it requires her to identify specific national goals and objectives and set priorities for future initiatives. and the secretary must also develop a plan for addressing these priorities, take into account on answered research questions and unmet prevention and wellness needs and this report is to be submitted to congress no later than one year after enactment of this provision. what difference is your amendment which would require a study which we also have a but then authorizes the secretary to terminate programs as she deems appropriate without further action by the congress. and i feel that the congress ought to be able to use its own judgment before programs that we've authorized are terminated by anybody in the executive branch. i am ready to terminate any program that is unnecessary and redundant and not

cost-effective, but i want the congress to do it. i don't think it's a proper to delegate that authority to the secretary and for that reason i would oppose the amendment. mr. barton. >> mr. chairman, i rise in support of the soul of an amendment. we thought this was the single most innocuous good government amendment that we could offer in good faith to show we were going to try to work to improve the bill without destroying any of the underlying principles that the majority is embedded in a. this amendment is fairly simple. it says that the secretary of health and human services who by the way is appointed by president obama within a year has to look at all the new programs coming in this division day of the bill, so we are trying to stay within the scope of the procedure of the chairman has organized.

and send a report to the congress and then if in that study the secretary determines some of the programs are duplicative and we even change to this zero bits, we said to the maximum extent a proper determination of the federal programs within this division so we even give all little leeway there. if you look good your underlying bell and you create a brand new commissioner, who can terminate people's individual health insurance without any congressional act, i would thank you could except that and hhs secretary under this division of your new program, your new bill, good to some extent terminates duplicative and grant programs. duplicative. especially through my blue dog friends who tried to do a little cost containment in the bill, this does not guarantee

cost-containment but in at least direct the secretary and gives the secretary authority if you have duplicative programs under this division to try to save some money. i think it is an innocuous amendment and it to be unanimously supported. >> will the gentleman yield? i just point out that both sides have misjudged the acceptability of the respective amendments. a first volume in a statement i don't think is accurate -- we don't give authority to the secretary to tim in anyone's insurance whatsoever. >> well it you create a new health commissioner that has that authority. >> this amendment -- i'm not sure that that is accurate. i doubt but we can look good that. >> wiccan checketts. >> i don't think we ought to give the secretary this kind of power, any kind of secretary and you pointed out the secretary at the present time has been appointed by president obama. if you're willing to say that it would not, the secretary would

not have the ability to terminate the programs but ask congress to terminate i have no problem with that. i don't think the amendment is even necessary because we have that in our underlying bill, but what bothers me is why i can support this amendment is authorizing the secretary even using her best judgment to replays of the judgment of members of congress to authorize the program to terminate these various efforts. the recommendation would carry a great deal of weight, but of all the congress ought to give that kind of authorization to the executive branch. >> reclaiming my time, i appreciate that but we have fundamental difference of opinion about separation of powers of the constitution. the congress legislates the executive branch and administers and what you're saying is you don't trust president obama's own appointees to the minister the programs that to put into

place. you want to micromanage. i mean, secretaries have the authority right now to terminate programs and presidents have the authority would one congress appropriates not to spend those funds if they don't agree with the intent of the congress. and so we are just trying to prevent duplicative programs. this is a massive change of the health care system as we know it and we thought this amendment was fairly straightforward. it inadvertently, let's give the benefit of the doubt that you are not intending to agree duplicative programs, just in and ridley you give some explicit authority to the secretary to pick and choose and try to eliminate duplication. i don't think that as partisan. i think that is good management and good sense but obviously we have a difference of opinion so i would support the sullivan

amendment and i yield back. >> for the discussion on the sullivan a man and? >> mr. chairman, i will be brave, but i simply want to raise the issue that i think mr.. -- which is what authority there is to do away with plans and whether the commissioner has the authority to do so. i believe on page 16 grace. employment based health plans, the bill by language says that a plan can it exist for employer provided health care may continue to exist for five years without meeting their requirements. the minimum requirements prescribed by the health care benefits advisory committee for that five years and at the end of that if it does not meet those requirements it goes away so as i understand the commissioner does have the authority to wipe out all

existing plans at that point in time and i believe that's what mr. burton was referring to. it's not something we need to go into now, we can go into at a later point and i'd be happy to ask for clarification and a later point. with that i would be happy to yield to mr. rogers of michigan. >> thank you. you point to the huge problem of dropping a 1200 page bill or a thing nobody has read the bill clearly and maybe mr. chairman you haven't gone to page 44 under section b of that page, suspension of enrollment of individuals on such plan after the data commissioner nullifies the entity of determination. not only can you do a whole plan which is in a later section in the bill, under this bridge that can go to an individual and throw you off a plan. so it is clearly under the bill of which you have written that they can throw people off the plan and given not only the secretary but this new health choices commissioner and that is what i think is so dangerous and if you're concerned they can do

