everybody is a litttoght, it so you like to get into the second half, it's going to help people get back into the rhythm of things, but you never like to 1 runs. >> takes a seri, you thk, fothpirs get in it? of course the starters are now ofoff their resting. asarasdays 2-2 count. markakis shoots   %% n the rest field. that's going tofall in for a base hit. brian roberts way ird. heill stop there. markakis will deliver a double. and the orioles here in the 8th t. markakis' second hit of the gamewe've en the orioles come ckrom a 10-1 deficit against the red sox in

baltimore, about three weeks ago, so cal ripken s used to say you get 27 outs. don't be putting the bats away if you have a big league. you never know. it's notov%till it ends, or it's over. >> gary: or the fat lady shows up. >> jim: yeah. >> gary: coming into the ball game, brian roberts, second behind dustin pedroia in doubles, and nick markakis came in 27th. he's now tied for third in doubles. matt thornton with two in scoring position, and jones will take it inside for a paul. adam got his home run in the 6th inning. he has struck out, flied out twice, and adam here if this ballpark gets his first home run. >> jim: y, a bb to right field. >> gary: and a nasty pitch

down and in to him. juice he going toy say why did i swing at that? well, i'll tell you why, he's 6'6" and threes in the mid-90s. not like you have a lot of time to make up your mind, but he did chase balls, too. you would think that after a.j. pierzynski called that home run, that fastball away, he would say maybe we ought to try and come in. which is where they try to go. >> gary: ramirez in the hole. scooped? no. one run is scored. it goes into the stands. jones will go down to second base, over to third goes markakis, and i think he scores here. yeah, nick markakis is going to come in. that's a two-base error for the runners who are on. so the 0 orioles are going to get two runs out of that. going down to second will be joins. look at the athleticism on this play. i would imagine this will be a pace hit, and then the error.

look at the range. again, the one-hop throw. konerko can't come up with it, and you can see adam jones making the turn. >> jim: so we will assume making the official to scorers card, the second run scores on the error. error charged to ramirez. we talked about this earlier, this defense has crumbled in this first half of the season for the white sox, and they continue here in this ball game, committing their second error. both teams have two. and the orioles have the door open again, it's 12-7, credit the rbe to jones. he goes down to second on the error. that one by aubrey huff will be popped away, and the way the ball is flying out of here tonight, another long ball for either of these ball clubs certainly not out of reach. aubrey huff against the lefties, has picked the pace up

considerably, hitting .237 against him now. that will come inside for a ball. jones on at second base. 3 rbi ball game. he's now up to 50 on the season for adam. and they're there is still nobody out here in the 8th inning. and aubrey huff lifts that one to center field. that ball is way back. warning track, wall, and it hits half way up the wall! jones will score, huff will go interest second base! he's got a double, and the orioles are back to a 12-8 ball game, and still nobody out! >> jim: and action in the white sox bullpen. well, we talked about dewayne wise, again playing very shallow. so again, it is easier to come in than to go back, and again, they just can't get there. this is a double, another extra base hit for the orioles.

>> gary: and we're in the 8th inning, and you have a six-run lead or more, you have to play back. >> jim: well, i think not only do you to it in games lining that, burt you also do it according to the count. tony pena getting loose. need to play a little bit deeper, because the bail over your head really hurts you at this juncture of the game. >> gary: you want to be able to cut the gap shots off. >> jim: yeah, singles you can turn double-plays. hard to to on a double. >> gary: the orioles now outhitting the white sox 14-10. the fans with a dericive cheer

for thornton. huff on at second base. aubrey picking up his 57th rbi. that one will be caught by ramirez on the line drive by luke scott, who is 0 for 4 in the game, and there's one out. 0 for 5 now for scott.

>> gary: that ground ball to ram irids. runners staying. huff over to first. mora is i retired. the own pitcher in the ball fame who hasn't given up a run to this is dotel. mickolio still officially is in the game.

here is the 1-0 delivery. reimold went around on it. 1-1. misses the outside corner. 2-1 therefore on the way. that's an a proceedingen bat squibler. hustles over and just gets him. the or yeahst coming back, tow, with three runs, three hits, a walk, and an error contributing. it is now a 12-8 lead for the white sox. fatigue increase by 200%.

but with attention assist, your new e-class can actually detect drowsy driving behavior... and warn you. this is the new e-class. this is mercedes-benz.

this is the new e-class. this is mercedes-benz.

 >> thome has flied out, str out, and delivered the two home runs, 7 rbis, a three-run shot and a grand slam for jim thome.

>> the 1-2 delivery. the pitch, did he go? no. welky down to third. jo the brother of the home plate umpire, ask this is what he's looking at. he owns tonight. >> gary: 2-2 delivery to him. fouled back. >> jim: the pitching rubber that you push off of is 24 inches, bust he's going to step across his body about 24 inches. that means he's going to come

toward this right-handed batter, and and you've seen this far too often tonight, the base on balls. >> gary: wow. leading off another inning. and the first five walks scored tonight. >> gary: and two hit batters. that's amazing. every sickle one of those creation of runners by the defensive team has crossed the plate against the orioles. konerko delivered a home run his first time up.   s that one. that's going to be a base hit. right off the fist. jones in to pick it up.

topping at second is thome, and konerko is on at first, and boy have the outs been hard to come by in this ball game for whoever ends up up on the mounds. >> jim: the hitters have done a special job tonight. they have gotten a lot of good pitches to hit, and they haven't missed many of them.

>> gary: mickolio with outstanding numbersaaa.

he certainly is hides the ball. >> jim: yeah. that one a chopper off the plate. the underhands to u.s. to get the out. it will move the runners up. two in scoring position with one away. look at the scoring opportunities in this game. 4 for 15 for the or yeahst, be

and 5 for 11 for the white sox. getz waiting on it, take egg it for a strike. he's hitting .260 with runners in scoring position. almostny same as his overall average. against the orioles, he's now picked up 7 hits this year. fouls that one back. right here, you just want to try and is strike him out. let's see if they run that

fastball right at him. no, breaking ball. one thing about getz, he doesn't walk a lot. >> gary: getz will chop that one to short, runner not coming. over to guest the out. to getz retired, the infield drawn in works. izturis make as sure jim thome is not going to go. he didn't. not going to go on contact, and risk an injury to thome, who does not have the speed, and any kind of play at the plate. neither the orioles more white sox would look forward to thome and wieters colliding at the plate. >> jim: no. >> gary: no. somebody, maybe both, would lose that battle. gordon beckham good night tonight. couple of runs scored, singled, doubled, hit by a pitch, and has an rbi, so in all of the offensive dad gores, he has

laid a number down. hitting at .281. two outs. do have runners in scoring position, though. >> jim: he started tonight when brian roberts hit a sharp grounder just inside the third base bag, and he snared it and threw out brian. of course that's a new position for him. >> gary: fouled back. he was called up on june 4, made his debut that night. he had a tremendous season going at the minor leagues. they moved him up from double a, aaa. he was hitting .326 combined. four homers, and 45 games. 8th overall, first round pick of the white sox in '08. mickolio's pitch misses up high. a 3-1 count on beckham. dewayne wise waiting as mickolio can't find the out right here on beckham.

and he will get a shot. base runners galore in this game. that is the second walk surrendered by mickolio, and it will load the bases here in the 8th inning. jo 7th by oriole pitchers tonight, and the three home runs and the extra base hits. and that's how you give up, at least to this point, 12 runs. >> gary: mickolio has the bases loaded. there are two down. wise has had an 0 for 4. he is the only starter who has not contributed if this ball game some way offensive, either with a run or an rbi or a base hit.

down to third and foul, thome shows, despite the lack of straight agility, he can still skip rope. just got up and over that one. >> jim: >> what do you mean i don't have vertical leap? come on! >> gary: come on. and up! look at that. >> jim: well, i mean, if you hit a grand slam and a three- run home run -- >> gary: i would be jumping, too. >> jim: yes, you would. jumping for joy. >> gary: two strikeouts, two down. wise, going to try and get -- thome stairs in at him. >> jim: and is ozzie is yelling don't hurt the big guy! come on! >> gary: could become an olympic event. that was a little fancy carrier. that was one leg up, one leg down, had a little twist to it. ozzie not amused. struck him out. bases are left loaded. we go to the 9th inning in my

opinion white sox have a 12-8 lead. 

 . >> gary: the pitch is take need. danks still the pitcher of record. will be 8-6 with a win. jason berken still the pitcher of record would be 1-7 with a loss. count stays at 1-2 to pena. 7 rbis for thome in the ball game, including two home runs and a grand slam. konerko has had a home run. ramirez two rbi sac fly in the game. a lot of contributions. there's jim thome. 1-2 count, wieters. swung on and missed. pena get this strikeout.

one away in the 9th.

1-1 count. that's in there on the corner for a strike. izturis 1-2. there's another ball ripped foul. >> gary: talk about the home runs here hit at this ballpark. this ballpark early on, we mentioned at the game, not known for early season offense,

but the home runs have picked up dramatically. in april, it was 1.5 per game, by june, 2.89. in july, coming in, home runs here were 3.3. well, there have been five home runs hit in this bull game tonight, so that will go up to about 3.5 home runs a game here at u.s. cellular field in the month of july. >> jim: and the temperature not contuse in. not the warm weather, because it's 57. 57 degrees. >> gary: nearly 10:28. has to be 20 degrees below normal. and the humidity, there is none. 1-2 delivery. that one bounced foul. >> jim: of course it does beat the last time we were here. >> gary: well, it was frozen tundra. >> jim: sleet coming across for a 12-inning game. you had to have the window open, of course, because you're from maine. >> gary: and the problem with that was?

