is entitlement reform as the president so clearly states. it's with great excitement that we accelerating our discussion of pay-as-you-go as an important part in how we go forward on energy, on health care, on education, the three pillars, to turn the economy around. the congress in the next week or so will have legislation on the supplemental and the f.d.a., but our committee work will be focused on the three pillars of the president's agenda, which were in the budget. health care, education, energy. reduce the deficit, lower taxes, create jobs, turn the economy around. with that i'll be pleased to take any questions. >> health care reform will be fully paid for? >> that is our intention. that is -- that is the work that we are doing now.

the priorities, how do we pay for it. it will be paid for. >> speaker pelosi. >> yes. >> financial disclosure forms are out. >> yeah. >> you have large investments in a.i. gimplet. so do other members of congress who receive bailout funds. do you think, not just bailout funds but large aspects of the economy, investment in clean energy, comcast. do you think there should be stronger restrictions on how members of congress -- is it a conflict of interest and should there be stronger restrictions? >> no, i don't think there should be restrictions on investments. when it became a company that was receiving funds, we divested ourselves of that. but for a long time, a.i.g. was a thriving company. but when there's any thought of conflict of interest, yes, then we should do divest.

we don't know what that's going to be in advance. who would have ever thought that a.i.g., this jipet of an industry, would come to the place where the united states -- giant of an industry, would come to the place where the united states would have to bail them out. >> madam speaker, the conference will meet on the supplemental. can you talk to us for a moment -- later today there will be the conference committee on the supplemental. >> yes. >> there's been a lot of debate about the photo language from the senate. >> right. >> has a final decision been made on that? and has -- how is that decision arrived at and why? >> well, no final decision has been made. the conference committee will work its will and make its decision. but i can't say to you there's great concern in the house about making an exception to freedom of information act while the case is before a

judge. >> madam speaker, when you -- your office was working on the tarp legislation and other bailout legislation, did you at the time know about your portfolio and how much money your family had invested in a.i.g. and other companies? >> well, i signed my disclosure form. yes. we didn't know on september 17 or 18 the administration would come in and tell us the condition of our economy. that if we didn't act now we would not have an economy. that was a thursday night. by monday, no, we did not know that. but i signed my disclosure forms. >> madam speaker, on energy, chairman waxman and congressman boucher said they are working toward the floor debate before the fourth of july recess. can you confirm that's the goal you are working for and how aring going to bridge the differences between the agriculture committee? >> we will bring the bill to the floor when they are ready.

and i congratulate chairman waxman and mr. markey for the masterful job that they did in passing the bill through the energy and commerce committee. now, other committees have their jurisdiction to weigh in on and that's the process where we're involved in. and when we're finish and ready we will go to the floor. >> there are bipartisan discussions in the senate about an idea looking at creating privately run cooperative instead of a public option. just wondering what you think of the concept, and given the concerns among your moderate members of it is it something you won't be open to? >> not instead of a public option, no. in our caucus i think members have -- know that members have been very clear about what their concerns might be about a public option. and i agree. it should be actuarily sound. it should be administratively self-sufficient. it should be a real competitor with the private sector and not

have an unfair advantage. when you say the words public option, if that is the term of art we will be using, you have to say right next to it level playing field. but in our house there's strong support for public option and great respect for the concerns that had been raised within our caucus. and we will address them. >> madam speaker, given what you just described is going to be very complicated for people to understand, given the experience of the clinton health plan had and that we had with medicare part d, with public worries and anxieties and confusion, what strategy are you going to follow to explain this massive bill to people? because health care is people -- one of their most basic worries in life. >> it sure is. it's a personal worry in terms of their health and well-being. it's also an economic issue for them as well. and i always say, everybody in the country is an expert on his or her health care and how to be able to afford it.

we have our overarching message of quality that the president has put forth. in that framework we will have the initiatives to help us meet those goals and deeply rooted in those values. the -- right now the bill is being considered -- i can only speak to the house. the three committees are working in unison practically with a unified staff. they will have something on the table in a week or two. hopefully most of it will already be scored because at some point we have to know how much each element of it will cost to see how we can afford it and how to pay for it because it will be paid for. and our challenge to us is relate to the lives of the american people and how this makes a difference to them. but we're very excited about

it. whether it's about prevention and wellness, which is the important part of this, investments in scientific research that we can have personalized, customized care for all americans. with investments in technology so that we have a common record for all people to be on it, whether it's investments in community centers to reach out to achieve this -- as many people being involved as possible because it's hard. and community health centers will enable us to do it. whether it's having the resources to have a sufficient health care providers at every step of the way. we will be able to explain the bill to the american people once it is a mark that comes forward and then open to -- congress will work its will. people will make suggestions and we will have a product that will meet the president's values, meet the needs of the

american people, be paid for and make america healthier. >> madam speaker, on health care, public plan or government plan, whatever you want to call it. do you believe it's essential, an essential element of health care reform? can you have effective health care reform without a public or government plan? >> well, let me say at the health summit the president was asked this question by senator grassley. you may have heard him. don't you think that having a public health plan is unfair in terms of competition with the private plans? the president said, i think a public option is a way to keep the private sector honest. but -- and we want to achieve accessibility, quality and affordability so that all americans have access to quality health care. he then said, if you have another way to do that, put it on the table. and that's where we are. everything should be on the table.

