the great british explorer george mall ory who was to die on mount everest was asked why he wanted to climb it, he said because it's there. and we're going to climb space and the moon and the plan et cetera are there and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there and therefore as we set sail, kennedy said, we ask god's blessing on this most hazardous, dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked. that's what president kennedy said that this is the greatest adventure and he was right. these astronauts, the brave three, they crossed dead space for a quarter of a million miles. they landed with less than 25 seconds of fuel remaining when they finally reached the moon. and when they reached the moon, they were only there for 21 1/2 hours. moon walk was two hours and 37 minutes and brought back 47 pounds of moon rock, but they

inspired everyone on this planet. 1/5 of all this planet was watching on tv. one out of every five human beings. that is pretty good ratings, mr. speaker. . what we heard was the following, the eagle has landed, the eagle meaning the american eagle, this was our assertion of our superiority as a nation. our fortitude, our resourcefulness, that's what led us across that deep space in only eight yirse years, the first stem when president kennedy set forth this goal and we landed on the moon. the eagle has landed, the american eagle. but during the moon walk we heard another theme. when mr. armstrong first put his foot down on the moon, when neil armstrong put his foot down on the moon, he said the following, "that's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" not

just americans, but all mankind. when these brave explorers left behind their inscription, the inscription said something very important. we come in peace for all mankind. and when buzz aldrin was returning the day before the flight actually landed back on the earth he said the following, "this stands as a symbol of the insasheseable curiosity of all mankind to explore the unknown." on that day 40 years ago we learned a lot about ourselves. we learned a lot about what kind of people human beings really are. the first thing we learn is that in our heart we are explorers. we have that spark, that urge to see what's on the other side of that hill and then go and find it. and that spark is what led us 50,000 years ago to cross as far as australia all the way from africa. and 15,000 years ago one of my ancestors went as far as eastern siberia in the midst of the ice age.

and now today we see it's possible to explore this whole planet and that makes us want to explore other areas as well. i visited 175 countries myself. i have that urge to see, to explore, to look beyond the next hill. and it's what makes us human beings. wolves howl at the moon. human beings go there. and we have also learned that these challenges that we pose for ourselves, these goals we have for ourselves, we reap reward from just seeking those goals, from pursuing those goals. in this case nasa developed integrated circuits which led to the modern computer age. they developed computer directed machining, which is used throughout manufacturing today, including in computers. and they did fuel cells which could very well be the key to our energy future. and all of that was done through the apollo program for less than $150 billion in today's money, which is actually less than in

many cases the cost of the war in iraq for one year. we have also learned something else important about t when we visited the moon we look back on the earth and we have in that day 40 years ago the roots of the environmental movement. earth day was first celebrated barely nine months later on april 22, 1970. because when we went to the moon and looked back on the earth, we saw ourselves, we recognized how fragile the earth really is. and joni mitchell best captured that in the song she sang, these words, "refuge from the road." she roethlisberger in a highway service station, over the month of june, was a photograph of the earth taken coming back from the moon, and you couldn't see the city on that marbled bowling ball, or a forest or a highway, or meteor least of all. so we recognize in that moment when we looked at the entire earth, entire planet we didn't see individuals.

we saw all of us and that created a newfound respect for the environment. but beyond that we reached a realization that we are only beginning to appreciate right now 40 years later and that realization is this. we are one planet, we are one people. this is not a planet of blacks versus whites. we are one. this is not a blanet of men versus women, we are one. this is not a planet of the young versus the old. we are one. we are one specious -- species, one set of human beings, one people proud 6 our accomplishments this above all to visit the moon. and when we return to the moon as we are scheduled to do 10 years from now, i hope we will say not just one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind, i hope we'll say today the moon, tomorrow the stars. thank you very much, mr. speaker. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida, mr. posey.

