the returns or not, i will not allow washington to return the battle days when government officials use their powers to intimidate, harass and destroy their political enemies. civil liberties and privacy are still rights worth protecting and i intend to protect them. we have moved on to further amendments. mr. levin, there will be another opportunity in the future. are there further amendments to the amendment? the nature of the subsidy. >> i have an amendment. >> mr. levin offers an amendment. gentleman from ohio reserves the point of order. point of order. i ask the gentlemen to suspend while the court distributes.
gentleman recognized for five mitts on his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i responded to your use of the reference to me earlier. i think it is a misuse of that. let me tend to this amendment. mr. barthold, might i ask you, do you expect the cbo estimate next week? >> mr. levin, congressional budget office said they hoped to have all the information available early next week. i don't have any new information in the last three, four hours. >> early next week. >> early next week. >> so this is the question that everybody has to ask. why mark up this bill in an energy and commerce today before we hear from the cbo?
you should provide that answer. you should indicate why you are try i trying to pass legislation through the committees without hearing from cbo i think the answer may be that you're fearful that the cbo will provide answers to questions that you don't like so essentially you want a sneak attack on this issue before the public hears and we hear from cbo. that is something inexcusable. i think we'll hear from cbo answers to questions like this, how many of the 20 million who became insured through aca will
lose their insurance? what will be the rate of the uninsured ten years from now. in michigan, it dropped by half. in the counties i represent by that much. how many will have a lower tax credit? how many? we hear it will be millions. what will be the impact of the loss of expanded medicaid. that has provided coverage insurance for about 10 million people? what will be the impact of capping medicaid. mr. crowley, you referred to the
impact, i think in your state, dramatic. the same is going to be true throughout this country. what will be the impact on long-term care? so, mr. chairman, i would like you to say public ly since mr. barthold has now said it is likely we will receive the report from cbo early next week, why this hearing in markup are occurring prior to the receipt from cbo. i yield. mr. chairman, if you want to
answer that. >> mr. leach, those of us here over seven years ago received a nearly 800 page bill from you and the majority at midnight with this committee convening mere hours later. did you have a cbo score on that massive bill? absolutely not. and you dismissed all efforts to obtain one. >> okay -- >> no, now, you yielded to me, so let's yield a moment more. today we have a 50 plus page provision. we made it clear, like you, we expect cbo to have a thoughtful, thorough comprehensive score to us before this recommendation goes the budget committee comes to the house floor. i yield back. >> thanks.
could i respond? >> yes, sir. >> first of all, there was a hearing on our bill. secondly, there was a preliminary estimate on our bill provided by cbo. >> it was on the concept. >> no, it wasn't. it wasn't. >> yes, it was. >> it was reflected in the draft legislation and so they provided this july 14th preliminary analysis, which has a lot of provisions or specifications in it, including estimates -- >> mr. levin, we are beyond 30 seconds of the time. if someone else wishes to -- >> maybe somebody else will yield to me. >> to speak the amendment -- >> the amendment. >> one moment.
i look at -- >> let's do this so we can move forward. does the gentleman from ohio, we'll give you time, does the gentleman from ohio insist on his point of order? >> i do becauses s iit is not germane. >> does the gentleman offer is the amendment wish to speak on the point of order or yield to a colleague? >> i'll yield -- i think the ranking member is going to speak and then yield to me. >> mr. chairman, i'd like to yield to mr. levin. >> i think it is the reverse direction, but either way, if you'd like to speak. >> okay. thank you. i just thought a number of us would be able to speak on this. i'm looking at a table, the preliminary analysis of the insurance coverage
specifications provided by the house try committee group, preliminary analysis of these special occasions go into detail on each of the important coverage provisions. what you have used as an argument against a cbo analysis is not at all defensible. we had hearings. we had numerous lehearings. we had preliminary provisions that you saw. essentially in sharp contrast to what is being done today, there has never been a single hearing on this bill. and you don't want to wait for cbo. so mr. chairman, i would like to
ask you what is the reason why the majority here and energy and commerce, why you're not waiting to cbo report before we mark up this bill. what's the reason. why don't we have all that information available? it is a nonpartisan group with someone i think you appointed. what are you afraid of. what are you afraid of? you're afraid of the answers to the questions that i proposed, that the rate of uninsured will go up. there will be a lower tax credit for numerous people, millions. that there will be disruption of the private insurance market, that the impact of eliminating expanded medicaid will hurt millions and millions of families and that the impact of
ending or capping medicaid on long-term care and kids who have special needs and other children that that impact will be substantial? why not wait for full information for the light of day and instead proceed in darkness? i yield the balance of my time to our ranking member. >> thank you. mr. chairman, we're reminded based upon the statistical information i provided at the outset of this markup that there were 79 bipartisan health insurance reform hearings and markups over two years. that's a fact. that's not an opinion. there are over 100 hours in hearings. 181 witnesses from both sides. and i checked last night with staff, and i was told that during the course of the markup that we embraced the aca that
there were regular narratives that were presented to us as the process moved along from cbo. so this idea we acted without cbo information is simply not true. 72 hours on the number that occurred when the bill was placed online for review as well. i participated in a town hall meeting. there were 3,000 of them we held across the country. and the numbers are even more staggering when you get to the senate. there were also 239 republican and democratic amendments of which 121 were accepted. in the senate, there were eight days of markups with 135 amendments in the finance committee. 47 bipartisan hearings, and open dialogues with 300 amendments during a 13-day markup in their
committees. 25 consecutive days in the senate, they discussed the health reform bill that we eventually embraced. this idea we had not followed script is simply misstated. there were also -- marking this important note, 147 republican amendments in the final senate bill. i yield back my time. >> so i'll finish with my 13 seconds, mr. chairman. you don't answer, you're afraid of sunshine. and we will insist it be spotlighted and the public is going to react. i assure you. >> mr. levin, so i'm prepared to rule on the germaneness of the amendment. let's not rewrite history here. you claim you had a cbo estimate, you did not.