from our perspective here, though, there is strong support for a public option right from the start. and there is also full support for having it be a real competitor, not something that has an overwhelming advantage. of course, it's not for profit and it doesn't advertise. it doesn't have something some of the overhead that the private sector already has. already, just the thought of having a public option hags -- has sort of eliminated words of -- from the health insurance glossary of precondition, portability. everybody seems to be subscribing to the idea that we shouldn't have precondition in order to get health care -- eliminating you for health insurance. to this is what we have come to do. our three chairmen have asked

that chairman dingell be the author of this bill. every year since he's been here he's been the author of universal health care. before that his father was. when he was a young member of congress in the 1960's he gaveled medicare. he gaveled down the medicare bill. very few republican votes, by the way, on medicare. very few republican votes. so we've heard the same concerns before. but it is -- is it pretty -- as i say, this is a life work for many members of congress, and it certainly is the responsibility for all of us. this will happen. we told the president we'd have a bill by the end of july, that it would be paid for and that's the course of action we are in. i commend our three chairmen, chairman rangel, chairman waxman and chairman george miller for working together, eliminate any turf challenges that occurred in the early 1990's, 1993, 1994, and to

facilitate this improvement in the lives of the american people. >> madam speaker, the senate passed tobacco bill barring any expected amendment -- >> when we see the bill, i can give you more definite answer. but from what i have seen so far, i believe it will be possible for us to accept their bill and send it right on to the president. we are talking about the f.d.a. tobacco bill. thank you all very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> and the house should be gaveling in in the next 10 or 15 minutes or so. when they come back they'll have a vote on the republican motion to instruct conferees on the 2009 war spending bill. and debate ahead on u.s. aid to pakistan. you heard the speaker there also say that the house likely to consider a resolution later today on the house floor condemning the shooting that occurred at the holocaust museum yesterday in washington,

d.c. while we wait for the u.s. house, a discussion on health care from this morning's "washington journal." you can contact us at twitter. here is a preview of president obama's trip to green bay today. this writer writing that when president obama touches down he will be landing in one of the highest value help communities in the nation. it has managed to control medical spending while steadily improving occam's. president obama says if we could make the rest of the nation practice medicine the way that green bay does we would have higher quality and lower costs. -- that was actually said by a peter orszag. obama is increasingly focused on wasteful medical care that does not extend life in may actually be harmful, he says.

today in his meeting his first as president to promote health reform is intended to abolish one city strategy. the event coupled with a speech to the american medical association on monday represents a fresh push to sell the public of legislation that could dramatically alter health care is given and pit for in this country. in the coming days and weeks, the president will be more active in making a public case for the origin need to reform our health-care system said a white house spokesman. what obama is likely to your is testimony to the value of digital records, a physician coverage in, preventive care, and transparency. that is from "the washington post" this morning. in "the wall street journal" -- how to stop socialized health care by carcarl rove.

it says i would go the republican member of congress one for the -- it democrats and at a public auction health insurance program, america is on the way to becoming a european- child welfare state. competition is needed to provide health insurance privately. 1300 companies already sell health insurance plans. second, a private auction -- a public auction will undercut private insurers and passed the tab to taxpayers. for example, medicare pays hospitals and 71% and doctors 81% of what private health insurers pay. it would critter the private insurance market, forcing most americans on to the government plan.

one group estimates 70% of people with private insurance will quickly lose with a no get from private companies and be forced on to the government-run role as businesses decided is more cost-effective to drop coverage. fourth, the public option is far too expensive. fifth, the public auction puts government firmly in the middle of the relationship between patients and their doctors. imagine what happens when government is the insurance carrier. that is karl rove ready about health care this morning. what do you think about health care? a democrat is first up this morning. caller: why are you quoting karl rove who is neither a nurse or doctor?

under registered nurse for 35 years now. of course we can fix it. the first thing is that you cut out the for-profit. it does not mean that you cannot make a profit. you can make a nice living at a cap of $250,000. second, you need to get rid of the insurance -- but they are terrible, like mafia or something. you get rid of that and you have that the public system. right now medicare would work beautifully if there were no doubt in it, kicking people out of hospitals in two days and then readmitting him and gudgeon the costs. it is really bad. the second thing -- and gauging the cost. use nurse practitioners, pay doctors medical school. you do this by every year the practice and take away their debt.

host: are you still practicing nurse? caller: 08 yes, i worked in nursing homes and have worked in every area. public health, and the public health department in the city of chicago. it worked beautifully in the head clinics. it was dismantled along with everything in chicago. ronald reagan was treated by trauma centers and then he closed them. we have enough money to give it to public health science. host: delaware on our independent line. caller: i pretty much agree with that nurse even though i am a basic secretary in the health- care industry. we have an aging population and we need to have long-term care and hospice care, dental care,

it needs to be all inclusive. the current model does not work. it is crazy. host: how you pay for? caller: i'm one of the few who probably has my coverage to my work system, but you really have to know the plan -- is a pain. it is a pain to be sick. it has taken me four months to go through the system for a simple problem with my knee. you have to get a consultant to consultant to confirm -- by the time that happens -- he knew. i could have had this done 10 days after they knew. host: in the "usa today" lawmakers target health insurance tax breaks from employers which could be scaled back to pay for president obama's overhaul.

