that we are not. we should not be. i would presume some lawyer is going to make a case the guidelines have not been followed in the jury would have to determine whether they thought they had a case. i do not see us eliminating guidelines. >> in the meantime, i will ask for unanimous consent to withdraw it and introduce it at a later time. while we are on that point, hopefully the staff will take a look at a minute number is 7 and no. 8. -- take a look at the amendment no. 7 and no. 8. no. 7 is about the quality of life years. this is whether older people will be penalized by the guidelines. another one is using it to deny medicare benefits. those are all related.

it shows a level of concern that we have over that. . . that section because we don't -- >> and i'm -- >> sorry. i apologize. i am more than willing. i am not a lawyer. words do have consequence both in life and in law. and i know because i was building on the american recovery package language, and also when we were talking to, again, the academies and others involved, everybody had at least some type of language that had already passed that we could discuss from. i just want to be clear that there's not some unintended here because if that cracks part of this open and deals with your amendments, some of the concerns senator coburn has. because the liability issue is

an issue that also overhangs this conversation. but i would really hope that we can focus on the quality issues and not use prohibiting quality initiatives because people are -- because it's getting entangled with the liability issue. we ought to just have a straight conversation about liability or do a joint conversation with us in the judiciary committee. >> mr. chairman, what's the state of lay on this? >> the state of play is senator coburn has asked to withdraw his amendment while we get clarification on that. >> it's being laid aside. >> i have what i think is a modest improvement. it has three words instead of one. i'd like to -- i don't know how you want to work this other than senator coburn, myself, the senator from maryland, yourself, staff, senator harken who came up with the idea.

what do you want to do? >> we're going to go back and check and see if there was something about that word construed that we may decide to not like. it seems an awkward expression. >> the one i want to put in there is prohibit because i think that really gets to it as opposed to shall not be used. >> i hear you. >> that would be the one i use. i would submit that to you and senator mikulski. thank you for your consideration. >> one brief comment, mr. chairman. i have appreciated dr. coburn's insights in the house and here and have enjoyed hearing his comments. i want to just take off on something senator mikulski said about using the word bureaucrat. i don't have a lot of federal employees in my state relative to some other states, but we use the word bureau crass in discussing and dehumanizing and delegitimizing decisions we don't so often use the word

bureaucrat talking about insurance company automotonss or lower level people or whatever denying care. from the view point of comparative effectiveness, they're denying care based on -- not denying care. they are basing questions based on legitimate scientific evidence when it's insurance companies, private experience companies, bureaucrats that might be denying care based on profit. so i just hope that we are a little more careful in words we use to describe human beings that work in these agencies or that work in insurance companies and look more at the end product. and that's all i would have to say. >> point well taken. >> no one is aloud to use the rd bureaucrat anymore. >> mr. chairman -- >> except when talking about -- >> mr. chairman, before you eliminate that word, i'm willing to concede that there are bureaucrats in the private sector and there are bureaucrats in all levels of government. and we're not speaking of the

mass of people. again, it's the exception out there. it's the exception of the person trying to protect themselves by overusing something that we've done. and there's no way to write rules against all of it. and it does happen. so it shouldn't be a reflection on everybody. >> and we know nothing in this institution about protecting ourselves and self-preservation. >> i appreciate the comments. >> we can have a whole new title. just to prohibit bureaucrats from doing anything. >> next amendment. who has another amendment here. a vote has just started, but if we can open up an amendment. >> i have a member of parliament from great britain. i'll exit and come back. >> you have a member of parliament? >> i have a member of parliament from britain visiting my office. i've made him wait 15 minutes. >> you aren't getting close to that uk medical health care plan. >> i am trying to find out how

they -- >> actually, you know what? senator coburn, i actually spoke to sir michael rolings who does run n.i.c.e. and about what worked, what didn't work, what they might rethink and what they are very proud of. i would be interested if you do raise that with your visiting guest. what they think of n.i.c.e. from his -- >> senator, may i just say one thing. i was a very close friend of a member of parliament. used to come visit all the time. and he went in and under their program of n.i.c.e., which is what i guess the acronym is. he had a broken wrist. he doesn't have a broken wrist. he had cancer throughout his body. and he died in two weeks. i don't know the exact details of that, but that's the classic case of what i think we're talking about. >> i have no idea what you just said. i mean, anybody could go to see someone and be dead in two weeks and would have nothing to do

