>> of all of you for coming out here especially on a weekday evening. are like to introduce my co-author, please stand up elizabeth. [applause] she was extremely helpful in researching and helping to write the book.

rather indicated this book is really a very timely right now especially after what happened in massachusetts. [laughter] maybe capitalism. [applause] is not quite such a dirty word as it was a few days ago. [laughter] but it was written in easygoing conversational style to really explain the essence of the system of american capitalism, what it is, is sent, answer questions and address the hostility and distrust of the whole idea that still seems to engender. there is a fundamental misunderstanding in the world today including the united states protector late in washington and many state capitals as well. what is really capitalism? they have all talked about it based on greed, brings out the worst in people, but as we try to explain in this

book, it does exactly the opposite and the free markets to have a moral basis. . . >> so there is the mistrust and

hostility. that's why we did it in a conversational style, having a discussion with whereby kids, aunts, and uncles or whatever and discuss what it is. and deal with what we call the wraps on capitalism. it is a nonpartisan book. there is no virtual when it comes to political parties. john kennedy, democrat, for example, got it right on the dollar, which he said should be as good as gold, got it right on taxes and trade. ronald reagan certainly got it right on taxes, trade, and inflation. bill clinton, and another republican sadly george w. bush did not get it right on the dollar. which has led to the some of the basic problems that we face today. the book draws on free market advocates from adam smith to

thomas soul to many year at the manhattan institute. so in that sense it is a assemblage of living voices. adam scott is still a living voice today of who he insights into the moral bases of capitalism. this is something to keep in mind when you see those hollywood cliches of the even, flat, they are always fat, business type or sinister looking, you know, it's always a sinister-looking villain is that you succeed in true free markets only by meeting the immediate and wants of other people. -- needs and wants of other people. you can think of ourself as greedy and lusting for money, but you are not going to get the money unless you provide something someone else wants. it takes two to make a transaction. adam scott, talks about the butcher. providing a dinner.

think about today, restaurant, they have the food, restaurant wants them the money, you both get something out of it. so you can have that kind of personality so beloved by novelist in hollywood of a bad personality, the kind that makes baby cry and dogs bark. curling your hands, but in a true free market you are not going to make it unless you serve the needs and wants of other people. because the system is opened and a free market, because it's voluntary, nobody makes you do things, it creates these enormous arrays and webs of cop ration and collaboration -- cooperation and collaboration. and it works because no one is in charge. it happens spontaneously. meeting the needs and wants of other. you think about the restaurant. restaurant assumes the farmer grows the food, that the food is delivered to the food processer, that the trucker will deliver

the food, the truck will be made, the truck will have the fuel, the highway will be there, the restaurant will have the equipment to cook the feed and people to serve -- all of it. it's amazing audiotape of the things that go on that we just take for granted. so that is why it underscores and strengthn't morality, democracy, the bases of a free society. only free people can make these things happen. and it brings out an essence even though we read about all of the bad people and bad people exist everywhere. not just in capitalism but human nature does not change for 4,000 years. before even that. but it is a system now that you want to succeed, it forces you to cooperate with other people without you even knowing it, it forces you to figure out of the what does another person want, it encourages you to be creative and innovative and it doesn't guarantee success.

most new businesses fail within five years of enacception. because it allowed for creativity, people are out there striving to do it. when the person comes out ahead and rewarded so for creating something you wanted, you come out ahead getting something you probably didn't know you needed. think of it 10 years ago, if you said the word ipod people would wonder that some remake of the move of aliens, pod people coming. now it's something that hundreds and people exist. we almost look like aliens with the wires coming out of our ears and everything walking around. that's the essence of the system. bad people? yes, every system is going to have bad people. but capitalism, look at the essence, has been the most successful system in enabling people to discover their talents, develop their talents, expand their talents as abraham

lincoln put it to improve one's lot in life. where's the role of government? sadly james madison, father of our constitution was exactly right when he observed we are not angels. because of that we need government. the government's role in free markets is precisely to foster than environment that allows free markets to flourish. that means the rule of law. which means laws against fraud, laws to encourage transparency, laws that enforce contracts. we don't get the government doing what it did with general motors and chrysler and going with in political reasons to make a political payoff. that's what countries like argentina have done and turns themselves in the one the richest nations in the world to one that's in perpetual trouble. we have laws to deal with