committees in congress are considering a cap on the tax break so that higher income employees would pay taxes on part of their value. senate finance committee chairman max baucus who plans to unveil his plan next week has said he favors limiting the tax break. this is anna "the new york times" -- doctors group opposes public health care insurance plan. the ama says it will oppose creation of a government- sponsored insurance plan which president obama and many other democrats see as an essential element to remake the health care system. the opposition could be a mutuamajor hurdle. it is america's largest physician organization with about 2 minute 50,000 members.

next caller, how you pay for caller: health care as the europeans do, with a gas tax. you drive a fuel-efficient car and it does not cost you that much. it costs less than some of the averages monthly premiums. individuals paying $800, families paying $1,500. on a similar note, many republicans are being very disingenuous. if john mccain were president at think he would be running the government and the economy almost the exact same way. bailing out the economy, bailing out the auto industry -- and they're blasting obama. i really believe that there are many republicans who want obama to fail even if it meant the economy collapsing, even if it meant a terrorist attack. it is averageoutrageous as a wht

the republicans are not getting behind obama and his quest to make sure that our economy does better. host: good morning, and the independent line. caller: i also work in the health care industry. inpatie patient services. the idea i have would involve two controversial ideas. in essence, i don't believe that the biggest problem lies in how we approach health care. it lies in the way we approach fiduciary remuneration and capitalism. we view the capitalist ideal to be the driving force rather than the fuel. creativity is always the engine.

that said, what of we discussed the idea of seeking litigation against hmo's and health care insurance companies for what they have done in my opinion, to the country. what if the argument were made in the court of law that these institutions sublimated american democracy by engaging in reckless capitalism and thus endangering the entire republic. we sue them, taken to court, take away much of their material wealth and the verdict that into the economy to essentially subsidize a new health-care system for one and all. but that is just controversial. ok, another tack. if we will have a collaborative kepler's system, what if we had hmo's along with the government funding individual hospitals or health care systems at least on a trial basis for each organization worked in tandem

with the public government system and at best a hospitals are subsidized by both public and private interests in a forthright fashion. host what's your proposing for saving health care. caller: it's become the business of making money, not the business of securing the patient. so when we took away the insurance companies' pressures that they keep applying to physicians and health care providers by allowing them to have an insurance plan that they can afford that's affordable and reward doctors who are curing patients and punish those doctors who are causing patients to spend excessive amounts of money to continue to do services that are unnecessary solely to pad the profit of the firm, if we can do that then we minimize the cost and bin minimizing costs make it available to more people.

being fiscally conservative, it makes sense to limit the expenditures of the federal government in terms of health care costs, but health care costs, more americans are willing to pay for health insurance if it's affordable and people can afford it and the insurance company will say, no we will not cover your ailments. the biggest problem now is you have five million insurance plans and you almost need a rocket scientists to determine whether they'll cover everything you need or don't need. @ 8 on one of the most vecksing issues of the overhaul debate, whether to have a new government sponsored health plan. and kent conradt would create health care cooperate tiffs owned by groups of residents and small businesses similar to how electric or other cooperate tiffs operate. they would be nonprofit and without the government involvement that troubles republicans and business groups about the public plan options.

senate finance committee chair baucus said yesterday that the idea could be key to a bipartisan health bill. that's in the "philadelphia inquirer." more from senator baucus. baucus aides warn k street. called a last minute preemptive strike wednesday with a group of prominent democratic lobbyists warning them to advise their clients not to attend a meeting with senate republicans set for today. russell sullivan, the top staffer on finance, and baucus chief of staff met with a block of more than 20 contract lobbyists, including several former baucus aides. "they said republicans are having this meeting and you need to let your clients know if they'll have someone there that will be viewed of a hostile act," said a democratic lobbyists who will be attending the meeting. republican leaders have been

meeting with health care stakeholders for months with those sessions occurring more frequently than once a month, according to a senior senate g.o.p. aide. margarita, democrat, alexandria, virginia, you're on. how do you pay for health care? caller: through our own taxes. right now we pay taxes through the nose and we don't see any personal benefit. >> and we're leaving this and taking you back live to the u.s. house. they've gaveled back in. 1687. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. the remaining electronic vote will be conducted as a five-minute vote. the unfinished business is the question on the motion to instruct on h.r. 2346 offered by the gentleman from california, mr. lewis, which the chair will put de novo. the clerk will redesignate the motion. the clerk: motion to instruct conferees offered by mr. lewis of california. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to instruct. so many as are in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. the gentleman from illinois. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. >> on that qui the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of the vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. 15-minute vote. @'s$s#h's s's$s#h$s)uáus