stated unequivocally, public option would make it a no deal. so i appreciate the fact the republican objections were observed, but i don't believe the driving force behind the abandonment of this public option, if it actually was that we haven't seen the bill it cannot come to the floor was mainly because of the necessity to keep 60 democratic votes together. >> senator from arizona is correct. senator snowe has shown to the finance committee and made it clear she could not support public option. we are hoping at the end of the day she will consider voting for health care reform. that was part of the calculation. i can understand your point of view but i would say you are right we are moving towards our 60 votes but it would be a great outcome if we end up with a bill that brings some religions under republicans unveil if we keep the public option open.

we're going to have a real profound difference when it comes to the issue of medical malpractice and help to approach it at i think even on that issue we could've worked toward some common ground and i hope someday we still can. >> that i just ask my friend about the situation as it exists right now. right now, no member on this side has any idea as to the specifics of the proposal that the majority leader i understand is that two omb for some kind of scoring. is that the way we really want to do business here? that a proposal that will be presented to the senate sometime next week and voted on immediately, that's what we are told, is that the way to do business in a bipartisan fashion. shouldn't we be informed as to what the proposal at the senate majority leader is going to propose to the entire united states senate within a couple days. should we even know what it is?

>> i would say to the senator that i am in the dark almost as much as he is and i'm in the leadership. and the reason is because the congressional budget office which scores the manager's amendment, the so-called compromise has told us once you publicly start debating it we will publicly release it. well, we went to basically see whether or not it works on the whether it works to continue to reduce the deficit or whether it works to continue to reduce the growth in health care costs. we had a caucus after this was submitted to the cbo where senator reid and other senators who were involved basically sit up and said we are sorry we can't tell you in detail what was involved here. that you will learn, everyone will learn it will be of public information of this bill is currently on the internet. but the congressional budget office is really tied our hands at this point to get forward. basically all i know is what you know having read press accounts of what may be included. >> got asked my friend from illinois. and by the way late to do this again perhaps when we could get

more substance to many of the issues. isn't that -- i admit that these are unusual times. but isn't that a very unusual process that here we are discussing one sixth of the gross national product, the bill before us has been a product of almost a year of sausage making and yet here we are to position on the 12th of december were a proposal that none of us, except i understand one person, the majority leader, know what the fundamental parameters are. is that -- much less important the american people. i don't get it. >> and i think the senator was right in saying most of us are the fundamentals but we don't know the important details behind this. and what i'm saying is this is not the choice of the majority leader. it's the choice of the cbo. we may find a something that was sent over there doesn't work at

all, doesn't fly. they may say this is not going to work, start over. and so we have to reserve the right to do just that. and i think that is why we're waiting for the congressional budget office scoring as they call it to ensure that it did the levels we want in terms of deficit reduction and reducing the cost of health care. it's frustrating on your site and frustrating here. but i'm hoping that in a matter of hours and days that we will receive the cbo report. but i would like to ask the senator from arizona if he wouldn't mind responding to me on this area do you believe the current health care system in america is sustainable as we know it in terms of affordability for individuals and businesses. are you concerned that more and more people don't have the protection of health insurance. fewer businesses offer the protection. are you concerned -- the >> time period has expired. >> basking in its consent for five additional minutes. >> without objection. >> are you concerned as well with the fact that we have 50 million americans without health insurance and the number

is growing that the number of publishers market there is no competition. one or two take it or leave it situation. does that lead you to conclude we cannot stay with the current system but have to make some fundamental changes and reforms? >> i say to my friends, everything he said was absolutely correct. i am deeply concerned about the situation of health care in america. and i know the senator from illinois is deeply concerned about the fact that it's going to go bankrupt, about the fact that the medicare trustees say that within six or seven years it's broke. and from what we hear, there's now a proposal over they are to extend eligibility for medicare which obviously puts more people in the system, which obviously under the present set up would accelerate a point of bankruptcy, at least from what i know of this. but the fundamental difference we have i think in opinion is not that we want -- but we don't both shared a deep ambition that

every american have affordable and available health care. it that we believe that a government auction, a government takeover, a massive reorganization of health care in america will destroy the quality of health care in america and not address the fundamental problem, which we believe the quality is fine. we think that the problem is bringing the cost under control. and when you refuse to address and obvious aspect of cost savings such as malpractice reform, such as going across state lines to obtain health insurance, such as allowing small businesses to join together and negotiate with health care companies. such as other proposals that we have. then, i think that's where we have a difference. we share a common ambition but the way you get there i do not see in this bill, nor do most experts a significant reduction

in health care costs except slashing medicare by some half trillion dollars which everybody knows doesn't work in destroying the medicare advantage pro-program in my home state of 333,000 seniors are a part of. >> i say to the senator of arizona to earth during first. they say this will make medicare lived five years more. this bill will breathe into medicare more light for five additional years. second, i would ask the senator from arizona, i've heard a lot of negative comments about government-sponsored health care. i would ask the senator from arizona, is he in favor of eliminating the medicare program, the veterans care program, the medicaid program, the chip or a grant to health insurance for children, all basically government administered programs. does he believe there is something fundamentally wrong with those programs that we

should jettison and turned back over to the private sector? and the second question is is the senator from arizona wanting to stand and justify why medicare advantage offered by private health insurance companies caused 14% more than the government plan that's been offered and we are literally subsidizing private health insurance companies to the tune of billions of dollars each year so that they can make more profits at the expense of medicare? >> well, first of all, obviously i want to preserve this programs, but every one of those that the senator pointed out is going broke. so they are wonderful programs, and they are great things to have but they are going broke. i would say to the senator from illinois and he knows it and i note in the medicare trustees know. so to say that we don't want these programs because we want to fix them is obviously a mischaracterization of our

position. we want to preserve them that we all know they're going broke. so it needs cost savings. in his malpractice reform. it means all the things we just talked about before. the senator just mentioned medicare advantage. that's called medicare part c. of the senator well knows. that's part of the medicare system and there are arguments that are made that are enormous savings over time because the seniors who have this program have it violated any law who have chosen it are more well and have better health over time thereby in the long run saving significant -- making significant savings in the health care system, which is what this is supposed to be all about. and so i just ask in response, how would the world to take a medicare system which according to the trustees is going broke and then expand it to people

between age 55 and 64. the math doesn't work i say to the senator from illinois. it doesn't work under the present system which is going broke to add onto it on the witch and a medical expert will tell you results in adverse selection and therefore increases in health care costs. >> if i could respond first. why is medicare facing insolvency? why is it going broke? where the other systems facing the increased cost of health care on strips inflation. and there's basically no no way to keep up with it unless we start bending that cost curve. so we face on reality unless we deal with the fundamentals of how to have more efficient health care. going broke is a phenomena which is not reflected in that administration of the program but in the reality of health care economics. now what i'm about to say about the expanded medicare is based solely on press accounts, not that i know what the cbo is in detail but the 55 to 64

eligibility for medicare will be in a separate pool, sustained by premiums paid by those going in. so if they are a high risk pool by nature, you're going to see higher premiums. what happens in that pool will not have an impact on medicare as i understand it. it will be a separate pool of those receiving medicare benefits that they will pay for an actual premiums. it won't be at the expense or to the benefit of the medicare is self. but i just said is based on press accounts and not to my personal knowledge of what was submitted to cbo. >> the senator has been a cms estimates this morning that these will be dramatic increases in health care costs and he may be able to expand the access to it, but given the dramatic increase one that still affects the medicare system and to there will obviously be increased cost if you see the inverse election such as what we're talking about. i asked my friend and i see our

staff is getting very restless. i asked my friend if maybe i could do this again during the weekend and during the week. i appreciate it and i think people are helped by this kind of debate and discussion. and i do respect not only the passion, but the knowledge that the senator from illinois has about this issue. >> thank you.

[inaudible conversations] >> you are all here because you want to hear what we have to say and then ask questions. okay, alright i'm delighted to be here with my colleagues. senator menendez and senator white house and i'd like to thank you for coming, and thank them for the great work they've done on moving this bill forward and many other things they've done. so, as all of you know one of the main selling points of the senate health care reform bill is that we will protect medicare by extending its solvency for five years, the fear that medicare will run out of money will cause enormous problems for our senior citizens both now because we worry and later when we actually ran out of money. how do we do this? simple. we get rid of the fraud, waste, and abuse in the system. these are dollars that don't go

towards improving seniors benefits one bit, but instead go to insurance companies or otherwise slip through the cracks and jeopardize the program's fiscal future. and i would ask anyone who's gone to the doctor or hospital and gets back to bill in and refit. ask anyone who goes to the doctor has a major procedure to repair bill. you'll find all kinds of cost and doctors they've ever been, this and that. everyone knows how much waste and fraud and abuse there is no system. if we don't get rid of this waste, we do nothing, the system will go broke in seven years. so to watch the system we have to reform it. that's why the aarp feel the senate bill for quotes, sharing up the solvency of the medicare trust for five years without cutting guaranteed benefits. now republicans lately have styled themselves and defenders of medicare. their claims would be hilarious

if they weren't so dangerous. been defending the status quo republicans are risk in letting medicare go bankrupt. that shouldn't come as any surprise considering they oppose the program's creation and try to kill it ever sense. we know the real truth. they hate government programs. they say that. but we also know they really don't like medicare. one of the most successful government broke ribs that we've had in terms of making people better. now back in 1960's ronald reagan one of the most revered politicians of the republican party like and medicare to socialized medicine. the first president bush called that out right in 1964. when senate majority leader bob dole was running for president in 1996 bragged about voting against medicare. so the republicans have no credibility on this issue. in fact, congressional republicans have tried to present themselves as defenders

of medicare even as they have railed against public option. guess what? medicare is a public option. if you are against the government, you're against medicare. and they are. they twisted themselves into a pretzel on this issue. during the senate finance committee hearing, senator grassley under questioning for me that that medicare was part of the social fabric of america and then at the same time said he hates government programs. but if it's part of the social fabric of america, if they believe that then they should join us in protect dean, preserving, and extended medicare. it is possible to bring more americans into medicare or something similar to what we believe it's worth exploring. but once again our republican friends disagree. look at this chart. on monday, senate republican leaders called the idea of

expanding medicare a plan for financial ruin. this was just one day after win sunday they were standing up defending medicare. you can't have it both ways. that's what they want. i asked the republican leadership, which is it? maybe it's hypocrisy. maybe it's just an identity crisis. maybe it's just rotten politics. but you just can't call the republicans defenders of the medicare system. the truth is it's we who created medicare and we're the ones most committed to defending and strengthening it for years to come. in the 1980's, the republican slogan was just a know. in 1980 that worked. it doesn't work anymore. people know actually defending medicare means reforming the system so it doesn't go broke.

it means allowing more people to get on medicare. it means that you know there're too many americans without affordable insurance option. on medicare, the american people don't want to just say no. they like it and they what to keep it. and so, when you ask the american people who do you trust to protect medicare? sure is that it isn't the republicans. senator menendez. >> let me thank senator schumer for his leadership in the negotiations he has led to be able to leave leap over some of the most difficult problems. i think america needs to hear the truth. and the truth is that to republicans this debate isn't about health care. this is an ideological battle driven by the right wing of the republican party.