>> jim: nothing. >> gary: well, you could have said you were freezing, because it was the truth. it was cold! man! they after delay. >> jim: that was that suspended game. >> gary: that one to first base. ooh, look what i get, konerko. two down. >> jim: he's made a couple of nice plays staying down. and that's the hardest thing. ever since brooks robinson with the 16 gold loves over at third told me one thing you have to learn, you have to stay behind the hop. >> gary: so the fans up here in chicago. cubs won their game against washington 3-1, so the trying to do their part. two down. brian roberts, outside for a ball. brian a couple of singles, and a walk. he has scored three runs in the ball game tonight for the orioles. he's certainly done his job, part of that table setting. first in the league in runs

now. >> gary: yeah, you certainly take the 8 runs. it's the other side of the score bored you don't like. take your shot with 8. >> gary: six to berken. two against baez, two against hill. mickolio the only one to get out of the ball game without being charged with a run. here is the 1 -- 2-0 pitch, rather, and that is taken, and the counsel goes to 3-0 -- the count goes to 3-0 for pena. red sox pete toronto 4-1 in their ball game. >> jim: that was clay buck hotels who pitched that no hitter a couple of years ago, was called up to start that game. >> gary: and he's going right back down tomorrow, i guess. >> jim: they said that was an opportunity. heed been pitching so well. 7-2 at aaa. >> gary: that one to left field, podsednik, and this one

is in the books, as the white sox use the long ball, and come away with a victory at home on a record night for jim thome in rbis with 7. 12-8 the final. a splash of 100% natural lime flavor. one taste and you'll find, the summer state of mind. bud light lime. ♪

welcome back in. it's rick dempsey and jim hunter, or's xtra. i think the disappointing part about this game tonight is the pitching, the last five games going into the break was extremely successful, and very, very solid, and tonight all the

walks, the two hit batters, when you're giving a good team, and chicago is a con ender, that many base runners, you're going to a tough time winning. >> nothing good ever happens after a walk. have you ever heard that? i think it was 8 of the 12 runs scored via the walk or hit batter. >> yeah, difficult when you allow that many extra base hitters, especially when you have a guy in that line-up that can hist you like jim thome did tonight. it's the top of the 4th, and izturis comes up, and he doubles down the line. orioles were trailing 3-2, but this would tie the game. >> tied the ball game at 3. >> here is thome, his first home run. this one a blast to right. >> jim thome, who has 28 home run on this season now to

against the orioles with a bullet line drive to right field. >> then one hit out. a two-region shot the opposite way. his first home run in over a month. >> jim: at this point, the orioles have pulled in one run. but then tomorrow yes gets aload of another one to dead center field. this is the monster shot, and the 28th home run, a grand slam right here that gives the white sox four runs in the inning, and puts them up 10-5 at that time. >> so thome a 7 rbi two home run night, and then the grand slam. a career high 7 rbis for him. banks gets the win. he's now 8-6. berken loses again. that is now 7 consecutive loses decisions. remember, he won in his major league debut, has not won since. two out of five, a home run for markakis. he had a couple of rbis, adam jones had couple of base hits,

including a home run, his 13th on the year. thome the big night, and podsednik, seeped like every time you looked up he was on base. >> jim: ette like jason took a little step backwards tonight, and i didn't like to see that. at least i saw him missing low in the strike zone in his other losses. tonight it was a little bit different. good movement on the fastball right here, and gets a ground ball that he wants early on in the ball game. melvin mora to roberts, pretty good double-play right there. the orioles are looking tough, but later on in the ball game, you see him leave this ball up in the zone, and right there konerko deposits into the seats, and this is what gets the white sox started. >> one of the things we're seeing with jason berken, it's obviously about pitch location, because that's how you have success or tonight have success, but sometimes i wonder if the pitch selection is the right pitch when he uses the

pitch. there were a couple of change- ups tonight that he hung in counts where you wouldn't think that would be the pitch you would throw. >> and he shouldn't be missing. he has four days off, should have been on top of the ball, but you saw thome get pitches down the middle of the plate, and you just can't leave a guy like that, who you know is an oriole killer, 28 home runs, he is a guy you have to pitch around with men in scoring position, except, we the bases are loaded. then you have to throw to him, but you can't give him a pitch you know he is going to to be able to hit easily, and it's one right down the middle of the plate. >> well, we talk about learning experiences and trying to build something through adversity, berken is pitching through adversity. if the losing continues to happen, is this something that will be detrimental to him, or is he tough enough mentally? >> well, if his defense, i

would have to say, jason berken has not been as bad as the record. the orioles have not scored him many runs this season. that puts a lot of pressure on this young man. the more you try not to make mistakes, you make more mistakes. so there needs to be more communication with this guy if we're going to get anything out of him. right now i think the statistics should work against him. maybe he needs to go down, get away from and of the big hitters that are just crushing him right now. let him go back, get control of his game, bring him back up later. there is no sense in letting him lose, lose, lose. he'll get beat up so much it will affect him mentally. >> here is look at the at&t player of the fame as voted on by the fans, and adam jones, 42%, he gets the home town vote, and why not? nick markakis third. jim thome 30% pretty good

numbers for the visiting players. but jones is the at&t player of the game. hitting his first home run in over a month, but the or yeahs drop it 12-8-

announcer: during the autobahn for all event, you can get great lease deals. i love it! i just want to know it's the right move. me? thirteen days in the future. you get a deal on the car you always wanted. scheduled maintenance is included, it's all good. what's the future like? you love your new jetta. and the suit? you like it? no...i love it!

. >> gary: that is way back, that is gone! good-bye, home run, jim thome! good for 3. >> well, big night for jim thome, as he hits a pair of home run, be a 7 rbi game. that is a career night. here are the numbers that rick just referred to. career against the orioles. all he does is hit. he still has a quick bat and a great eye at the plate. >> well, he really does, and if you make mistakes with jim thome, he's going to make you pay. he still has a lot of power. certainly tonight when you saw

him hit that ball well up over the hedge in straight away center filed, he showed everybody around he can still get around on a pretty good 94 mile an hour fastballs. so you have to constantly change speeds with him, and you cannot live in the middle of the plate with him up there. >> what a weapon. on two swings tonight, drove in 7 runs, and the orioles drop it by a final of 12-8. we were wondering on the pregame show how the all star break would affect the orioles because of the rest that they had. this was a tired team hitting the break with four days off, and really seemed to benefit the top three in the line-up. >> well >> well, brian roberts started off the all star break. he was swinging the bat good when he left, comes back swinging good tonight. and here right off of the bat. finally, brian roberts decided to bunt, and how easy he makes it look right here. just an easy base hit. i think brian needs to do that a lot more later in the game.

curveball down to the right field cahn for a double. this is the easy part of brian roberts ball game, because he is nothing but a doubles machine. >> and neck markakis hit a home run. it had been 98 at bats going into the game without a home run, and he hits one out. >> the orioles have to get this guy hot if they're going to make any type of offensive run at all. >> and adam jones did the same. he went into the game 98 at bats without a home run, and what was impressive about that, you talked about it on the pregame show, he needed to start going the opposite way to get that strike back, and i think it was very recreel vealing that as am counselciously thinking about that. he was pitched away and hit it out. >> he did it during the all- star game, got his hitting back right there. tonight, though, he saw that fastball on the outside corner and drove it to right field. he has so much power, he really doesn't have to worry about swinging hard, just has to make

good solid contact. he really showed great power there. >> we're going to go back to u.s. cellular field, joined by our colleague jim palmer. games like tonight, jim, you are going to get beat, we you give up base hits, it's part of the fame, but i think what was so disappointing about the start of the second half here was all of the walks, 7 walks and two hit batters. you just can't give up that many base runners a against a contending team. >> gary: well, that's right. and jason berken until he got into n the 5 inning, they hadn't walked anybody. you could just see that his stuff was not what it was early on in the 5th inning, and i think the big question for the orioles, and dave trembley talked about it early on, we're not going to bump anybody out of the rotation, but now he's 1- 7. rick dempsey knows after catching for all those years, he needs to stay down. but his stuff isn't good enough

where he's going to throw balls by guys up in the strike zone, and again his curveball, you know, has a attendance, he threw a couple of good ones, struck out ramirez, but overall, he just has to command the ball a little bit better, and wasn't able to do that. but tonight, jim, you're right, 7 walks, and a couple of guys hot both hit, they scored. so you have to give credit to thome, because he had a huge night, but bottom line, there weren't a lot of good pitching tonight. >> you have to lob at jim thome ask see the numbers he's put up against the club over the course of his career. how would you approach a hitter like that who has monster power numbers and rbis. how would you pitch him yourself? >> well, i'm not going to try to let him beat me. and again, i think it's just a matter. you know me, i was a high fastball hitter, but i had

three other pitches to go with it in my opinion difficulty of getting thome out is he has an on base percentage on his career 40% of the time. yes, he strikes out a lot. that's the good news for a pitcher. the bad news is when he makes contact, and we saw tonight,my hit one, what, 464 feet, or whatever it is, that came right down in center field by the cameras. put the bottom line is you have to be aggressive early on, because even the best hitters, and you know this as well as anybody, rick, they expand the strike zone when you guest ahead. if you're behind tonight, he's going to do a lot of damage. >> we appreciate the visit, jim, thanks for the insight. >> okay, jim, i'll see you on sunday. >> okay. i'll be there eager, ready to go. let's get a look at the upcoming schedule as the orioles now underway in the second half. don't forget tomorrow, nationally televised game as

the orioles and white sox will play on fox. 4:00 p.m. eastern time is the start, and the finale on sunday on masn 2, and then the orioles head to new york. three games in new york on massen and masn hd. night games on monday and tuesday, and then a day game on wednesday afternoon to close it out. when we come back, we're going to check in on the minor leagues, in particular, a rehab appearance at bowie. samuel adams summer ale

is a flavorful wheat beer. it has a very nice spice note. it has a little lemon zest and a historic brewing spice called grains of paradise. it's citrusy, lemony. sam adams summer ale. it just totally reminds you of summer, yeah.