mr. posey: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. mr. posey: thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to commend representative grayson in the nearly 300 co-sponsors of house resolution 2245, the new frontier congressional medal act. as we know this legislation authorizes the president on behalf of the congress to issue gold medals to kneel armstrong -- neil armstrong, michael collins, and john glenn in recognition of their accomplishments and paving the way for future missions. as we celebrate the 40th anniversary of the moon landing, we recognize president kennedy's vision to support the great explorers of our lifetime like the christopher could he lum buses, and marko polios before them. -- marco polos before them. we would outperform the

socialist, soviet union, in the international challenge of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth. one of the highlights of my life was the opportunity to work on the apollo program as a young man. when macdonald douglas was the contractor for the third strange stage. what a privilege it was to work alongside the thousands of men and women who helped make that historic achievement possible frfment a personal perspective, i will always cherish this little medallion they gave each member of the launch team, the metal, part of which was carried to the moon and back by the apollo 11 astronauts. it's one of those points in time where everyone old enough to be aware of their surroundings knows where they were when man took that historic first step. it was before, as congressman grayson said, the largest viewing audience in history. i was holding up my 3-year-old -- 3-month-old granddaughter in

front of the tv so that she might someday be the last person living to have witnessed that historic thing. what a marvelous event it was for all. let us remember also that their legacy continues. in today's exemplary space shuttle work force. those who safely and efficiently work to ensure the completion of the shuttle's remaining flilet manifest. as we hear many times, america's space program is the only thing for which the united states is undeniably, unequivocally, and universally respected for 7 -- around this globe. we sometimes take for granted the thousands of technological spinoffs we enjoy from space exploration. but let us take a moment to recognize the explorers of our lifetime and how we have been inspired by their pursuits. hopefully we will continue to maintain the leading edge on

space under the leadership of president obama. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back his time. the gentleman from florida, mr. grayson, is recognized. mr. grayson: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to note that what the accomplishment was here was to make america number one in space exploration. and i look forward to the time when we are number one in health care, when we are number one in education, when we are number one in meeting our human needs and making a 21st century work force. the thing that inspired people by -- from president kennedy's words was the desire to be number one. and that's something we can and will accomplish not only in this particular part of human endeavor but across the board. mr. speaker, i have no further requests for time. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. you have yielded back of your time as well. mr. posey: i yield back, yes, sir.

the speaker pro tempore: the question now before the house is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2245. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. mr. posey: i respectfully request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida has requested the yeas and nays. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the house will stand in recess subject to the call of

the gavel comes down here on c- span. the president's health care bill continues to make its way through congress. right now, the house commerce committee is working through the bill. you can see this live right now on our companion network, c- span3. >> we will interview new media leaders including rick cotton on c-span2. >> how we c-span funded?

>> donations. >> founders. >> taxpayers. >> fundraising? >> the government may be? >> how we c-span funded? american cable companies created c-span as a private business initiative -- no government mandate or money. >> in a discussion now on the proposed health care bill. judy from the center for american progress joined us this morning. this is about a half-hour. she is very involved in the debate over health care, going back to even before the clinton administration. as you look at what has come out in the house committees and in the senate health committee, what do you think of the plans developing so far? guest: i think we are on a path to deliver what americans are waiting for which is guaranteed affordable health care for

everyone. that means bringing down costs. right now is heating up family budgets, and businesses, and wage spending. we need to make sure that everybody, regardless of your age or health status, has access and health insurance that covers us when we are sick. although there are some differences among the bills, they are very much on the path of building our current system up to where we need to be. host: you and your colleagues released a report on insuring the cost of making sure the cost is budget neutral. this report just came out. talk about the financing of health care reform. one committee last week passed an increase in taxes as part of their proposal.

what does your report called for? guest: we look at a mix of ideas. let me be clear on what we are trying to pay for when we talk about cost. we are talking about $100 million per year, which, in this day and age, is not that much money. if is a lot of money, but not enormous. the first source is to get rid of what we are paying too much for in the medicaid program. there is lots of evidence that we are overpaying hmo's and other things in the plan. we need to get rid of what we are paying too much for. that is obvious. the second kind of financing for health care revenue -- is

revenues. we need to keep growth going over time, and pay for subsidies, said there is a mix of ways to do that. as you said, various committees have proposed some revenue- producing ideas. in the senate, proposals for various kinds of taxes on sugar, other kinds of fin taxes. requiring employers to contribute, in both houses, that is one idea. the third source that we argue strongly, and had presented evidence, is that savings come from not just getting rid of what we are paying too much for, but also changing the way

that we pay, not just in medicare, but the health-care system. medicare is part of a bigger system that needs to change. what we are talking about here -- people will remember in the campaign, president obama talked about paying for primary care so that you could really see your doctor early, get prevention care, instead of what we are doing now, which is paying a lot of money for high-tech services which are not necessarily giving us value. we want to shift the system. the challenge when we go to a new payment system, the way we need to do it, is reduced reward for overpayments that i talked about, and then increasing incentives to doctors and