republican colleague said recently on fox news quote, this is a battle for the heart and soul of america. it is a struggle between freedom and socialism, between free markets and essentially planned economy. in between we the people and an entrenched class of elite all editions. that's the end of his quote. well, we are the people amah all of us, democrats and republicans alike. the implication that we are not is as offensive as it is ridiculous and ideologically motivated you to fear when i hear such language that this debate is being hyper politicized to satisfy a fringe element of the republican right. it is the ideological right playing the fear card again trying to drive a wedge that splits this nation into red and blue. they want americans to fear government, through the democratic parties generate effort to repair a broken health

care system because they don't have a plan to fix health care. they presided over it for eight years with a republican president and we had a skyrocket increase in premiums. read all the denials of health insurance when you need it the most, that families across new jersey talk to me about when i held my listening fastens at said time and time again even though i have insurance, even though i did the right thing, even though i followed the pursuit on trent besiegers. republicans talk about death penalty taxes and raise people's fears. he pushed a few hot buttons and bring up abortion. they come to the senate floor and wave a flag. but about liberty, the free markets, and claim themselves protectors of the american values. they call any attempt at health care reform government intervention. they call it socialism. they rise to object, obvious

gate, delay, and call it hatred of them. they huddle of health insurers against hard-working americans who pay higher and higher premiums and they get denied coverage and call it defending free enterprise. let's be clear, the republicans simply don't want health care reform. they don't want to debate and they want it their way or no way. the truth is our friends on the other side of the aisle think that the business of government is business. we think the business of government is people and we will not stand down from a fight. the fight for people's jobs, their lives, their hopes, their health, and well-being of their families in the face of insurers who are minimizing their risk by denying coverage when people need it the most. what insurers are doing is not what i think of when i think of american values or free-market values. it is greed and in my humble view. this is historic legislation,

just as social security, medicare, the civil rights act, the clean air and clean water act were historic. and republicans than were on the wrong side of history. and once again, republicans are on the wrong side of history. however many times the object, delay, and obfuscate will not change that fact. he will still be on the wrong side of history as they have been so many times before. with that, i give to my colleague sheldon whitehouse. >> thank you bobby and thank you jack. the republican party has been an exceptional institution in american life. it was the party of abraham lincoln. it was the party of theodore roosevelt. and now this grand old party is

out there doing the limbaugh limbo and causing mystified americans to look at their antics and wonder to the old limbo question, how low can you go? and i have my opinions, but let me share some opinions of others. the editor of the manchester journal acquire page devoted to gop which he called this once great and now mostly shameful party that it has gone crazy, that it is more and more dominated at the lunatic fringe and that it has poisoned itself with hate. he concluded they no longer want to govern. they want to emote. a very well regarded philadelphian columnist wrote at the republican right, if they can get the mileage that the mouse matters. and he went on to quote conservative paranoia and lunacy a foot in our national debate. the respected maureen of "the

new york times" and her friend the late william safire lamented the profile and vitriol of today's howling pack of conservative pundits. a nobel prize-winning economist has said, and i quote, the takeover of the republican party by the irrational right is no laughing matter. something unprecedented is happening here and it's very bad for america. specifically with respect to health care, a well regarded "washington post" writer with a quarter century of experience married to a bush administration official noted about the house health care bill quotes, the appalling amount of misinformation being peddled by its opponents. she called it a flood of sheer factual misstatements about the health care bill and noted that the falsehood of the league began at the top. her ultimate question was this.

are the republican arguments against the bill so weak that they have to resort to these misrepresentations and distortions. i think that helps answer the question of how low you can go when a great party defends to the limbaugh limbo and i will appreciate very much joining my colleagues to lament this particular episode in our national life. >> questions? >> i wanted to ask you, democrats have argued for a long time that bush face bankruptcy if they get very sick and need health care. and democrats had promised to not allow that to happen. today we want to know if the bill in fact puts it into caps on coverage. how did that change and what will it mean if people get very sick? >> i believe you'd have to go to the details on this. but the caps are very, very high and they are is no lifetime

which had really hurt people. [inaudible] >> i don't. >> mr. schumer, [inaudible] >> well, as leader said to have the two major problems of the public option which the group of ten of us has tried to resolve and so far, so good obviously were all waiting the cbo score. and the abortion issue. are there other little problems here and there? gas. but the number one thing that has impressed me whether we're sitting around a table for long hours with nine of my colleagues or watching people like senator menendez and senator whitehouse and all the democratic docket. there is not a single person who's strongly and genuinely doesn't want to pass the bill. and so, you know, our own individual needs, ideology and

states are sort of a centrifugal force but our desire to pass the bill and stay together is a centripetal force and i believe that will overcome the centrifugal force. [inaudible] >> well, you know, again we are all waiting to score. but there is a positive reaction the day after we came out with our plan there was positive reaction from both bernie sanders and joe lieberman so that at least has its allies. >> senator schumer -- [inaudible] [laughter] >> mrs. roberts, seventh-grade middle school. >> so in the last 48 hours there've been a lot of concerns raised about the buy and quote from senator lieber and of the moderates, hospitals, staffers. are you -- is very possible you

might have to drop that idea? >> well, i think we're going to wait and see what cbo has to say. i think when people see the details they're going to be pretty happy with it. and i think that many of the concerns that have been voiced, which are legitimate i believe when we get a cbo score and people see the details we will be. [inaudible] and i wanted to ask, it is that stuff on the floor because it breaks up the farm a deal and there is a worry that there are enough votes there? >> is on the floor because senator dorgan has championed it for a very long time. and there are, you know, concerns. people have always had legitimate concerns on that issue about making sure that another menendez has consistently for instance that the drugs that come into this country are safe and healthy.

>> senator menendez, do you have anything to add on that? >> he said it just as i would say. >> the centripetal force at work. [laughter] [inaudible] and a lot of folks are wondering there making really big changes to this legislation to this late point. are you really intent on putting the best bill or just getting the 60 votes? we have reason to believe that the medicare by and is better than the other -- given that right now people over 65 by wraparound coverage. ..

>> >> the premise of your question was that the biggest challenge, the struggles in our caucus, first of all, the republicans are off the playing field because they have chosen to be off of the playing field. they could not have been on the playing field but they chose not to. they chose not to win a walk after months of max baucus meeting with several members in the leadership came back down and said we do not want a bill. the bottom line is of course, menu elected to all 60 votes when you have a filibuster process when it now requires 60 votes and all are likely to come from democrats, of course, the

debate will how you make the best bill within a certain universe? they have taken themselves out of it. >> the second part is in the medicare provision, that has been something that democrats for a long time have been advocating. being able to buy in it at medicare at 55 years old is what many democrats have been an advocate. i don't look at that as something is that really better where are you just using that to get votes? that has had a lot of support for a long time. >> coming from rhode island where we have a very big senior population and not like florida lower at arizona as a destination state they're very often struggling to get by for many seniors in rhode island, a coming-of-age to qualify for medicare is a

safe harbor after a lifetime of storms and worries. such a move that forward is not an issue that is treated with angst the lower provider payments and the lower rates of that enables the more than anything else the deal of comfort and security to know that you have medicare will be a big point* for people not a point* of division. >> to regard the medicare by and as something that we don't want that but that is what we have to settle for is a total misinterpretation as much of us the democratic party has long sought. and here is another reaction. we look into the blogosphere of people who very much want

the public option and many say it is a step up especially given the public option that we ended up with was not as strong as some would like. nea idea that this is a fallback i think is a big step forward. i think that is how most of us feel. we can only take one or two more because of senator mcconnell. but also compare this gentleman from "the new york times" hear who said look at the fights among the democrats. look at the difference. we are struggling to come together of the most difficult issue america has ever faced and we're getting close to the finish line for the we have had our disagreements but it has not been poisonous. it is just pure politics. it is basically coming up the political argument of the day, one day they like

government and one day they don't. there is no consistency, no feeling here is how to make things better, it is tactical. here is the best argument today and let's see if there resonates even though has nothing to do with their true feelings. and it will be one of our saving graces because it will save us a lot of trouble because the american people see that. they see we're trying to do the right thing for them and they see a cynical ploy witticism of a just say no of the republicans and i will predict in 2010 that will serve us very well despite the bumps in the road that we have. >> no, no, no. look at the statement that basically talks about not health care but health care relating to the 2010 senate race. they look at this through the prism of an election. we're looking at this

through the prism of powdery provide health care for families who don't hong have it in have to be reduced the cost for those who do? that is a fundamental difference if that tells you everything. >> i am sorry i cut you off. >> you and other members of the leadership are banking on this cbo numbers coming out the way you think they will and being persuasive to the people even since you have announced the package have expressed some misgivings. the numbers if they don't come out that the major setback? >> them model that leader reid put forward is something indicative. the first time cbo came back they had to make certain changes bridal think those numbers will be so out of the ball park we have to start all over again. we may have to adjust to keep the deficit number down

and the savings up and helping people the best way possible. but it is very, very possible there will have to be some readjustments not because the cbo numbers numbers, because they tell you what you are doing and we want to do the right thing. last question. >> there you are other members of the democrat leadership concerned the dorgan amendment passage would blow apart? >> really strike to come together in our caucus. we are trying to balance then the that people have toward cheaper drugs with the safety needs and concerns for you sell what happened in the last year with imports from various places in terms of health care, food, toys, we want to have both, lower prices and safety. >> look at the european union.

they have just in the last maker to talk about a huge challenge the had with counterfeit drugs in the european union. the real goal is to create coverage for cry would hope would me finish the process we cover the doughnut hole. that would be far more important than the end of the day questioning of the real importation. >> last word. i will agree with that. it is good the dorgan amendment had reading gauge form of. and i hope it leads to improvement of part b that is sound and lasting this is something i campaign don and back to this to a summons point* double close with the parting couplet that our stockings are hung by the cloakroom with care hoping

that the health care bill soon will be there. ho, ho, ho. to all a good night. [laughter] >> good afternoon everyone. of like to make two points then turn it over to the managers of our bell -- bill senator grassley and senator enzi. and the great place to start is how do the american people feel about this health care bill? the cnn poll that came out last night indicated americans were opposed to this bill 61/36. 61/36. if you look at the pole dated going back over the last few weeks the

opposition is widening. a couple of weeks ago it was nine weeks -- nine points but earlier this week, 14 points and now 61/36 in the cnn poll. no question the american people are asking us not to pass this health care bill. now we have a government or the administration's own scorekeeper, the actuary telling us it will not save money. and we thought the whole exercise at the beginning was about bending the cost curve. with that may turn to senator grassley and we will hear from everybody else. >> let me start where senator mcconnell left off. bending the cost curve and broaden that 22 main points. they were goals going back to january when senator

baucus and i sat down to talk about the same goals when the group of six was meeting. we wanted to reduce, we want to be revenue neutral and make sure that long term we will bring down the cost of health care. reduce health care inflation or been the curve down. so now, we're about to spend on a partisan bill, two and half a trillion dollars if that does neither. and lots of studies have indicated that up to now but i don't think any of them as destructive as what senator mcconnell just referred to the cms actuarial report out today. we will spend 2.5 trillion dollars, less people insured by their employer, costs are going to go up, and premiums are going up, taxes are

going up. in the body in my state that heard me call that health care reform would figure that i read the bill wrong. the people back, or reading this bill and calling an overwhelmingly opposed to our passing it. >> the american people have figured it out but the democrats have not. they keep sightseeing cbo selectively. they go within that numbers rather than the gross numbers. that report, the cbo a nonpartisan group that we rely on says the prices will go up. senator lohan's said why don't we see if there somebody from their site to make an evaluation? he dropped the latter days a letter that we signed on to

to the chief actuary the senator from medicare and medicaid services which is part of hhs and we ask for an evaluation of this bill and that is the me from the administration doing the evaluation and that person said this bill, but the senator reid bill that does not include the option because they do not let anybody see that, not even their own party. but this actuary, based on the senator reid bill says it will increase by 0.7% over the next 10 years more than if we did nothing. more than if we did nothing. that is the administration. the report says the fees for drugs and insurance plans will increase health insurance premiums, national health expenditures by $11 billion per year.