you had a letter. and wasn't even based on the bill, based on specifications by a three committee working group. and it turned out the estimates were wildly wrong. so if you're asking us to follow the democrat approach of a bad bill proceed with a bad cbo analysis, preceded by a badly estimated cbo letter, we're not following that approach. we're going to allow cbo to have a thorough, deliberate analysis of this 50 plus page provision, as well as intervening commerce. you'll have that full analysis before this bill ultimately goes to the house floor. on the amendment itself, i'm prepared to rule. amendment is not germane -- it violates house rule 16 clause 7 by including a sense of congress cbo made publicly available estimates that go beyond the scope of the subtitle.
the point of order is sustained. the amendment is not in order. do others wish -- >> roll call. >> mr. tiberi? mr. tiberi appeals -- moves to table the ruling and the questions on the motion table the appeal. the chair's ruling. all those signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. being the chair, the ayes have it and the motion to -- >> roll call. >> roll call is requested. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. johnson? mr. johnson, aye. mr. nunes? mr. nunes, aye. mr. tiberi? mr. tiberi, aye. mr. reichert? mr. reichert, aye. mr. roskam? mr. roskam, aye. mr. buchanan?
mr. buchanan, aye. mr. smith of nebraska? >> aye. >> mr. smith, aye. miss jenkins? mr. paulsen? mr. marchant? mr. marchant, aye. miss black? >> aye. >> miss black, aye. mr. reed? >> aye. >> mr. reed, aye. mr. kelly? >> aye. >> mr. kelly, aye. mr. renacci? >> aye. >> mr. renacci, aye. mr. meehan? >> aye. >> mr. meehan, aye. miss noem? >> aye. >> noem, aye. mr. holding? mr. holding, aye. mr. smith of missouri? >> aye. >> mr. smith, aye. mr. rice? >> aye. >> mr. rice, aye. mr. swigert? >> yes. >> mr. swigert, aye. miss walorski? >> aye. >> miss walorski, aye. mr. curbelo? >> aye. >> mr. curbelo, aye. mr. bishop? mr. bishop, aye.
mr. neal? mr. neal, no. mr. levin? >> no. >> mr. levin, no. mr. lewis? >> no. >> mr. lewis, no. mr. doggett? >> no. >> mr. doggett, no. mr. tohompsothompson? >> no. >> mr. thompson, no. mr. kind? mr. kind, no. mr. pascrell? >> no. >> mr. pascrell, no. mr. crowley? >> no. >> mr. crowley, no. mr. davis? >> mr. davis, no. miss sanchez? >> no. >> miss sanchez, no. mr. higgins? >> no. >> mr. higgins, no. miss sewell? miss delbene? >> no. >> miss delbene, no. miss chu? >> no. >> miss chu, no.
the clerk will record the vote. >> 23 ayes, 16 nays. >> there being 23 ayes, and 16 noes, the motion to table is agreed to. >> may i -- >> yes, sir. >> recognize -- >> send request to include that -- >> yes, without -- >> thank you. >> yes, sir. without objection. are there further amendments to the amendment of the substitute? mr. crowley, you're recognized. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment the desk. >> mr. tiberi, you can spend a moment, you reserve point of order. court will distribute the amendment. i ask the gentleman to suspend while the clerk distributes.