problems that arise. in terms of equality, absolutely essential to have e =ty before the law. e else can a entrepreneur challenge the existing power structure if that individual is not protected by the law. too many countries. we see people who attempt to do it here use the law to squash new entrance and competition to keep people at bay that might upset their own arrangements. property rights, if you own something, it belongs to you. they said in england, man's home is his castle. the supreme court has been undermining that. we need to get back to basics of property right. this is not protecting the rich, it's enabling people to accumulate capital, take the risk, and know that somebody is not arbitrarily going to come along and seize it from them. essential for risk taking. so rule of law, another one, which the federal reserve is

completely forgetten in this country, sound money. stable value for a currency. if you don't have a stable value for currency, it just makes capitalism plentiful and more expensive. because it's risky enough to make an investment. but if you want to worry about the value of the currency itself, just makes life infinitely more complicated and hurts us all. think of it this way, what would your life be like if we floated the clock? [laughter] >> 60 minutes in an hour, one day, 80 minutes an hour the next. 30 in the day after. soon you'd have to hedges, derivatives, futures to figure out how much hours you are working each week. just make it simple. keep it stable. another basic thing. another basic principal of course is taxes. big topic. going to be a big one this year.

what politicians don't realize and many people don't realize, taxes just don't raise revenue for government. taxes are a price and a burden. simple listic to say it, but it's amazing how often we forget it. tax and income, price you pay for working. tax on property, the price you pay for being successful. tax on capital gain, the price that you pay for taking risk that work out. lower the price and burden of good things like risk taking, working productively, trying to be successful. and low and behold, you get more of those good things. so we're moving bar -- barriers to business. not only trade but here at home. look at all of the licensing laws that are out there. we need licensing for airline pilots, physicians in the like, but for trading hair? we have a little item in the book where you had to go through elaborate procedures to braid

hair for crying out loud. that's restrain of trade. all of these basic principals, removing barriers, sound money, sensible, low tax rates which enable people to be creative and it helps the government, rule of law so we can move ahead. government also has to respond to changes. one the things capital does is bring about change. you have to bring the laws to response to that change. for example, late 1950s, early 1960s, xerox makes the copier. look at what the web and revolution. ways of distributing music and video, you need new rules, new laws on that and patents that are hotly debated.

you have to have government to bring with the thing in change. raise of the able, suddenly had to have rules of the road, speed limit, highway patrol, courts, insurance, the whole apparatus. you need government to do that. of course, government has to deal with disasters. and when things go wrong, when you get a kay train -- kay kay kay katrina that. it's all different. what he meant was carry his example is you don't go 100 in school zone, you're supposed to signal when you turn. that's very different from the government telling you what to drive, where to drive, and when to drive. sensible rules of the road. so that in essence in shorthand is what government is about. the thing though, also, is that capitalism is disruptive.

when we think of economic growth we tend to think of more of the same. no. it's not just turning out more widgets each other. it's turns out perhaps better widgets, cheaper widgets, new kinds of widgets. also capitalism changes society. they did massive studies on that kind of change. this is why wise statesman and stateswomen can come in to make the change and adjust to these changes when suddenly something is disrupted. we mention the ipod in the book. ipod is the fantastic thing. gives people easier choice and wider choice of music. you don't have to buy an album as we used to call them or a disk with 15 songs, only one of which you might want. now you pick what you want when you want it. in terms of tv programming were you're your own programmer now. you don't need the networks anymore. it's there, you choose when you see it. fantastic, these inventions.

but look what's it's done. mention the music industry, not just the ipod but what the web has done. look what it did to stores that sold cds and disks, a lot of them from going under. and artist, in one sense, ipod and web is fantastic for artist. because everyone now can broadcast music. internet radio, my goodness. thousands, tens of thousands of people, hundreds of millions can put their music on that never could have broken through the old system. but it also means under the old system if you did get the breakthrough, by folly you had a huge study owe that gave you fantastic pro motion. now you are one of a zillion out there. one the things that happened, concert industries have come back. so it is disruptive. so the book tries to explain what free markets are. book tries to explain the wraps against capitalism, is

capitalism moral, isn't it brutal, aren't the rich getting richer, don't regulations safeguard the public good. isn't government needed to direct the economy, what about bonuses made off greed and the like. so we deal with all of these things. now what about the crisis we're in today? one the things we discovered in doing this book is that contrary to belief of many, particularly in washington, economic disasters invariably have their origin in disastrous economic policies from the government. not some sudden failure of the free markets. without exception. [applause] >> whether it's the great depression, holy tariff, massive tax increases, federal reserve, often the stratosphere.