on medicare is a real area of expertise, he talks about the $464 billion of medicare cuts will do and it says it is not sustainable, it will cost benefit and cuts we will not be able to use or do even and part of a. and says the cuts would be roughly 20% of par to a being a profitable in the next 10 years as a result of these cuts. reset if you can see a doctor go to a hospital or get into a nursing home you don't have health insurance at all. that is where this bill is headed. it is time to stop and do it right. >> as many of you know, before i came to the senate i was secretary of agriculture. one of the things i came to appreciate about the federal

government is there are many career people who'd just come in every day and do a great job. as secretary, they would come to me and tell me just the way they saw it. they did not care if i was a republican or democrat. as we were debating the health care bill, it occurred to me maybe we should ask a government actuary who does this kind of work every day to call it the way he or she sees it. reorganized this letter and 24 of my colleagues signed on and today we have gotten the response. my goodness, does it call it like he sees it. we increase the national health expenditures. remember all the promises about the health care curve

going to come down? it does not under this bill. in fact, it does bend the health care cost curve, not to down, but up. new fees for drugs, devices drugs, devices, insurance plans will increase insurance premiums and therefore increase medical costs for consumers. the long term insurance program which is often times referred to as a class act faces a very serious risk of becoming unsustainable. savings are unlikely. of a promise extended solvency of the medicare trust fund caused by medicare payment cuts are very unlikely. it breaks the promisor illustrates that if you like your plan you get to keep it. let me share this, 33% of

medicare vantage recipients will lose their coverage. that program is for some of the neediest seniors and helps with there:pays and deductibles and access to medicare is jeopardized if in fact, this report concludes that very quickly about 20% of medicare providers and hospitals, nursing homes and home health had an amendment on that last weekend will be under water. that is absolutely devastating. doctors and hospitals will become unprofitable to the tune of about 20% under the senator reid legislation and they point* out fewer and fewer will accept medicare and medicaid. i want to conclude my remarks with something that i heard just before i came

up here today. i understand by house has prided -- tried to attach with some language about the white house but interestingly enough is the last paragraph of the actuary report saying the proposed reduction of medicare payments for providers, the actions of the independent medical advisory board on high caste day's high cost insurance would have a significant downward impact on future cost rates so the white house is tried to convince you there is good news. no. read the whole piece of that paragraph and it goes on to say 2010 through 2019 these defects would be outweighed by the increased costs associated with the expansion of health insurance coverage. also the long-term viability of the medicare update

reduction is doubtful. of the provisions such as compared effective research are estimated to have relatively small effect on expenditure growth rates. to summarize that, today the fog lifted on the rebuild. all of the things that were said about bending the cost curve and this is good for medicare and on and on are now proven by this report. it is a remarkable report. it is a round house blow to the read plan. >> everyday more bad news for harry reid and the democrats. my colleagues pointed out the difficulties they will have to explain away the features of their legislation as analyzed by cms. senator mccain has taken

the lead on one and we're talking about the fact arizona participants from the medicare advantage program. over 300,000 and we talk about the benefits they will lose and so many will be dropped medicare advantage coverage and the democrats said that is the exaggeration but what does cms say? the talk about the results will less generous benefit packages when fully phased in plans would decrease by 33%. it sounds like senator enzi just mentioned that. 33%. the other group of people who we said would suffer as a result of this bill with fewer benefits, the idea if you like your plan you can keep it is not true. not just medicare but for others as well. the taxes in the legislation will according to cms be passed on in the form of higher premiums or higher

cost for the medical devices in the event of a medical device. as a result of the taxes on the plan cms as employers would reduce employees' health care benefits. our point* is you cannot any longer argue the benefits will be the same if you like your insurance, you can keep it. benefits will be reduced under this legislation. we have been saying is now verified by the cms report. >> i want to thank senator johanns for asking the government at sure to give us this information this is the latest red flag or yellow flag with the senator rebuilt and is suggest we should slow the train down. and start over and do it right. there's a lot of talk of making history with the

health care bill but there's a lot of ways to make history and is to be a historic mistake. sometimes we have our asked what would the republicans do instead? >> we would do most americans would do, take a specific goal, reducing health care cost to individuals, small businesses and our government and identify the first five or six steps toward that goal. we have been very specific with legislation what those are starting with the small business health plan which has been shown by the cbo to reduce cost and expand coverage. next, legislation that would put limits on junk lawsuits against doctors that would reduce costs. next competition across state lines is so people could buy more insurance at lower rates. the reduces cost. that is the way most americans would approach a problem.

we are scaring the daylights out of them with the possibility we will make a historic mistake with a 2.5 trillion dollars increase of federal expenditures that said government actuary says is a risky and says has a very serious risk of raising costs. >> and the words of the late senator udall from arizona everything said on this issue has been steadily not everyone has said it. i will try to be brief. it seems to me from being on the floor every day with my friends and colleagues and watching your friends on the other side of the aisle, there is the increasing sense of desperation about trying to corral 60 votes in order to pass this legislation. a new proposal has run up

the flagpole and we see how it works. the latest of course, the expansion of medicare down to people age 55 per everyone i have talked to has said expansion of medicare may increase revenues in the short term but obviously will increase the cost over time and immediately the subject of adverse selection. in other words, the people who are the sickest will sign up first with a and who pays the well people? we will see what the results of our. but the one before was a class act. the actuary does not have time to estimate. i will lay odds from increasing the participation in medicare but with the class act, that will be the answer but the rebuild says

the class act the actuaries found it faces a very serious risk of becoming an unsustainable as a result of adverse selection as a result of participants and found such problems -- programs based significant risk of failure that the program will result in a "net federal cost in the long term" end quote. i urge all of our friends and colleagues and americans to have a look at the cms report. is one of the most serious indictments of the entire philosophy behind the democrat and president's effort to reform health care in america. let's go back to the beginning and sit down for a change sit-down across the table maybe have the c-span cameras, but maybe no others

and seriously negotiate. this cms report should put the dagger in the heart of the senator rebuild. then let's have some serious negotiations to preserve medicare and medicaid natalie for present generations of future generations which is clearly at risk according to the center of medicare and medicaid services. >> americans never supported medicare but now you try to stall yourself as the saviors of medicare. >> i reminded of 2005 from the republican house and republican senate and republican president we tried in an effort to begin

to have medicare more sustainable for the long term and reduce the rate of increase by spending by $10 billion over five years. not a single democrat was willing to support that and by counterpart the majority leader called it immoral. and now they are presenting a half a trillion dollars of cuts to medicare which no one in america believes fifth is not a dagger in the heart of a program that is already going broke in seven years progress center stage to senator mccain is pointing out the one to expand the coverage to downward. it is nonsense. republicans of for medicare and want to make is sustainable. we don't believe it should be a piggy bank as it is in the rebuilt to finance a whole new entitlement program which cms says will not cut costs or is not

sustainable for a whole different set of americans. [inaudible] >> senator conrad said then that a gang of six negotiations behind closed doors you all considered a medicare by an? is that true? >> it was discussed for an hour or two but no.com. but lemay also -- lets me ask you look up the number of republicans that voted for medicare and 1965 and go ask the democrats how come they say republicans were against medicare? because obviously if the republicans voted for medicare in 1966. [inaudible] are you interested in what they're talking about.

>> first of all, water you referring to? obviously we do not know what they are doing for i have tried to get details. the democratic balks to have worked on this said we cannot give you any details so i go to my democratic friends and they say we don't know either. and there is some discussion of the fact there is a trigger that will take us to a public plan very soon after the enactment of the bill. is that true? one report was no but the next day one article in the newspaper saying absolute that is not true that there is a trigger. we're not for something like that so i have no idea. . .

we had to pass during the entire time and yet they want to call that a bipartisan bill. now they will share it with us -- another important part of that is they withheld the government option portion. i don't think the and quite

written and yet but the thrust that on us and we had a couple of days to do amendments owls weld so this is very reminiscent of that. i think they probably learned from that process and are intending to bid again. they had this in mind all along and now they are going to hold and thrust on us and expect us to vote on it and in the meantime, they are selling it to the media and the media is selling it to america and nobody's seen it. i don't know where the transparency is. >> senator durbin and i have a colloquy on the floor this everybody recorded for posterity and can do it again over the holidays, but the fact is senator durbin said no one knows, only one person knows. that's what he said and he said it in all honesty and as to what the health care bill reform bill is going to be. yes. >> of the colloquy this morning, what was your reaction when you

heard durbin see himself he had not speak to >> the number two ranking democrat said he didn't know what was in the bill so who should expect us to know? and fairness to senator durbin, and i want to be fair to him, he meant he didn't know all the provisions in the bill but he knew most of the provisions in the bill. i don't want to be too critical. but it seems to me that all senators should know at this late day after nearly a year of working on this legislation we should at least know what the latest proposal is. go ahead. >> senator dan end said this morning he thought what is on the floor right now is a decoy bill and what is going to come out in the manager's amendment that we propose leader could be substantially different. there could be a switch going on. would you go so far as to say that? >> i will let smarter people fan me including senator mcconnell

addressed that, but the fact is we know that they are seeking to get 60 votes. if they had 60 votes we would all be out of here now. and so things they are trying to include in the bill that would get the 60 votes and it is not there yet and we also know or have heard, i've heard from my friends on the other side of the it will be and managers package that will be what we finally vote on. whether that is a decoy or not or part of the process, i will leave that to others to judge by will lymphocytes' i've been part of many bipartisan agreements and legislation that's passed in this body. it has always been with this substantial agreement of large numbers on both sides. there's never been reform. passed through the senate of the united states that did not have significant bipartisan participation and this one doesn't.

>> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

democratic leaders will bring up a bill next week that would raise the debt ceiling, the legal limit of government borrowing by $1.8 trillion. today a group of house republicans introduced legislation that would require a two-thirds majority in both the senate and the house to increase the debt ceiling. the discuss the proposal at this 20 minute news briefing. >> i want to thank everybody for coming out today. we have filed h.r. 4262 which is

called the cap the did act, it stands for control america's purse strings for a better tomorrow. the reason we are following this legislation is the liberals that had a run in this congress have been on a wild spending spree since speaker policy have the gavel, and of course now we hear that next week the leadership, the people that are running this congress are planning on bringing $1.8 trillion increase in the national debt ceiling. of course american people all across the country are calling on congress to control spending. and those of us up here, we have over 50 co-sponsors of this bill saying it is time to instill fiscal discipline back in congress. anacapa the did act will do is it will require a two-thirds vote for any increase in the national debt. on top of that force apr calvo and repeal the gephardt rule which currently allows increases in the national debt ceiling to be tucked into other unrelated bills and the alternate site if

hypocrisy is this democrat liberal groups running congress is going to now i can hide behind our troops into this increase on a defense bill so they are hiding to dome petroleum's of dollars on the backs of our children and grandchildren. where i come from there's something called the rule of holes and one says when you find yourself in a hole the first thing you do is stop digging and unfortunately speaker policy and her public lieutenants think when they find themselves in a hole they keep digging more and piling more massive amounts of debt on to the american people, and the american people are saying enough is enough to be we've got to put fiscal discipline back in washington and we've got to return to balance budgets, and the first way you do that is by tapping the debt and not allowing them to spend even more money we don't have and dumping it on to the backs of our children and grandchildren and that's what the bill will do, and with that i'm proud to have a number of

our co-sponsors here today starting off with the republican whip eric cantor. >> good morning pt i want to congratulate steve squeezers, kevin brady and others on the leadership of bringing this to the floor. we have a situation where, once again, we see the democrats asking to incur more debt at the same time they are claiming to be fiscally responsible. another day where it is too as i say, not as i do. as steve just said, the american people are struggling right now. they expect washington to do what they do which is tighten the belt which is to try to live within our means if at all possible and stop this trend of spending money we don't have. if john q. public called his bank today with the kind of record that america has in terms of spending, if he calls his bank today with that and asks

for another loan, yet almost 2 trillion-dollar loan the bank would hang up the phone. the taxpayers ought to do the same. >> i have been here three short years. we're looking at borrowing 43 cents out of every dollar. i was talking to a high school class the other day and they said what do you need in washington? i said in three years i hear we need to things: accountability and adult supervision. that is exactly what this bill provides, with the transparency for people to see if you're going to vote to increase the debt to america, with accountability that it takes two-thirds vote to make it happen and the adult supervision to make a little more difficult. i love my children as much as anybody else in this cabinet. this is about their future. we need to make sure we bring the transparency and accountability of the adult supervision back to this house.