♪ tell me who's watching. (announcer) it's right here. it's easy. ♪ i always feel like somebody's watching me. ♪ it's the money you could be saving with geico. >> chris tillman tonight was the winning pitcher in the first game of a double hitter, a 7-inning game. he went 6 and 2/3. did not walk a batter, and seven strikeouts. so chris tillman gets another, we. if how about this for getting

now advertised? let's get a look at his stats over the past three starts for chris tillman. 3-0. the era, 0.44 combined in those starts. 20 and a third innings. 17 hits, 20 strikeouts, and only the one walk. only one earned run allowed if those three starts. so chris tillman without a doubt is makes his presence felt. here is the minor league score bored. he norfolk wins 5-1. and they took the second game 5-1. blake davis now back in aaa after the rehab. 3 out of 4 with a run scored. bowie at akron. it was tanny to figaroia with a big night at the plate. however, akron wins eight on a it would-run home run by carlos san tana. he left his guitar at home and hit the two run home run. elsewhere, bowling green loses

2-1. sal berg, very solid out being. and aberdeen tonight drops a 6- 5 game to vermont, but levi corolas having a big night at the plate. and blue field tonight, wins at briscoe, 11-3. luis ramirez, 1 for 5 with a home run, and the gulf coast league orioles won today 4-3 over the gulf coast league red sox by a final of 4- 3. tonight in chicago, the white sox over the birds by a fine of 12-8, as chicago gets the opener of this three game series. back to u.s. cellular field now. verizon wire's brings you post- game comments with gary thorne and dave trembley. >> gary: skip, not exactly the way you wanted to start after the all star break. >> no, we had some great at bats and put some numbers up, but only didn't pitch well enough, and to many guys got on base, you know, walks.

you know, i just didn't think we threw the ball with enough conviction. the ball was jumping out of this place tonight, and obviously thome is a great hit we are, and had a career night for him, but you have to put zeros up on the board after your score. >> how much of that is because of the break and days not pitched? >> i don't think so, and, you know, berken, we're trying to bring guys back with a little bit of rest, but, you know, he just didn't -- he just didn't finish guys off, and he hit a guy, walked a guy, you know, he elevated the pitches were up, and it just wasn't his night. and they put up 9 runs in three innings. that's really hard to come back from. but we did some good things. i like the way roberts played, and, you know, good to see nicky and melvin swing the bat real well, and, you know, offensively, it was okay, but you're going to win with pitching and we didn't get it

done. >> reimold, looks like he got over that speed bump with his at bats tonight. >> yeah, the break probably did him good. had a chance to relax and regroup. he's spending an awful lot of time with you crow, and i thought it was good for him to get away. he looked more comfortable tonight. and we need him to play well for us. he's a great player. >> first place boston on the road in toronto. no score in the first, and kevin youkilis with a home run off rick yes romero. now, top of the 5th, same score, david ortiz, he will double off the wall. this one going the opposite way. nearly left the ballpark. misses the home run by inches. 4-1 the red sox go up. clay buck hotels called up from aaa to get the start. papelbon's 24th save, and row mother row takes the loss, he is now 7-4 on the year.

mean time in new york, battle of first place teams. tigers and the yankees, top of the 5th. grander son, a.j. burnette. at the time, this give this tigers a 3-1 lead. tigers with that lead, 1 on and 1 out. here is mark teixeira. this one goes right through the left legs of left fielder josh anderson. teixeira moves up. that bottom of the 7th, here is teixeira again. it's a 3-1 shot. yankees take the lead 5-3, and go on to win it by that score. big night for grander son. 19 home runs so far for grander:son. elsewhere in the american league, tampa bay on the road at kansas city. the rays win it 8-7. longoria two out of five with a home

run. seattle wins in cleveland 6-2 behind hernandez who goes 8 strong innings. size more two out of four with an rbi for the tribe. well, in chicago tonight, the white sox win it 12-8. when we come back, we'll look at tomorrow. brad bergesen on the mound for the birds. is tender, juicy, and lightly breaded. the sauce is a mouthwatering blend of sweet & spicy. every bite delivers a kick of asian chilies, real red pepper flakes, and a hint of garlic. it's about as far as it gets from fast food. and that's why you get it at wendy's. female announcer: introducing sweet & spicy asian chicken. one of three new chicken temptations from wendy's. it's waaaay better than fast food. it's wendy's.

>> well, nick markakis, his bat coming along, so in the o's extra challenge, another win for rick dempsey. 2-0 he is up. i had mat wieters tonight. but nick markakis with request a two-run home run. also scored a couple of runs and had a double as well. so i'm going to have to do some

catching up, as dempsey pulls ahead 2-0 in the player to watch. now amber is with danny baez. >> amber: that's a tough break. you come in and hit the batter. take me through that. you never mean to hit a batter like that. >> no, just that split finger, i was trying to go inside, trying to get a ground ball double-play, but, you know, he hit jermaine dye, and then threw two pitches on jim thome, been in that situation a lot of types, bases loaded, trying to hold the game, but sometimes it works out, sometimes not. it was a tough game today. the team came back and scored a lot of runs, but, you know, should too a better job, and gave the team the chance to win the ball game. >> so danny baez, a tough

night, 2/3 of an inning, rick. first batter he saw he hit, sometimes that happens, but it set the tone. >> well, baez was a little flat tonight, but has been pitching so well for the orioles as of late. the good sinker has come back to him. a lot of life in his arm again. i wouldn't we're too much about today's effort. it's been a long time since he's been on the mound with any regularity. he has done a great job recovering from that operation, and i'm sure that sinker is going to get back on track very quick. >> another tough night for jason berken. now 1 is-7. let's head back to chicago. jason berken discussing his outing. >> i just have to find a we to be more consistent down in the zone. when you have the lead-off walk to the liedoff hitter, puts

yourself in a tough hole. >> don't forget, this game is on fox at 4:00 tomorrow. orioles an national team. bergesen against burlily. >> bergesen finished up the first half for a very good game for the orioles. back on the mound now. everything seems to be back on track again. lost it in seattle. looked like a little arm weariness, but got that slider and the sinker working back for him again in that last ball game, so i'm looking for jason berken to really get because on track. >> what about burly? >> he doesn't waste a lot of time. this game, it could be over with very quickly. he is always tough against the orioles. he keeps the ball in the strike zone. works fast. already off to an awesome start for the season. now wins already, to burly, another one, 9th left hand are against the orioles in a row, and the orioles are really going to have to pick up the

pace against those lefties again. >> white sox win together get the opener of the three-game series. for rick termcy, judge hunter saying good night, thanks for joining us, everybody, and we'll see you sunday on masn for the finale of three from chicago. have a great night. @x@0@p@0@6,

announcer: during the autobahn for all event, you can get great lease deals. i love it! i just want to know it's the right move. me? thirteen days in the future. you get a deal on the car you always wanted.

scheduled maintenance is included, it's all good. what's the future like? you love your new jetta. and the suit? you like it? no...i love it! have experience but it can be an advantage to not have experience." figure it out. it's working for him. british open, around 149 years gives us a big surprise in the form of tom watson leading after two rounds. >> kind of spiritual. i said that yesterday. spiritual with me. to keep me focused on the game plan and not getting really too frustrated after the front nine -- or after eight -- or after seven holes.

finishing the way i did, it just -- it made me feel like my patience was rewarded. it's like greg norman last year. you have kind of the same situation. greg was thinking just one -- stay in the present. stay one shot at a time. the old cliche. i don't think that way. i never have thought that way. >> watson becomes the oldest player since world war ii to lead after any round at a major. it's not even close. watson is more than five years older than sam snead was when he led after the first and second rounds of the 1966 pga championship. snead ended up finishing tied for sixth in that event. last year greg norman made a stunning bid to win the open at royal birkdale. >> the other big story, tiger

woods missing the cut. tiger did not take advantage of the wonderful weather and the low scoring opportunities in round one. the weather was much worse on friday. tiger struggled big time. here he is at plus one off the tee on number nine. tiger would bogey number nine. on number 10, tiger off the tee. he's at plus tagain, into the r tiger would hit a provisional shot. his caddie, steve williams, starts looking for the ball but can't find it, tiger can't fin it, the spectators can't find it, nobody can find t. tiger has to stay with the provisional. he would double bogey 10 to go to plus four. on 13, third shot at the par 4, he's at plus five, the chip goes up the green then starts rolling right back and just kept right on rolling all the way past tiger. tiger would double bogey again. he goes to plus seven. but he did make a rally. after making a birdie on 16, he was at plus six, this his third

shot on the par 5 17th, tiger with a chance to make the cut. nice chip here to within a few feet. he would make this birdie putt as well to go back to plus five, back within a stroke of making the cut. it all comes down to 18. he's at plus five. needs to birdie to make the cut at plus four. after his approach missed the green, he needs to hole this out for birdie. doesn't happen. pars the hole. shoots 74 and misses the cut by one stroke. holes eight through 13 were tiger's worst six-hole stretch as a pro. the last major that did not have either tiger woods or phil mickelson make the cut was the 1995 pga championship. tiger was still an amateur back then. with more on tiger missing the cut, here is tom rinaldi. >> level par after 25 holes of the open championship, the world's best player was determined to contend for his

15th major. instead with heavy winds and bursts of rain he went seven over the next six holes. as weather returned, woods would leave missing the cut for the second time in 49 majors as a pro. >> i was one under par there, and if i could just play those holes well i would be fine, coming home, downwind, could make some birdies coming home and i didn't do that. i hit bad tee shots. a couple bad iron shots. didn't get up and down. kept making mistake after mistake. >> woods arrived here unacquainted with the coach at turnberry, unaccompanied by his coach, frank haney. he was viewed as the favorite and would depart in disappointment. >> obviously it's disappointing, no doubt, i was playing well coming in and today unfortunately it just didn't play certain holes well. i haven't put together all four rounds and you have to play

clean in a major championship, and i haven't done that. >> tiger woods has often said he measures his year by his performance in major championships. after his round friday, he was asked what his plan would be heading into the season's final major -- the pga at hazeltine. his answer was succinct. "head home." at the open championship at turnberry, tom rinaldi, espn. however i am convinced the government takeover of health care is not the solution. our country wants, needs or desires. i have hosted numerous health care-- and you know what i heard? the matter what health care problems they are facing, for what health care crisis they are struggling with i heard over and over and over again they do not believe more government is the answer. you know, they are right.

the problem our current health care system as we don't spend enough money so we don't spend it wisely. we don't need more government interference. look at that chart. that thing is a mess. i mean, there must be won, too, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine people that tell us what kind of health care we are going to have. what is a public plan? nobody knows. i can't think of one instance in recent memory where the federal government getting involved in a problem made things better. once beaurocrats get involved in a situation everything always gets worse. mr. chairman i would like to ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the chart you are looking at to show how much government bureaucracy is designed to make this thing work. >> mr. johnson, i want this in the record too but where did this chart come from? it is attractive but it doesn't make any sense at all. who did the chart?