>> the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. i recognize also mr. tiberi's reserving the right to agree. but you may be familiar with this particular amendment, i have a copy here, if you don't mind a moment, mr. chairman, a slight change. i'm going to put mr. crowley, of
new york in its place. mr. chairman, frankly, i'm appalled at the lack of transparency in the overall process. here we are to mark up on one of the most important issues facing our constituents and our nation and having had less than 48 hours the fact it has been less than -- about 40 hours. since this bill has been revealed. not to mention that we haven't had a single hearing on this bill, but it comes after republicans kept a draft of the bill under armed guard protection, ascending even their own members in search of the capital in vain looking for the bill. americans should not have to play a game of hide and seek to find out the fate of their health care coverage. how is the american public supposed to have a fair hearing when we don't even have a full airing of the facts. it is completely unacceptable that we don't have completed estimate -- completed estimates
from independent arbiters. we don't know how many people are getting kicked off their coverage though we know people will be kicked off their coverage. we don't know how much republican plan will cost. though we know it will cost the american people billions and billions and billions of dollars. i guess i'm not really surprised they have been trying to hide a bill. it is a giveaway to millionaires and billionaires. they're trying to pull one over on the american people, and i'll tell you what, americans are just too smart for that. the american people will see through the republican smoke and mirrors and realize their sacred plan will give americans less coverage and cost them more money. even republican members, members of your own party have said this is not the way to govern. calling this lack of transparency completely unacceptable, but this is just another instance of the republicans breaking the promise to the american people. in 2010, the colleagues on the
other side of the aisle felt a need to put out a pledge to america that promised full open and transparent debate on important issues facing congress. the document and i'm reading from their pledge here, said, quote, no more hiding legislative language from the minority party, opponents and the public, legislation should be understood by all interested parties before it is voted on. but hiding, thwarting the public and preventing the dissenting views is what the republicans have been doing here. i'm offering an amendment that should be very familiar. you offered this. during the markup of the affordable care act. also known as obamacare. it was found in order and there was a vote on it, mr. chairman. i recognize mr. tiberi's right to reserve -- preserve the right to object. i want to remind the chairman it was found in order and voted on during the markup of the affordable care act. the same amendment you offered, offering full transparency for the american people, which we
gave them curing our markup and the process of the implementation of the affordable care act. i understood you voted in opposition to that bill. but even you have to recognize that we gave you the opportunity to offer your amendment, the sense of congress and we accepted that right to offer that amendment and we had a full vote on it. it simply states we here in congress should have to certify that we members of congress have read the bill. i'm not going to ask all my colleagues whether they read the bill or not, but it is simply -- i'm going to read the amendment itself. has not been read. it is a sense of the house of representatives that, one before any member votes on this bill, that members shall cause to be printed in the congressional record a statement indicating whether that member has read this bill in its entirety and, two, this bill should be publicly available on the internet, in its entirety, for 72 hours before a vote is held
on this bill. i would note for the record that we -- we pass the affordable care act, 30 days was -- on the draft of the bill, wondered, that's why i was asking a request, whether this was the draft or final bill. if it is a draft, maybe i ask excuse it. but i think it is the final bill and it had less than 72 hours displayed on the internet. it had less than 48 hours in our hands. mr. chairman, i would ask respectfully as we respectfully recognized your sense of congress resolution that you recognize this and we have a vote on this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. the gentleman from ohio -- >> i make the point of order to the amendment not because of the rich irony of what my friend just talked about -- >> it is pretty rich. thank you very much. >> pretty rich. so is this bill, by the way. >> i remember that day at 11:57 p.m. that the democrats finally
release their 794 page amendment in the nature of a substitute. right before the 9:00 a.m. markup to that over thousand page bill that later became a 2,000 page bill with not an ounce of a score. and the fact that this is a 57-page document we are looking at today, 57, not 570, 57 page document, it was released two ok days ago. i am making the point of order to the amendment because it is not germane to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. it violates house rule 16, clause 7, because this sense of congress relates to the reading of an unspecified bill. we have an amendment in the nature of substitute that is not a bill, but a recommendation to
the budget committee. the amendment in the nature of a substitute is a narrow piece of what will later be considered as a bill. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. tiberi. does the gentleman offering the amendment wish to speak on the point of order? >> i'm disappointed in my good friend mr. tiberi in terms of his assessment as to this amendment. and as to why it ought to be germane. it is 57 pages, i think you have more than enough time in 72 hours to read the entire document. i don't know what the fear is here in terms of slowing down the process to give more time for everyone to fully understand -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> when i'm finished. i'll give you the opportunity. what is in the bill itself. i thought it was interesting to find out in this bill that we have a tax cut of $600 billion to corporate executives of insurance companies that as i mentioned before, for the record, facing a $5 billion cut
to my who home state of new york. my home state of new york, a $5 billion, little passes that were snuck into the bill. that may very well -- in all likelihood cause localities in new york state to raise property taxes to make up for the short fall. i think it is incumbent all of us to fully have a full grasp of exactly what it is you're trying to do and attempt to do and i would only also just remind you that this amendment when offered by mr. brady of texas back in 2010 was found in order, found germane and was given the opportunity for a roll call vote. i am disappointed. i will yield to my friend. >> thank you. gabriela tiberi who is 8 and loves to read, can read 20 pages in 30 minutes. and so i would challenge that you, mr. crowley, can probably read as quickly as my
8-year-old. >> you'd be surprised. you'd be surprised. you'd be surprised. >> i think you had ample time to read this 57 pages over the last 48 hours. >> i'm willing to testify i have. and to the clerk of the house as well have done that, that's exactly what my amendment asked for. >> i'm sure you had plenty of time. i don't want to get in tit for tat, but the -- >> mr. tiberi, reclaim my time. the bill itself is a lot smaller because so many fewer protections are there for the american people. that's why this bill is so small. it is complicated. oh, my gosh. who knew? who knew how complicated it is? apparently the president didn't know. so much easier to run against something, a campaign to run against something you don't know about, especially when you're one of the most wealthy people, apparently, supposedly, in the united states, in the world. but we don't really know that, we can't see the tax returns.