>> good morning. congressional democrats are in a box faced with raising the debt ceiling by nearly $2 trillion. you do a record-setting deficit and unprecedented spending they've been caught red handed trying to avoid embarrassing public vote on the matter by attaching next week a popular bill to fund the troops in the national defence. behind the troops to hide a politically embarrassing increase in america's debt is in my mind lower than low. i'm proud to join representative steve siskel and others to provide a roll call vote to increase the debt limit of america. and ensure raising the debt ceiling is not taken lightly requiring the two-thirds vote is the right thing to do if it is to be approved. apparently when democrats promised open and transparent government it didn't apply to

saddling our grandchildren with levels of debt they can't hope to burden. every democrat who voted to spend grandchildren's money should step up and take responsibility to pay for it including president obama. i think shame on them for trying to hide the increase from the public by sneaking in to the bill. final point for families, with a bill like this you wonder what it does. when speaker policy to the gavel in 2007 the debt for every man, woman and child was $29,000. with this increase just three short years later it will be more than $45,000 for every man, woman and child. that is a burden that is growing that we oppose and is going, again, to burden the future and our economy. >> if the federal government spending isn't going to get us out of this mess we would have been out a long time ago. think about where we are at. last year was a record deficit on top of the record that the

first year -- the first two months of this fiscal year or higher than the first two months of last. that's the kind of spending we are seeing. this is the kind of taxpayer protection we need. i want to thank steve and kevin for bringing this bill forward. and congressman mccurdy and brady are exactly right, you think about what makes this country special and the greatest nation in history. it is a simple concept, parents make sacrifices for their children so when they grow up they can have liked better than they did indeed generation americas on that for the succeeding. when you start to turnaround and live for the moment and stand for the moment and live for the now and spend for the now that is a turtle sign. this concept, this taxpayer protection concept helps give that discipline we need to get back on the right path, the path that has made this country great so again i want to come in a variety that's a co-sponsor of this legislation carefully the speaker will see its the right thing to me we can get a vote on this. >> well, thank you. this is every member has a voting card, and unfortunately

right now it's a credit card, and what the democrats now want to do is raise the credit limit on this credit card. there's two things that need to happen, we don't need to raise the limit on this credit card in fact we need to lower the limit on that credit card and at some point in time in the new future we need to start using this card as a debit card instead of a credit card. american families all across the country right now are paying their debt down making sacrifices. they are tightening their belts, but not this administration and now this leadership. they are in a spending and borrowed the is unsustainable. even the federal reserve chairman said recently we cannot continue to borrow money at this level. it's been brought out we are borrowing 43 cents for every dollar we spend. barring that from the chinese and japanese, and i appreciate my colleagues stepping forward and making a stand on stopping using this as a credit card and let's not raise the credit limit. thank you to read jonathan? >> welcome to begin with,

congress has a systems problem. we have a situation where 535 members are set in competition against one another to see how much money they can spend. so we have a problem to begin with, then you see this line of hand that goes on on the democrats' site where they have paygo which is nothing but swiss cheese, and then of course you have the health care bill, which the pay-for is ten years of revenue against six years expenses. so these will continue on until the american people hold their cumbrous folks accountable both on an individual level and on a collective level to finally restrained spending here in washington. >> thanks, steve. a lot already been said. i just want to lay off a very important statistic that has been lost. in the last eight months the debt ceiling will have been raised buy almost $3 trillion.

and total, we are now looking at a 14 trillion-dollar debt. if you look at interest expense on that and you have to service $14 trillion a nominal interest rate we will pay more in interest to our friends over in china and other holders of debt, more interest than we are paying our seniors and social security we are paying more in interest than to support our soldiers and support of our troops. these are frightening numbers, and if we don't start looking at stop mortgaging this country and the future of our children we are in huge trouble, and this is a wake-up call, and i appreciate this bill will help try to bring some fiscal responsibility back to this congress. thank you. >> next week the democratic leadership thinks that they are just going to pull off a little band-aid and get a difficult

vote over with. and i think it is just going to stand for a little bit and the public will forget about it, but what they don't realize is that in pulling off that indeed they are going to cause permanent damage. this is a sobering time. you know, to focus in on what congress , jordan from ohio said the presumption one generation cares for a mother has been something we have all benefited from in our generation. but this is ultimately generational theft, isn't it? this is the sinkhole of self absorption. by this congress that says let's spend, spend, spend now and squander our children's future. no one is here cavalierly. no one is suggesting the choices are easy ones. but i think as congress man scalise and brady and others are trying to set a framework and it is a framework to stop this

madness and turn back to prosperity. >> anytime we have record debt, record levels of spending and deficits, raising the debt ceiling and having a vote on that is as critical a vote as we will take and as a freshman member i can tell you the freshman class particularly freshmen republicans are really concerned about this issue we we are hearing more from our personal constituents than any other issue of spending and it is alarming when moody's is telling us as the united states we will potentially use our -- lose our aaa bond rating in the future and that is a wake-up call and i am proud to support this legislation. >> republican conference chair mike pence. >> i'm delighted to be here with my colleagues. less is their conference chairman and just more as an american. when i see the leadership that steve scalise and kevin brady have brought to this issue at

the end of an extraordinary session of congress they haven't lost sight of the wall decouple which is the american people know we cannot borrow and spend and they all our way back to a growing economy. as my colleague, eric cantor said, during this difficult recession back in our district, families are cutting back. they are looking for where they can find savings. they are looking for maybe a second job to bring in a little more income, and yet they see washington, d.c. literally going to the floor, and on the very backs of our soldiers preparing to pass the debt limit increase that will raise the debt limit buy nearly $2 trillion. i mean, what the democrats are doing here is essentially facing difficult times by raising the debt limit on their credit card.

that's not what the american people are doing right now. the people back in indiana, the people all across this country are making hard choices to pick their own fiscal house in order and put their family budget in order thanks to the leadership of steve scalise and kevin speed and the leadership of those that are gathered here. house republicans have a better plan. we believe that enactment of the cap and debt act would provide the accountability, clean up or down vote. let the american people count the role and see who in congress thinks we ought to be cutting spending. and those who think we ought to be raising the debt limit to answer these challenging times. and we also ought to get back to a super majority idea. the last thought is the process here, you know, we've grown used to it. we saw democrats in congress this year use a bill to support our soldiers to pass his crimes legislation and squelching the free speech and religious freedom of millions of americans

in the process. but let me tell you something. the american soldier does not put on the uniform to raise the debt. they put on the uniform to raise and defend the fled. and it is unconscionable for the democratic majority to pile up a debt limit increase on the backs of the american soldier and it is especially unconscionable in a time when congress ought to be making the hard choices the cap and that act if enacted was to lead could force the congress to do with every american family is doing. >> we will open up to questions. yes. >> given the past deficits, can be seen as hypocritical to seek this now given that there was never any effort to pay for the 944 billion for the global or whatever to support the revenue increases? >> first of all i just came to congress last year, and i can tell you there has been a growing feeling across the

country that out of control spending in washington has become one of the biggest problems in the country. it is a problem holding back our economy and many other facets of american people's lives and it's a high priority. it's a high priority of ours and it is time we put that fiscal discipline in place, and all so they cannot just wait for a fool and hide behind the get hartel and attach it increases to unrelated legislation. with true accountability and transparency by requiring it some democratic group running congress wants to increase the debt ceiling that has to be a standalone vote and that all american people can go and see who votes for and against it and stands for fiscal responsibility. >> [inaudible] >> this applies to any of commerce. i think we are going to be running congress in a short period of time in part because of the reckless policies not just on spending but on the government takeover of health care pushed by the democrats, the cap and treatment are to become national tax and many of these policies that are actually

forcing companies to look at running millions of jobs overseas, so the american people are going to hold, those of us accountable here today, not for transgressions of the past because previous elections held some of those people accountable but for what is happening here today in congress people are tired of the blame game. president obama continues to run around and try to talk about things she inherited and the american people said we are going back to the old adage that the book stops here and those of us here today should be held accountable for the things we do today and the cat didn't act forces that accountability and transparency by not letting them high on unrelated legislation. if they want to raise the debt to have to have a two-thirds vote. >> [inaudible] -- d.o.t. appropriations bill if it is attached to it. >> i did we talk about the hypocrisy and shamelessness of the democrats running congress to apply an increase in the debt ceiling behind the troops. i don't think if you talk to most of our troops they want to see their children they are

fighting for a better tomorrow be saddled with $6,000 per person of additional debt by this bill. i don't think if you talk to the troops out there they would think it is fair to have to have their funding tied to a piece of legislation that actually at $6,000 of debt on to their children because the liberals in congress have a spending problem. and we are voting and we are voting to represent not only them but all americans who want to see fiscal responsibility restored in congress. we have stood behind our troops and we continue to. it's an insult to the troops to tie their funding to an increase in the debt ceiling. >> i'm confused. does that mean you are going to vote for the bill next week or are not? >> i oppose the increase in the debt ceiling. >> see you were going to vote against defense appropriations -- >> i speak for myself i vote against increasing the debt ceiling whenever the attached to. >> to the other leaders -- >> i can't speak for anybody else. i just know where i am. >> does it have the leadership

of mr. mccarthy, what do you guys think? >> there's a letter from a number of members in the conference in the signing sending it to the speaker being out that we would like a very clean vote, and that is what this does. you're talking to the future here, we are talking about putting accountability in the future. why can't a bill be passed or fail on the merits of its case? why would you put something inside of it? so that doesn't have to be the case. the speaker does not have to put the debt increase inside the dod. she does not have to do that and i don't think the american people want to see that. >> does that mean you would vote against the bill of the debt increases? >> yes. >> final question back there. >> given that some might call nightmare scenario if the debt ceiling is reached and the u.s. loses the aaa bond rating and its obligations is that something reckless votes to be casting? >> if a reckless spending that's

been going on in congress the last three years since speaker pelosi got the gavel has put us in this position and put the american economy in jeopardy. and so i think ultimately to increase the national debt limit and to increase spending to reach the 14 trillion-dollar number is not only threatening to today's economy, but for the future generations because of our children and grandchildren will have to pay for this and they will be denied that opportunity we have had if it passes, so it is a critical vote and it is a critical time we need to stand up and say take this off the backs of our troops. we need to support our troops, but don't put a $6,000 extra debt on the back of their children and grandchildren while they are fighting to defend our freedom. >> [inaudible] >> i stand behind this legislation and i will follow this until it is a law, as long as i'm here in congress.

thank you for coming. [inaudible conversations] now a news conference with a group of congressmen known as the blue dog democrats. the proposed paygo for a portion of raising the debt ceiling. this is a half-hour. >> all right. thanks for coming this morning. there's currently a lot of focus on the deficits and debt around the country but this is some of the blue dogs we've been talking about a long time. paygo was a bipartisan bill that passed 1990. unfortunately the one flaw has a song's the debt and it ended. where would we be today if that

legislation did not have that sunset date? >> in the next few days we have an opportunity to take a critical step in the right direction by giving pay-as-you-go rules the force of law. this is something as i said blue dogs have been advocating for a long time. it earlier this year we stood with president obama at the white house as he announced his unequivocal support for statutory paygo. it was the first piece of legislation he transmitted to congress. now it's time we work together, the house cut the senate and the administration to bring it to fruition. that is the message of this press conference. i am very happy that the majority leader has come to join us today and he's going to speak next >> thank you very much, jim matheson from utah who has been such a strong voice on behalf of fiscal responsibility and our country and in the congress, and i'm very pleased to join and stephanie herseth sandlin of the administrative share of the blue

dog, and my friend, john tanner and my friend, baron hill and she said shuler. speaking on behalf of myself and on behalf of speaker policy as well. we feel very strongly about the issue that is the center point of this press conference. we all know that years of mismanagement by president bush put our country in a deep fiscal hole, and we inherited the worst economic situation this country has seen in three-quarters of a century. that is why it is so important to recommit ourselves to the principle we must pay for what we buy. the principle we call pay-as-you-go. paygo was first made floor during the clinton administration when it turned massive deficits and to a record surplus. and it can do so again. and it must do so for your

little granddaughter and for my granddaughter and my great granddaughter and your children. that is why speaker policy and i are so committed to enacting paygo into law once again. president obama s. con. res. man matheson pointed out sent a bill to accomplish this objective and had a press conference at the white house where all of us attended seeing statutory paygo was a priority of the obama administration. fiscal responsibility needed to be the focus of the congress and of the american people and of the white house. with the help of the blue dogs and all democrats who understand importance of fiscal responsibility, the house has repeatedly passed statutory paygo and attached it to bills we've sent to the senate. those include the bills on medicare doctor payments and the estate tax.