i know saying the fed, eyelids get heavy. there's no more boring subject in the world than monetary policy. i'll acknowledge that. and i'll give you a travel tip. if you ever find yourself in an airplane in coach, middle seat on the runway watching your life pass away. do you want a little bit of elbow room talk to your seat makes about monetary policy. you'll have all of the room you want. or if any of you are single, department out of a date, talk about monetary policy and you'll never see that person again. guaranteeed. but in essence, monetary policy is similar to an automobile. you can have an magnificent vehicle. you don't have sufficient fuel, you stall, too much, you flood

the engine, just the right amount you have a chance to move forward. same is true of monetary policy, the fed gets it wrong you get the equivalent of stalls the engine. the fed started to reach the money. they artificially kept interest rates low. ladies and gentlemen, you could not have had a housing bubble if the fed hasn't supplied the fuel for it. it just could not have happened. any time, especially the bank is important to the federal reserve, prints too much money, provides excess liquidity, bad things will happen. first hit on the commodities as it always does. then it went in the housing, the 19 1970s, the energy industry and agriculture and commercial. look at iowa in the 1970s, they are encouraged, borrow, land prices sored, crop prices sored.

then the crash in the 1980s. texas, energy, then real energy base. had a depression in the 1980s, in fact, every major bank in texas went under, the ones controlled locally. they either had to be liquid --ly question -- liquidated or caught out. >> fannie mae and freddie mac helped the bubble. $100 trillion of suspect paper. no private companies could have done that on such a scale. then the disaster, another subject, accounting. government regulation changed. a thing called market-to-market accounting. how do you handle bank's capital? traditionally if you bank bought a bond say for $1,000 for

regulatory purposes it's kept on the book unless the bond went bad or the bank sold the bond. regulatory purposes or capital purposes kept it 1,000. middle part of the last dedicate, the rule was changed treating it like a day trading account. so when the markets hit turbulence, the capital was not just suffering a hit from bad paper, but also for perfectly good paper where there wasn't a decent market. if you look at the losses of banks and insurance companies, do you realize most of those losses came from book losses, not cash losses on their assets. if we had market-to-market accounting 20 years ago, remember the savings and loan disaster, commercial banks lowered with latin american loans, commercial loans, commercial real estate loans, you can have market-to-market then. you take the 8 top commercial,

10 top commercial, you'd have wiped their capital out three times over just in the basis of the latin american loans. we weren't stupid 20 years ago. so we had market-to-market accounting. every single one of those, the fed, fannie and freddie, regulatory counting all came from the government. so where are we at today? last year in april, thanks to congress, occasional something good comes from it, they put pressure on the fcc and standards board. it was amended. i wish it could have been suspended or prohibited, it was suspended or at least modified. that's when the stock market turn and the credit system started to work again. where are we at now? thanks to the ending of at least suspension market-to-market,

it's working but not whole again. still small businesses and individuals still have a hard time getting credit. very, very uneven because regulator, the i love it the president says lend banks, when he's not bashing them. then his own auditors and go to the bank and say shore up your capital, tighten your lending standards. that's very much encouraging loans. so the system isn't fully working yet. it gets to the value of the dollar. week dollar means weak recovery. if you have a weak currency, you are not going to get a strong and durable recovery, you'll get some recovery. economy is strong. but you are not going to get a durable one such as we had after the early 1980s for a few decades. so keep this in mind. a little -- couple of little factoids. when government spending goes up as a proportion of the economy

employment goes up, trends up. from the mid 1960s to the early 1980s government spended trended up. and unemployment did as well. to the point where economist thought the lowest you could get unemployment is 6%. reagan came in, cut tax rates. got rid of the terrible inflation. did over positive things. suddenly, well, eventually you can get it down to 5, then 4, then 3.9. now look where we are today. binge spending, now we'll be lucky to get it down to 7 or 8. administration will hail it. great progress. but it ain't 3.9 which is what you get if you reign in government spending. same things with stocks. spending goes up over time. i'm not talking about month to month. but a trend line up, stocks go