who knew how difficult this was going to be. i would gather -- i would give credit to you all, you all know how difficult this issue is. that's why it has been so difficult for you to get this bill, even this bill, slammed together, first here today. you know how difficult it was. and your little girl would know if you had to understand the magnitude of what we're talking about. i will yield to the gentleman from wisconsin. >> i'm sure we all realize it doesn't take a whole lot of words to do an incredible amount of damage to the american people. you can claim all you want and feel proud about a 51 page legislative report that is going to go to reconciliation. it is the underlying policy and the implications to the american people that is really at stake here today. doesn't take a whole lot in order to mess with people's lives back home. that's the fear that many of us are expressing here today, due to the lack of a true analysis or budget score even and what
we're getting ourselves into. i yield back. >> mr. chairman, what is your little girl's name? gabriela. i'm sure if gabriela read the bill wouldn't want a provision that would rip away health care from some of the poorest people in the country and in the state of ohio. that's what this bill would do. your state has an extension of the medicaid system to cover more of the poor people of your state. i guarantee that gabriela would not want to see poor people who cannot afford to buy insurance and been on medicaid prior to expansion of medicaid in your state that will lose their insurance coverage because of the passage of this bill. i know -- i don't know if gabriela personally, i know you don't want that to happen. i certainly don't think your little girl wants it to happen. i will yield. >> i don't believe the premise of your argument.
the fact of the matter is there are 31 bills that are part of this legislation that have been voted on the house floor. 31, all with the cbo score. i don't believe the protections you talked about will go away with the passage of the legislation. >> if i could respond to that. >> thank you, mr. crowley. we have been very generation. >> i gave him the opportunity to ask a question. all we're asking for is the opportunity to have read the bill and register with the clerk of the house, that we have read the bill and for 72 hours, on the internet for the bill to be disclosed. >> you know we're being generous -- >> i appreciate your generosity. >> thank you. i'm prepared to rule. before i do that, i would love a copy of that right minded amendment i offered many years ago. >> i got it for you right here. pass that down to the chairman. >> about time your legislative agenda turned conservative. >> mr. chairman, chairman brady?
will you yield for one minute or 30 seconds? >> reluctantly, yes. >> is there a recording of how mr. crowley voted on the brady amendment? >> mr. chairman, i don't know if there was, but i'll tell you one thing -- mr. chairman, knowing how much of a fair minded person i am, i think i voted in favor of it is there any record i voted no? is there any record i voted no? oh, alternative facts have struck again. >> the amendment is not germane to the amendment in the -- >> clause 7 by adding a sense of congress that is broader than the pending substitute amendment. the sense of congress refers to reconciliation legislation which is mr. tiberi pointed out broader measure to be introduced after being reported by the budget committee. point of order is sustained. the amendment is not in order.
>> the call for -- >> a vote is -- is requested. the questions on the motion tabled the appeal of the chair's ruling. first, all those in favor signify by saying aye. all opposed, no. the ayes have it. a roll call vote has been requested of the clerk. please call the roll. >> mr. johnson? >> aye. >> mr. johnson, aye. mr. nunes? mr. nunes, aye. mr. tiberi? >> aye. >> mr. tiberi, aye. mr. reichert? mr. reichert, aye. mr. rask ? mr. rask , aye. mr. buchanan? mr. buchanan, aye. mr. smith of nebraska? mr. smith, aye. miss jenkins? mr. paulsen? >> aye. >> mr. paulsen, aye. mr. marchant? mr. marchant, aye.
miss black? >> aye. >> miss black, waye. mr. reed? >> aye. >> mr. reed, aye. mr. kelly? mr. kelly, aye. mr. renacci? mr. renacci, aye. mr. meehan? >> aye. >> mr. meehan, aye. miss noem? >> aye. >> miss noem, aye. mr. holding? mr. holding, aye. mr. smith of missouri? >> aye. >> mr. smith, aye. mr. rice? >> aye. >> mr. rice, aye. mr. schweikert? >> aye. >> mr. schweikert, aye. mr. walorski? >> aye. >> mr. walorski, aye. >> mr. curbelo? >> aye. >> mr. bishop? >> mr. bishop, aye. mr. neal? >> mr. neal, no. mr. levin? >> no. >> levin, no. mr. lewis? >> no. >> mr. lewis, no. mr. doggett? >> no. >> mr. doggett, no. mr. thompson? >> no. >> mr. thompson, no.
mr. larsen? >> no. >> mr. larsen, no. mr. blumenauer? mr. glblumenauer, no. mr. kind? >> mr. lumen our, no. mr. kind in mr. kind, no. mr. praskel? mr. praskel, no. mr. crowley? mr. crowley, no. mr. davis? mr. davis, no. ms. sanchez? ms. sanchez, no. mr. higgins? mr. higgins, no. ms. sul in mrs. sul, no. ms. dell veny? ms. dell veny, no. ms. chu? ms. chu, no. ms. jeng ins? chairman brady? chairman brady, aye.
>> critical vote to vote. 23 yay, 16 nays. >> the motion to the table is agreed to. are there additional amendments -- mr. neil? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment, there chairman. >> recognized, point of order is reserved. gentlemen -- >> mr. kind is kbo going to -- >> i do have be a amendment at the desk at this time. >> so mr. neil withdraws aeb mr. kind has an amendment. the gentlemen will suspend while the clerk distributes the amendment. yes, mr. tea berry reserves the point of order on the kind amendment.
recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm offering something very simple. it just calls for an assurance that this legislation is completely paid for. won't add to the national debt. and the it won't result in reduction of current health insurance coverage that americans have today due to the policies underlying this legislation. but the truth is here today, we have no way of knowing whether or not this legislation is completely offset and paid for because, again as been stated previously during the course of this markup, we don't have an analysis from our nonpartisan referee, the congressional budget office, that explained us to the policy implications and effect this will have on american's lives and what budgetary effect will be. to my fellow fiscal conservatives to those who worshipped at the offer, balanced budget amendments and fiscal discipline in this place, how can we in good conscience
vote on a major piece of legislation which will effect one-fifth of the entire u.s. economy, health care system, as well as approximately one-half of all federal spending without having this budget analysis done before us? as t is deeply, deeply troubling. but we also know by the quick review of the legislation that was offered, the night before last, that there will result in over $600 billion worth of tax breaks over the first ten years, $700 billion over 11. and that predominantly it's going to be the most wealthiest benefits under this legislation. the wealthiest 1% in the nation will receive on average close to $200,000 worth of tax breaks every year under this legislation. the fact that wealthiest 400 people in this country will get roughly $8 million worth of tax breaks per year under this
legislation. and we know just by reading the legislation too, who's going to be paying for that? medicaid recipient due to drastic reductions in funding and guaranteed issue in medicaid. and i don't care how much flexibility you give the governors under medicaid reform, you set them up for failure if you go forward with the budget numbers. capping it and also withdrawing funding from the states in toward cover their medicaid population. badger care as we know it, in wisconsin. we also know it is a substantial reduction in premium tafl credit that americans currently receive under the affordable care act. given what this committee is offering in this legislation. so that's who's going to be paying for the tremendous amount of tax relief to the very wealth think. now, i can understand your sympathy of giving the wealthiest of the wealthy a break. i know they have suffered greatly under this economic recovery that we've had. in fact we know just the
opposite. this is a group that has thrived and flourished over the last eight years of economic recovery while so many other of our con stit ye constituent have suffered. and why there are rage from my constituent and others who have felt like they are left behind by economic recovery is because they haven't felt the benefits of what growth should bring to their doorstep. this only makes their lives more difficult. by increasing cost of health care by forcing many of them to have to go without health insurance coverage and one other point that may not have been thought about too clearly, but what you're proposing in medicaid by doing a per capita cap while grandfathering those who are currently in but telling them that once they leave, that there's not additional money if they go back on is you are creating a work disincentive in the medicaid program. by threatening people if they want to improve their lives and
good out, get gainful employment and therefore not qualify for medicaid in the future that there's no way back for them. and that's locking them in to that system. and discouraging work which is what we want them to be pursuing while also having medicaid as be a important back stop and safety feature in their lives if things don't go well. if the unemployment ranks do go up, so per capita cap as way to save money to make your numbers add up will have a detrimental effect on every state. but especially those tougher rural districts such as mine, that rely very heavily in making sure that the uncompensated care finally gets coverage and our rural hospitals will no longer be in jeopardy. this is a straight forward amendment. one that i hope we can all embrace on this committee. and if we do something with such a huge effect on the u.s. economy on federal budget implications, we find offsets, pay for it, deal with this in a
fiscally responsible manner. i yield back. >> i make a point of toward amend it. it is not germane to the substitute. amendment violate house rule 16 because it makes the enactment of an unspecified act contingent on a determination regarding federal deficit. let me remind everyone again that this is not a 2,000-page bill that we have to pass to know what's in it. we have narrow amendment and the nature of substitute pending which is a recommendation to the budget committee and not an introduced act. >> thank you, ladies and gentlemen. offering amendment we should speak on the point of order. >> i do, thank you. >> i'm sure i don't have to remind the chair of the committee with the history of reconciliation in congress but traditionally if not exclusively bad news for deficit reduction purposes. that's another reason why i think this amendment is consistent with what the overall goal is in reconciliation.
and not only to pay for it but to possibly reduce future budget deficits as well. and i know that hasn't always been applied. we passed major tax relief under reconciliation that was not paid for and people are wondering why we are still struggling with the $500 billion annual deficit today, just look at the last two major tax provisions, extension, permanent extension of the bush tax cuts and $158 billion one we did two years ago. i asked if those two bills had been paid for, fully offset, we would be at virtual balance today. with the budget. so i hope we don't make that same mistake moving forward on it, such a significant piece of legislation. but i would also offer this challenge mr. chairman. the council of economic advisers in last year's december report, december 2016, cited a recent congressional budget office analysis of the budgetary implications of the affordable care act going forward over the next ten years and congressional
budget office estimated that the affordable care act will reduce budget deficits by approximately $300 billion over the next ten years, and close to $3.7 trillion over the next 20 years. that is a noble goal that you should be shooting for in your legislation. to see if you can even match that, if not top it, when it comes to budget deficit reduction with major health care reform. that was one of the recent calculations that the congressional budget office made under the affordable care act or so-called obama care, close to $300 billion in further deficit reduction over the next ten years. i challenge you and your legislation to do any better than that. i yield back. >> thank you. i'm prepared to rule, on my own point though. more than seven years ago when this committee met to consider this 800-page bill, in the first year of the congressional
democrats leadership and president obama's the deficit doubled in one year. next year, triple. for that it became a trillion dollar deficit every year. only when republicans took control of congress. we begin to wrestle that deficit down. and in this reconciliation bill ultimately, it must balance not just in the first ten years, but in the second ten years as well. and that is the direction we are going. the amendment is not germane to the amendment of the nature of substitute because it violates rule 16 law 7 because of the introduction of reconciliation bill. however, the nature of substitute is a narrow introduced reconciliation measure. so the point of order sustained and amendment is not in order. >> mr. chairman, i will pale the ruling. before that, may i ask you to get the report from the council of economic advisors -- >> without objection. >> thank you.