with -- >> no, no. he had the diagnosis, but he was on a waiting list for treatment, suffered a broken wrist. went in for the treatment of broken wrist, got in, but the treatment that he was diagnoses for was, obviously, cancer. he died from cancer while being treated for a broken wrist. >> i think maybe senator enzi has an amendment. rather than start that, why don't we take a recess for 15 minutes. come back at 5:00. try to do another hour. i want to see some sense, too, if we could ask majority and minority staffs, give us a sense of how we're doing here. obviously if we can move through or people decide they don't have to offer certain amendments. i'd like if we had a chance to complete title 2 would be very, very helpful. a few outstanding issues to come back to. if we can be wrapping up title 2

and then tomorrow -- we have that event this evening. yeah, that's true. we'll re enzi. >> we'll recess for 15 minutes.

>> we'll come to order if we can, please. i see there are some young people in the audience. i'm told there's an ice cream deal across the street. i don't know what you'd rather do, listen about healthcare or have an ice cream treat. >> mr. chairman, i just thought i'd respond to liam fox, a member of parliament from great britain. here's his quote, "nice is simply a rationing system." let me continue what he said. >> why don't you explain who you're quoting. >> liam fox is a member of parliament that i was asked to report back what he said about nice. so that's what he said. but more importantly, which he said something that i hadn't thought about but it's true, is

that doctors can't serve two masters, the state and the patient. and if they do they're unethical. because one conflicts with the other. >> thank you, senator, for that. i don't think there's any argument about. that we're all trying to achieve the same results. senator enzi, you had an amendment? >> i had an amendment while we were over voting. i think some consideration was given to those amendments and i think we have something worked out about them so i won't bring them up right now. inform my colleagues, we're only going to go about another 15, 20 minutes because there are events this evening that people need to attend. i'll instruct our staff this evening with support of others that they work after we've adjourned on the remaining 20 or so amendments i'm told that remain in this title. a lot of them have to deal with

the very discussion we just had, debate and if we can resolve that with language that pat roberts has submitted that would deal with a good substantial number of those amendments. this evening if further work can occur, hopefully the remaining ones could either be resolved or have a finite number to deal with title ii with the hope that is tomorrow we'll convene at 10:30 for two hours to try to finish up title ii and then over the weekend i'll be instructing staff to begin to work as they have already, i know, i think there are 171 amendments that have been proposed to the prevention title, title iii of the bill and the work on those amendments over the weekend so that we convene on monday we can hopefully have whittled down that number in the prevention section and my intention would be to start on monday and i believe we come in -- monday we have time?

we have an executive session at noon for members to sit down with cbo so we can talk with folks about these numbers. after that we go into the session, the mark up in the afternoon. we'll get a chance to get back over the weekend so we wouldn't start dill midday on monday. >> what time are we talking? from the 3:00 or -- >> we complete the executive session. i think it will last an hour or so. then i think we come back in. because there is -- there's a ceremony at the white house that some members are going to have to attend on this committee so probably come in around 3:00 in the mark up, a little after, maybe. there's a banking committee. >> mr. chairman, i would just add that on our title on workforce that we are working with the other side as well on a number of amendments that we hope when you get through

senator harkin, we'll be ready to accept a number of amendments as well. we're working with them. >> the intention is to go after prevention go to workforce and then the areas of fraud and abuse section. those other ones before we get back to the coverage issue which is the issue is the more serious division as to where we are as po opposed to language. >> there's one thing i need to say. congratulations on your 10th anniversary. [ applause ] >> that's not my anniversary in the senate, that's my wedding anniversary. and i asked jackie whether or not she would like to spend the evening talking cbo numbers. i think we'll go to dinner instead. she's here and my two daughters are here as well. came this afternoon.