that mr. chairman and a sound like you were, maybe we ought to postpone this hearing and allow us to go to the bill and find those instances where you would empower the federal government to throw individuals of their bill and by the way there is nothing in here that says you have to notify them. it's pretty dangerous stuff and i agree with chairman waxman that this is a concern and we ought to work together. >> will the gentleman yield? >> it is my time and i'd be happy to yield. >> i just want to follow up and enter with my colleague from come michigan are you saying that this an elected commissioner can do something to the people of their insurance plans without notification perhaps? is that which you were saying? >> under the bill that is written and has been presented to us yesterday, that is exactly what they can do. a suspension of enrollment of individuals under any plan after the commissioner notifies the entity that can do it to. >> so they can do that in the amendment before us simply says

if there duplicative grant programs that the secretary should try and eliminate the duplication, right? to read that is, correct. >> but we're hearing that should not be allowed, that is two much of a delegation of authority by get in the bill to kick people off a plan without -- can that not only to come off but under the second paragraph it can also suspend payment to the entity under health insurance without notification. >> will the gentleman yield to me? >> and be happy to yield to the chairman. >> i think what is being raised is a red herring and the me tell you why. we allow the commission to look at the insurance plans to be sure that they meet the requirements under the law that this bill would promote. for example of an insurance plan would discriminate against people based on pre-existing condition and they refuse to make a change in that plan, that plan would not be qualified to be operated. that is the power that is given,

not to say the individuals that they can no longer get insurance. no one would be for that. but we're not like about the section of the bill, talking of a difference section can add the chairman has unlimited time and what time i have loved and on the past been criticized for consuming all the time given. let me say i appreciate the explanation but that does not appear to be the words of the bill. the words seem to indicate that plans must go out of existence by a ruling of the commissioner at a certain point in time and that seems to be in the commissioners' discussion and the language raised by mr. rogers is a pretty clear at least from the wording in the bill and all i can do mr. chairman given the circumstances of not having been in the process of drafting the bill is to read from the bill. and i think the gentleman from michigan has adequately pointed out that this allows the suspension of the enrollment of an individual under such plans. that is the wording appears 44 at line 16 and 17.

i'd be happy to yield to mr. rogers. >> thank you mr. chairman and not only is it under the individual but they've also done this with later on in the bill and i don't have the session before me that says the secretary can do it for an entire plan and the entire company with consultation with the health choices commission. but they can actually eliminate full plans under the company as well as as you stated out. >> i appreciate the gentlemans indulgence. mr. pallone, uc recognition. >> would you yield to me? >> the chairman does not have unlimited time. the chairman has to abide by the same rules as everybody else. let me just say that i disagree with the strained reading that is being offered to a section of the bell that is being used for a different interpretation that what i think the clear reading

of it entails. the revenue is described in the paragraph with respect to what qualified health benefits offered by qualified health benefit plan is they can have civil money penalties or they can suspended enrollment of individuals under such a plan after the date the commissioner notifies the entity of a determination under paragraph one that the plan does not qualify. that is a way to enforce the requirement that the plans be qualified, but let me just say even if you read it differently the issue before us and i will review your interpretation because i wouldn't want to give secretary or anyone and given such enormous power, but the amendment that is pending before us by mr. sullivan gives the

secretary the power to terminate authorize programs that may already be appropriations of funds. i think congress would want to have a strong recommendations and terminate those programs, we don't disagree about that, what we disagree about in this instance in the soul of an amendment is whether the secretary should have that power. we may disagree on that but i just want to make clear my reason for authorization. >> with the gentleman yield? the soul of an amendment only gives the secretary the authority to eliminate duplicative programs established by this division. if it is an existing program from a prior congress that is not new created in this long, this amendment does not apply. >> the gentleman from new jersey. i would ask counsel if you would

permit. >> i mean. >> what does the secretary under the sullivan eminent be able to terminate issue found it was duplicative in her opinion? wouldn't that applied to programs with the public health service act that addressed prevention in? >> it requires the secretary to review both the new programs and existing programs and then authorize the secretary to terminate such other federal grant programs which i would understand to mean that the programs but those currently in existence. >> in any case, mr. chairman and fi can reclaim my time, i think between what counsel just read it and other provisions of the bell with the secretary supposed to report back to us about these various programs, i think ample opportunity in the legislation now to have either her or the congress subsequently terminated

duplicative programs so i just don't see the need for the soul of an amendment. i just think it is unnecessary given what the underlying bill says. but i feel to the chairman. >> i have nothing further to add. gentleman yield back his time? >> yes. >> any further discussion? if not will proceed to a vote on the sullivan amendment. all those in favor say aye, opposed know. i'm going to ask for a recorded vote and let's proceed to a recorded vote. >> [roll call]