mr. teaberry moves to table the appeal. table the appeal of the chair's ruling. all those in favor signify by saying aye. aye. all those opposed, no. the motion on the table is agreed to. >> mr. chairman, i appeal and ask for a recorded vote. >> requested that clerk call the role. >> mr. johnson? mr. johnson, aye. mr. nunez. under nunez, aye. mr. teaberry. mr. teaberry, aye. mr. reich ert, mr. reich ert, aye. mr. ras come? mr. ras come, aye. mr. buchanan. mr. buchanan, aye. mr. smith of nebraska. mr. smith, aye. ms. jenkins? mr. paulson?
mr. paulson, aye. mr. marchin, mr. marchin, aye. ms. black. mr. reid. mr. kelly. mr. kelly, aye. mr. reneecy. mr. reneecy, aye. mr.myian? mr.myian, aye. ms. gnome? ms. gnome, aye. mr. holding? mr. holding, aye. mr. smith of missouri. mr. smith, aye. mr. rice? mr. rice, aye. mr. swag ert? mr. swag ert, aye. ms. ma lar ski? ms. ma lar ski, aye. mr. car bellow in mr. car bellow, aye. mr. bishop? mr. bishop, aye. mr. neil? mr. neil, no. mr. levin? mr. levin, no. mr. lewis? mr. lewis, no.
mr. doing et? mr. doing et, no. mr. thompson? mr. thompson, no. mr. larsen? mr. larsen, no. mr. blummen our? mr. lumen our, no. mr. kind? mr. kind, no. mr. mass ka rel? mr. pass ka rel, no. mr. crowley? mr. crowley, no. mr. davis? mr. davis, no. ms. sanchez? ms. sanchez, no. mr. higgins? mr. higgins, no. ms. sul? ms. sul, no. mrs. dell benny? ms. dell benny, no. ms. chu? ms. chu, no. ms. jenkins? ms. black? ms. black, aye. mr. reid? mr. reid, aye.
claireman brady? chairman brady, aye. >> the clerk will report the vote. >> 23 yays, 16 nays. 23 ayes, and 16 nos, motion to table is agreed. two other additional amendments. mr. neil is recognized. what purpose does gentleman seek recognition? >> seek amendment. >> mr. teaberry you recognize point of order. clerk will distribute the amendment. i ask the gentleman to suspend while the clerk disprib united states it.
gentlemen is recognized for five minutes to speak on his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i'm introducing this amendment on behalf of democrats and republicans. it is pretty straight forward. this bill would not take effect until the cvo determines that the bill would not increase uncompensated care or job losses at our hospitals. the bill before us is a huge tax shift to middle class workers and gives people less coverage at higher cost. our local hospitals will feel the brunt of this because instead of creating jobs, republican proposal will give handouts to the very wealthy. the compensated care burden hospitals would have to take on would hurt hospital workers. most of us have at least one hospital in our district and by the way, i think we all acknowledge they have now become the biggest employers in our respective congressional district. state medical, mercy, u-mass,
coolly dickinson, holy oak medical center not only provide some of the best health square a care /* care and research in america but also provide excellent jobs. the ripple effect of the uncompensated care would have a devastated impact on my district's economy across the state and the nation. before the aca providing care for uninsured patient was a significant drain on hospital finances, and uncompensated care was growing by leaps and bounds. but thanks to millions of newly insured americans over the past seven years hospitals were relieved of bad debt and unpaid medical bills. the aca also provided an opportunity for hospitals to change their ways and to change the way that health care was delivered through new innovations like accountable kark organizations. homes and business models also sought to improve care and lower costs. this bill would undo all of the forward thinking initiatives. one of my many concerns about
this bill is that the number of people who will see coverage loss become uninsured or settle for skimpy policies would put hospitals back in financial distress. it would indeed be devastating to hospital workers and eej nal regional economies. if aca is repealed, there would be uncompensated care through 2028. our hospital cannot afford this bill. capping medicaid would shift cost to states and as i authored in my opening remark the following i think certainty governors will shift this money around through good times and bad leaving more people uninsured and certainly uncompensated costs for hospitals. hospitals will continue to provide care for i hope all of our constituents and as they do they will be left footing the bill. by supporting this amendment it insures local health care providers have the support they need to provide high quality
care to our constituent. this is the correct thing to do. protect our hospitals and communities they serve. i encourage colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. mr. teaberry you're recognized. >> the amendment violate house rule 16 clause 7 because of the subject matter amendment deals with uncompensated care which is beyond the scope of the chairman's amendment and nature of the us substitute which subs. >> we will back revisiting the uncompensated care in short order. many of our biggest employers through the community hospitals and indeed regional hospitals in the state of massachusetts, really large hospitals have more or less solved the issue of uncompensated care. it is a drain on all of us tp
requiring the law suggest people have to be covered once they make it through the door way of that hospital and indeed taxpayer foots the bill in the end through uncompensated care. by providing more insurance opportunities in the private sector and using that to discipline price, we were able to address the issue of uncompensated care in an equitable manner. this is a very serious economic drag on all members of this committee. after this legislation if it were to become law would go into effect largely because of this notion of uncompensated care is done. there should have been the clans to address this very issue in a bipartisan manner. there are not democratic hospitals in america. there are not republican hospitals in america. this is a huge issue and we have all seen the evolution during our time in congress as to what happened in the hospitals in our respective districts. there are very few hospitals on the democratic side. because many of us tend toor innovation and experimentation as well. i yield to mr. thompson.