down and stagnate in real terms. so free markets work. let me just close by dealing quickly with an area that people say free markets don't work. that's health care. we have a whole chapter in the book on health care. people say it doesn't work there. we need government to help out. we don't have free markets in health care. we have a hybrid system, but we don't have true free markets. you ask people why is there health care crisis? people want more health care. people are living longer. well, as i get older, i don't think longevity is a crisis. my heirs might, but i kind of like it. in my other part of our lives, people want more they say what a great opportunity. more software, great, silicon valley would love it, more cars, detroit would love it.

health care? huge liability, we can't afford it. because of the crazy way we pay for it. the patient is not in charge of the resources. think of it, you are working. your employer offers you health insurance. that's nice. but sort of take it or leave it. so the insurance company, how do they respond to the system that the government created? why, they don't worry about the employee. they want to make sure the employer is happy. the employee may not be happy or may i wish the plan was different, but you don't count. you are not writing the checks, you are not paying the bills. it's the employer. so the system is geared to bureaucracies, insurance companies and employers. it's not a bad system, but it's not sustainable. think of it this way, do to a doctor, clinic, hospital, you ask what something cost? why that means you either don't

have insurance or you are a lunatic. why else would you want to know? what's it to you what it cost? you nut. [laughter] >> are you crazy? and yet everywhere else we want to know what we are going to get for our money. we don't have free enterprise. you don't get constant innovation. you get more and more of walmart offering $4 prescriptions and routine med tear procedures at a -- medical procedures at a local facility with a registered nurse take care of something quickly, efficiently, at a low cost when something is -- the nurse can look you over and say all right, you have to go to the hospital. you don't have to go to the emergency room if you sprain your ankle or something. can we get free enterprise? of course. start offering some of the proposals, nationwide shopping on health insurance.

i live in new jersey. like new york we have nutty regulations. a policy that cost me $15 or $20,000 you with get in new jersey for $8,000. illegal? why, you can buy a house in pennsylvania, duh not insurance. go on tv, radio, all of those ads for auto insurance, all of them. where's the last time you saw similar ads of health insurance? it's just not -- you got to rehew those barriers. get real competition. equal tax treatment. business gets the tax deduction, why shouldn't you. if you don't lake your employer offers, go shopping on your own and not suffer a huge penalty. tort reform. what about allowing small businesses to pool together to buy insurance. basic stuff like that. people say that's all well and good. what about the uninsured. what do we do about them?

think about something even more basic than health. food. no food, no nothing. and yet look at food. farmers grow food. private companies process the food. truckers deliver the food, restaurants stores sell the food. imagine if the government said because some people can't get food we have to take over growing and distributing and selling of food. you have the soviet union again. we'd all be no obesity problem. we'd all be starving. and so what happens if people can't get food? we have food banks, food stamps, we deal with specific problems. why can't we do the same thing in health care. allow real free enterprise in health care and specific problems deal with the specific problems. government doesn't have to take over the whole system to deal with specific properties or charities that deal with specific problems. can you get free enterprise in health care?

you know the two examples, lasik surgery, they are trying to make it more attractive or affordable. cosmetic surgery, none of you need it. that's called pandering. yeah. [laughter] >> i try it in politics, didn't work. which is why we are meeting here instead of my library, my presidential library. but think of it, cosmetic surgery, big growth industry in the united states. demand has grown six fold for it. huge technological advances, yet no inflation like in medicine? you're in the charge of paying and writing the check. so what do you do if you want a procedure done? you scope it out like for anything else. if you have friends that can keep their mouth shut, you might ask them.