>> [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] have all members responded to the roll call? and eight members wish to change their vote? if not, the clerk will tally the votes. just a minute two. >> mr. chairman, and i recorded? >> mr. buyer it is recorded as voting ayes. >> mr. stone's anyone else wish to be recognized? if not, the clerk will tally the role.

on that boat, mr. chairman, the ayes or 29, the nos or 27. >> the amendment is adopted. [applause] now we will recognize members for further amendments. >> i have an amendment at the

desk and i like to ask unanimous consent. >> if the gentleman will withhold, we are trying to clear in number of amendments to gather. >> i know, i was going to ask unanimous consent to do and block between altman number one, and green 02. >> mr. chairman, i received -- reserve a point of order. >> let's be sure we have put unanimous consent. [inaudible conversations]

if the gentleman from texas would modify his unanimous consent to do the green and baldwin amendment. >> we have no objection to my republican side has no objection to that. >> green 002, baldwin 01. >> we will accept those. >> without objection, the amendments will be considered it and the bloc. without objection both amendments will be considered as read. and the gentleman from texas recognized for five minutes to explain. >> thank you mr. chairman and i will be brief, i know miss baldwin want to discuss her amendment. i have an amendment i have worked on for behavioral health trading grants, not only myself but mr. murphy of pennsylvania.

>> we will accept both amendments. a voice vote, we will accept them. >> okay, we want to end up on a positive note. >> i accept that and withdraw my -- >> we will accept to show you that we are good guys and let's vote and come back monday and start over. >> i want to make sure the good guys on the record before, -- >> i am trying to be helpful,. >> and mr. green would yield, on the baldwin amendment we're still working on clarification language. i think we all agree in principle and what we're doing with the bald one amendment and want clarification language on possible euthanasia language on this amendment. miss baldwin, if she wants to clarify that i'm going to go give as understanding. >> absolutely. mr. stupak and i have had a significant discussion about an

amendment to the baldwin the amendment. i think we are in agreement and as we move toward we will incorporate that, but i know we're trying to get this through quickly on a voice vote. i would ask unanimous consent to insert on page three line five the language, any grants awarded under this act shall not go to any government or nongovernment organization that promotes suicide assistance or the active hastening of death, in the previous clause shall not prohibit a relative or hospice care. >> without objection that will be the order. >> reserving the right to object. tonight the gentleman recognized on this reservation. >> i'm curious i just barely heard what she wanted unanimous consent for it related to suicide, right? >> it is a right to live -- acceptable to the right-to-life community which you just said. >> i would just like clarification on that. i actually come from us did that

twice has voted to allow suicide so i'm not an advocate of that but i'm trying to figure out the implications of what you're asking for in the legislation on my state of war again. >> will the gentleman yield? >> absolutely. >> i apologize, i was trying to get this through quickly but i'm happy to explain. mr. stupak raised with me and i've worked on this amendment with mr. burgess concerning the public information program and outrage that will go on in the amendment, that the grants to do this not to be made available to those organizations that are sort of promoting it assisted suicide in but rather are conducted by governmental or non-governmental organizations that are there to provide information about all the options available. what happens -- i never actually

explain the original amendment. what happens is in way too many cases in america people experience and of life medical care that is misaligned or absolutely contrary to their wishes and this is an amendment that is helped -- is there to help people understand what their options and express those an advance directives and other vehicles. >> i have no problem with that, i'd just like to know the implications. for example, -- >> does the gentleman of jack? >> as the only way i can get discussion to get answers. we are in a marked up here. >> we are relying on both republican and democratic staff to discuss these things. do you object? >> the gentleman of jacks. >> in this is not something that would be objectionable. >> at like to know that, like to know the implications. we have a thousand page bill

with all these amendments line, we have a rush to vote and i can't even find out if you're cutting off funds to agencies in my state that may have nothing to do with this only by some connection could get honda. that is all i'm asking for. .. dr. burgess, with whom i worked

very hard on this amendment. >> i thank the gentlelady for the recognition. this is -- the concept was to allow for end of life planning before you got to that point of the care of a patient. and really this was only to deal with the ability to establish grants between the recipient of the care, and wouldn't involve the states. >> with the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> isn't it true though the language that mr. stupak and mrs. baldwin agreed with appear to be pro-life language in other words, if you are a pro-life member the unanimous consent request improves the bill in that respect; is that not a true statement? >> of course i am pro-life member and the statement is correct. >> i would ask my friend from oregon to not object to this. this actually improves the bill