>> thank the ranking member for yielding and i agree with him totally. there's an hospital in any one of our districts that isn't worried about this. uncompensated care will push hospitals into a death spiral. in every one of our districts. when we took up the affordable care act seven, eight years ago, whatever it's been now, it is because there was a health care crisis and a big part of that was the uncompensated care issue. in my old district, the district i represented at that time before the redistricting, uncompensated care cost for my distri district was $50 million a year. i would be willing to bet there is nobody on this die yas whose uncompensated care costs weren't very similar. we haven't be hospitals are stable. they are big employers. it is one of the reasons why many of the outside organizations that have contacted us about your bill
state that one of their concerns and the lost revenue is not only will it be ripping health care away from individuals but it's going to create a big job loss. every one of our districts are affected by that. i have the list, if you want to hear. arkansas, 34,000. indiana, 55,000. minnesota, 104,000. california, 335,000. ohio, 126,000. washington, 41,000. pennsylvania, 137,000. this is a killer to hospitals and a killer to one of the biggest employers in every one of our districts. to say that it is not germane to take up this very important, not only health care issue but economic issue in our district, is missing the point. i yield back to mr. neal.
>> i yield the balance of my time to mr. blummen our. >> thank you. it is not just uncompensated care. i've met with all of the major hospitals in my district, health science university. they are deeply concerned not just about the hit to the bottom line. but the care that is uncompensated previously, had been care given too often in emergency rooms. too often too late. too often too expensive. and it's the shift to being compensated. it's also given the care at the right time. in a clinic setting. so a win for the hospitals. a win for the taxpayers. and for the people who previously got the charity care that got written off, they are getting it in a timely fashion in a clinic before conditions get worse.
so it is a win for the hospital. better for the individuals. and a real destabilizing feature that you're injecting back into our health care system. i yield back to the ranking member. >> there's eight seconds, mr. chairman, to yield to mr. crowley. >> thanks. i suggest that uncompensated care hits new york particularly hard. they do a great deal of work for the many undocumented or don't have insurance themselves right now. and mr. chairman, i would move to strike the last word if i'm out of time. >> thank you. at this time, we are on the point of order specifically. votes have been called. i will recognize -- >> i can finish briefly if you like. >> five minutes then yield to you and then to point of order. mr. davies to recognize. >> thank you. i want to thank the rank and member for introducing this
bill. to me, it is more than important. i happen to have more hospital beds in my district than any other single district in america. i've got 24 hospitals, four large medical center complexes. so it is absolutely essential to my hospitals, plus i have a large medicaid population and so this is absolutely essential. i yield back and would yield the rest of my time. to mr. crowley. >> thank you, i appreciate it. without knowing the impact or having a score before us, it is impossible to know what the impact will be. that's why i would like to see this slow down so we can get the score before we make a monumental decision.
but hour houses do incredible work. when you hit them with a double wlamy, or quadruple whammy, thi is like a tornado to them. with uncompensated care, is disastrous for hospitals, particularly rural hospitals. i know everyone looks at new york city. new york state. just look at new york city. i think of the rural hospitals. some towns either hospital, university or prison basically to keep people gainfully employed. at least in a hospital they are trying to save people's lives. hospital goes out of business, jobs are lost. and towns suffer. it is really, i think, really not responsible to move without knowing what impact will be. that's yi thiwhy i think this i fail safe amendment by mr. neal, that if it does impact negatively we can take another
look at that. mr. chairman, i suggest we ought to pass this our amendment for all of our sakes. you may think it is political but it is for all of us. the hospitals will suffer if this doesn't pass. >> thank you, mr. crowley. we will put on a dispute on the basis of this amendment, uncompensated care continues to be a major problem under obamacare. one, because so many americans can't afford and don't want the expensive coverage that is available to them. others have coverage and can't afford deductibles and co-pays. i do this this is a continued major problem under obamacare that needs to be addressed. the amendment itself is not germane to the substitute because it violate house rules outside of the narrow amendment the nature of the substitute uncompensated care at hospitals. point of order is sustained. amendment is not in order. >> mr. chairman? >> mr. neal? >> i would like to challenge the
ruling of the chair. >> mr. tiberi. >> i would like to do so on the smothers family in johnstown, ohio. they saw their own personal death spiral when their co-op failed and left them were $16,500 of uncompensated care and the doctor they couldn't go to and premiums that skyrocketed. on behalf of them i make a motion to table the appeal. >> question on the motion to table the appeal, all those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> those opposed, say no. >> noe. >> ayes have it. motion on the table is agreed to. >> request et roll call vote is requested. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. johnson, mr. johnson, aye. mr. nunez, mr. nune sb aye. mr. tiberi. mr. tiberi, aye. mr. reichert, mr. reich ert,
aye. mr. roskam, mr. ross cam aye. mr. buchanan. mr. buchanan, aye. mr. smith of ms. jenkins? mrs. paulsen? mr. paulsen, aye. mr. black? mr. blak, aye. mr. reed? mr. reid, aye. mr. kelly in mr. kelly, aye. mr. renacci. aye. ms. noem? mr. holding. mr. holding aye. mr. smith of missouri? mr. rice, mr. rice, aye. mr. swiek ert? ms. walorsi? mr. walorski, aye. mr. bishop? mr. bishop.