wonderful friends from iowa. >> let's have a shout out for the dodd girls. [ applause ] >> all right. senator coburn, you had an amendment? no. who we looking at? no. >> senator coburn had an amendment. >> tom, do you have an amendment. >> waiting on the resolution. >> waiting on that resolution. >> mr. chairman, i have some other amendments but if we resolve this then i probably won't have any more amendments on it. i have a lot of worries but no amendments. >> mr. chairman, i think what senator robert, coburn and inzio are saying is if the roberts language is adopted or could be included or whatever, it would essentially crack the davinci code on a variety of these amendments because as i look at many of these amendments, there

are variations of the same ones of coburn 9 and roberts 1. and so if we could have our legal people to take a look at it, and properly vet it, then i think we could proceed. >> well, i don't think we're probably going to do that in the next five or ten minutes. >> no, we cannot. >> maybe, tom, you would like to offer a proposal? i actually think and it may be okay with this section if, in fact, we get that solved. so, i'm kind of at a standstill until i hear where we're going to go. what i would suggest -- first of all i don't think we can work through another amendment in ten minutes an your family ought to have your availability and all of us since we're spending a lot of time here have a whole lot of things we could be doing. since we're meeting tomorrow we ought to close it up and come back. >> that's a good enough

suggestion. let me conclude by asking -- i'll conclude and ask mike if he has any closing comments. mike mentioned something to me a minute ago just in private here that i want to respond to and because i, because -- i'm going to repeat what i said over and over again. i'm interested in a bipartisan bill if we can achieve that. i'm inned in a good bill. and i believe that we have a good bill and it can be a bipartisan bill and even strengthens it. the interest is in getting a good bill. bipartisanship is a very important means by which you achieve those results, at least i believe it can be. so, but if i had to make a choice between having a good bill or a bipartisan bill, not that that necessarily has to be the choice, i think all of us would agree we want a good bill and that's not the minimize the importance of bipartisanship but getting the right product done is critical to all of us because obviously the initial committee

moving in this area on these critical areas of quality and prevention and workforce and these other matters, driving that cost down, increasing that availability, accessibility of health care as well as improving dramatically the quality of health care is something we all share those principles. we debate the methods by which we achieve those goals. not a bad place. i had a lot of mark ups in my 28, 29 years. i began mark ups in many cases. the fab that we do agree on those principles and that we agree what we need to work on to drive these costs down as well as increase accessibility and quality of health care for all americans is a very important point. and i'm determined to keep working as i know mike is on this committee and some have an obligation to serve on both committees of jurisdiction.

so, you have a dual responsibility both here and there and we're conscious of that, melding these two bills together, present them to our colleagues in the senate and then the house an finally to the president of the united states. we have a lot of steps to go through bore we get there. if we can maintain the level of cooperation that i've witnessed in the last two days in this process i'm confident we can achieve that goal. doesn't mean we'll agree on everything but we can' chief the goal of producing an important piece of legislation. i'm grateful to everybody for the last two addition. to complete this process is not something that will happen overnight, it will take time. i appreciate the effort. >> i was worried this morning but i think this afternoon we got into a little bit of a rhythm that's achieving something and moving us through the amendments and i think improving the bill, and we all

want to have a good bill. and, of course, i think that, unless it is a bipartisan bill, that america won't have confidence in it. if it's very partisan, i think that the party that does that is stuck with it for the rest of the time and i don't think it will be a good result. these changes we're making is driving down costs and clarifying things and i know we're in an unusual position in this particular situation of having to have a mark that was put down and the mark that was put down was without, without bipartisan participation, so we've come a long way from there. that's very helpful and it's improving the bill and we real appreciate your cooperation and senator mikulski's understanding. she always listen well. we all talk well but she listens well. that makes a huge difference in

what we're able to achieve. >> i can listen about one more day. >> the only thing i want to say, because, obviously, i'm a late comer to this because senator kennedy, obviously, is the person who is the chair of this committee. but as i understand it and i realize the bill we introduce when we had to put down a bill and unless i'm wrong, i think i'm right on this, there's a tremendous amount of work over many, many weeks and months actually going back so that i want to make sure that that product that was put down was not just one drawn up exclusively by the majority. in fact, a lot of what was include represented the ideas and thoughts of the minority as well, witnessed by the work that had gone on before. i just want to make sure we're not forgetting all that effort that's been made over many months. >> there may have been some effort that way. a comment from several of the

staff on my side after the first dave walk through where we reached some agreement and then made some changes in the bill was that we had made more progress in four hours than they were able to make in four months. so the rhythm is definitely picking up. and we're getting that bipartisan, we're listening to each other and making changes and that helps. >> that's a good note to end on. so i thank all of our colleagues. senator mikulski we thank you. we're getting to ten of your title to this bill. you've done a tremendous job. i want to thank you and your staff for tremendous effort to write such a very thoughtful and thorough title on the quality provisions. we're all very grateful to you. >> yes. >> this shall not beññññññ