-- >> if you will allow -- if you have the time, doesn't this promote with the people of oregon voted for? to provide information about in of life alternatives? it doesn't conflict, as i understand it -- with your policy. >> it is just to find out what in the devil it does or doesn't do. and what i'm told is basically the quiet, don't ask questions, we've got to go. it's been agreed by others who've negotiated. that's great. i would just like to know from my state's perspective who wins and who loses and then i can make an informed decision. >> as the gentlelady offering the amendment have an answer? >> i take you all that your wertheim just trying to get the answers. >> it is to have better communication on end of life

issues. we are all going to die but we hate talking about it and in fact the medical profession has not been great about communicating options especially when these issues are not imminent. we want to, through a clearinghouse of information, let people start thinking about type of medical interventions one would want and express those where possible in things like advanced directives and other legal tools available and that's what this amendment achieves. >> the gentleman joins the objection to the unanimous request? >> i will withdraw my objection. >> we have less than three minutes on the floor, so let us take the vote if the gentleman would permit -- >> mr. chairman, give me 30 seconds. i wholeheartedly support the gentleman's amendment. i have a bill pending that addresses the same issue and

when we talk about ending the growth curve in regard to end of life care, which a lot of people don't want, but you have to give it because you don't know i think is a very important amendment and i supported and yelled back. >> the unanimous consent request to make the change is now agreed to. the vote now occurs on the two amendments in block. all of those in favor of the green and gold when the amendments say aye. opposed, say no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. we will recess and i don't think we will be able to return given there are 18 votes on the house floor and given the time we agreed to end today so we will recess until monday at 4 p.m.. [inaudible conversations]

the house energy and commerce committee wrapping up their work for the day on health care legislation. votes on the house floor. want to remind you that the house ways and means committee has finished their work passing the legislation through the committee 26 to 22 earlier today. we are going to give you a chance to see all of that 12 hours plus beginning 7:32 night right here on c-span2. going to take you over live to the capitol back to speaker pelosi along with the chairman of the ways and means committee on the education committee charlie rangel and george miller. >> -- mr. miller until 6 a.m. this morning and back at nine to finish off the votes. so they worked very hard and very wisely on behalf of the american people and we are here to celebrate the success they have had. as we, again, make progress and move forward.

the goals we have are the universal reality, affordability and accessibility and we want to do this in a way as we continue to lower costs and strengthen the package. as america's affordable health choices that most of the legislative process would continue to build more momentum as we go along. expressing support for america's affordable health choices at a leading voice for america's physicians and american medical association wrote to that the legislation includes a broad range of provisions that are key to effective comprehensive health care system. if you don't have that letter, you should see it because it is an eloquent testimony to the merit of our house bill. and over the coming days, congress will continue working with president obama to continue stable prices, secure coverage and quality care for all americans. we are very pleased we have the support not only of the doctors

mac, those esol with president obama the other day, the nurses and we certainly have the support of the american people. with that i am pleased to yield to the distinguished chairman of the ways and means committee with admiration and respect for the excellent work the committee is doing and gratitude to him personally for his leadership. mr. rangel. >> thank you, madam speaker, george, rob, i feel privileged to be a part of a great orchestra called the house of representatives with a great orchestra leader who has brought us together, sometimes in the afternoon, sometimes in the evening, and now in the beginning of the morning. but we were able to come together to get this great ship that the president wanted to get out which is national health insurance would feel so proud of that we would now be able to join the family of nations where we can show that we care about the health of people. we care about the quality of

people that we will be able to say that whether you are on all your old, black or white in this nation you're secured with health insurance. it's not just keeping down the ever-increasing price of health insurance, but it's also making certain america can continue to be competitive and so on this ship what we've been working on to work with our friends over on the other side of the capitol is to make certain we have a health system we complied up and have primary care, that we could have hospitals that provide quality care, that we could have nurses, we can have people going into the business not just to make a dollar would make life better for so many people. it is so important we've done this on our side because no matter what the president's hopes and dreams are unless we get our ship out their house we all have working together the and of course we can't protect it. the things we have to do even