hospitals to do better. where we have some uncertainty is where -- how rapidly that can take place. the bills in the senate encourage both methods in medicare and in the new public health insurance option, which can make a big difference, but there is some uncertainty. what we have advocated at the center for american progress is a fail-safe mechanism, recognizing that even the industry has said it can take those growth rates down by 1.5% points a year. that does not sound like much, but it adds up to $2 trillion over 10 years. what this mechanism does it is, if we do not change from the system as rapidly as intended, then a commission would put other mechanisms in the fact to

make sure that we achieve our goals, mechanisms that we know the cbo will accept in terms of bringing the dollar into line. host: going back to your comment about what medicare pays for, isn't this an expansion for medicare for coverage of some? is that not part of the proposal that is being developed? when that not increase costs? guest: it depends on what you are doing. on the medicare side, we are talking about more prevention. a gradual closing of the doughnut hole, a huge gap. after falling off of a certain area of protection, you are on your own. that is no way to run a plan.

we know that when people forgo their medication, they actually get sicker and costs them in the long run. there are some expansions, but the revenues that we gain from getting rid of the overpayments are substantial, and the house is covering about half of the cost of new legislation. it is the right way to go. it extends the life of the medicare trust fund by about five years. host: which piece of legislation the like the most? guest: what i like is that they are all running on similar paths. in the house version, they advocate a strong public option. even critics have said that that

is a government takeover, but the cbo says that it is a level playing field player coming keeping health insurance companies and honest, as the president likes to say. of the bills in the senate, the senate health committee only covers a portion of the jurisdiction divided in the senate, so they only cover some of the thing that we need. we need to hear from the finance committee. host: next phone call, republican. caller: i think you should start by checking fraud. there were six people who have been to the hospital 2600 times in the past year. some of these doctors get together with these people on welfare and social security and make up this person who has

2,000 ft operations. anything that the government does -- medicare, medicaid is going under. they do not need to make a profit. they can charge whatever they want. host: do these bills addressed the issue of fraud? guest: absolutely, they do. we need to make sure payment are appropriate. i am with you most of the way, you are right. we need to hold all doctors, hospitals, and ourselves, responsible for our behavior, along with making sure that our claims are accurate and honest. that would put an end to the benefit of providers from continually readmitting people to the hospital. let's take care of it the first time. i have to disagree with you on

the government being particularly irresponsible. there are issues in insurers, and it is medicare and medicaid that is not going under, first of all. they have issues of accuracy in payments. the real issue is that we are not encouraging the responsible behavior is on the part of providers that we need to see, which is to keep us healthy, not just putting us through the system when we are sick. host: caterina, ohio. caller: i have been through the health-care system with my father. my parents, unbeknownst to our family, switched from traditional medicare to a

private insurance company. now he ended up in a nursing home. he is 82, we knew that he would get there. here is the amazing thing. he always paid into the system. he has only been in the hospital twice in his life. i am amazed, over the past few years, watching seniors get jacked around by their private insurance companies in mature into therapy. they want to take him off all the time. they use the industry term, he came a plateau. -- hit a plateau. while our seniors, who have done nothing but pay into the

system, have to fight for what is theirs? i have seen them cut off care for a nun for some small c lause. that nun was in a wheelchair. i talked to and the people that they cut off and sent home because they did not get some sort of industry term. i am wondering how we get more consistency for our seniors so that they do not need to find these private insurance companies? you talked about prevention. we have gone to the v.a. for years, and his legs ended up in a horrible shape, but how do we do with prevention? this is also off topic, but

earlier, you read from a newspaper and said that we wanted to stop iran's nuclear weapons program. there has been no proof that they have a nuclear weapons program. host: we are going to leave it there to get a response. guest: you raise such an important question, and many of us have experienced the disappointments -- to put it mildly -- with our health care system and coping with our parents' illness. on the therapy concerns and prevention, they come together. when we talk about changing the way in which we pay providers -- doctors, hospitals, other kinds of health professionals -- we talk about rewarding them for keeping people healthy. making sure that they have

adequate therapy, and that their needs are intended to, that we spend enough time with them by paying primary physicians more to do more of what we want them to do. that is really changing the overall perspective. there will always be rules in payment systems. another time we can talk about the complexities there, but the push here needs to be pushing the system away from narrow categories and not on prevention, to pushing them to work with the patient and keeping them healthy. i think we have the potential for addressing this concern for seniors, as well as for the rest of the country. host: our guest is judy feder.