then you deal with it. so that's what health savings accounts removing barriers there. your employee can put the money in the account but you are in the charge of the resources. so the system is geared to you as the individual, not to third parties. it can work. so in essence, in essence, we face a crisis but there's no reason why if we do a few things right, stable dollar, lowering tax rates, recognizing the proper role of the government. it can quickly get out of this. people -- then we'll get to the q and a. people say it's so hopeless with all of these unfunded liabilities. here's what you do. recognize their liabilities and their assets. if you have the kind of vibrant, growing, innovative economy that we had in the '80s and '90s where the new companies could flourish, that means not only get economic growth, but asset

values go up because people see a future. so they are willing to bid for assets. so you take the 1980s and the ronald reagan. even though the national debt almost tripled, back when $1 trillion was a lot of money. [laughter] >> $1.7 trillion. he spent a lot on defense. it was a good investment. it won the cold war which member thought was possible. congress went it's own way on spending as usual. $1.7 trillion. do you realize the wealth of the nation went up $17 trillion? grow the assets. americans today even in the terrible economy have gross assets of $67 trillion. net assets of $53 trillion. you get a 10 or 20% increase in assets because you sudden have people see a future. you see a vibrant future again. 10, 20% increase in assets overwhelmed the stupidity coming out in washington.

then on the liability side, health care. those liabilities suing medicare and medicaid, no productivity. you allow little enterprise, it'll flow over. we can make reforms and touch on that in the q and a. social security, forget it from my generation. but there's wealth of the nation. the key thing is make sure younger people go into a new system where they own their own personal accounts. where that money is invested in the real economy with proper safeguards and not -- and bridges to no were or whatever else they invent in that town. you do that, over time as we go to our ultimate reward, that cost of social security will start to abate. and you get a vibrant system where you make the choice on when you want to retire and the amazing thing is you have to do this properly, people end up with more in benefits than they

could possibly get in the current disastrous system we have today. so free markets is about markets are people. remember that. and free people, i pointed out proper rules of the road will figure these things out. people constantly figure it there's a need, how do we deal with it? how do we make it an opportunity. that's the blessing of liberty. thank you very much. [applause] >> may i ask you a question? >> sure. >> we'll field some questioning. wait until i acknowledge you. wait for the microphone, we are covers this were c-span. we want to make sure the television audience hea you as well. actually bob way in the back. we'll start back there. >> well, you mentioned joseph

and maynard cains, i would gather that you would lean towards joseph, but apparently as a white house didn't. so how would you have worked this out between the two? >> well, as you know cains rose up to prominence. he was prominent in britain before the great depression. the depression made him an acon. -- icon. even though it was government policy that created the disaster. free markets got the wrap for it. they made a huge mistake instead of government should do nothing instead of reduces taxes. so cains that's a shorthand were for a while they won the debate. they were seen as a stabilizer of the economy. it can provide safety nets for

people. don't mistake that for stabilizing the economy. stimulus programs, i'll be blunt about this, never work. never me one that's really brought about stable, long-term economic growth. never, ever. stimulus means you take money from one pocket and put it in another. it's the equivalent of taking the bucket of the water into one end of the pool to the other end with a little bit of evaporation. it does not increase the supply of water in the pool. you only do that with incentives. government helps wreck the economy. free markets get the wrap. when government makes mistake like inflation, cains got inflation right when he said what a disruptive social force. it undermines the moral fabric, brings out the worst. you see it in wall street, those are worried about the wall street's behavior. the way you deal with it, shake a fist that's fine.

but does he have a stable dollar? suddenly the trading profits go down exponentially. prices are less violent in the terms when the dollar, this is what commodities are priced in, stable. you don't create inflation, you don't get access profits. what happened with inflation? you always get a huge run up in commodity prices. so it looks like oil executives are gouging you. this happened in the 1970s and happened again a few years ago. it may happen again today, if they keep this up. and wall street could never have had the profits. they'd had a stable financial system. now that doesn't mean we don't need reforms in the system. we have to get rid of too big to fail. cannot have that in a free economy. that should be studied. but in terms of cains, what do you do with cains? you fight it with books like ours. your debate in the public and

say it's free people, not a handful of mandrins in washington. cains actually thought very sophisticated man in many ways. he thought a handful of enlightened people could guide the economy and ignored the thing called politics. people are going to put pressure on government when government has powers. and he just -- that sort of glided over his head. even though he was a man of the world. so he's wrong. by the way, just to trump at -- blow our horn a little bit. in 1982, which was the centennial of the birth of cains. we did a cover story by peter, the great management guru. very classic. we vote on cains and trumper, at the people people had never heard of joseph. now he's a -- he's not a household word, but certainly

