members of congress, and it is certainly responsible for all of us. we told the president to have a bill by the end of july, that it would be paid for, and that is the course of action. i commend the three chairmen for working together, eliminating any turf challenges that occured in the mid and early 90s. and to facilitate this improvement in the lives of the american people. >> has the senate passed a tobacco bill barring unexpected amendments or options? >> once we have seen the bill, i can give you a more definite answer. from what we have seen so far, i believe it will be possible for us to send -- to accept their bill and send it on the president. thank you all, very much.

>> house republicans put together their health care proposal. the group crafted their plan. it is about 20 minutes. >> on every major -- on every major issue drafted by congress, is the american middle class that has taken a hit from the trillion dollars stimulus bill to the fiscally irresponsible budget to these endless bailouts. washington has asked the middle class to bankroll the trillions in spending that we cannot afford. it appears the democrats are ready to lead the middle class off a cliff again. we're here to urge americans to be engaged and be on alert for

what congress is about to do to rush a health-care bill. they want to rush this as quickly as possible so no one can understand the implications of what is about to happen. president obama was in wisconsin pushing for passage of the bill. it is going to make health care more expensive for americans oppose the middle-class. -- for america's middle-class. middle-class americans and small businesses have too much at stake when it comes to their health care. the democrats emerging bill rages -- raises taxes, rations care, and puts bureaucrats in charge of medical decisions. it amounts to a government takeover of health care that will force millions of americans of their own plans and into a government sponsored plan. republicans know there is a

better way. we have got better solutions to make sure that the middle-class has access to high-quality, affordable health insurance. i hope that the democrats will continue -- or begin to work with us to craft a bipartisan bill that will really address the needs that we have in our health-care system. we do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. >> as co-chair of the tuesday group, we're coming together with a health care reform that we will unveil on tuesday. what that bill will do is substantially reformed health insurance markets, backing employer provided care which already covers 170 million americans. one of the key examples i would give on how substantive health

care reform that does not back a government takeover really still does solve a lot of problems for middle-class americans is to compare california and new jersey. if you want to do it poorly, you do like the state of new jersey which has almost no reforms and has now boosted the average cost of care to $6,000 per person. if you want to do it in a much better way, do it like california where insurance pools are larger. there, you have reduced the cost by almost $5,000 per patient. what we would be doing in our tuesday group reform bill is backing the kind of reforms that have lowered the cost in california over what is happening in new jersey. i am also worried about how to pay for the system. having just come back from china, we're worried about overall deficit spending by the united states.

we're worried about one part of the federal government by one -- and buying another part of the federal government. when you're looking at an overall weakening of the dollar, i think there is great fear in additional spending by the congress. the question that i would ask is, with the federal government -- with the federal government already $1.80 trillion in debt, which you want to put an institution that is in charge of your family's healthcare out of money, especially by international markets are worried about the dollar? finally, the most respected medical journal in the world, i would argue, "the lancet" has posted its survival rates. americans are much more concerned about lowering the cost of their insurance even more than expanding coverage for anybody -- for everybody.

will you live or die, given the health insurance system that is present? they studied cancer survival rates across all european countries, canada and the united states. what it said was, you are much more likely to live in the united states through cancer than in canada or that you -- the eu. we do not want to harm the record, because if you get better results from your oncologist in your fighting cancer, then you're more likely to live in the united states than in other countries. other folks have been looking at it as a model for the united states could go. >> good morning, i'm lynn jenkins from the great state of kansas. health care is not just a policy issue for me. as a daughter of aging parents and a mother of two children, i have spent a fair amount of time

in dr.'s offices and emergency rooms in recent years. when it comes to health care for my loved ones, i want their doctor working with us to explain treatment options and helping us make important decisions, not a distant government bureaucrat or a washington politician who does not know the situation and does not know my family. we have a healthcare crisis on our hands. it is definitely a crisis when a family is denied the ability to choose the doctor or hospital that is best for them. i am concerned with some of the proposals being discussed here in washington that will take that choice away and put a government bureaucrat in charge. health care decisions are personal, and one thing we know for sure is that a one-size- fits-all government takeover of health care will result in fewer choices for patients. it is not a matter of if there'll be fewer choices, it is

a matter of when. doctors are the best health care experts out there. they have spent years just to help get that "dr." in front of their name. my constituents in kansas have called and sent letters to my office asking me to represent them in this debate. the vast majority of them say that reform is needed, but i have not heard many who think that a government run health care system will benefit them. one lady from pittsburgh, kansas said that she was concerned about any plan that allowed so- called leaders who have no medical background deciding who will get what treatment when. she went on to say that treatment will be delayed or not given. my constituents have it figured out. house republicans will continue

to ask to be part of this debate. this will no doubt be one of the most important pieces of legislation we will consider this year and four years to come -- for years to come. mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons, daughters -- rather than letting a distant bureaucrats call the shots for the ones you love, we want to put the medical professionals in charge and we want you to have a say in every decision regarding your family's health. thank you. >> lynn was on the health-care task force that the leader put together. the ranking members from all the committees involved, the work force committee, the energy and commerce committee, they have been actively working. they have been involved in the discussions we have been having. what has been happening in the