she served in the clinton administration, is tapping director at hhs. easton, conn.. good morning. caller: i am very sorry for the woman that was just on. we are paying for health care right now -- people do not believe that -- and we are being run amok by some strong insurance companies. one colleague at my husband's work -- they are connecticut -- canadian, although they've worked here in connecticut -- but she troubles back home to canada. my mother in lot is 86. i am stunned that kind of treatment that she gets in england. they come to her house if she

has a problem. i cannot keep going on about it because she had been treated and wonderfully. and they do everything for her. i am amazed at the treatment that she gets. i am tired of people saying that socialized medicine does not work. when i go to england, i am relieved i am there because i know that i will not be hassled for health insurance. i have stood in line here in pharmacies and said, i cannot pay for this prescription. i remember twice earlier this year i need antibiotics. i needed two weeks. i could not afford it. we can do this in this country. we can do this better.

thank you so much for listening. guest: i appreciate your words and passion. there is a lot of dishonesty ou t there in terms of what we are able to do. talking about your mother- inlaw, getting the type of care that she needs, we really need to pay attention to primary- care. we know that other countries do much better than we do. i also want to be clear to everybody listening and watching, we are not talking in this country about the british or canadian system. this is about strengthening the american system. getting our system to pay attention to the kinds of primary care, prevention, chronic disease, that is currently missing.

we are not getting the value and attention from our system that we badly need. host: back to the political debate, the head of the cbo said that neither bill did enough to slow down the cost of health care. this morning in the "politico" the right negotiators are scrambling ways to find wa@@@@@b

uses of the bill. what they tend to do is look at explicit pieces narrowly focused on particular pieces. what we see in the legislation both in the house and senate that i think is not getting adequate recognition is that there is a process being put into place that really, as i said before, lories and get spread of the overpayments and gets rid of excess of -- lois and gets rid of the overpayments and excessive overpayments and provide three boards for this service and taking care of patients that the callers have been talking about. medicare and other health insurance options can help to put those things in place. we know that the private industry will follow medicare's lead. in terms of a commission, it is

quite similar -- you asked about what we broke about keeping finance reform. we were talking about some kind of commission as a fail safe, giving it some authority, if we established a goal for health- care spending for the nation which the industries agreed to. we put policies in place that we believe will achieve those savings. where there is uncertainty, you do need an authority to put in other measures to adjust, because there are a uncertainties, and this allows us a guarantee to be secure that we are not increasing the deficit with this legislation. host: there is a link to her

employer on our website. next phone call from the democrat line. caller: i think the first thing that we should look into is the controls of hospitals and insurance companies. we have had a couple of hospital bills, and at the end of the bill, they say that we are going to pay $200, it doesn't say what for. they need to control this. i am on medicare and i have insurance. i am limited on my social security. i do not get a lot of extra money. when we called and asked what was going on, can we pay $10 a

month? they would not accept anything other than $200. i would like to see them start on legislation immediately. it is hurting the people that do not have money. callerguest: it is incredibly frustrating to deal with the health care system when you are struggling. whether with hospital bills or insurance companies, you have no idea whether what they are asking you for it is appropriate, why you are being charged. a big piece of the legislation we see going forward, and what we have advocated for, is

greater transparency and clarity, particularly, on the part of insurers. we want to know what is in our policy and what we can get when we are sick. we have asked for a coverage labeling that will tell you if you have this disease, and this is what you can expect. we need to know our choices. thank you. this is something that needs to be addressed. host: one more phone call on our republican line. caller: the sooner that they let these people go, the sooner they will not have to pay for their social security. i have not heard anyone mention

[inaudible] the other question is, if medicare can be reformed, why has not that already begun? guest: thank you. those are all good questions. it is horrible when you look at how budgets are addressed, that people are living shorter -- that would be a boost for policy. that is not acceptable. on your last point about why we have not reformed already -- it is frustrating.