more popular and prepared the two. joseph won the debate. he realized it's the entrepreneur who brings about growth and recognized also the disruptive impact of capitalism which is what states people should be focused on dealing with the disruptions not trying to prevent them or having the government run the economy instead. >> we'll get around. >> this is real -- >> wait for the microphone. >> this is a very simple question. do you drive any kind of vehicle similar to the one that was driven in the state of massachusetts? >> my wife does. so far i've had no word that she is going to make a mid-life career change. and i tried the change. so even if i drove a truck, it would not be to be more for

picking up things not votes. and i'm an agitator now. i tried it twice. so i have to stir things up. [laughter] >> if you are against the or think that the market as being, you know, wiser than necessary the government and you wanted a stable dollar and politics out of it, wouldn't it be better just to have the dollar be kind of a commodity that is produced by independent printers or not by the government? >> host: well, there's a whole don't -- there's a whole theory from very learned people about what is called competing

currencies. and lawrence white and others talk about it. i think for our purposes now the people are just going to say you don't have to worry about whether i have a city dollar or a bank of america dollar or goldman dollar. i think the thing to focus on is how do you get a stable value for the dollar so you are not relying on the federal reserve? and that is you want to -- and this will horrify economist. and that is you have to have a tie to gold or so -- if you want to be sophisticated a basket of commodities so you don't look like a barbarian or spread between bonds or not the simpleton i just made myself out to be. [laughter] >> gold got a bad wrap with the depression. it does d not cause the depression. but it got the wrap.

and we deal with it in the book. we had the dollar tied to go through the 1970s. it was called the international monetary system. and it largely worked until we blew it up. it wasn't just president nixon who did it. it was a whole idea, new idea. we didn't need to have this anymore. so since the government has the monopoly on the money, the creation of it should be tied to gold. why? because has a steady value. you can't destroy it or eat it or drink it. it's all that's been supplied is out there. it's like a polaris. and not perfect. but better than anything else we have out there. and the federal reserve itself have been around 96 years and the dollar has gone down in value 96%. having humans try to do it does not work. feds should have only two jobs, stable dollar, and dealing with panics, period. and in terms of gold just to

show we can be modern, you don't have to own an once of it. -- once -- ounce. it is going to losen up. period, done. in between, they can have to do each day. give them some employment. so, yeah, you do need a gold base. bernanke to them, he guys into the false food that gold caused the depression. it didn't. but that's another subject for another time. you need stability. you absolutely need stability. [inaudible] >> i'm almost at a loss because a unique experience to agree

with everything. you are obviously a bright man. [laughter] >> i needed you to say that. [laughter] >> but i'm not toeally at a loss. i'll give it a try. i was intrigued and pleased that you mentioned the capitalism has a moral basis. the founders asserted that man has rights pop secure the rights governments are instituted among men. that's a pure laissez faire statement. would you tie in individual rights with everything else that you staid? >> well, to succeed with the free market as we pointed out, you do need to satisfy or serve the needs and wants of others. it brings out your creativity. it's also moral preceasely for

that reason. it allows you to develop your own talents. not just wealth in terms of a bank account but more and more kinds of occupations and jobs it gives people a chance to develop talents that may have been irrelevant 50 or 100 years ago. take michael jordan, perhaps the agreedest basketball player ever. if you didn't have basketball, try baseball, he didn't get very far with that, and what else? but, you know, because there are so many things that people could pursue, he could find something where he had a very unique and profitable talent. in that sense giving people such a range of choice they do have if they wish pursuit of happiness discovering what is unique about themselveses and being able to develop it. and the nice thing in the moral system is your success is not the the expense of others. you are not robbing a bank. you are not shooting somebody

and plundering their farm and that kind of thing. our founders understood all that we are that we are endowed with certain energies and ambitions. particularly hamilton and franklin. how do you device a system tour constructive instead of being reigned in because it leads to reinstruction. that's what commerce is about. precisely because it serves the needs and wants of others. you have to have morality. if people don't believe in the rule of law, all betters are off. if i believe you should always try to cheat your neighbor, the system is not going to work. you are not going to get very far. so you do need the basic core of values. when you have the basic core of values, then the system in effect reinforces those values. it rewards looking to the future. it rewards collaboration and working with others instead of going off in a cave and shooting

everybody. so hamilton understood, franklin understood. >> we're going to leave as members of the house and rules committee are returns from their recess to consider the health care reconciliation bill. this is one of the two houses for the bill. this is live coverage on c-span2. >> this committee will please come to order. i will call up an amendment by the energy commerce committee. no, i won't. what's that? the chair will receive a motion from mr. mcgovernor. >> madame chair, i move --