now we are here to make it clear that with legislation on the debt limit included in the defense appropriation bill statutory paygo will be included as well. that is fitting because our commitment to fiscal discipline will determine whether or not our children and grandchildren have the funds to defend our nation, make investments in their future. without committing ourselves to the discipline of paygo, that future will be in debt so i urge the house to join in committing to the fiscal future bypassing statutory paygo along with legislation to raise the debt limit, which is not an option for us. i have been in conversation with the vice president. i have been an ongoing conversations with senator conrad and i expect those conversations to continue, and i

am hopeful that by the end of next week and perhaps before that that we are able to bridge the gap that currently exists with reference to adopting statutory paygo. clearly senator conrad and members of the united states senate are interested in a commission dealing with fiscal responsibility. clearly we are interested in statutory paygo, and i might say i believe senator conrad is a supporter of statutory paygo language. he has reservations about the way that we have done it. we are going to be discussing those issues. but i am hopeful that we will see in the coming week resolution of the differences so that we can reinstate statutory paygo which edolphus the simple proposition with which americans agree on less you have an emergency, i eat your heating

unit goes or you're air-conditioning unit goes in the summer. what you want to do is essentially to pay for what you buy as you go. when an emergency incurs we understand. you borrow money but statutory paygo says unless you have an emergency -- if you have an ongoing expenditure, than you need to pay for it, and if you were going to cut your revenues company to make sure cutting those revenues doesn't meet your debt worse. so i am pleased to be here with my colleagues and the blue dogs. i see my colleagues in congress. i'm not a blue dog but let me tell you as always you know i am a very strong supporter of their strong, unwavering in leadership on the issue of making sure that our country remains fiscally sound. i now want to yield to my close friend, baron hill, who has led this effort on behalf of the blue blue dogs, the gentleman from indiana, baron hill. >> i want to thank the majority

leader for his strong support of paygo. we had some interesting meetings with him and the speaker yesterday, and i am delighted to know that we have the strong support, and they support, independent of the blue dogs paygo language that will lead us back into the pathway of fiscal responsibility. i remember when we passed the stimulus package and i was walking through the tunnel and john tanner can overcome stopped me on the shoulder and said "can you believe what we have just done by borrowing all this money"? by borrowing all this money. i said i can't believe it, john, but it was necessary because the times. we came into this year hurting economically, and of course we had to do some things blue dogs are not inclined to do and that is borrow a whole lot of money and move our deficit out.

we had to do it at the time because of these times we are in. i think sometimes people forget that. that we had to do some things differently in the early part of this year in order to try to get this economy back on its feet. in retrospect looking back on those decisions i think we prevented a depression. i don't think anybody envision how serious this thing really was and because of some of the stimulus money is forgone that depression in my view. that having been said, i remember those days in talking with the president about making the decision to support him in this stimulus package, and he assured us at that particular time that he was going to support paygo before the end of the year, and he has. and he's doing his dead level best to make sure it gets enacted. dustin in what is now in the senate. we are trying to get the senate to move on this and i am hoping in meetings we have today they will see the wisdom of us getting statutory paygo back in

place again. because those promises that were made early on in this year about paygo we agreed to go ahead and borrow the money for the stimulus package. but it is december 11th today, and it is the be witching hour, and decisions have to be made, and i can tell you beyond any shadow of a doubt that the blue dogs are ready to make very tough decisions about some legislation that is still pending if we don't get statutory paygo. it's time to deliver now. it's time to keep those promises. and we need to get the senate to act, and so over the next several days we are hopeful we can get this done to get us back on a pathway of fiscal responsibility. >> times stephanie herseth sandlin, administrative co-chair for the blue dogs 3i want to thank my colleagues with the blue dogs coalition, mr. hoyer for their hard work not only throughout this year, but for

many years in support of fiscal responsibility and the important tool of enacting statutory paygo and putting that on the books. we are hearing a lot about debt and deficit these days. our constituents are worried about it. we hear from the president, other administration officials as they prepare for next year's budget, their concern. even republican colleagues seemed concerned about it now even though we didn't hear a peep out of them over the years this debt accumulated on the republican administrative watch. it is imperative that we pass statutory paygo in the must pass legislation that is going to move through both chambers before the end of the month. our strategy has been time and again, and with the support of the administration in this congress to ensure working with the majority leader and with the speaker a unified blue dog coalition in support of the democratic colleagues who helped us pass statutory paygo out of the house that we would have a number of different vehicles for which to attach to force action

in the senate. we've spoken with the white house. we've spoken with our leadership. dialogue is ongoing with our senate colleagues. this has to happen. this was one of the most important tools as the majority leader said, to get back to the path of fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets that our constituents are demanding. as mr. hill stated the blue dog coalition is unified in making sure that we do everything possible to make sure that this is enacted by the end of the year. we do not want to wage this battle again. now is the time for statutory paygo. if our senate colleagues want to incorporate other tools to move us forward for stemming the growth of entitlement spending, for addressing other areas for which we can achieve fiscal responsibility they will find allies in the global coalition to accomplish that. but we need them as allies to ensure statutory paygo is back on the books as we begin the second session of the 111th,

chris , chris. >> as you can tell we have incredible leaders on the podium, steny hoyer certainly has been such a champion of paygo. speaker pelosi has come and she stated yesterday, is fully committed to making statutory paygo into law. and having the leaders, the blue dogs led by stephanie herseth sandlin, it is a full commitment. on behalf of the blue dogs. and one of the most important things, you may look at it today and say it's only paygo and what does that really entail? but to come three, five and ten years from now you will realize the importance of paygo and what is making the difference in future generations. when we are acting as proper business like when a key word in the federal government in a proper business approach pay-as-you-go, the way as

families conduct themselves in a proper manner of not spending more than they have and putting themselves in deeper in debt this is a very, very large step and when this gets enacted and signed into law we it will look back in years to come and realize that this is a very important day. very important to the administration and so we are pleading and asking our senate colleagues to join us. this should not be partisan, and this should be bicameral, this should be bipartisan. this is the way we all should be conducting a business. and so, with that, i am very pleased to be a part of this blue bald coalition to making a difference in the future generations and one of those who have made multiple great decisions and has been a dear friend to all of us and mentor of mine and who we will greatly missed in the 112, chris, my

great friend, john tanner. >> thank you. thank the blue dog leadership. this is the single most important legislative tool to address deficits and debt accumulation, period. that's how important it is. [laughter] >> does anybody have any questions? [laughter] >> mr. leader, do you all intend to put a temporary estate tax measure on this appropriations bill to get the senate backed? >> we haven't made a decision yet. we are talking to the senate about how we can reach agreement on the defense bill and the things that might be in the defense bill. the defense bill now remains the one remaining appropriation bill, one remaining conference report that will need to be passed before we adjourn for the year. >> is the state tax an option --

>> state tax is an option. as i mentioned we put a state tax -- statutory paygo in a state tax. senator conrad and some members of the senate are concerned about borrowing, that is intended to that piece of legislation. obviously, in the president's budget and our budget we need for exceptions to the paygo rule because obviously we knew they had to be done, the republicans pointed to that, but if you notice their motion to recommit few days ago they suggested not paying for the estate tax and then putting a emt and not paying for that, which is -- of their premise is you ought to go at baseline for those, which is essentially the promise we adopted for the purposes of getting statutory paygo and to place, realizing it would be difficult. having said that there are

options on the estate tax. we did it permanently. some people want one year. there are obviously some between permanent and one year for some agreement. >> mr. leader, i want to get this straight. you and the speaker are vowing that the debt limit will not advance unless statutory paygo is attached? >> i didn't say that. the speaker and i are vowing to make sure we do everything possible to have statutory paygo adopted this year. what the blue dogs position is is essentially what senator conrad's position is, both of them taking the position that if you are guinn to vote on debt limit, you need to have discipline within that vote or it's not a proper vote for them to take. >> [inaudible] >> let me finish. having said that, there are two different proposals. on the one hand, senator conrad is focused on commission. i think that he forced the

statuary paygo. i think that objections the statuary paygo and the blue dogs are for the statuary paygo and the debt limit is something that from my perspective irresponsibly we are going to have to pass. but we need to pass it with fiscal discipline attached to it. i think the blue dogs are saying we are not going to move ahead with the debt. , betsy and we are not going to move ahead with a date unless we put fiscal discipline and. i agree with that proposition. >> are you trying to get the speaker to compromise on her opposition to the commission in order to get a deal here? >> let me say on behalf of the speaker -- the speaker has made her position on the commission cleared. but the speaker also made it clear as you have all seen that she understands and the legislative process there has to be give-and-take and she has a very principal objective. the speaker stood with -- the speaker and i stood with me i

stood with the speaker and we both stood with the blue dogs on our commitment to statutory paygo. as you know, we've made it very clear we will not put on the floor legislation back in the senate is not paid for on these items that does not include statutory paygo. >> [inaudible] with the support of the blue dogs? >> i think it would be very difficult to raise the debt limit without support in either chamber of those people who are very concerned about fiscal discipline. there proposition is i think a fair one. look, we understand we adopted policies whether we did it personally adopted policies and put our nation in a place where we all money. it is not an acceptable alternative for the u.s. to not pay its bills, period, in my opinion. but it is also fully understandable that in the process of doing so that we adopt processes, paygo and wore

a commission, which gets us to places where we reduce the debt as we did during the clinton administration and brought it down to the fact we had $5.6 trillion, not in debt in surplus, which the previous administration turned into $10 trillion in deficits. that is why we are confronted with the challenge we have today. chad? >> if others on to china and at any point in time. [laughter] >> we want to hear more from tanner. [laughter] >> everybody is going to -- everybody out there is going to say tanner's talk was the best. [laughter] i have so much trouble doing what tanner just did. [laughter] >> let me play the devil's advocate for a minute. >> fox news is going to play the devil's advocate. [laughter] >> in any event, the question is understand the need to raise the debt and your commitment to paygo.

by doing these on the same bill, what about those who say that you're talking out of both sides of the mouth of the same piece of legislation raising the debt limit by having fiscal discipline in the future? >> i think you're talking about the same thing. fiscal responsibility. every american knows paying your debt is fiscal responsibility. every american also knows planning to not have that you can't afford is a fiscally responsible thing to do, so in my opinion there is absolutely no contradiction, and in fact are very consistent with one another. >> that was almost as good as tanner's. [laughter] >> what's the latest estimate of the jobs piece that's going to get stuck on the fence? and is that going to be paid for? >> the answer is on the jobs piece, yes it will be paid for. and the reason i say the jobs he's i want to make it clear, as you know, unemployment insurance and coburn, the health care assistance runs out

december 31st. we are not going to allow people to be on the street without health care coverage. we will probably extend that for six months and that is an emergency and probably will not be paid for and there may be other items that fall into the safety net. but the jobs part will be paid for. as to the first question one of the components of that still being worked out i don't want to prejudge, obviously infrastructure is a major component of that. the president indicated that, we indicated that. there are other items as well. we are very focused on the fact that we have had -- we've had progress on jobs as you heard me say on the pen and pad, went from 41,000 loss of jobs in the last month of the bush administration to 11,000 last month. that is a 730,000 better performance. it is not success. success is when we get into the plus, creating jobs, having our people have alternatives to are now unemployed. but i'm not going to go into the

specifics of that because that is influx of discussion. speed but you and coburn, it will be six months? >> yes, that's why you. jonathan? >> just in terms of the timing, weiss, the deadline, people look at december 31st but treasury hasn't had to take any accounting maneuvers get some wondering -- >> on the debt limit? >> de firmly think december 31st -- >> there may be flexibility that we are not flexible, we are using december 31st as the deadline, and responsibly we don't want to get up to the deadline. i think we need to do this now. but as i said, this is what the blue dogs and what senator conrad is talking about are very compatible with fiscally responsible, making sure we pay our debt, but we also want to make sure we don't incur debt we can't afford. >> two-part question. why not do both? the senate once commission, you

want paygo. why not do both? and the follow-on to that is why is paygo better than commission? >> first i think there's no reason not to do both. i don't know that paygo is better than the commission, but i will tell you paygo is more immediate and what paygo did in the 90's is get us to for surplus years which has not happened in the lifetime of anybody in this room or the lifetime of most of the people watching on television. for years of surplus in the clinton administration was on heard of, and clinton is the only president in the lifetime probably anybody watching who had four years of surplus and ended his term with a net surplus of $62.9 billion. no other president in did their term with a net surplus after four or eight years so the answer to the question is i don't think the two are incompatible at all. they are complementary and we are working on that issue.