when they are signed into law the battle begins but thank you, madam speaker, for having the confidence in us and allowing us to work to reach a goal and we look forward to getting this bill passed and going to conference with the other body. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, for your excellent leadership and great success. i'm pleased to yield to another distinguished gentleman, chairman of the committee and in commending him i want to acknowledge -- pete stark has joined us, the chair of the health subcommittee of the ways and means committee. thank you very much mr. stark. our distinguished leader is here and our -- so much has happened looking for work. [laughter] >> [inaudible] some members will come and go as i want to be sure to acknowledge the great leadership of and acknowledge rob andrews, the chair of the subcommittee on education and labor that is

dealing with this health insurance issue is with us as well and i commend him for his leadership and i'm pleased to yield with appreciation and admiration to the chairman of the educational labor committee, george miller. >> thank you very much madam speaker for all of your leadership and all of your dr. on this issue that is so important to our families and nation and economy. i want to congratulate chairman rangel and pete stark for the success they had in the ways and means committee last night. it took us a little bit longer. i want to thank rob andrews for all of his help. we had a long but exciting meeting for the members of the committee. finally after so many years of talking about and working for universal health care of the members of our committee had an opportunity to vote for universal health care that will lower and reduce the cost in the future of health care to families and businesses, the dramatic increases in the cost we heard over and over again

from the members last night christian families and crushing businesses and undermining the economy. and last night they got to vote for health care that would reduce those costs. they got to vote for health care that would be available for families forever. that no matter what happens to them, whether they lose their jobs or start a new business or they get fired or have a divorce or they have a terrible illness and their family they will lose their health care. never again will they be without health care. that is what the vote was about and our members understood and they were excited on voting for. never again will people have caps on how much their insurance company is going to pay for them said they are just one illness away from bankruptcy. this happens to thousands and thousands of families in this country. our members spoke out about the fear families live in that they may lose their health care. about the fear whether or not their children will be covered. but with those votes last night and the passage of the bill out

of ways and means and out of our committee we set a course for this nation that will protect those families and make it affordable for small businesses that will assure that our economy will not continue to indicate more and more resources to health care that is not giving us the kind of coverage, the kind of support families need. that was the excitement of the vote. that's when we got together at 6 o'clock this morning after the vote and we got together as a caucus and we cheered the fact we were able to participate in this very historic evening and the house of representatives that takes us on a major step forward to the passage of this legislation and signing by president barack obama. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, chairman miller, chairman rangel, chairman waxman i know is on duty. we are having votes now so we may have to go in and out.

chairman stark, thank you for your leadership. chairman andros, thank you for yours. as we've seen today there continues to be great momentum to pass health care reform. even at 6 a.m. in the morning. it is also gaining momentum outside the congress as we see from the endorsement of such important groups as the american medical association, which represents hundreds of thousands of physicians who know firsthand that health care reform is not an option. failure is not an option. the american public are urging us to pass this bill and we are going to respond. they elected barack obama to pass this bill. they elected this congress to pass this bill. still, there's no doubt the bill is going to have changes as it moves through the process. i would be shocked as a

legislator if that wasn't the case. it's a work in progress but we've made significant progress has not 6 a.m. this morning at mr. chairman, of course you of things a lot faster. congratulations on that. [laughter] but we will not waver in our commitment to bringing down health care costs because its those high costs that make premiums such a burden on the middle class. i point out there are 47 million people who get health care and they get sick but they are not paying. and middle class american families are paying their bill. the need to be in the system. they need to participate and we are moving towards that end. we want to make all americans have access to affordable, quality health care so we will need to build on the cost containment measures we already have in this bill and the substantial reforms that have been put in by these committees and by the energy and commerce committee. the american people are demanding health care reform

because they know that we cannot go on much longer with such a truly broken system. two we have good health care in america? we do. but it's not accessible to many and it costs twice as much as most countries of the world. bankruptcy as george miller pointed out middle class families, handcuffs our small businesses, drives down steeper into debt and every year which denies americans the security, stability, and peace of mind they deserve. no american family ought to go to sleep at night and worry about their child getting sick and not having access to health care. for all those reasons we are going to pass health reform. as the president recently said we have been talking and talking and talking about fixing health care for decades. six decades the other day some of you were here i said six

decades of john dingell, the principal sponsor of this legislation. he's a leader in this effort and these are leaders in this effort. no one has led more forcefully than our speaker. these next pivotal months will finally be our chance to deliver, and we will. >> thank you very much. [applause] and we will. i like that, and we will. that was wonderful. we all associate ourselves with the leader's remarks and we will. we also mentioned mr. dingell also in committee as you know, the energy and commerce committee will be marking up for a few more days. but i think it's important to know as some of you know mr. dingell said yesterday that the endorsement of the american medical association is not only great for this legislation, its historic.