this is something that i have been working on for about 30 years. for too many years, we have simply paid the bills, what ever they are, and have not done an adequate job of getting value on the dollar. we have seen the cost go up and up as a result. you asked me at the beginning what is different from when we did this some years ago, what are we seeing in legislation? we finally have reached a point where enough is enough. it is not about inefficiencies. the whole system needs to change. we need to have everyone in the system to make it work differently. i think you're frustration is the lead. the degree of pressure we are

facing as a nation is different. some proponents are trying to scare us into not making reform. they cannot do it this time. we know that the system we currently have is not delivering the type of care that we want. we know that we can do better. i am optimistic about going forward. you asked me about the premium in a public auction. that will offer its benefits and insurance alongside private insurance. i think there is reason to believe we will be able to do so more efficiently at a lower cost, but we have not yet seen those premiums. what i can tell you is because of cost savings getting put into the system, over time, those premiums will be lower than what they would be in the absence of reform.

linked online. thank you for being with us. >> the story on the hill today -- henry waxman has found to finish his markup of the health care bill by mid week as promised, but that the democrats have said they have enough votes to kill the bill if the changes they want are not realize. our live coverage on c-span3 right now. canidate president obama visited the children's national medical center in washington, d.c. holding a discussion with doctors and nurses. he said the need for reform is urgent and indisputable. here are his remarks.

>> please have a seat. i want to thank the hospital for having us and i want to thank the participants, brian jacobs, johnson, gene alhart bridge -- jena hardridge. i just had the opportunity to talk to doctors, nurses, and administrators at this extraordinary institution. we spoke about the strains on our health care system and the strains our health-care system places on parents' with sick children. we spoke about the amount of time and money wasted on insurance-driven bureaucracy and a growing number of americans who are uninsured and underinsured.

we spoke about what is wrong with a system where women cannot afford maternity care and parents cannot afford checkups for their kids and end up seeking treatment in emergency rooms like the ones here at children's. we spoke about the fact that it is very hard even for families with health insurance to access primary-care physicians and pediatricians in a city like washington, d.c.. you have all the doctors in one/have -- in one half of the city. and the manner in which reimbursement is taking place and the distance -- and the disincentives for dock this -- the disincentives for doctors, nurses, and caring for those most in need. we spoke about where we're heading for health insurance reform. these health care professionals are doing her roadwork each and

every day to save the lives of america's children. but they are forced to fight three system that works best for drug companies and then for the american people. then for all these wonderful health professionals and their profession to serve. over the past decade, premiums have doubled in america. out-of-pocket costs have shot up by a third. piquant -- the deductibles have continued to climb. even though americas families have been battered, the health insurance companies and the executives have reaped windfalls. we have talked about this problem to death, year after year. unless we act and act now, none of this will change. a quick statistic -- just a few

years ago there were approximately 50,000 people coming into the emergency room. now, 85,000. almost doubling. in a relatively short span of time, which is putting enormous strains on the system as a whole. that is the status quo, and it will only get worse. if we do nothing, families will spend more and more of their income for less and less care. the people who lose their insurance will continue to grow. more children will be denied coverage on account of asthma or a heart condition. jobs will be lost. take-home pay will be lower. businesses will shutter and we will waste hundreds of billions of dollars on insurance company boondoggles and inefficiencies that add to our burdens without making us healthier.

the need for reform is urgent and indisputable. no one denies that we are on an unsustainable path. we know there are more efficient ways of doing this. we spoke to the chief information officer at the hospital and he talked about wonderful ways in which we can gather up electronic records and information for every child. not just that comes to this hospital, but in the region. and how much money could be saved. how the health of these kids could be improved. it requires an investment. there are some that were content to perpetuate the status quo. in fact, fighting to reform on behalf of powerful special interests. there are others to recognize the problem but believe or perhaps hope that we can put off the hard work of insurance

reform for another day. for another decade. just another day, a republican senator -- and i am quoting -- "if i am able to stop obama on this, it will be his waterloo. it will break cam." think about that. this is not about me. this is not about politics. this is about a health care system that is breaking americas families. pricking america's businesses and breaking america's economy. we cannot afford the politics of the feet. not now. there are too many lives and livelihoods at stake. to many families will be crushed if premiums continue to rise three times as fast as wages. there are too many businesses that will be forced to shed workers unless we get spiraling health-care costs under control.