>> going the club. >> i move the committee report a single rule to the senate 3590 the patient protection and affordable care act and the hr4872 the reconciliation act of 2010. the rule provide for two hours of the debate of topic of senate amendment and hr4872 equally divided and controlled by the majority leader, minority leader, ordines knees. upon completion with respect to the hr3590, the rule makes an order the motion offered by the majority leader that the house concur in the amendment. the motion shall be in order without intervention of any point of order accept those arising of rule 21. the senate amendment and motion should be considered as read. if the motion is concurred, the resolution provides for a consideration of the hr4872 under a closed rule. the rule waves all points of

order against consideration accept those arising under clause 10 of rule city. it provides that the -- rule 21. it prod sides in the amendment printed in the part 8 accompanying the resolution modified by the amendment should be called as adopted and the bill has amended should be considered as read. the rule waives all points of order as amended. the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. until completion of proceedings enabled by the first session of the resolution, a, the chair may decline to entertain any intervening motion accept as provided herein. resolution question or notice b the chair made the client to the question of consideration, c), the chair may postpone such proceedings as designated by the speaker. b), clause 1a of rule -- >> 19.

>> 19 shall not apply. any proposition add miserable under the first three sections of the resolution should be considered as read. finally the rule directs the clerk in the engrossment to amendment the title to read. quote, an act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title two of the concurred resolution of the budget for fiscal year 2010, end quote. >> thank you very much, mr. mcgovern. we've heard the gentleman's motion. >> yes whereby madame chair. thank you very. much. we've had a very long day. what seven or eight hours of hearing today and lots of action on the floor. let me -- i know i refer -- excuse me 10 hours here? >> 12 hours. >> 12 hours. why don't we say 36 hours or something like that. >> i want to say 12. >> we've been here for a very, very long time. and, you know, it was interesting that earlier today i

reminded our colleagues of the document a new direction for america. and i read the paragraph in here by then majority leader for an open process when it comes to debate and all. then i read the paragraph that said that was nancy pelosi's commitment that she made as she was campaigning for the majority. one the promises was members should have at least 24 hours to exam bills and conference reports, the text prior to floor consideration, rules governing floor debate must be reported before 10 p.m. for a bill to be considered the following day. now let me -- so obviously we've blown that one out the window tonight. let me just say -- shall i read it again. it say reported before 10 p.m. reported before 10 p.m.

i don't think that's going to happen. let me say that it is somewhere unorthodox as i look at the resolution itself that's before us. we're not debating any legislation, we're debating topics. >> uh-huh. >> upon adoption of the resolution to be in order to debate the topics address bid senate amendments. and then we will have consideration of the measures. and i wondered if you could explain to us, madame chair, why it is that we're debating topics here as opposed to the legislation that is going to be placed before us? >> actually, the two hours of debate is on the legislation. i think -- >> no it says debate on the topics addressed. >> i don't know why the words topics is used, we'll obviously be talking about legislation. >> okay. well, it is someone unorthodox to be doing that. >> well, all right. >> i'll just let that stand. and say you know this call that

ms. pelosi made when she was seeking an opportunity to merge in the majority, what that we would have an open debate. i'm going to give every member of the opportunity to allow for the kind of free flow and open debate that ms. pelosi promised us she would have when she authored a new direction for america. i move we allow to be open process. >> thank you, you've heard the gentleman's motion. any discussion? [inaudible] >> what's wrong? >> thank you. there was the ability to go to conference. i might treat this as a conference report. i wanted to say that directly and i feel the way we are handling this is absolutely