>> that chart comes from the joint economic committee. >> and they painted this? >> we painted it with a paintbrush that you can recognize. the colors are red, white and blue. that is american, isn't it? [laughter] >> there is a lot of yellow in here. but i will leave that alone. this is a very attractive chart. >> thank you. i appreciate your support. >> viard should be commended for it. mr. pomeroy is recognized. >> let me just say i support my companion fossum amendment. >> you made that clear. >> thank you. [laughter] >> mr. pomerleau. >> mr. kind covered what i wanted to discuss essentially. i am going to oppose this amendment even though i have very serious problems with the public plan as contained in the bill. the reason i do is because it does not pay fairly frequent pays on medicare rates and their

portions of the country that are under paid by medicare presently so you don't move forward in constructive health care reform by building on a flawed foundation. that needs to be changed and i am completely confident that this bill tied to medicare rates is not going to be the bill that ultimately goes to the president at the end of the enactment process. inconceivable to think, in my own opinion, that we would ultimately pass reform for a public plan option. will be enough to keep me from being able to support the bill today but that is not to say that public plan option does not have a role if we want construction that competes fairly and effectively. to suggest the american people are absolutely locked into the existing health insurance structure we have would be completely at odds with any reading of the constituents i represent. they think that insurance shortchanges them at every turn

and more of a competitive presence would be a good thing. the competitive presence created in a public plan option or cooperative or whatever rans up in the final legislation needs to play fairly and that means it cannot be based on insufficient medicare rate formula. but, this amendment does differently than that. this the amendment takes it out entirely and leaves us just with the same old health insurance companies we now know so well and that is why should be defeated. thank you mr. chairman. >> mr. davis from kentucky is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. ryan to amendment would strike the government-run plan for the underlying bill. the government run plan is simply unworkable. does not get to the root problem of affordability. the bill in front of us today is called americans affordable health choices act. i don't know who came up with the name or how they define affordable but well over a trillion dollars is not

considered affordable in flat with kentucky. tens of millions of people if they are move to a government plan as studies predict, you might as well have a car that says your cover but the my dystrophy can find a provider who will see you it is worth as part of that is the coverage and the reason is this bill does nothing to address the core system issues that some of us have been talking about literally four years lendee by the optics in the process at the court which this does not we are going to increase costs of the process in overhead and limit reimbursements and reduce them and ultimately can end up with anything but a rationed care system. in order to have true reform we have to do three of the following things. number one reform and we engineer medicare and the center for medicare services which is not in this bill. second, reform of the private insurance system to allow improved competitiveness, reduce costs and increase taxes for small businesses and individuals. byman the thing that is our wages that is meaningful

liability reform which is necessary to free our providers so that they can function in do their job. i would ask you this as one doctor in my district said, jaffa was going to sue me now? is the government going to get sued or will it be the doctors that are still liable in how we can treat? without the things we mention weech failed. this is not about politics or partisanship. it is about human lives. we are talking about spending well over a trillion dollars just to get the bill and the public plan started we don't know specifically what we are going to get in return to what the long-term costs will be as evidenced by the head of the congressional budget office. we don't have the details, we don't have the facts because the process is being hurried along by artificially imposed timetables by people who have never worked in the professional health care world in their lives. this legislation of generational impact and we have got to slow down and take the time to consider the bill and that's the real experts, the one to give the health care to our citizens,

not think-tank professionals were subsidized by wealthy people who don't take the 3:00 in the morning call to go to the er. we need to get these practitioners in the field here. wanted close from a quote from an e-mail i received from the ceo of that will run rural haass the lmi district. we absolutely cannot reform health care in this country if we don't get a better grasp on what drives the health care costs. i'm so frustrated because to many of the decision-makers have little real knowledge of what needs to be addressed. it is not as simple as cutting payments to hospitals and doctors. who is going to peel away the layers that find so much of the cost and operating the hospital? things like the rules and regulations, unfunded mandates, malpractice costs that to create defensive medicine and on and on i could go. i greatly fear for the medicare patient as more and more doctors speak of closing their practice to the aging in complicated patient. other than war i don't believe there has been such an important task at hand and it is imperative the voices of many

are heard. a government run health care plan will not live up to the promises made by its proponents and will hurt health-care providers, reduce quality already gargantuan cost churchill them. i encourage my colleagues to support the ryan amendment and in bark on a perform the improved quality and reduce costs. thank you mr. chairman and i yield back. >> thank you mr. chairman, and i share your enthusiasm for putting the charge in the official record. the charge by the way, it wasn't from the joint economic committee. it is the joint economic committee republican staff and i do think that this is kind of a modest klemz of what some of the elements are to try and rationalize the system that if we locked this committee in this room with some of the smartest

bill drafters and experts of our choosing in a week, we couldn't come up with a chart that would reflect the byzantine, none system that faces the american consumers today. a hodge-podge of cost, confusion, gaps and inequality. what we have done here, as i think, make an initial critical first step to try and provide choices to people who don't have meaningful choice. i don't think this bill is done by any stretch of the imagination and i don't think any of us do. it is i think it important step in moving forward, but to pretend that somehow throwing a lot of boxes and colors on a piece of paper is somehow significant and confusing and determinative of whether not we should have a public option,

particularly for the -1/2 of american states that have no meaningful insurance competition, where one company has 50% or more of the market is laughable. i am pleased that the staff walked through the alamance, and i hope everybody does go ahead and correlate the pieces that are in there because it gives you a sense of what is going to have to happen to achieve actually much of what there is a consensus amongst people on the committee on both sides of the aisle. i think the bill we have before us is a start in that direction but it would be unfortunately handicapped if we were to adopt this amendment and i strongly urge its rejection. >> mr. linder. i support the ryan amendment to strike the government run plan

for kleiman treat by the conversations we have heard over the last several months about choices and options for the american people. the american people don't make these choices. their employer does and let me tell you what these employers are going to do. this government-run plan was priced at 8% of your payroll. if you are not providing coverage for your employer you pay 8% to the payroll for the typical small business pays 11 to 14% of the peril. about two weeks ago i had to friends of my office to have both had been ceo's of fortune 100 companies. between the companies they employ five and a thousand people ois them what percentage of the table when to health care costs and they both said between 15 and 16%. i said if he could pay the government 8% and they would take it up, would you and your program and turn it over to the government plan? they said in a heartbeat. that is what this is designed for come to drive business

owners, employers into making economic decisions for their shareholders that wind up with their employees in this government-run plan and they will succeed. thank you mr. chairman. >> we have got to vote now but mr. lender, why would the government possibly have a conspiracy to remove the obligation of the employers to ensure the employees? why would they want to do this in a heartbeat? >> it is the same question i keep asking and i don't have the answer for it but the assumption is this. most of the people want a single payer plan including mr. stark. this is the way to get it. >> okay, okay, okay. the chair is ready to take a vote under the linder amendment. >> mr. chairman? >> mr. davis is recognized. >> thank you very much mr. chairman and let me be brief. let me also say that i oppose this amendment strongly.

as a matter that-- i think the public option is the most important part of the legislation that we are considering. i want to protect all of the individuals who are currently in, but i also want to bring in those individuals who are currently alf. i don't think that we can have the balance that we need unless we do have a public option, and so i am opposed to the ryan amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you mr. chairman choice support the ryan amendments for reasons i held when did my questioning. i think the government option is really poorly conceived in this and is a recipe for financial disaster. with that, i will yield the remainder of my time to mr. ryan. >> and i thank the gentleman and then i will close.

>> let me make it clear that mr. ryan can take your time and his time. >> appreciate that chairman. i won't take all of it. the me try to address some of the things that have been said here. which my friend from wisconsin were still there. he said he is concerned with the concentration of health insurance options in america. wow. it's anybody believe that after this bill passes and becomes law we will have more options in addition to the public plan? >> yes. >> we are federalizing the regulation of health insurance. okay, that is one person. [laughter] are right, let me make my case, okay? [laughter] >> can we take a vote? >> were federalizing the regulation of health insurance, riding costin mandate by making health insurance more expensive. do you think the 1300 insurers that are out there going to be able to compete in this environment? let me walk us through what decisions will be faced by

employers. employers are going to be looking at a situation where the insurance they have the becoming more and more expensive. one steady says the right now with medicare and medicaid cost shifting it is $88.8 billion a year. another study says that if this passes the cost shifting will increase private insurance for a family plan by an average of $3,628. so employers will be faced with a situation where more people go on a public plan, the public plan under pays providers, they make it up by overcharging private payers because cbo does not think there is much cost shifting. everybody else to talk to us. just think about it. ask any doctor or any hospital in your district and they will tell you cost shifting occurs so has this cost shifting occurs simply receive their insurance going up-and-up and up and unpredictable rates. they make a choice. i can keep paying this high

expensive, high increase costs insurance that the government tells me what i have to buy or a campaign 8% payroll tax, index inflation, predictable and dump my employees in the same kind of health insurance i have to buy them anyway but this one is for 8%. you don't think they are going to make that decision? some people say in a tight labor market they will be competing for workers so they will want to watch for this because we don't have a tight labor market. what the employer is not going to dump their employee on the public plan as soon as the price of their insurance exceed 8% of payroll where it already does? the problem is this mr. chairman. it is impossible for the private sector to be able to compete fairly with the government with all of its muscle and all of its tools. and at the end of that process, we will see a situation where people will have lost their

choices. employers will not be offering insurance to their employees. they will be saying i am paying the payroll tax, you are going on the public plan and do you know what that payroll tax at the end of the day in america will be? it will be 23%. we will have a 23% payroll tax in this country. 23% of which is going to pay will taxes to pay for this public plan. this is not a good idea and if you come from places like where i come from where medicare under pays hospitals and doctors substantially, who is going to want to continue offering these services? so, i would just urge my colleagues, get rid of the public plan and let's work it fixing the private health insurance market so that works better and let's not take away all of these insurance products that people currently in joy. i yield. >> as we close-- mr. ryan you

know how have the deepest amount of respect for you and it is abundantly clear what you are against and you are one of the few people that have a plan on the other side, but i do hope that before we conclude this market, he might be able to share with us who you have persuaded on your side that you have a better way because i don't care what legislation we have, it is so easy to take a shot saying this doesn't work, this is got to happen in 2023 and at my age i am concerned about what is going to happen at the end of this week. it just seems to me that between now and the conclusion of this legislation the chair is open to any positive thoughts that collectively you might come together so that we can talk about it. it is a long way between here and the president's desk. >> would the chairman yield? >> i am afraid that i would like to get a vote on this, so are we

ready to vote? all in favor of the ryan mma indicate by saying aye. all those opposed, no. clearly the no's have a. the roll call vote is ask for. indicate by a show of hands. the shoaf chances adequate. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] earl [roll call]

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

[roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] ..