>> as the commission take a congressional power? i know that you are focused >> i am. we've had some differences as to what the conditions can and cannot do. the commission you want to disabuse yourself on the premise there's only one way to do the commission. >> mr. leader, can you clarify -- >> [inaudible] -- how soon will you have that number? >> the amounts to what increase is zero. unfortunately, unfortunately -- i think that what -- do i speak for everybody? >> you're doing good. >> you will hear from them when negative it. you're going to hear it, wait a second, hoyer. zero. what is the amount we need to do it? me to do this we can meet the bills we have incurred. congressman hill responded which i don't refer to it as a stimulus package, the recovery reinvestment act, $787 billion, an awful lot of money borrowed.

why do we do it? our country is in a crisis and at the point we are very responsible economists from martin feldstein, very conservative republican economists to larry summers, clinton economists, a lot of private economists said if you don't act, including geithner, we are going to fall off. we borrowed a lot of money. we've got to pay for that, and america is going to meet its bills so the answer to the question is what is the number i want, the number i want is the number necessary for us to pay our bills through december of next year. >> what is the number that will be necessary to increase the debt limit? >> probably to get us through december somewhere in the neighborhood of 182193 the last question. >> on the jobs peace, several of the black caucus are making the case that congress and the

administration has not done enough to target efforts at the communities, and just wondering will there be something more specifically targeted in the jobs peace and do you think given the honor and plan a rate of the african-american community that efforts so far haven't done the job? >> i think it is self evident the efforts to date have not particularly in the african community and other minority communities and among young people have done the job that needs to be done so the answer to the question is yes, there is a focus on trying to respond to areas of greatest need and of course some of the urban and other rural areas in that category, the midwest, my own state of maryland has been relatively fortunate, relatively stable but there are other states, ohio in particular. some of the states here, north carolina, that have not been as fortunate and therefore we understand their needs to be targeting and that can be done through infrastructure spending or other spending as well. the answer to the question is

yes. i want to thank the blue dogs for their untiring focus on getting us to a fiscally responsible place. while at the same time casting some courageous votes common on a demagogue votes, votes that were tough for them to take in their districts in order to staunch the following into depression by our country. they have shown i think wisdom and great political courage and the speaker and i are from both very appreciative to all of them, the blue dogs for that effort. thank you very much. [inaudible conversations]

today the congressional black caucus sent a letter to president obama urging the creation of a program to reduce unemployment among low-income and minority come at you. next members of the column to the caucus speak about the issue. representative barbara lee of california chairs the caucus. this runs 40 minutes. >> thank you very much. members will be joining us shortly but i think we should get started now. i am barbara lee, chair of the congressional black caucus. we will begin to discuss our proposal for the jobs creation bill. congressman cleaver will come forward who chairs the jobs task force of the cbc and then open for q&a and members will respond to the questions. this chair of course 42 member congressional black caucus i am here today, all of us are here today to continue sounding the alarm about the urgent and vital need to create jobs in america

particularly in the african-american community which has been disproportionately suffering as a result of the brunt of this economic crisis and as a result in desperate need of targeted concrete and meaningful relief. today we are releasing a letter and i believe you have the letter that we forwarded to president obama, speaker pelosi and chairman miller which outlines our priorities. the economic security of all americans is very fragile. communities of color especially the african-american and latino communities have been disproportionately hit by this recession. here are some of the facts. the on and planning rate for african-americans is nearly twice that of whites. 49.4% of african-americans, 16 to 19 years of age were unemployed in november. nearly 28% of african-americans receive food aid compared to 15% of latinos and 8% of whites.

recent african-american college graduates are unemployed at higher rates than the white counterparts and african-american workers remain unemployed and average of five weeks longer than the rest of our americans. more than 24% of african-americans are living below the poverty line and african-americans are 55% more likely to be unemployed than white americans. african-americans have to .3 times the infant mortality rates as non-hispanic whites. they are four times as likely as infants to die due to complications relating to low birth weight as compared to non-hispanic white infants. additionally african-americans have shorter lifespans. these facts speak for themselves the congressional black caucus and its role as the conscience of the congress is morally obligated to address be systemic inequalities. moreover, as members who

represent so many constituents who are disproportionately suffer in, we have an obligation as policy makers to write legislation to address these gaps. that is why i convened a task force to develop targeted proposals to address the acute crisis and spur job creation for the chronically unemployed who happen to be black and latino also a number of whom are white. this task force is chaired by congressman emanuel cleaver. tuesday president obama delivered a speech that was another sober reminder of the important work that we must continue to do to grow our economy and create jobs. we agree with the president's support for small businesses, infrastructure investment and green jobs is essential. we also believe as members of congress we must do more. in order to do this the congressional black caucus has out by four areas to focus on which is laid out in our letter.

of course, they're includes job training, infrastructure assistance to small businesses and also local fiscal relief. we believe the direct job creation and training is essential in this jobs proposal. these areas are really important to create real and meaningful economic opportunities to provide pathways' come out of poverty and opportunities to read the congressional black caucus remains committed to working with president obama and congressional leadership to address the very real economic crises gripping the nation and we will not shy away from the fight for targeted relief for those suffering the most in this economy. in our letter we suggested there be a requirement that, and let me quote from the letter the amounts appropriated in this section, the following projects shall be allocated no less than 10% for assistance in qualified areas of economic hardship. provided that for the purposes of this section in general the

term qualified a real economic hardship means any census tract or what numbering area where 20% or more of the population is at or below the federal poverty line. the term poverty line means official poverty line defined by the office of management and budget. we will certainly become stronger as a nation if we ensure that the jobs bill leaves no one behind. i believe strongly in the congressional black caucus believes strongly it is our moral obligation to tackle poverty and unemployment and that in the richest country in the world we simply have no excuse not to. in conclusion i but like to reiterate members of the congressional black caucus are committed to working together with congressional leaders and president obama to fix our economy and create jobs to address the true depth of this recession. the ..

the african-american and latino communities were targeted by the pay day loans. there is one starbucks for every to pay day loans and the

african-american communities. the african-american community has been targeted with a lack of opportunities based on geography. and, it seems altogether reasonable to target that same community that has been targeted by those who would rape and pillage economically in those communities that we would target for redress. when we started the foreclosure modification program, it was our hope that their relieve would take place quickly. as most of you know, only 4% of those who have sought to have their mortgages modified have actually received them. be forced the lamb to live with the lion, but if you look

closely, when the line and got up, the lamb was missing. the point is that we gave billions of dollars to banks. we have given billions of dollars to wall street. in fact, it seems that we have focused so much on the too big to fail that we sent a message that the others are too small to matter. what we are trying to do as the congressional black caucus is to target people who are hurting, people whose futures look bleak. keep in mind that, if one segment of this population is hurting, it will do damage to all sections of this population, and so i would close by simply saying that it is our responsibility legislatively to address problems that impact of the areas we serve.

i served in an area that is 17% black constituency. i happen to be as concerned about that 17% as i am about any other section of the community. there is however something that touches me perhaps more. some en route once that whatsoever you do to the least of these, my people, that you do unto me. what we are doing is not only politically right, it is morally right in audiologically right. thank you. >> thank you very much. we will go to questions and answers but i would like to introduce members of the black caucus and members will address your questions, so feel free to ask each member a question. congressman bobby rush of illinois, congressman al green from texas congressman keith ellison from minnesota congresswoman eleanor holmes norton from the district of columbia, chairman john conyers

of michigan, congressman mel watt from north carolina, congresswoman carol chiefs kilpatrick the michigan, congressman-- excuse me, sanford bishop from georgia, congresswoman marsha fudge from ohio, congresswoman yvette clarke from new york, congresswoman donna christensen from the virgin islands, congresswoman quinn moore from this johnson, danny davis from illinois, sheila jackson-lee from texas, congresswoman maxine waters of california, congressman david scott eng congressman lacy clay comissary so please feel free and congressman l. green from texas and congresswoman maxine waters from california. feel free now to ask any member any questions you would like in thank you again for being here and i want to thank congressman emanuel cleaver for his

leadership in getting our jobs task force organized. >> are you saying enough of a commitment from president obama foer employment specifically? the white house said the president's view is that economic recovery will affect all americans and doesn't necessarily have to be a specific program for black americans. i wondered if you agree with that or would you like to see-- >> of course the president is the president. he is our commander-in-chief. were members of congress. it is our job and responsibility to make sure that we are advocates for constituents and that the insurer that these gaps, and some of these kala this moral gets addressed in our legislative proposals of that is why we wrote a letter to the president and our leadership to ensure that the resources and the provisions of the jobs bill are inclusive of all communities in our country and those hardest hit. of course which happened to the

communities of color, the african-american and latino community. >> peter nicholas. >> i need specifics, when you say job creation, what kinds of jobs? how you go about creating jobs specifically in the black community and can you do that geographically? >> well, i read earlier and anyone can comment, congressman bobby rush is co-chair of the jobs task force for leadership buckley specific we have targeted a language which is developed by omb and it is in the letter, to ensure that what we are doing allows for targeting of resources of no less than 10% to what is called qualified areas of economic hardship where the poverty rates are 20% or more below the federal poverty line and that is

how you make sure that the funding and the provisions of any jobs will address those most impacted and communities of the highest unemployment. >> i think one of the primary focuses of any comprehensive jobs program has to have an enormous amount of concentration on young people. young people are at an impression lovell, 25% of the unemployment normally signified as a depression. on average, 27% of our young people are unemployed and the african-american community, the number of jobs jumped to 47% of young african-american youth

that are unemployed, and so what do we see as a result of that? we see young african-american youth in their rising frustration levels is portrayed in antisocial behavior, dropout and the criminal rate is climbing, so it creates so many problems for us and they think one of the focus is we need to have it is a focus on employee and youth. we can employ youth right now in some jobs before we leave for the christmas break. we can have a substantial employment program and begin to solve some of the problems. that is not a social issue but that would be away and by the end of the year we could have a youth program that would only cost about five to $6 million, so it is affordable, it makes

sense, it is timely and it is workable, so we should look at those particular specifics. >> congresswoman carolyn cheeks kilpatrick. >> the congressional black caucus's 42 members from 26 states. we represent over 40 million americans. number represents over 62% african-american. whenever members represents 5% african-american. you heard from emanuel, so when we speak congressman emanuel already spoke, we speak for all of our districts and all americans. our chairman mentioned the african-american and latino because our numbers are high as. we have a program that answers your questions pacific at the training of the eddie speak is already in the books. we need the 21st century it and then provide direct dollars from the federal government to local units of governments, cities and counties. that they might employ those

people paid by the federal government for a period of two or three years. we have done it in the don't need legislation for africa you put money in the preparations. the president ordered 30,000 troops that will cost $30 billion. we think there will be $50 billion in the jobs next week. we are calling for 30 to $50 billion to put americans back to work. the most unemployed in recent history, so the programs are aarne out there. you asked about the model cities program before seetech. they don't need the new legislation. so those of the kinds of jobs. we have got to rebuild the infrastructure. we have got to put people back to work in administrative jobs and in places all over the communities. >> on this question we have congressman danny davis and congresswoman glenn moore. >> let me just say quickly, you can drive through and the predominantly african-american

community in the country and there will be small businesses, complete absence. as a matter of fact committed to where i live, when i first moved their there were small businesses, retail outlets, restaurants, small stores all over the place. none of those now exist. they are all gone, so to concepts that i am pushing is one, microlending, a serious program of microlending to let individuals have small sums of money, who can creatively use the money to develop businesses for themselves where they can earn a living, and then of course training. for those individuals so they know how to operate a business. i have such a training facility in my district. the living word christian center has something called the joseph

school of business. they do an outstanding job of training entrepreneurs with small sums of money can earn a living. >> congresswoman quinn moore and then we will go to the next question. >> thank you. to respond briefly to your question as to how are we going to create jobs, the president in this administration has, has poured billions of dollars of resources into creating a new green technology. there are infrastructure jobs. we have aging bridges, roads, so what we have indicated in our letter to the president is that the want pre-apprenticeships programs so that there can be a track for low-income americans to be on the road towards learning the skills, obtaining

the skills for the jobs of the future. to many programs require a baseline of the education and training that many folks in our community to not have but with a pre-apprenticeships program, we can address some of the dearth of skills that many of these americans have and give them some income while they are learning a training for the jobs procedure. >> right here. >> you talked about-- chat from fox news. you talked about how the african-american community in latino community were hit very hard with the economic downturn and how there was praying on folks in these communities. how do you you avoid, prevented from being viewed as a long lines of race even though these are communities-- can you step up to the microphone please? >> i think we said that earlier. if you look at what was suggested in a letter in terms of how and we are not talking

about race. we are talking about hardest hit, where numbers of unemployment rate, where the unemployment rates are the greatest. we are talking about qualified areas of economic hardship where 10%, 20% more of the population is our ad below the poverty line and we wanted these temper some of the resources target to that. chairman conyers also has a provision he would like to talk about as a relates to this. >> carolyn kilpatrick talked about cito for short term. i am going to back to humphrey hawkins for long-term. it is very important. it is already on the books too. it needs to be funded, rewritten to a report for modern times. i don't think anybody was here when me and hawkins were here.