appropriate tonight. there's a lot of the proposed amendments that are going to be offered that i can support and i do support. i'm not going to support the chair because it's carefully crafted amendment between the house and senate. unfortunately, we couldn't do this in the traditional processes. but i think that we will move forward in the future, find to do some the thing that is are subjected here today. which we could have done in conference had the senate agreed to go. >> all right. any other discussion? >> madame chair. >> yes. >> can i ask a question? did the senate even attempt to go to conference? >>y, they did. >> they did? >> yes, they did. >> thank you. >> and as we all know, the congress reports are not amended. >> let me follow up, how could they have attempted to go to conferences. they didn't pass the same bill? >> they didn't? >> well, they didn't. >> you often go to conference on

different bills. senate and house bills go to conference. >> right. >> so they can be reconciled into the single bill. >> let me just say, madame chair, an attempt can be made to describe this as a conference report. because under the constitution, the senate did in fact exercise it's rights to take the actions that they did. that to me is -- if this were a standard conference report we wouldn't be offering the amendments that we're going to offer this evening. so i think that the recognition that this is not a conference report, it could be treated like a conference report if someone chooses to do that. but it's not a conference report. for that reason, i believe we should've should have an open rule for the consideration of the amendments. and madame chair, i will say that as i have told you privately we are going to be having votes on the amendments this evening. we will have no more, no more votes at all this evening if we simply adopt my amendment for an

open rule. that assures you that everyone can go home and we won't have to have this protracted debate. no more recorded votes. in fact, we don't need a recorded vote on this. we can buy a voice vote and move to have an open amendment process and then we can all say good luck and good night. >> does everybody feel like they need to put their hand in the pocket and feel like they wallet is there? [laughter] >> my hands are up. [laughter] >> the american people are all doing that as they look at the legislation. because $1 trillion is a hell of a lot of money. [laughter] >> mr. mcgovern. >> let's be clear. if we were to adopt the amendments it would be the senate is able to filibuster this measure. they wouldn't even have a vote on health care. we've been talking about health care reform, i think the majority of americans want america. we have been denied the right to vote because of the republican

leadership in the senate. the republican leadership is used every single elementary move and manipulation. you know, i'm happy to be here all night. i'm happy to be here all night and vote on your amendments, mr. pryor. yes, i yield. >> let me just say that every single amendment that we are going to be offering this evening is to the reconciliation bill. >> well. >> and so it is not in any way due. what i said -- >> i will resay -- >> i will reclaim my time. i will restrait this is an attempt to try to derecall the legislation. this should be treated as the congress report. because the republicans choice not to participate, there is a clairefully negotiated agreement between the house and senate. we need to move on this. we could have a vote and finally be able to give the american people health insurance reform which they've been longing for decades. >> madame chair, let me say we all share the goal. we can have the kind of debate

and get exactly where i believe both political parties want to be. that is meaningful -- meaningful reform to ensure that americans will have access to affordable health insurance. i believe that having an open rule will, in fact, give us that chance. so i encourage my -- >> i don't think both parties agree on that. >> hardly. let's begin the voting. i will call the vote. all in favor say aye. opposed no. >> madame chairman we have a recorded vote. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> reports total, motion is not agreed to. any further motions, mr. pryor. >> yes, i move to amend the rule to provide for any record vote demanded on passage of hr4872,

the speaker shall use her authority pursuant to the clause three of rule 26 to direct the clerk to conduct such a vote by a call of the roll. now this is something that is done at the beginning of every congress. we've all gone through this when we had the election of the speaker of the house of representatives. and everyone is recognizing what an -- a monumental vote this is. how extraordinarily important it is. so this amendment would simply state that when we go to a recorded vote on passage of this legislation we would have the clerical the roll of the members. and i believe that it's a common sense way for us to deal with the issue of accountability and transparency which everyone likes to talk about around here. >> i heard the gentleman's motion. any discussion? >> madame chair, there's a question.

>> mr. mcgovern, you may. >> when i vote, i put my card in the machine, then it lights up yes or no. the issue of transparency. okay. thank you very much. >> any other discussion? >> yes, madame chair. let me say that the right to -- or the opportunity to simply put a card in and -- >> it's not american. >> is unmore than? >> is that what you're getting at? >> um. let me see. it's the idea of putting a card -- no i have to think about your question. you've now asked me if i believe it's un-american -- you've asked me if i believe it's un-american -- >> i think it's the tread of the conversation. >> you asked me -- >> you think only roll call vote is valid. >> no, i don't. what i believe -- no, i don't want both.