>> mr. chairman, it's being passed out. let me start with a description and a few words. i think it's no secret the ruling class, excuse me, congress, has a track record it something itself from the very laws it relates. for decades, congress exempted itself from walls ralf ranking from occupational safety and health and labor laws, fair labor standards to some civil right laws. recently i think we'd just exempt ourselves from cap and

trade. former senator john glenn said such exceptions are the rankest form of hypocrisy. laws good for everybody else ought to be good enough for us. our late colleague from illinois henry hyde predecessor to the gentleman from my right ones with congress wixom itself from the laws of gravity if it could. thankfully this practice slowed down after passage of the congressional accountability act and other reforms in the mid 90's. what i fear is this legislation takes us back to the days congress routinely extended itself from the laws it passed. like congressman brian, i'm troubled independent analysis predicts two out of three americans with private health coverage will lose what they had before sent to a government from plan. so much for promises you can

keep your doctors and insurance if he would like. regardless of whether you support or oppose the government run plan, i think we should agree on this principle. of the public plan is good enough for millions of our constituents and should be good enough for members of congress. my amendment requires members of congress and our dependence to enroll in health coverage to do so through the governor rahm plan. what better way to analyze how the plan works than for members to participate themselves. mr. chairman in recent months i've heard from many nevada say again and again that congress refuses to play by the rules we oppose, that we impose on the american people. in fact i recently had a town hall meeting in las vegas and asked literally hundreds of individuals how they feel about congress having to live within the restraints and the restrictions of this legislation

more than 75% thought congress should be in the government-run plan. i believe our work constituents deserve better. mr. chairman, i would urge that we pass this amendment and i would urge support of it. thank you. i yield. >> mr. chairman? >> there are two parts to this amendment. one would be attractive proposal opponent of the amendment hasn't yet had the opportunity to vote for his own pay raise and then all take it. there might be three or four colleagues in that position. and this is part of that nature. i'd like to also point out the way it's drafted where it says a member of congress or dependent of such member would be many of

our colleagues who've retired and subsequently passed on would have their spouse's allowance and to plan and i am not sure these are the people, long serving members on both sides of the aisle whose spouses are entitled to some of their retirement benefits. it would knock the wits out, and as i say i am not sure. but the name of the bill clarifies choice. and no one is forced into the public options. and members are eligible for the public option. if they choose to pay full freight and take it suggest we

should in fact pass an amendment that says that is the only option open to us and our families seems to me to do away with the idea that we have insisted that people have choice or if you like the plan that they have they may keep it. it's my understanding that the blue cross option which the start family has is similar to what the public plan would be. so i can't tell you whether that would be more or less. but there are people who may be in the postal plan or other plan where there is a major difference and it seems to me if we believe people should have a choice of plans both private and

public that this amendment would frustrate that. so, as i say, both from the standpoint of trying to punish ourselves any one of us who chooses voluntarily could go in to the public plan just like anyone of us could refuse the pay raise. if we think it has some political advantage. but i suggest to you we should not begin to limit choice because i think that's one of the underpinnings of this bill that people will have a wide and full choice and none of us would qualify for the income subsidies so that's not the issue here. it's available to us if we choose to go into it. it seems that should be aware personal choice and if we choose to make that public it might

give some political support or opposition. i don't know. but i am concerned about the harm we would do to people who came before us who years to their retirement benefits as part of their planning. i think that it's terribly unfair and for each one of us as individuals i would like to preserve the trees so i would ask we defeat the amendment. [inaudible conversations] >> mr. rye and -- mr. johnson has recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. as you know as we debate the best way to reform our health care system all americans have access to quality health care some in congress insist government-run health care plans must be included. however there are several

studies and sources including the government-run health care will have some real consequences. one study says the government plan like the one included in the bill we are debating will force 114 million americans out of their current health coverage and into this new government program. others states the only way a government-run health plan survives the long haul is it the government starts rationing health care. in 2007 and ontario canada one and a half million residents could not find a primary-care doctor that would treat them. small towns in canada have town lotteries where residents can win access to family physicians. in england five-year cancer survival rates are far beyond, behind those here in the u.s.. i strongly believe they are better less expensive ways to make health insurance more affordable, accessible and available them turning it over

to the federal government and washington bureaucrats. i know not everyone in this committee or in this congress for that matter agree with me on this point. i know there are others convinced government-run health care won't sacrifice quality and won't lead to rationing. that is why i support this amendment. if a member of congress votes to support the government-run option that member should be automatically enrolled. if members of congress are convinced the government-run option will d develop the same as congressional health plans they should be the first in line to enroll. we hear in, this must stop asking the american people to make sacrifices that we ourselves are not willing to make and that is why i believe my colleagues should join with me in supporting this amendment i yelled back. >> mr. ryan would like to be heard. >> it's good enough for the

constituents it all to be good enough for us. if we are asking all these people in the country to get into this government plan -- if people are going to go into this plan, cbs is 6 million people are going to lose their health insurance and go into it even cbo says that then we ought to go into it. my point is we ought to have the same experiences that our constituents are having so we can be better representatives. let me just mention the comment the gentleman made who thinks it is going to have former members' spouses the text reads this, in the case of an individual and member of congress or dependent on such member beginning in the year one notwithstanding provision of law so on so forth why don't we pass this amendment and add the word currently when we go to the rules committee. i think it is clear the supplies of current members of congress but if there's any ambiguity let's clean that up. the question before us now is

this. should we live under the same rules we are passing for our constituents? should we as members of congress have the same experiences they have so that we can be better representatives? i think we ought to go to the same kind of health care system that we are imposing on the countries that we can understand it better and be better representatives and with that high yield. >> we do have the same requirements that are constituents have and i don't know how you and i could live in an impoverished way that most of our constituents lived and still be welcome at home but i would welcome mr. becerra for any comments he might like to make. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my only comment with regard to this amendment would be i think we should allow the american public to know that we want, show them we want to treat ourselves the same way we would

treat them. but i don't think this amendment does that. this amendment simply says you have no choice. you will take one thing. our bill doesn't say you only have one choice, you will take only one thing. our legislation is a reform that gives american consumers a choice of plans unless the government from wisconsin saying that there will only be one plan offered in this marketplace that will be created, his amendment is stating something that is not the case -- >> with the gentleman yield for clarification? >> once i finish my remarks i would be happy to yield. and so there is nothing that says an american consumer who goes into this exchange because he or she doesn't have insurance, because an employer doesn't offer it or for whatever reason is a single, entrepreneur

proprietor and doesn't have the money to pay for insurance out there in the marketplace there's nothing there requires that individual to go into the public health insurance option and if there is i would yield to the gentleman i would like him to point out to me where it says you must, you are compelled to go into the public option and so and simply said you must do what you're telling the american public that would be in this exchange must do that would be fine because then we would have any number of options private insurance and public insurance to choose from and that would be a fair representation of what the bill does. but this amendment is simply a game. it's to try to scare, once again, the american public into believing changing a broken health care system isn't worth it and i would say that what we should do is be honest and

accurate with the american public and say to them you know what? if this is good enough for you it should be good enough for us and i'm willing to do that, go to the exchange but don't play games -- don't get on the part of the story and say you have only one choice. you have many choices and the choices the consumers, not mr. ryan's, not mine, not a private for-profit insurance company, not the federal government. it is the consumer's choice and should be played that way. with that i will yield the gentleman will tell me where in the bill -- of the gentleman can point out to me where in the bill we require an american consumer to select the public plan has his or her only option. >> two things -- >> nope, nope. i will yield -- speed is mr. heller's amendment, not my -- >> i will yield if he can point out to me where in the bill requires americans participate

in this exchange go only to the public insurance option. >> that is not my assertion. the gentleman is missing my point. if we are creating a government-run plan we ought to go in to it ourselves. >> but if -- we are asking folks so that they get insurance that they go into an exchange. we are not saying to them you have to go into -- we are not telling them -- you must -- you must -- you must accept the plan of private for-profit insurance x that charges higher rates and gives poor service. we are not telling them to do that. we are telling them you are going to have the choice. this will be up to you to decide as a consumer which of the different competitive plans that are out there you will choose from. among those will be a plan that has a public character to it similar to medicare, similar to the veterans' programs, and similar to what we provide through medicaid for low-income. and i think when you find is

because this is based so much on medicare the you could use a good model from medicare to get a sense of what this would look like. 40 million americans today rely on medicare. and it's not that bad of a model. but to make it sound like we are compelling people to go in one direction i think is unfair characterization therefore i would -- >> would the gentleman yield? >> ups would like. >> i appreciate you yield in. i have a fear some don't understand the magnification of this particular piece of legislation. and particular it's not the individuals that are going to have a choice. we are talking about putting tens of the millions of americans that the choice of their employers, not the employees themselves -- >> let me reclaim my time -- let me reclaim my time by saying that i would ask my friend, mr. howard, please point out to me we're in the bill we say that choice of plans that consumers must take is the choice of an employer or the choice of the insurer or the choice of the government. i could show the gentleman, if

he wishes, in the bill the language that says the choice of plans that do a consumer selects or the consumers. and so, let's -- let's not treat them like they are infants. americans can make good selections. and that is what this whole reform is about. lanning americans decide what they wished to have. it will be their choice. if they like what they have they will get to keep the want something different a will get to choose what the different plan will be. but no one should believe anyone who claims we are going to dump anyone in to any particular plan. this is all about giving consumers a choice whether someone wants to obfuscate the issue or not this is about giving consumers for the first time in a long time the choice, not the insurer, not the government, but the consumer. i yield back. >> i remind the members we have over 50 amendments, and we are only on the second one and we have half a dozen speakers.