last few weeks, we have been more and more specific. the administration has become less and less specific. they're a principles are now three. their web site has a lot less information on it that it did two months ago. one of the frustration for our side is, we keep pounding on the doors saying, we have good ideas here. we want to be part of the process. we agree with the goals. that door never opens for us. on the senate side, the outside groups were told, if you're caught talking to republicans, you're going to be penalized as this discussion goes forward. what the concern here is, our friends on the other side know that particularly, when it comes to a public auction, this idea of a government takeover of health care simply will not fly with the american people. the american medical association has been trying to work with the administration up until, my

guess is about yesterday. they have said they're absolutely opposed to a government run health care plan. they have discovered that as one of the competitors, very quickly, you will have no competitors. the government shifts the cost to everybody who does not have that plan. doctors have seen that now. these are adjectives for a competitive marketplace that works. and our principles, one of the principles we have had is that we're not for a government takeover of health care. most americans really think the coverage they have now works pretty well for them. they have heard all of their reports, they have heard all of the discussion, they have listened through the campaigns. they believe there is a problem. they just do not think the problem affects them. about 83% of the american people

believe that their coverage is good or excellent. 83%. that is why you hear the president saying as mrs. clinton started saying last year, if you like what you have, you can keep it. they know that people like what they have. the truth is, under their plan, you will not be able to keep it because it will not be there anymore. the government will never compete fairly. before long, you will not have many competitors. the government and competitor -- the government competitor is like an elephant in a roomful of mice. the mice did not survive very long. we need to have more competition, not less competition. republicans will add to that statement, if you like what you have, you can keep it, and you should have even more choices that have now. the opportunity to get into a system where you can find coverage.

regardless of your pre-existing conditions, we think competition and better management at transparency and liability reform make this system more affordable, not less affordable. we also want to get realistic about the number of americans now that did not have insurance. that number may be 45 million. a lot of them can get insurance at work if they want. a lot of them are healthy people under 30. we are not satisfied. if 10 million people cannot get to the system, we want everybody to have access. we want some americans to of a pre-existing condition -- who have a pre-existing condition to have health care coverage. we will be fighting for that. we do not want to move into waiting in lines and rationing. we think that is what this battle is coming down to. in the last few days, i have seen the people in health care,

the doctors being the most immediate example of the american medical association -- people with health care are trying to work with the administration. they have listened to the rhetoric. now that they have seen specifics, they are saying that this will not work. that brings me to the other point that the leader made that i think is critical to understand here. to set an artificial deadline of getting a bill of the house floor by the end of july when there is no bill in the middle of june, when we're talking about restructuring something like 16% or 18% of the american economy, is the list, dangerous, and outrageous. -- it is needless, dangerous, and the raiders. americans are going to be offended by the bombs rush to restructure, not only economy,

-- not only the economy, but doing it in a way that does not make sense. they realize that everybody agrees it will be a consequence. some people are saying, the government competitor is a good thing. people on the other side are saying that a government competitor means there'll be a single payer system before too long. she went on to say, and they are right. you can find that statement on youtube. we do not want that to happen, and they do. health-care providers our understanding is stepping forward, saying they do not want it to happen. >> you cited a 83% of americans like what they have in think is pretty good. the polls do show that. what responsibility does congress have?

many of those people are wrong. they may like what they have, but it is overpriced and over insured. what responsibility does congress have to dissuade them from the fact that their insurance is pretty good. should people who use super of louis care? should they pay taxes -- should people who use superfluous care, should they pay taxes? >> this is the same debate we have when we start talking about part d and medicare. people will never be able to choose from the system because it is too complicated. in fairness to your point, i think about 79% of the american people think it costs too much. we think market principles, fairly injected into the system,

are important. transparency, liability reform, better reporting, better use of technology, and a bigger market place where people actually have to get out and compete. in marketplace for your employer may be able to provide you with the insurance at work that they have been providing you, but they may be also able to make a more tax protected purchase of insurance somewhere else. the bigger the marketplace, the more likely people are going to have the care they need, and the more likely the price is going to be reflective of a marketplace driven price that is competitive with care. the one reason part the work so well -- part d works so

well is that people know they can change their provider. that is why you have these high levels of satisfaction. it addresses the issue of price, and that is an area of concern. most people think that what they have in most cases works well for them. in every study i am aware of, half of the people that get their coverage through their employer would opt for the cheaper government competitor. that destroys the system, and you do not have many competitors. >> [unintelligible] >> let's go around. >> is there any form of a public plan that house republicans would be open to? >> i can't speak for all house republicans. in my case, no.

there is not. a government competitor will work against the system. we can look back in for five years and see if the marketplace doesn't develop. i think it will. i think 90% of the people are enrolled in a volunteer system, and they think is good or excellent. the same people today that said there be not enough competitors were saying that about medicare part d. they're saying that people will not be smart enough to make a choice that serves their needs. neither of those things were true. i would be glad to revisit this issue of fire and wrong and there is no way that marketplace develops. -- if i am wrong and there is no way that a market place develops. i will not support a plan that has a government competitor because the government will not compete fairly.