>> the committee's acting chairman, chris dodd, estimates the committee will continue meeting about the healthcare bill through next week. the senate finance committee has jurisdiction over parts of the legislation. that committee has not schedule add time to take it up. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> up next on c-span, the c.e.o. of the chicago federal reserve talks about the economy. then a news briefing with defense secretary robert gates. and a house hearing on the privacy issues involved in internet advertising. >> tomorrow morning we'll bring you remarks on ayatollah khomeini, the supreme leader of iran. he'll speak about the results of iran's presidential election. that's at 6:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. then at 7:00 it's washington

journal. we'll discuss the capitol hill wrangling over healthcare with mary agnes carrie of kaiser health news and congressman earl plume enaur -- washington journal is live every morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> charles he answer, the president of the chicago federal reserve talks act the economy at the chicago press club on monday. he's been with the fed since 1991, became its president in

september 2007. this is 45 minutes. >> thank you, diane. that was a very warm introduction and i truly appreciate it. thanks to corinna for inviting me to speak to the executives club. i have spoken to this group before. this is a tremendous turnout and i'm delighted to be here. when diane asked me to speak i didn't hesitate to accept the invitation. i think it's very important for federal reserve policymakers to use every opportunity to help people understand our actions during these very difficult times. just over two weeks ago fed chairman ben bernanke was the commence map speaker at the boston college school of last his message to the graduating class that day was simple: be flexible and open-minded in dealing with the fact that life is unpredictable." as part of that speech he quoted from the beetles john lennon who said, "life is what happens to you while you are busy making other plans."

this morning i'd like to begin by quoting the beatles as well. in regards to the current economy i believe it was paul mccart any who famously said, "yesterday all my troubles seemed so far away. now it looks as if they're here to stay." [laughter] >> at our f.o.c. meetings we're often reminded of ringo starr as we "get by with a little help from our friends." finally i'm not aware of any secret messages embedded in statements like "i buried the phillips curve" but i have been told that some of our fmoc statements make more sense if you lead them backwards. i don't agree with that. but all right. now to a more serious subject. following the worst financial crisis of the past 70 years, we are currently experiencing a recession that will likely match or surpass those of the 19 70's and 80's in-depth and varyity. these exceptional circumstances have posed great challenges for

policymakers. for us at the fed the response has been to pursue a variety of aggressive and innovative approaches that divider significantly from the standard policies of the past. the programs we have put in place are designed specifically for these exceptional circumstances. as such they will have to be unwound as our financial system return is more clearly headed towards sustainable growth and price stability. this morning i would like to discuss the precepts that underlie these nontraditional policies and some tactical issues we must address in unwinding them. i should note these are my own views and not necessarily it those of my colleagues in the federal reserve system. in the current crisis, traditional monetary policy has reached its limits in two-ways. one obvious way is that federal fund's target rate which had been the fed's traditional policy instrument, has been lowered to essentially zero. this target cannot be reduced below zero even when further

accommodation is warranted. the second limit of traditional policy has to do with the functioning of financial markets. under more new york circumstances, participants seeking profit opportunities tend to align risk-adjusted returns across all markets. this allows a change in the federal funds rate to flow through to other interest rates across the entire range of maturity and risk structures. but during the crisis, disparities in rates across markets have indicated that arbitrage has not been taking place as usual. thus even before our target was constrained by zero, we found that we could not affect those interest rates that matter most to consumers and businesses in order to stimulate aggregate demand as much as was necessary. because of these limitations the fed has turned to nontraditional policies. these can be broadly characterized in three groups. s first group expands on something that has always been a part of our policy tool kit, namely discount window lending through which the federal

reserve banks make short-term loans to depository institutions with adequate collateral. since august 2007 the fed has taken steps to encourage the use of discount window as a source of liquidity, including reducing the discount rate and lengthening the terms of the loans. the second group of policies consists of opening new lending facilities to a wide array of participants in financial markets. one can think of it as sort of a discount window for financial actors who are not depository institutions. the third group of policies consist of large scale purchases of notes and treasure rest. this can be seen as an extension of traditional open market operations. the fed still exchanges reserves for bonds but on a vastly different scale. within these groups there are a number of particular programs or facilities, each with its own terms and conditions. taken as a whole our nontraditional policies might look