having said that, the chair recognizes mr. nunes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this amendment is simple. if the public option is good enough for the american people it should be good enough for the members of this committee. in fact we just voted down the ryan amendment that would have eliminated the public option. so you know, some studies are out there that show two out of three americans could be put into the public option. one study shows that there could be 114 americans put into the public. 114 million americans put into the public option. so, if it is good enough for 114 million americans and a lot to be good enough for all of you on that side of the aisle who just voted down getting rid of the public option. furthermore, i actually don't think that this amendment goes far enough. and i know this is not in the jurisdiction of our committee. but many of you and this bill

are saying that medicaid is okay. that the unfunded liabilities of vindicate are okay. that we want to push more people want to medicaid. mr. ryan and myself and others have said we want to fix medicaid and make medicated better and not have a second class type of health care in this country. you guys don't believe that. so, you don't want the public option, you don't want medicate for yourself, you want to keep the great plans that we have, and i think that's a very weak argument and i am disappointed with that side of the aisle. >> would the gentleman yield -- mr. nunes, would you yield? if i'm reading your amendment correctly, it says that in the case of an individual who is a member of congress or a dependent and so far as the individual is an exchange eligible individual, the individual shall only be eligible to enroll in the public

health insurance option. why would you want to limit any individual, whether a member of congress or anyone else to one option? why not just say that individual shall be eligible to enroll in any of the plans in the exchange? in fact i would make that an amendment to your amendment and say i think every member of congress that would be eligible for the exchange -- >> will the gentleman yield? i would say members of congress should lead. and i have heard from the other side of the aisle all through the cap tax or cap-and-trade members need to lead. i think that congress needs to lead and this is an area we can lead, and if we are going to have a government-run plan the members of congress ought to be in a. >> i would just say if 114 million americans could go into this public option, we ought to be willing to go on to the public auction. i don't want the public option. that's not what i want. i would rather fix medicaid, fix medicare and deal with these problems not by adding

$1.5 trillion program that's not quite to be paid for. and i yield back. >> it's not the position you want to go into the public option that you want the members of the congress to go into the public option, is that it? >> only the democrats, mr. chairman. [laughter] >> that is about as much sense as your amendment makes. [laughter] mr. davis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. at the risk of incurring higher from my side mr. eller i am going to vote for your end and. let me respond to one point from a good friend from california, mr. pattara. i don't think the purpose of this amendment is to create a parallel between the members of congress and the public. mr. this error is corrected the purpose of the amendment were to do that you give members of congress the same choice the congress has but candidly i think the animated purpose behind this amendment is to give members of congress a stake in

how the public option works and to give members of congress a stake in making sure the public option is a high-quality vehicle for the number of americans who enroll. with the numbers are on the low side or the high side. and i think it's something frankly we shouldn't dismiss on this side of the aisle simply because it's been proposed by a member of the minority. this public option is going to serve a significant number of our constituents. we ought to have some stake in how it's developed. we ought to have some stake in how it works. and i am of the opinion instead of the federal employees benefit plan, the public option not to be the vehicle for conagra's getting government-run health care and i will yield back. >> if there's someone else seeking recognition the chair will take a vote on the how board amendment. i'm sorry.

mr. rector is recognized and mr. mr. -- mr. reichert and roskam. >> you can use the french pronunciation. [laughter] i want to, i was pleased to hear an earlier comment and i'm to the dependent stuff deceased members. if there's a possibility we may enter into this current plan. but i just want to -- support this amendment. it would -- as i read it, it refers to current members of congress and their dependence and their enrollment into the government on plan. i think it is a simple way of saying to our constituents that the president and congress think a government-run plan isn't good enough for them. it should be good enough for us,

too, and that's been said. so i just rise in support of this amendment and i yield back. [laughter] >> thank you, chairman ren-gal. [laughter] speaking in support, mr. chairman of mr. heller's amendment and what a great blessing of an easy name to pronounced. [laughter] you know, let's not -- let's not hide behind the widows and orphans of former members as an excuse to sort of parts of a response of the lake. and it seems to me ironic that that is raised as a specter of a defense to vote against this amendment when we've seen the majority sort of stock tied the earth like a great colossus going after flexible savings accounts, 35 million people.

or health savings accounts, 8 million people swing or health retirement accounts, another 8 million persons wing and now we are going to hold back because of what? widows and orphans of former members? i think we can do a lot better than that. i think the gentleman from alabama raises a good point, and that is that if we are in this as i can we ought to be, we are going to be a very early barometer of success or failure within the system. we have been assured by the majority and time and time again implicitly and explicitly that there is no rationing, know-how, no way under any circumstance notwithstanding very significant questions on that. and it is my suggestion that we would be wise to be in this because if rationing does become -- does become initio members of congress will be the first to discover it in the best position to remedy. i urge passage of the amendment

and a yield back. >> thank you mr. chairman. i will be brief. just in closing i want to get back to the theme what for our senator john glenn said and that is always good for everybody else ought to be good enough for us, and we are going to force millions of americans into a public fund or a government-run health care system and i agree with my colleague from illinois what better way to analyze and i said this in my initial remarks what better way to analyze how the public plan works than for members to participate themselves. so if we get into a point of rational -- rational health care what better way for us to find out than to be in the system itself? we will know more about runaway cost, no more about rationing. the best way to do this. so we are doing except we what we are asking the american people to do themselves and that is a decision by their employers

to put them into a public, public wrong system. mr. chairman, thank you very much for the time. >> amendment is in favor of the committee. indicate by saying aye. opposed by saying no pity the noes have it. roll call is suggested. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

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

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

[roll call] [roll call] eighteen yays 21 nays. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk. mr. chairman, my amendment addresses the eckert ackley --

[inaudible conversations] mr. chairman, my amendment addresses the critical the important issue of protecting the doctor patient relationship and ensuring that our senior citizens continue to have access to lifesaving medical care. the bill before us contains a new initiative, providing federal funding for comparative effectiveness research. many of us agree that this research can be beneficial by providing patients and doctors with better information about which drugs and treatments work best. however, we must ensure that this research does not become a tool for the federal government to denying coverage of medically necessary treatments on the basis of cost.

the bill before us attempts to address this problem by a restricting the board that oversees comparative effectiveness research for making coverage terminations. but, dismisses the point. the research board doesn't issue health insurance or pay claims. so it is no reason to decide what is covered and what is not yet on the other hand, cms does make coverage determinations and nothing in this bill affects the ability of cms to deny coverage based on comparative effectiveness research. my amendment would prohibit cms from using comparative effectiveness research to make cost based coverage determinations. cms would still be permitted to make coverage decisions based on safety and effectiveness, just

not cost. this language is taken from legislation i introduced recently with a delegate christiansen, a physician, and is the only bipartisan comparative effectiveness bill in the congress. we need only look at the u.k.'s national institute for clinical excellence to see the importance of this amendment. nice uses comparative effectiveness research to decide whether the british health system would pay for treatment based on a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years a patient is expected to live. for example, they felt that the first therapy of its kind to treat women with her2 positive press cancer was too expensive. after public outcry they decided

to cover this drug with women with late stage breast cancer and 2002, nearly four years after it was approved in the u.s.. this delay in needlessly placed u.k. women at risk by denying access to a drug that had been hailed as a breakthrough in the fight against breast cancer. physicians and patients, not government bureaucrats should be in charge of health care decisions. my amendment protects the doctor patient relationship and assures cost is never placed above a patient's need for care and i urge this approval. >> mr. kind. -- before mr. chairman. i would like to briefly respond. with all due respect to my friend mr. herger i do not feel that this is necessary or needed

in this legislation. just to be clear, if my friend would go to section 1401, sub h, it explicitly states nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the commission for comparative effectiveness research to mandate coverage, reimbursement or other policies for any public or private payer. so the language is explicit and current law with the cms says coverage decisions will be based on what is reasonable and necessary in the care of the patient. based on safety standards. all that comparative effectiveness research is meant to do is find out what works and what doesn't and here's the key in power the providers, doctors back and patience with this information so they can make logical decisions based on the treatment they need or want. and that's the bet we are placing and this i think has the potential of being a game changer in the reform of the

system that we trust the providers, doctors mac and patient enough if we can get them the information based on the evidence, compared effectiveness research so that they know what works and what doesn't they will make good decisions with it. but right now under the current system we have a deplorable infrastructure system in the dissemination of information to the providers. based on the best evidence and we need to do a better job and that six ackley what this section is meant to accomplish the creation on comparative effectiveness center in order to get done this research and in the important public private commission that will be established with the stakeholders having ssa in regards to the direction of the research conducted and then developing consensus on what it means and then the sharing of that information through the system. that is crucial because right now we have to do a better job under the reform proposal of getting information into the decision makers hands, the

doctors and patients about what works but also it's tough to justify to the american tax payer and you are concerned as i am about the cost of health care going up but how do you justify alternately some clinical practice that's being conducted out there with very high costs attached when the research comes back showing that with a different practice with lower-cost resulting in the same result in the care of the patient should be ignored. i think that is why we are trying to avoid with the establishment of this research. the language is clear it is in going to be cost base. the current law is clear that decisions have to be based on what is necessary and reasonable for the care of patients and furthermore providers are asking for this information and if we do something further on this and i hope we can get it included its by putting together a good profiling section of this, so that it's easier for doctors to able to compare with their peers

their own practice patterns and how it stacks up so i understand what my friend is raising. i feel it is on necessary with the safeguard language that's currently in the draft bill and i think this is a crucial component that's going to lead the delivery system reform and better informed decision based on the best evidence, based on what we know what works and what doesn't for the further research to discover what works and what doesn't and getting back into the hands of doctors and patients so they can make good decisions which i believe is going to lead to higher quality-of-care for the patient at substantially lower costs ultimately. >> i encourage my colleagues to reject this amendment. >> mr. chairman, i would like to speak on the amendment.