but, you were in college in doing well. we knew you were coming to congress. [laughter] you were working for them. that's right. but anyway, for a reiteration, look, we deal with the places that have the most unemployment. regrettably, it is in the black and hispanic communities. got that? we have said that three or four times here. >> now come to this question we have congresswoman jackson-lee, david scott and keith ellison to respond. >> thank you very much madam chair and i unprivileged to join my colleagues. i think you can see every member of the congressional black caucus is intimately engaged in this process. what i would suggest to you is this caucus remains an allied of this adminstration improv of the administration. as we begin to see the evidence of crafted let me be very clear,

we work in partnership but our responsibilities are to pointedly be the advocates and the changemakers in the united states congress. we are writing legislation for gore job is to make sure the legislation gets to the president desk response to the degradation and the crisis in our community. it is a crisis. it is a peaking crisis and no one should leave here without knowing that we are in a crisis. ire communities bleeding and we are the worst hit. the old adage, if someone has a cold we have got its h1n1 so it is important to know that we are not going to seize rolling up our sleeves and i would say this, as you help those that are latinos and african-americans to help poor whites in appalacia because it has to do with the targeted unemployed and the underemployed. we have an additional issue of course a we have a high percentage of tax offenders, people who have done their time

and paid for the crime, seven, ten, 35 years and they want to simply provide for their families. our caucus is one that has to consider those responsibilities and i would just like to say there are monies already have in the system in addition to the system we are utilizing better not being focused on the populations that we want to focus on and i just beside this to you in closing. hallman publica fill-in weatherization, greening of public spaces, municipal waste and recycling, a public building of solar installation and maintenance, forester pretraining, tutoring or mentoring. a lot of these create right on the spot jobs and one of the elements that i have asked for is to allow people who are on unemployment to be trained with a stipend. they keep their unemployment and they have a stipend. that means they have income and training at the same time. we are not ashamed of saying

that we are the warriors for those who are jobless right now and the programs we have in place are not helping them. our task is to make it known to the white house and anyone else and needs to be the decision-maker to make this work for constituents and that is what i think this great plan is that it's been offered by the chairwoman and the task force which i am proud to serve on. >> david scott. >> i think it is very important to clarify this issue and make sure it is known that our concern is not based on the foundation of race. it is based on the foundation of need. no more, we are asking no more or no less than what wall street ask for. when blustry had a problem there was no problem with the sense of urgency. we are asking for that same sense of urgency.

there was no problem when that money was targeted to wall street. we are asking for the same targeted areas, on main street. now when we put forward an effort to say that we need to have money going to those people at the low and middle income areas, that is the primary area because those of the people who are most likely to spend that money. i am black, not white but people will spend the money. we also have to understand for example, those do we need to build on those two fundamental foundations that we in the financial services committee have already put in place in this financial services bill. we know there is a direct tie between the joblessness and the foreclosure. if we were to target money to those areas where you have the greatest need in foreclosure, for you have the greatest need for abandoned buildings to get

money to those cities and counties that going and build those buildings back up, it does two things. it improves our housing stock but it puts people to work in those jobs for redeveloping those homes. more than the 1 billion we have got in financial services there. billions marking go to that to help the overall economy. we have people who are jobless or about to lose their jobs hanging on to their homes by their fingernails. we have got $3 billion financial services bill to go to that. billions marking the one to the program in and of itself. that is targeted, that is focused. we are asking for no more and no less than what wall street did. wall street is just as important as our community. >> you know, it is clear that we are in a job crisis that we are also in a very serious situation as relates to structural unemployment. economists are now telling us that the natural rate of

unemployment is going to shift from 5% to 7%, so part of what we are saying here is this targeted job creation needs to respond to what could be if we don't operate quickly, a lasting chronic unemployment situation for people. and i just want to point out that when a person loses a job that creates an enormous hole in the resumes which diminishes their employment chances in the future and impact their children, children growing up in poverty will have more detrimental statistics on direly every measure so what we are talking about is even a generational problem that we are trying to fix right now and deal not only with the crisis but what could be a foot on that the structural problem in our economy. last point, this is good for deficit reduction. yes we are talking about spending money but if people are not working, then people are not buying. people are not buying, people are not selling and you are not paying more taxes we can shrink

the deficit through greater economic growth and economic activity so we are calling for this. >> what is your name? ben with the "associated press." is the cop is ready to say they will oppose any jobs package that does not include the 10% targeted? >> let me say it is premature to discuss that. right now each and every member of the congressional black caucus has weighed in on this jobs bill in a big way and we are working to the legislative process through negotiations to try to make sure that all of these provisions are included. would anyone else like to say anything? next question. >> a lot of people the watcher network are not inside the beltway people, so if you can keep that in mind the question. what dc to people who are watching this network, people whose unemployment is not

covering it, their children are hungry and they can't make their mortgage payments and what he's say to those constituents who are out there watching this and they are like, their position is, i need help? >> congresswoman yvette clarke from new york. >> we say to our constituents and to all americans that we understand the misery factor is very high in our communities. we go home to the people we serve each and every weekend and we are working diligently. we are raising the issues that other people shy away from raising. we are coming up with the solutions that need to be integrated in every piece of legislation that we pass to make a breakthrough for job creation in this nation. we recognize that putting our communities to work lives in this nation out of the financial malaise that it is in right now. every community across this

nation deserves an opportunity to have a comeback just like wall street has and we have the capacity, we have the intellect, the skeel, the talent in the legislation to make it so. it is time for all of us to use our bully pulpits, reach back to our representatives and let them know that it is time for job creation in this nation and that we won't tolerate anything less. thank you. >> can we go to the next question? >> this is important to the question. for those people who have more month than money at the end of the month i think it is important for people to be assertive about their rights to be bail them out. in every single state we have added money to the recovery act for an additional ten of dollars and occulter of the states has been to kick people off the welfare rolls and to deny them benefits but we have given them money, so people have to be

assertive about their right to have monies during our economic times. we have increased the amount of food stamps, and the eligibility criteria for receiving food stamps, so people need to not hang their heads in shame. we can bail out goldman sachs, we can bail them not to n and they need to be assertive about their rights. >> the next question i think right becker. >> congressman cleaver mention the focus on banks that were too big to fail at this bends of smaller people who were too small to matter. given that president obama was a member of the black caucus before he became president are you surprised disappointed that there wasn't a more targeted effort in the stimulus package that passed earlier this year? >> first of all i am very proud of the financial services committee members, all ten congressional black caucus members who led a very forceful

and very honorable fight in the financial services committee to make sure that this bill that we are debating right now leaves no one behind. let me ask congresswoman maxine waters to lead that fight to come and speak to what was included in that legislation. >> i want to thank congresswoman barbara lee for the tremendous effort she has put forth to organize this jobs package. this is extremely important, and i suppose what you are saying is not only a renewed effort but a renewed strategy that we are employing in order to make sure we are addressing the needs of our community. congresswoman barbara lee refer to the financial services committee and we felt we has special responsibility serving that committee where we are dealing with all of the financial agencies of this government and we participated in all of the discussion and debate about the bailout.

we have been loyal members of that committee. we have responded to and supported the administration and the leadership consistently, and so we finally are waking up to the fact that despite the fact we are loyal, consistent members of this congress and of our caucus and of the committee, that we are not paying enough attention to the misery in our communities and as of we have said that day is over. you are absolutely right. not enough attention has been paid to the small things. they have been suffering. they have not been able to get the capital from the fed window. they have not been able to get the capital in the private markets and you do have goldman sachs and others who came here and got tremendous bailout money and have made a lot of money with it, and they are maybe not talking about paying their top management the big bonuses but

the average employee at goldman sachs will get paid a bonus of $770,000, and so we are dealing with people whose unemployment is running out. we are dealing with young people who are unemployed to the tune of 40% in many of our communities languishing on america's corners and his caucus has decided not only are we going to employ new and more targeted strategies and working with our own leadership up we are going to legislatively put together efforts like this congresswoman and leader has done in order to target the jobs possibilities for communities. >> thank you very much. right here. anyone else in the back? right here in the frago and you'll have time for two more questions than members who have not responded will respond to the remaining questions.

>> mr. ellison, we talk about small businesses. their several parts to some of the negotiations were involved then. one is the federal government itself spends a lot of money. they spend money on advertising for example. the barbon of defense spends tremendous dollars just in recruitment alone, but guess what? black newspapers and radio stations don't get any of that advertising money for the federal government puts money into banks but guess what? minority in black banks don't get any of that money. do you realize that money deposited in the small and minority banks would provide the capital that could be used to land out to support those very businesses that mr. davis is talking about and mr. ellison is talking about. do you realize that on wall street we have confident professionals who can do asset management and to should be involved in some of the response that the t.a.r.p. money has been

used for and developing all kinds of consultants. they are not getting their fair share some of the government itself stopped discriminating against small and minority businesses, many of those resources would be helpful in our community, so that is somewhat mr. ellison is referring to. >> i am choice jones of black enterprise. i'm wondering if you have identified and assigned specific members of the caucus to sit down with leadership, the democratic leadership to craft out all the policy details as this bill is being finalized here. if the issues are included? >> the leadership of the congressional black caucus its them with their leadership on each and every bill that moves forward. in addition to that we have 17 subcommittee chairs and full committee chairs where the table one each and every policy initiatives that were on, and

mr. clyburn who constantly is our boys in meeting where members may not be invited, because mr. clyburn is our whip and is a former member of the congressional black caucus in participates, excuse me former chair of the congressional black caucus and continues to participate with us as a congressional black caucus leader. one more question. >> with respect to the legislation currently being debated as a relates to consumer protection and financial regulatory reform and the relates to the issue of small businesses and microlending that was discussed earlier i'm wondering what specific measures would be taken to make sure that people are entering into loans irresponsibly are getting in over their heads as it relates to loans for small businesses or that type of microloans you discussed earlier.

>> actually, we did a separate press release on that issue, and the whole predatory lending bill that the house already passed is being incorporated into this legislation that is being considered on the floor, so that addressed the whole range of predatory lending that is taking place and before we debate it is included in the legislation. in addition to a number of other targeted things that we put out information on, so we will make sure you get a copy of that. >> okay, let me thank-- okay we have one more member, congressman al green from texas. >> i would like to just give a commentary if i may. a would be a tragedy of epic, in

fact biblical proportions, if the economy recovers and we leave the african-american and latino communities behind. the money is going to be spent for the jobs. the question is, where will the money be spent, and that is what this is all about. we want to make sure that the money that is spent, that that money gets to all segments of society. it is very unfortunate that we have to make this commentary, but the truth of the matter is, there are people who are suffering and you have not been identified properly. that is what we are doing. we have got the courage and commitment to say what needs to be said. we cannot leave these communities behind. let's make sure that they receive as much attention as the others will receive. if it goes to the areas where

the unemployment is the highest, it will cover the people that are suffering the most and they will be african-american and latino. final comment, dr. king reminds us that life is an inescapable community of destiny. what impact one directly impacts all directly. when we do this for the people were the most impacted we are doing it for everybody in this country, because they have a link to each other, and we can never escape that link. we are all in this together and what we are doing is to help the president of the united states of america. thank you. >> thank you again and let me thank all of the members of the congressional black caucus for their incredible work. also chair emanuel cleaver who chaired our job task force and thank you all of you for being here. members will be available for comments after this. thanks again.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> now health and human services department seminar on the new flu vaccine technology. speakers include hhs secretary kathleen sebelius and dr. anthony fauci director the national center for allergy and infectious diseases. from the national institutes of health in bethesda maryland, this is two one-half hours.