>> i am opposed to a government auction. -- option. period. if you like going to the dmv or the post office and think it is the most efficient thing you have run into, then you will of the government run health care system they're proposing. that is basically what you're going to have. >> on a different wavelength, photos are going to be discussed during the conference committee. and number of house democrats are thinking about listening to them, taking the position out of supplemental. i want to know if there are concerns given president obama's views on the subject as well. >> there have been a number of actions taken by this administration that have weakened our national security and put our soldiers and our intelligence officers in a position of greater risk. whether it was the plan grows -- to close guantanamo without a

plan as to what to do with those detainees, how to try them. weather was the release of the interrogation memos, -- whether it was the release of the interrogation and most -- memos. it is going to make america less safe. that language is critically important. it needs to stay in this bill if, in fact, that is going to happen. it is pretty clear that from what i am hearing, the democrat leaders, under pressure from the far left, appeared to be ready to take that language out of the bill. i think they're making a very big mistake. >> back to health care for a moment. senator conrad unveiled a co-op plan for the finance committee. this is what senator gregg said

about it. senator conrad has put out a very interesting idea involving co-ops. there are other groups working around this building that are thinking in a more constructive way about how you get to a plan that would be bipartisan. what you think about a co-op plan that will be nonprofit that will allow for consumers to choose. >> there is a lot of work that needs to go into this idea. it is interesting. i am sure that in the coming weeks, there will be more developed. we can take a look and see how this idea will work. we have had things like multi employer welfare arrangements that were operated properly that turned out to be a very big problem. -- that were not operated properly entered into beat -- and turned out to be a very big problem.

as a see more details, we will have more to comment on. thank you. >> coming up tonight on c-span, bank of america ceo ken lewis testified on capitol hill about his company's merger with merrill lynch. then, president obama visit green bay wisconsin -- green bay, wisconsin for a discussion

on health care. then, we will hear from nancy pelosi and the house republicans that unveiled their alternative proposal. this week on "newsmakers," we talked to senator jon kyl from arizona. that is sunday at 10:00 and at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> there is still time to get your copy of c-span's 2009 congressional directory with information on house and senate members, the cabinet, supreme court justices, and the nation's governors. it is $16.95 online at cspan.org/products. >> the government funding of colleges and their students

really is a late 1950's and early 1960's thing that has grown very rapidly since then. >> today, not even government- backed student loans are permitted at hillsdale college. >> we have a lawyer here in town who tries to keep the government from giving us money. he said there was not in use in title for funding. -- and use -- any use in title iv funding. >> today, bank of america ceo ken lewis was here on capitol hill testifying about his company's merger with financial services firm merrill lynch. committee members questioned mr. lewis about recently uncovered e-mail's suggesting that bank of america may have been unduly

pressured into the merger by the federal government. this hearing of the house oversight and government reform committee is just under three hours. >> thank you all for being here today. on september 15, 2008, when the financial crisis was at its height, bankamerica announced that it was purchasing merrill lynch, -- bank of america announced that it was purchasing merrill lynch, creating one of the nation's largest financial institutions. at the time, mr. lewis called the merger a great opportunity for bankamerica's shareholders. -- bank of america's shareholders. it was negotiated between to willing parties. it was designed for this clause a benefit of private shareholders, and it was to be paid for exclusively with

private money. four months later, on january 16, 2009 after the merger was consummated in the quarterly earnings were announced, the world woke up to a different kind of marriage. the american people discovered that merrill lynch had this very -- had experienced a $15 billion fourth quarter loss. most importantly, we found out that the merger had taken place only after the federal government had committed to give bank of america billions in tax payer money. what happened in the interim? when bank of america urged its shareholders to approve the acquisition of merrill lynch, there was no public disclosure of any problems with the transaction. having a deposition taken by the new york attorney general, mr. lewis testified that just nine days after the shareholder vote,

he discovered a $12 billion loss at merrill lynch. mr. lewis said he told treasury secretary hank paulson that he was strongly considering backing out of the deal. according to mr. lewis, poles and ultimately told him that if he did not go through with the acquisition, he and the board would be fired. however, internal e-mail is we have obtained say they were very skeptical about mr. lewis's motives about backing out. federal chairman ben bernanke fought louis was using the merrill losses as a bargaining chip to obtain federal funds. other e-mail's revealed that federal analysts found a suspect that mr. lewis claimed to be surprised by the rapid growth of merrill lynch posted losses

giving the clear signs in the dead. they noted that at a minimum, it calls into question the due diligence process. bankamerica has been doing it in preparation for the takeover. in short, the treasury department has provided $20 billion for a shotgun wedding. the question may be, who was holding the shotgun? @ today's hearing, we hope to better understand what happened when the merger was announced, and when the public found out that the company had received $20 billion in taxpayer money. we will be looking for answers to some puzzling questions. why did a puzzling bit -- why did a public business deal approved in december with no mention of government assist