>> mrs. brown-waite. >> thank you. >> i would like to remind people this is the -- we've got 49 amendments to go. ms. brown weight, take your time. [laughter] >> gee, i feel no pressure mr. chairman, and i even brought a dummy barras to sweeten you up. compared to the effectiveness research sounds really good but when we look at what it has meant in other countries it is a scary thought. other governments have been using this kind of research to ration care and when we look at the long term costs of the bill before us today, other than taxing, this government in the future will have to be rationing care. this will prohibit that from happening. using competitive -- i'm sorry, competitive effectiveness

research should not ever be used for rationing. but other countries it is. mr. herger cited the use of therapy for breast cancer. well, there are other areas where medical care is being denied. for example the british government used this research to say that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one of i before they could get the new drug to save the other eye. it took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision. earlier today i got an e-mail from a neighbor of mine who went up to canada where her father had a stroke. because of the cost of the canadian health care system they closed many hospitals near where her father left. he had to be transported,

mr. chairman, three and a half hours to a hospital. needless to say, he didn't make it. i don't want that, and i am sure members across the aisle don't want that happening. we don't want to have rationing of health care. because health care delayed is health care tonight. and with that i yield back the balance of my time. >> the chair recognizes mr. mr. reichert. >> just a brief comment. health care first of all was not about your credit system and for payment flows and complicated regulations and government jargon. health care is about people, and i think we need to all remember that. i want to go back to the language that was quoted by mr. kind. i hope i'm referring to the right section. nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the center to mandate coverage reimbursement or other policies for any public or private payer

but it doesn't mention cms or the secretary having that power and authority to make the decisions based upon cost so i believe we can't permit government whether it is a government from panel -- governor run panel or government entity like cms or the secretary to make medical decisions and place of doctors to treat patients deserve the most effective treatment. not having options limited by cms and door the secretary. this will protect patients from having health decisions made on the basis of cost instead of safety and or effectiveness. our patients and doctors not the government should be in charge of health care decisions. i.e. yield. >> mr. boustany. >> thank you mr. chairman. for a moment i want to speak as a physician with over 20 years of clinical experience and having made a lot of difficult decisions in my time and

practice in the intensive care unit and the operating room. let me say first of all that having the best available research that's risk adjusted that's been thoroughly vetted is critically important to questions and all questions want that. the practice of medicine is a moral imperative for physicians. physicians care about their patients and what to do the best they can possibly do. and i carefully read through the language in the bill dealing with comparative effectiveness and there's no doubt we need good comparative effectiveness research done properly and rigorously risk adjusted and scientifically based. but as my previous colleagues have pointed out that the comparative effectiveness research board may be restricted but it doesn't make payment decisions. it doesn't make decisions dealing with is going to be allowed and what will not be allowed and that is why i

believe as someone clinically dealt with patience that we need this protection. so that cns doesn't make rash decisions and that the decisions made by cms based on the best possible care and looking at the whole picture not simply on cost. it is my fear that will be the case if we don't put the added protection in place and it's the fear of many countries are on the country. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> mr. roskam. >> to follow up on a point that mr. reichart made and this goes back during the question and answer time when i asked ms. ms. bjorkland where it is separate from rationing and she pointed me to the area mr. reichart spoke about and mr. kind referenced and quoted from but i really think this is

worth revisiting because did you notice when mr. kind read the language there is no reference to the paper itself. that is cms. mr. herger's amendment we are discussing today doesn't say to abolish a comparative effectiveness. is is if you're going to have a comparative effectiveness program make sure that the actual paper is limited and doesn't have the ability to ration. i think that is a distinction worth making and revisiting. so mr. herger in summary isn't making the argument not to study this. he's not making the argument it isn't worth investment but what he is saying is that it ought to be precluded from moving towards this pathway to cost as a basis to deny people coverage. and for the life of me i don't understand the fear of the

herger amendment if at face value everybody wants a good comparative effectiveness program and i think it's been missed characterized in some ways and i would urge the passage of the amendment. >> mr. kind 3-cd >> i would like to take a brief moment to address a couple of points raised by my colleagues. first of all, i think it's dangerous to start placing arbitrary legislative limits on best evidence research or scientifically based research. we currently don't do that. we don't do it for nih, cdc, fda or any other scientifically based research when it comes to the cms or health care and it's been the standard practice is to get the evidence and in order to share it. but further mr. chairman my asking animus consent to have included in the record a letter submitted to the committee on july 14th from the american academy of family physicians, american college of physicians, society of general internal edison and i would like to read a quick of that letter in

which the state and i quote as the bill moves through the house and eventually to conference committee with of the senate we urge you to hold fast to your positions on comparative effectiveness research that will maintain as a scientifically based research in this initiative to benefit patients. c.r. shouldn't be subjected to arbitrary legislative limits on the use that could harm patients by donato and physicians and health plans with access to the best scientific evidence to improve the care of patients received, and of quote and i would like the submitted -- >> with the gentleman yield for a moment? >> i would be happy to yield. >> this amendment does and no way restrict comparative effectiveness research. it simply adds protection in place so that arbitrary decisions on clinical care are not made simply on cost without taking into account quality and all the other things we are

talking about this protect the doctor patient relationship and it's critically important and all those organizations and physicians behind them would see it from my position and so, clearly what we are saying is we are not trying to limit comparative effectiveness research. we want it to be done rigorously and scientifically but we don't want to be used or i should say misused to make arbitrary cost decisions that affect care. >> reclaiming my time i appreciate the gentleman's good faith statement and a think comparative effectiveness is important to move forward on but this is on necessary given the language in the legislation, given the current practice of nih and cdc and fda research we currently use and not for rationing purposes and given the current wall on reasonable and necessary care. all of those are additional protections that i think bolster the provision and legislation. it's not going to be a cost

based determination. i don't think it could be much clearer. i encourage my colleagues to reject the amendment and i yield back. >> mr. herger is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. it's interesting to listen to this exchange between dr. passan and mr. kind. it sounds like the three of us are in complete agreement. if i understanding my friend from wisconsin, he also doesn't want -- he wants to see as the letter you pointed out from the decisions that this decision be made not by bureaucrats but between the doctor and the patient with all the information available and that is what we want to do. and all we are doing is ensuring that as you quote from section 1401 which has this commission which by the way has no authority on whether or not the care goes out or not is to

see -- cms has the authority. all we are doing is making sure these decisions will be made with all this information between the patient and the doctor and not have what we see taking place in the u.k. and other countries so it sounds like we are in agreement and if we are i think the gentleman what support this as one more safety to make sure that this doesn't happen. with that i urge passage of this amendment. >> -- the amendment all by indicate by saying aye. all opposed? the noes have it. roll call vote is requested. clerk will call the roll. [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] 15 yays 26 nays. >> thank you. i have an amendment at the desk. [inaudible conversations] >> you may proceed. >> just thinking about the families and the children we are

dealing with health care about today i think it's important to remember that waiting to buy a wii at christmas time or for someone to deliver furniture you have bought, that won't kill you but waiting to get health care than you need very well could. there is a fear in america in order to save money the government-run insurance plan created in this bill could ration health care by making americans wait to see their doctors the need to see. such rationing is already taking place in countries with government-run health care. plans just like this. in 2007 last year patients in canada waited more than four and a half months. they waited more than four and a half months between the time these of their family physician and the time they got treatment from the specialists they needed

it from. some patients died while waiting to receive care in ontario one out of every ten patients could not find a family physician. couldn't find a single doctor to see them and their family and 2007. one town held a lottery and how the town clerk draw names to see who could go see the family physician under a government on plan. in britain each year more than a million people wait again for months, four long months to be treated in some again donley waiting just to see a doctor. that cannot be allowed in america in this plan. giving an insurance card with the seal of the federal government will mean little if patients are not able to see a doctor. so this amendment says if the government-run plan results in ration health care by forcing

patients in the long waiting lines to be treated in and should be suspended and they should have the option to go to another plan that will cover them. and to ensure the public knows what the we times are for their doctors it is required as a secretary to collect data on the week times and publishing them so the public, so the american public can know what we times are both within private plans and this new government plan. that's the type of openness and transparency americas been waiting for a long time in the health care. the point is we have been a short time and time again that this government plan will not ration health care. this amendment to protect americans against that rationing is the only opportunity for this committee i think in this house to way and to assure them. with that i would reserve time for closing mr. chairman. >> dr. macdermid is recognized to respond.

-- before mr. chairman. well, there is a pattern emerging that is reminiscent of 1993. i think harry and louise must be writing these amendments because what is happening here is that the other side is trying to make people afraid. they have a persistent -- if you look at the amendments the first was a direct attack on the public option. the next one was holy pictures if we don't go into it is a bad plan. the next one is they're going to use cost to unite people. and now, and i really can't believe my good friend mr. brady wants to set up a huge barack corsi op they're trying to get the information about how long people wait to see a doctor. we don't have a government plan today. but how many people have been told they can't see the doctor today? they have to wait until wednesday or thursday or next

week on friday. so, what my colleague wants is i guess doctors will all have a time clock and when the request comes in for an appointment they will have to punch it and then when the patient comes in they will punch it again and said all that data in. i don't know how he thinks this is going to be put together. it is simply a way of using the word rationing and he said americans are afraid of rationing and that's what everyone of these amendments is about, to make people afraid. but what we ought to be afraid of is the system of private health care in this country that has left almost 15 million people without health insurance. and if that isn't rationing, i don't know what is. if the private sector is so good at providing health care in an efficient and cost-effective

manner why are there 50 million people in this country who don't have health insurance today? but he says no, if you call a doctor and he says he can't seem -- see you, come down right now and we are going to check how long it finally takes for you to get to that appointment. now, doctors have enough paper work. dr. tristani will tell you that and anyone who's practiced medicine as i did will tell you about paperwork and what mr. brady says let's put a whole new layer of paper work on doctors and doctors offices. to me, that is scaring people and it is on necessary and i urge my colleagues to vote against this. ..

>> have the highest health statistics in the world. we're number 13 in the world. with our private system that

is so good. what we're trying to do is fix it not add another layer of bureaucracy i yield to my colleagues. >> the. >> thank you, mr. chairman. what this amendment does is being misrepresented it requires the secretary to collect data on the way times for a specialist and requires them to compile this information. let me share a personal experience and dr. mcdermott may be aware of this but with medicaid there is a little-known provision that says a medicaid patient has to be seen within 30 minutes of appearing in a doctor's office by am sure that is not just

for florida medicates we already have a requirement in the law that says medicaid patients can be kept waiting any more than 30 minutes a you could be a private pay and go into a doctor's office and wait one hour or an hour and a half. let me share with you a personal story that is when my husband who is on medicare was by agnes -- diagnose of pancreatic cancer the diagnosis was on tuesday, he was confirmed on thursday and by monday the chemotherapy was set up. my husband did not get any special treatment as a matter of fact one of my constituents contracted pancreatic cancer also and had exactly the same as speedy treatment. what this amendment seeks to do is to make sure we are

tracking the amount of time that our constituents, all americans have to wait for healthcare. support the brady amendment because i think it will bring common-sense to the whole health care system and in particular to the public plan. with that i yield back the balance of my time. >> . >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am not sure if i have a question as much as make a comment. as i understand the amendment it would require as mr. mcdermott pointed out a bureaucracy to collect data how would we do that i am not exactly sure the exact amount of weight time you have for an appointment and it would be collected for every primary-care and specialty care physician both in the government's plan and all the private insurance plans so

every plan in this exchange would require physicians to collect this data about wait time but what i find most intriguing about the amendment is if the wait time for the public plan exceeds the average wait time for the wait time of the private insurance plan, the public insurance option has to be repealed. why is it that all private insurance plans to have way times that are below the average get to remain in the system if they have playtimes that exceed that of the public optioned? would 812 repeal access to all of those consumers of any plan that seems to have a long wait? if you use the average that