>> good morning everyone, and welcome to nih. i am with the office of public affairs at the department health and human services and i want to welcome you here today for this seminar for the media and public on new vaccine, new flu vaccine technologies. we hever range this session today to offer the media and the public an opportunity to have a little more time to learn about the new technologies that flu vaccine technologies, that our departments three number of our agencies have been working on. as many of you have seen in the

news about the vaccine or the age one and one vaccine, it has been produced through our tried and true method of using eggs, which has a number of down sides to it. and so we have been working for some time now to develop new technologies and today's event is a chance to sort of learn about the research that has been going on, advanced development activities that we are working on in order to move this technology along to build manufacturing capacity domestically and to look at the new regulatory signs that will help us regulate these new products as they come to fruition. this morning, we are webcasting this event for those of you watching on line. welcome. we have an e-mail address that you are welcome to ask questions throughout the morning. you can send those in that any time and we will pull the during

the q&a sessions. the e-mail address is hhs studio at hhs.gov, so please feel free to send those questions into was. also with the end of this after this is over, we will be taking a video of this event an archiving it on the web along with a transcript of what is said here today, and if we can we will put up the slides that we have as well if that is possible. so that should be up within a few days after today's event, so again welcome and i would like to get started today by having an overview and welcome by the director of the national institutes of health, dr. francis collins. >> thank you bilker go good morning everyone. welcome to those of you attending garrett nih into people joining us by webcast. i am francis cones the director

for national institutes of health and is a pleasure for us to oppose this discussion about vaccine prepared as any technologies to put together ideas for the future many of which are quite exciting about ways in which the development of future vaccines for influenza and other infections agents. what is a rapidly moving field in the scientific arena in which you'll be hearing about in the course of this morning's presentation. happy to be able to oppose this seminar just five months after the h1n1 summit that was held here at nih back in july. at that point, president obama put forward four pillars to it plan that are constantly being revised and reconsidered. those four pillars are surveillance, secondly community mitigation measures, third, vaccination our main topic today and for communication which is also an important part of today's activities. we have learned a lot since july

about the course of h1n1 over the course of the autumn as it returned to this country and and we have learned how to adapt a plan to conditions and staved off some of the worst case scenarios although as everyone knows we have also struggled with availability of sufficient doses of the vaccine because in part of its slow growth in eggs, which is one of the reasons many people are interested in hearing about other approaches in the future. i think being here at nih is important to point out the very hard work that was done and i am sure you will hear more about that this morning under dr. fauci's caple bull leadership in the effort to test the vaccine in showing that it is a highly effective vaccine and the the winola lot about that based on the clinical trials conducted quite rapidly including on adults and pregnant women and children, so our

present position certainty about vaccine effectiveness is based upon a rapidly moving and rigorously conducted research. so it is fair to say we have in this particular pandemic achieved confidence that we have a safe and effective vaccine but we have also learned, as if we didn't know it already, of the technologies used to produce that vaccine based on methods that been around for a long time but certainly use advances for the future and take full of vintage of the scientific progress. that is like-- what would like to talk about so this seminar is focused on how far vaccine technology has progressed. we have the authority of experts speakers who will be presenting to you today. bruce gallon, gary nabel, carol heilman, robin robinson, jesse goodman and especially tony fauci his leadership over the

years has put the united states and the position of international prominence in terms of the technology and the way in which vaccines can both be developed and tested. so i think it is going to be an interesting morning and again feel free to send in questions through that a dress that was mentioned a moment ago by bill hall so that there can be a chance of it back and forth for people in the room and people beyond the room. finally i would just like to say our thanks to the secretary, secretary sebelius it could not be here this morning but the u.s. played a critical leadership roll over the course of these many months of pandemic flu. she made a joke about how she didn't expect to have a pandemic in her welcome wagon, but she has adapted to that i think quite brilliantly and certainly i would like to give a great deal of credit to her leadership in pushing the agenda forward, and making sure that all of the

areas that needed attention got that kind of attention. she wants to be here with us today but was unable because of other schedule challenges but she did prepare a special message that i hope will appear momentarily as we queue up with that message, so without further ado my boss, secretary kathleen sebelius. >> thank you francis and thank you all for attending this seminar on the vaccine technology. i think you are going to be very pleased to take the time to join us today. the presenters you are about to hear from are the leading experts from hhs, nih and the fda and the importance of the tawfiq couldn't be more timely. the flu vaccine we use today is extraordinarily safe. is extremely effective. is the same flu vaccine we have used to immunize 100 million americans annually for decades. the process we used to make it is cumbersome and outdated.

we could have had a better indication of the need for new flu vaccine technology and our experience with the 2009 h1n1 fires this fall. the flu vaccine's active agreement is grown in chicken eggs and like the influence of virus itself it can be temperamental and unpredictable. this year, when we needed manufacturers to ramp up production quickly, the antigen decided it would take its time, but even before the first outbreak of h1n1 we have known we needed to develop new technologies that will provide maxene with the same level of protection but with the 21st century ability to meet the demand. it will be several more years before we are able to wean ourselves away from egg-based vaccine but we are committed to moving ahead with 21st century vaccine development. ultimately, these efforts will help not just the united states, it will help the world.

and win the next pandemic kits, we will be better prepared to mount a speedy agile response. in the meantime, although we clearly don't have vaccine in the volume we anticipated, perino we have the sick and effective vaccine and we know the american people can count on it to provide protection from the h1n1 virus. thanks again for coming. >> thank you madam secretary and without further ado i think we should move into the agenda for the program and that involves the first presentation from dr. bruce delling who is the director for the office for hhs.

>> thank you for hosting us here today and thanks all of you for coming in your interest in this topic. i'm going to talk in the broader relief in some specifics about the flu was well but i want to give you a broader vision as well. we are all quite familiar with what vaccines have accomplished. this is a slide that probably everybody at cdc is required to show at every session. i happened borrow this one from dr. fauci, but the point here is to contrast what life was like before vaccines were available and what life is like after vaccines are available with the market decline in diseases. i'm sorry to say i'm old enough to remember in my medical training when you take a history with the parent of a child coming would write down the usual childhood infections. now we refer to those as vaccine disease is so again how much things have shifted over time. but we are here today to talk

about how these advances come about. and other dr. fauci's lights link to the jorde report which is nih's periodic snapshots of what is going on in vaccine research and development relief features a few components of how we get to the ability to actually have these vaccines and have these impacts. we are accelerating the technological dances and taking advantage of what technology may be available not necessarily the ones directed against pacific diseases but those that can be applied to those diseases. to design vaccine for diseases that are currently among the infections that don't have a vaccine against them to have them become a vaccine preventable disease and work on understanding the immune system response feet into the development both in terms of safety and their effectiveness. the many slides of dr. fauci's i have this has been my favorite overtime. the point is that the convergence of breakthroughs in technology.

basic science and their applications to the development of vaccines that can have these kinds of impacts on the population so you will see, you can see some of the many milestones that have occurred. obviously the germ theory is no longbrake barry. there many things along the way and you will hear about some of these later on about some of the specific developments that will be applied towards new vaccines the conceit the detoxification techniques and the available tissue culture and now a delivery system with adjuvants give us a whole new opportunities for developing vaccines so we are going to focus more on the rest of the day on influence of and i think when i looked at influenza these are among the many key ingredients so we have the egg, and this is a poster from world war ii that was really the burden of illness in world war ii. it is hard to read but basically there's the calculation of the absenteeism and the impact that had on the war effort so whether

the conclusion of this was that one-third of all the men and women who were making tanks, a third for making bomber senator burr making rifles. varies see the number of tanks, bombers and rifles over being made so the influence it has on the of such a society so this is just a brief snapshot of some of the history of the influence of vaccine and influence of vaccine. you can see how there's a convergence of various parts of science and allow things to come together to develop the kinds of products the already have and the kinds of things will happen to the future. in the late 1928 was the first time of the influence of virus identified from swine. separably in nashville dr. good pastor was working on techniques grief found the fertilized egg was a great place to grow viruses and started working on other viruses and ultimately as we all know influenza donda tom there. in their early 30's, the flu was

isolated from humans. there were animal models of transmissibility. the feerick. it turns out as lilly pasteur said,-- what was his quote? it was in a situation where people in england were working on distemper vaccine in a lab where influence came in and affected the ferrets which is the first identification with the ferrets as an animal model. later run will 42 accelerated the development of the vaccine because the military was very concerned about what the losses were in world war i and that with the pandemic and want to try to protect their troops and then later on was the first vaccine, the first influenza vaccine approved for use. and the 40's and 50's there was work on-- were even apply to influence it was clear that the antibody response could be improved, the height of the response was greater, the

duration of protection was longer and was a broader protection as well. that field apparently stopped when there were local side effects and sterile abscesses but some of what we are going to hear about later had its history in some of the basic sciences. and then separately by virus cultivation using from mammalian cells it is ironic from today in 1954 was the nobel prize lecture about cell cultures and tissue culture used for growing polioviruses and all the things the came from that so again the point of this is there's obviously a lot of converging research that has the opportunity to come into vaccines. this is a diagram of the vaccine and immunization system, and there's a lot more to this than the research components. there is the surveillance aspect. there is subsequently won a vaccine is used, how it is monitored, the interest and

that, public perception to vaccines, the whole financing round vaccines but to give you a sense of vote were talking about today on research development to licensure in manufacturing sis within this broader system for crier recep because it is a broader system that is a large part of what i've been working on in developing a national vaccine plan for the last year we posted a draft plan that a lot of people have had a chance to look at in the plan was a strategic focus of the efforts to improve disease prevention in cancer-- vaccine safety. their five broad goals and this plan in many of them converged with what we are doing today but primarily the first goal of developing new and improved vaccines but also it vaccine safety communication education in decision-making, the problematic aspects of design supply and delivery in the global aspects of faxing immunizations. later today the institute of medicine will release a report that we ask them to conduct to give us their views run external

view of what the prairie should be for national vaccine plan as we move into the future and so we will be hearing more about that as we finalize the plan. and then finally to take this back to a different point in time, in 1978 lewis thomas had this quote which was included in the 1994 plan and they think of nothing else we will be looking for new quote on the inside cover of the updated plan but in 1978 he wrote the high technology of medicine is the kind that is so effective that it seems to attract the least public notice. his become to taken for granted. this is the size of technology exemplified best by the modern methods of the immunizations. things have changed since 1978 and we looked forward to hearing more about that in our exchanges later today. thank you. >> thank you dr. and unless there any specific questions at

the moment we will have a q&a session after the next few speakers and we will have time set aside for that so dr. will be able to address doesn't. i would like to begin this next session that will look it basic research activities that are ongoing here but that nih and funding in granting institutions around the country so i would like to start off with dr. tony fauci, director of the national institute of allergy and infectious diseases. >> thank you very much bill and welcome all to the nih for what i hope will be an interesting seminar and discussion. what i'm going to do over the next few minutes is to give you

an overview of the advances that are occurring and better planned in the technology of influence the backs enology. this first slide, which may seem little bit complicated to those who don't have a habit of looking at the structure, this the medics structure of viruses but it is very important because you will hear from several of my colleagues and myself about certain aspects of this particular diagram here that would be relevant to what we call the new platforms of vaccine technology for h1n1. this is the influence fires. it is an arenavirus. >> r.n. the codes for important proteins that is most familiar i believe not only to this audience but to people in general are the hemagglutinin in their minute days. those designations which give the influence that its h and its n for the purposes of today dealing with the 2009 h1n1

pandemic influenza designated by a subgroup of this h and this a but there also important proteins that could be potential targets for vaccines that i will very briefly mentioned. the matrix protein, the nucleic acid, the n protein and the anne's to begala these are potentially important i'm going to spend a minute or 211 more of them of the next few moments but i want to make this the background of what you are going to be hearing a lot of over the next hour to from individuals. having said that, the h in an met become importantly designate the differences from season to season, what we call seasonal influenza which as i am sure most of you well know, results from very slight changes which were referred to as drifts. mostly in the h and occasionally in the n. these are predictable annual occurrences every year. like clockwork we have seasonal flu. there is residual enmity in the

population which means the changes so small that even if people don't get vaccinated and it gives me chest pain to say that people don't get vaccinated but people don't get vaccinated there still is a bit of residual immunity in the population, some time substantial that when it does drifty don't have a public health crisis which is the reason why from season to season we don't have the kind of intensity we are having now when you had a shift, namely a change that is completely different from previous years. this is different because it is unpredictable and it is rare. we have only had three of them in the 20th century. importantly the population for the most part is naïve because some exceptions or few exceptions that have not seen anything that is closely related to the h or the n of the new pandemic. where does vaccination come in? there is no doubt in the public