since the 30's when the country began the debate on health care the ana -- ama has endorsed -- you want to go vote? the members between the four. to the point mr. dingell said the ama has never endorsed a health care, health insurance reform bill and they have endorsed the house legislation. and as we go forward, and as i mentioned before the endorsement of the nurses, so many organizations and that list continues. we are very proud of the reforms in the package and, excuse me, very proud of the cost savings. of course we want more and we would be pleased to take questions. somebody new. you have the first question every time. [laughter] >> [inaudible]

>> let me try to handle part of that. the ways and means committee had one of the most civil discussions. the amendments the republicans raised more substantive and not political. it's unfortunate that they could not come together with one bill that we could negotiate. but this is just the beginning. we don't know what else is going on. and if you listen, too, to the three democrats that voted with us he would get the impression they were waiting for the opportunity to be able to do that. so i felt very comfortable as republicans and democrats and recognized the need to get together on health reform and we are all there yet. >> [inaudible] >> well i think steny hoyer said yes we will. >> yes we will. george, you want to speak to

that? >> i concur with what chairman rangel said. that for about our very long 20 hour markup, we accepted a number of amendments from the republicans. we worked out arrangements to work on amendments we did not accept but we thought had merit and they thought had merit. the staffs are getting together to do that, so i am not sure they ever ended up voting for the kind of health care president obama has presented to the nation, the kind of securities presented, the kind of cost cutting he's presented, the kinds of getting rid of all of the exclusions and co-payments and the rest. but the point is this: our members are in full force to come to the floor and to support this legislation and they will report for duty the time that vote is taken. >> [inaudible] >> we are -- mr. waxman will report his bill the middle of next week and then we will be

preparing for our role to take the bill to the floor. when the american people see what this means for them and each individual congressional district, over 100,000 people and many rural areas, 100,000 people will health health insurance to didn't have it before. over $100 million meeting the needs of public health hospitals will be there. and just a very few people called upon to help with the revenue stream. it's pretty exciting. it's transformational. it will make a difference and again we have members from across the political and geographic spectrum. their concerns are regional and we believe that they will be addressed as we go forward. we are very proud of that. >> [inaudible] >> do we have that letter?

>> [inaudible] is, i'm sorry. >> [inaudible] >> no, not that's not the letter. let me -- the letter i thought you were referring to is a letter peter orszag sent to the three chairmen when he said i wish to express' the administration's strong support for the health care savings proposal and the kennedy health reform discussion to draft dated june 19. virtually all of these policies are consistent with those put forward by the administration and are essentials to our shared goal of reforming health care in a fiscally responsible manner. adopting deficit natural health reform that expands coverage is

not enough because it would perpetuate a system which best practices are than universal and costs are too high. i commend you for proposing delivery system reforms that will be given the process of transforming our health system so that quality is improved, cost growth this contant, and waste is reduced. it goes on to say some other things and then he says what we agreed as you introduce and mark up the legislation, as the gentleman have done i urge you to maintain and strengthen these policies. and that is a very positive letter. if you are talking about med -- medpac -- >> [inaudible] >> is contador talking about medpac i think. is that it? that is something we've been discussing with the administration and i wish mr. hoyer were back to address

this because he had some concerns about it but i think that we tasked or even before seeing this letter tasked the staff to figure out how we could come together so that we could get the savings that medpac would put forth with the responsibility of congress would be reflected in the criteria we put forth and that the administration can have what they want. i am not here to add mounts that is final. i'm just here to say under certain circumstances that is something we would be receptive to. yes? >> [inaudible] >> well, see, when we are ready with our legislation our plan is to move forward to have a bill on the floor. >> [inaudible] >> well, we have to see what the senate is going to do. again, the idea we may change medpac and the rest is something we have to take up and hasn't been taken up in the committees. perhaps it will be taken up an

energy and commerce, but we are on our schedule to bring up the legislation before the break. and we continue to be on that