means it you have to kick out of the exchange. it is more rhetorical i am not sure first foul based on the bureaucracy would put into place to function even if you did once again it seems like a very imbalance attack on a public option to medicare that does nothing about the bureaucracy or wait times that currently consumers face today for the for-profit insurance providers as it is felt no need to answer. i yield back the rest of my time. >> mr. davis from kentucky? >> before i say my report remarks there is a false statement i'm not calling anybody is integrity but today systems that test that can collect the liberation with minor programming changes that

require doctors to do nothing anyone familiar with medical technology or point-of-sale technology four or five of us who were to that arena and congress will save it is a transparent election that would improve mr. brady's point* we should have it hospitals use it for in-house management three minpeco going forward we have a lot of false premises fifth to talk about creating fear those at treating the bureaucracy should be careful of to a saying that people are creating what it will improve private market plans or be competitive with the private market baidu not believe that. mr. brady's amendment would ensure it is all the promise to make sure that the wait time the reason this needs to be put in with a government plan is the free market works in the private sector now. if services are not being effectively deliver people

change their plan and move on. no different than buying it different parts you are not satisfied. it over 100 million people are moved to the government's plan you may have a card that says you are covered but if you cannot provide -- baidu provider that is worse and that is a concern particularly in rural healthcare. we times in canada and the united kingdom have been mentioned but the list goes on as each new case is offensive. 18 months on a waiting list in canada for bypass surgery is a huge cost newble supply work hours as compared to almost immediate surgery today. in the u.k. guidelines say the patient should receive treatment and first three months that led result in a liability suits if that were to happen in the united states. that seems too long and that is the average wait time but in reality it is nine months

and o england for that treatment and general practitioners are not trained well enough to know what help to offer as opposed to seeing a rheumatologist as an american patient would diagnosing and treating rheumatoid arthritis this -- arthritis is critical because drugs can limit the progression. the mri wait for canada is 10 weeks patients ontario experienced this 7.eight weeks. while new family and days newfoundland waited a long as. in the united states most americans receive hipaa of the ship replacement within six months. many canada way to over one year in united kingdom only 50 percent are treated within six months. more than 725,000 canadians idle on a month-long waiting list for critical treatment and ♪ ♪ since the survival rates for breast cancer and prostate

cancer lag by 14 point* two and a whopping 40 point* eight percentage points prospectively. it is inadequate structural changes to the system to succeed in lowering cost but we cannot simply add billions of new consumers to a broken system it will only exacerbate the problem. you just have to look the other countries for the results instead of enacting revolt reform like re-engineering they compliance system and private insurance for reform today we're considering a message that wraps complexity of government around a dysfunctional system to avoid the problem this proposal does the present a solution for pro many people complain it will compete 90 people discuss that side of the promise but if it cannot live up the adequate care then the plan should be discontinued i urge you to support mr. brady's amendment and i yield back. >> i strongly disagree with

the thought it is inconvenient for this government to tell people how long they will have to wait to see a doctor. what is inconvenient when you have a child who is very ill and they cannot see a family physician and it is inconvenient when you have a loved one of the doctor says you need this help and you wait a month after month to see the doctor who can address what is wrong with them and you watch them suffer. that is a real inconvenience and healthcare. for those viewers watching this today you may think you're at the i hop because you're hearing a lot of waffling. this amendment is very simple as says if you have to wait longer in the government's plan to see a doctor and a private plan it is stopped and suspended you can get into a plan that can serve so it is a

comparison and it is fair and it is real treatment and we want to pull back the curtain of mystery on how long health-care is delivered to americans and give them that information although it is inconvenient to some people today. we have been told from the very beginning of this hearing and for months what a great plan this kermit health-care plan, high-quality, low-cost will be the answer to america's health-care needs. this is a chance to put up or shut up. it is the opportunity to act and show with your deeds not just your words that government will not ration health care in america because i agree with dr. mcdermott, there is fear. there's a fear that a government will control what doctors we see, what treatments we deserve, and what medicines hour families

receive. i urge this committee to finally stand up and say we will not ration health care in the government-run plan. >> the brady amendment is before the committee. the amendment is defeated. a roll-call votes it is requested.

[roll call] [roll call]

[roll call]

[roll call] >> 15 yeas 26 nays is. >> the amendment is not agreed to some of the 58 remaining amendments we have taken care of three. so now we move on and we recognize mr. johnson to offer an amendment to the committee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. what i am offering is to strike the employer mandate. mr. chairman and the bill we

are debating today contains an eight percent payroll tax on employers if if they don't have benefits to their employees but also of they do not offer the right kind of health benefits. and not only taxes those businesses it cannot afford to offer health care insurance but those to offer coverage to is deemed insufficient by the federal government. this bill also taxes businesses that offer sufficient health coverage but they decide to enroll somewhere else but also businesses of the federal government decides they are not paying enough of the premium as the national unemployment rate climbs toward 10 percent, and this is absolutely the wrong time to increase taxes that is why i like to strike down the employer mandate. over 30 organizations have come down an opposition of the

employer pay or play mandate. like unanimous consent to enter into the record letters from the u.s. chamber, national federation of independent business and 31 other organizations to express their desire to see the employer mandate removed from the underlying legislation prepared u.s. chamber of commerce has stated the employer mandate will not increase health coverage of the two the outsourcing and offshore of jobs and hiring of the independent contractors as well as reducing workforce and wages. the national retail federation which represents one of five american workers said and i quote mac and the mandate of any kind is a tax on jobs. we can think of a few steps to take in the middle of the present recession. the nonpartisan cbo has weighed in on the subject

requiring employers to pay a fee is likely to reduce employment even the white house economic model confirms this is says the employer mandate will result in 4.7 million americans losing their jobs. i cannot think of anything worse this congress could do right now in light of the current economic situation that would be as devastating as taxing businesses have of 4.7 billion jobs. i urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this amendment that would strike this tax on american businesses i yield back. >> thank you and to my friend mr. johnson i am very glad you propose this amendment.

because a very much draws the lines between those who essentials the wind to sustain or maintain the status quo and those who are determined to change it. we have been talking about this issue for years and as washington has talked to the number of people without insurance has grown. i don't know what more could move people man 45 or 50 million people without insurance. i don't know what it will take. if you go into the issues of people without insurance and look them in the i i don't see

how we can support this amendment the status quo is not only an untenable but unconscionable. for the first time the president of the united states in a majority of this congress determined to step up to the plate and no longer da edge in this issue so we have an employer mandate. we have, we have been sensitive and we try to balance so we have exempted the smaller businesses with payrolls under 250,000 and entirely. entirely. what we have also done is to provide tax credits for a business so they can provide an affordable comprehensive coverage. so what more do you ask?

if the cbo says there will be 97 percent coverage. a dramatic increase in the coverage today. my guess is if you would replace all of us with people who had no health insurance, republicans as well as democrats would vote against this amendment. you talk about offshoring, so many of these jobs could never be sent overseas. you have opposition from the retail establishment those jobs would be offshore? and no. the fact is that so many of the businesses in the industrial sector have been providing insurance. but a lot of the company's that are not have failed to do

so relying on those who provide insurance to cover their dependence. there has not been a single plan that i know of from the minority, a single plan that would lift the coverage for people in this country anything close at 97%. no proposal would be scored as coming anything close. i say to 812 to oppose this, come up with a plan that reaches 97%. come up with a plan. all of us old town hall meetings and of the hardest thing to do is to listen to a comment from people who have no coverage you can afford coverage, who work hard and if

there is no health care coverage. there is no health reform without coverage. let me just finish on this. the president has said a mandate is we get costs under control. a mandate is we also cover virtually everybody. that is say double mandate. this bill attempts to meet both mandates. maybe we can do more and probably over time we will in terms of containment of cost, rationalizing the delivery system. okay. but one thing that i think is on untouchable for the president of united states and for us is covering the centrally all americans with

health care coverage. if we leave here without anything less, we will have not done a good job. we cannot sit here in this committee that has responsibility. we cannot continue to say here and e essentially sit on our hands. i oppose this amendment. >> the chair recognizes mr. brady a texas. >> a quick fact check calling this cbo the democrats' plan leaves 17 million people in america without health care after we spend who knows how much we're still waiting to see the cost that 17 million is a population of florida. the second fact check as the it republicans have a number of proposals but we just did not have 24 hours or less to respond to the rush through congress.

but mr. levin is correct there is a distinction is between those who understand how jobs are created in america and those who have no clear. having run a small business and an organization struggling to pay health-care myself for our workers, i don't think this committee fully understands what a struggle it is for small businesses to keep workers especially in tough economic times to keep with healthcare. i took a serious look from the small business perspective of what this mandate would do. according to the national bureau of economic research to study the impact of a mandate like this on businesses, they made it three key points that should be of interest. first and who loses their job with a mandate like this? primarily women, minority and

high-school dropouts more than 60% of those at risk of losing their jobs are racial and ethnic minority. who else? minimum wage workers those earning within the $3 of minimum wage would be next at the greatest risk. interestingly enough, uninsured workers. those currently without health care are seven times more likely to lose their job fan workers presently injured. so a bill that is supposed to claim to be covering the uninsured to have a provision actually drive seven out of their job and seems to be at odds with each other. i am convinced if you have this mandate you will see companies dropped coverage. the cbo said requiring employers to offer health insurance or pay a fee is likely to reduce employment

and cut jobs. small businesses are disproportionately affected by this man day and will account for two-thirds of the job loss this is the fear the manufacturing companies and workers of america reflect what national association of manufacturers say the scheme was dead for sick comprehensive cost-benefit calculation on employers that will cause -- cause some to reduce benefits or just drop coverage altogether. i think this provision will backfire on the economy and cost us jobs and ultimately drive people out of the coverage they have. this is a common-sense amendment that deserves support at least if you care about workers in america. >> . >> of 17 million half of those

are undocumented workers would you cover them with health insurance? >> can you guarantee they will remain undocumented? >> that they will remain undocumented? >> as you go through your immigration reform a lot of proposals with amnesty can you guarantee? >> no. i don't think senator mccain or other sensible republicans would raise that issue. but don't throw in the 70 million as half are undocumented and we will be glad to talk to you about job loss. this side has been in the lead in terms of creating jobs in this country. [laughter] >> reclaiming my time respect a great deal you have lost 2 million jobs and the unemployment rate is 9.5% the economy is