mr. neal? mr. neal, no. mr. levin? mr. levin, no. mr. lewis? mr. lewis, no. mr. doing et? mr. doing et, no. mr. thompson? mr. thompson, no. mr. larson? mr. larson, no. mr. blummen our? mr. blummen our, no. mr. kind? mr. kind, no. mr. pass ka rel? mr. pass ka rel, no. mr. crowley? mr. could youly, no. mr. dave snis mr. davis, no. ms. san clez? ms. sanchez, no. mr. higgins? mr. higgins, no. ms. sewell in ms. sewell, no. ms. delbene? mr. delbene, no. mr. chu? ms. chu, no. ms. jenkins? ms. noem. ms. noem, aye. mr. swiek ert? mr. swiek ert, aye. mr. bishop? mr. bishop, aye.
vote. the house today among other things, one of the items on the house floor is a defense spending bill for the rest of the current fiscal year. can you watch the house debate and votes on our companion network, c-span. here on c-span 3, we've been watching the house ways and means committee working on republican legislation to replace the health care loss by president obama in 2010. this republican pressure would keep two popular provisions of the 2010 law allowing children to stay on their parent' health insurance until age 26 and requiring that health insurance companies cover people with preexisting conditions. among major changes eliminating subsidies for health insurance premiums, replacing them with tax credits, and getting rid of the individual mandate that every american have health insurance. gop plan would also roll back the medicaid expansion that has provided health insure towns millions of americans. the ways and means committee
chaired by kevin brady of texas said they would like to wrap up work on the legislation today. of course that could mean a very late night possibly.and committee could have a second day if necessary. we will show you reair of earlier parts of today's meeting by the house ways and means committee. starting with opening statements from this morning. good morning. thank you all for being here. today our committee is considering legislation it repeal and replace affordable care act through budget reconciliation process. while the affordable care act or obamacare has helped some, it has inflicted tremendous harm on more families, more workers and more job creators nationwide. as president trump said in his address to congress last week,
obamacare is collapsing. and decisive action must be taken to protect all-americans. this morning we will answer president trump's call to action and send a clear message to all who are hurting because of this law. that message is, relief is on the way. working in conjunction with our colleagues on the energy and commerce committee, we will not only take action to repeal obamacare, we will also lay a strong and stable foundation, the patient-centered health care systems that americans truly deserve. the legislation before us today represents one-half of the american health care act. which is the full reconciliation bill that will deliver with our colleagues at energy and commerce. this bill as health and human services secretary tom price wrote us to yesterday, alignes with the president's goal of rescuing americans from the failures of the affordable care act. secretary price praised the bill's proposals as the
necessary and important first step for fulfilling our promises to the american people. and we're fulfilling these promises in a very transparent and thoughtful manner. unlike obamacare, where members of this committee were presented 794-page bill at midnight for voting mere hours later. this 57-page bill before us today was posted two kay days ago for all of america to read. it follows nearly 200 hearings held in the house since obamacare's enactment, over 35 in our committee alone. as well as numerous ways and means bills considered and approved by the u.s. house. not to meng the health form p proposal we released in june over eight months ago. there are two primary
objectives. first repeals and dismantles many of obamacare's most crushing burdens for patients, job creators and health care providers. legislation will provide relief from obamacare taxes and eliminate tax penalties associated with the individual and employer mandates. with without these penalties, washington will no longer be able to strong arm workers families and job creators into obamacare plans they do not want and cannot afford. the second objective is to empower individuals and families by providing them, not washington, with control over their health care dollars and decisions. proposals will help in a number of key ways. one is by enhancing and expanding health saving accounts or hsas nearly doubling amount that americans can contribute to hsa. it also broadens them so they
can be used to cover more expenses including over-the-counter medications. ultimately this will allow americans to save more health care dollars for the future and spend them based on what they want and need instead of what washington prescribes. but the legislation does not stop there. it will preserve and protect health insurance for the more than 150 million americans who receive coverage through their employer. and the bill also create a monthly tax credit immediately useable to help low and middle income americans purchase coverage if they do not get it through work or federal program. these credits which are based on age and family size, will give millions of people greater flexibility and freedom to buy insurance that is tailored to their needs not washington's. with americans in charge of how they use these credits, there will be enhanced competition,
lower costs, and better options for patients, workers and job creators to choose from. finally i want it make clear the full reconciliation bill will observe a number of vital patient protections. young americans will be able to remain on their pa pairents hea plans until they are 26. these two protections are under energy and commerce jurisdiction so they won't be considered in our committee markup this morning. i want to reassure all-americans that house republicans are committed to keeping vital provisions in place. i also want it reinforce to all-americans we are committed to making the mer can health care act fiscally responsible. we are currently waiting for cost estimate from the congressional budget office as efrp on this committee understands, this is nothing out of the ordinary for a markup and
we will wait for a deliberate comprehensive score from cvo as process moves forward. the most important thing for all-americans to know is that we will ensure our fiscally responsible legislation meets all of the reconciliation instructions before it reaches the house floor. we are dedicated to getting these crucial details right for the american people so we can provide them with the relief they need without any more delays. in closing, i want to thank all of the members who help craft solutions in legislation before us today. this bill represent years of hard work. and a number of bipartisan ways and means bills. thank you all for your