the reforms we seek would bring greater -- would bring greater competition, a choice, savings, and the inefficiencies to our health care system and greater stability and security to americas families and businesses. for the average american, more costs and more options and more coverage you can count on. it will save you and your family money and if we have a more efficient health-care system. he will not have to worry about being priced out of the market or illness leaving your family to financial ruin. you will not have to worry you cannot afford financial treatment for a child that get sick. we can and we must make these reforms and we can do at any way that does not add to our deficits over the next decade. i have said this before. not me repeat -- the bill i sign must reflect my commitment and the commitment of congress to slow the growth of health-care costs over the long run to

ensure health care reform strengthens our national -- our nation's fiscal health. we always knew that passing health care reform would not be easy. we always knew that doing what is right would be hard. there is a tendency towards inertia in this town. i understand that as well as anybody. we are a country that chooses the harder right over the easier wrong. that is what we have to do this time. we have to do that once more. that's far through the politics of the moment and pass reform by the end of this year and commit ourselves to delivering our country a better future and that future will be seen in a place like children's hospital when young people are getting the care that they deserve and they need when they need it and we do

not have an overcrowded emergency room that is putting enormous burdens on this excellent institution. i think we can accomplish that. we have workover next few weeks and months. thank you very much. [applause] op >> the congressional debate over health care legislation was the main topic at today's white house briefing. also reaction to the comments you just saw. this is about 45 minutes.

>> that is what time i will be answering your questions. feeling good for monday. one quick announcement. wednesday's 9:00 has been moved to 8:00 p.m. look at that. let's go for seven. everybody seems happy with that. is it going to be -- [laughter] they will be given the same

instruction that you were for the very first news conference, which i believe you were told, right? >> no. >> ok. and we do not. >> thank you, robert. earlier today the president seemed to be up in the ante with his rhetoric about health care. is this a sign that he thinks the health-care overhaul is in trouble or is he just being confident? >> look, i think what we want people to understand is a few things. we have been discussing this for decades. the familiar mantra of delay has been the message for many of those years to put off the needed and necessary reforms that have to take place in our health-care system. he could just as easily have

recorded a republican strategist today who said to go for the kill and asked pundits to resist the temptation to be responsible. i think it is a unique message. some are opposed to health care reform. special interests that stand in the way of real reform -- if that is the interest they want, that is their business. but understand that the lay -- delay means real fangs. delay means people lose health care coverage. delay means people will not get a chance to choose to their doctor is because that coverage will disappear. more people will be denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions. people will spend more and get the as and businesses will drop their coverage based on the

burden of increasing costs. that is what delay means in this scenario. that is what the president is focused on moving forward. so that we can see real reform this year. >> why directly engage with senator demand -- demint? >> we have been asked about bipartisanship and working with the other side in a way that is constructive. there are those that want to oppose this purely to continue the 40-year-old washington gamesmanship of politics on health care. i think there are people in his home state and throughout this country that are struggling with the high cost of health care. they want the people that present this to washington to finally do something about this. that is what the president was elected to do and that is what

he is working on. i have a feeling that is not the only health care question. >> on the issue of delay, the president's numbers have slipped on health care reform. there is no reason to rush through an unfinished package. what is the big deal? taking a few more weeks to iron things out and get a deal done properly? >> i do not think necessarily doing something on the timetable that the president has laid out is doing something improper late. again, this is not a debate that started last month or even last year. many of the issues we were talking about are 40 years in the making. maybe longer than that. i think the president strongly believes we can continue to make progress. it is important to do that. the delay s -- is what opponents

want to do to slow the process down. american families and small business cannot afford that. we are working through this on an expeditious timetable that can see reform this year. >> is the presidential ruling indicating delay that would take this beyond -- >> looking at what happened over the course of the week, nurses supporting health care reform and dr. supporting health care reform, for the first time ever three committees introducing the same bill. two out of committee. they will make progress. the president hopes that continues. >> is he ruling out any delay? >> we think we are doing just fine right where we are. >> a couple of questions. the president has had a lot of kind words to say about the mayo

clinic and quality health care and reducing costs. the clinic issued a statement about the house democrats' bill about the proposed legislation missing the opportunity. it will do the opposite. the proposals are not patient- focused for results-oriented. lawmakers have failed to change the medicare payment policy. does the president have any response to that, given his respect for the way the mayo clinic works? >> i saw that not long before it came out here. i have asked the health policy people to look directly at that. i know that we have worked with doctors -- as i said, doctors, nurses, lots of stakeholders on improving legislation. making sure that we are focused on patients' quality. making sure we are focused on

cost-effective medicine. that is what we will continue to do. >> another question. on april 20 -- i remember -- i know you will remember when the president discussed cuts to the budget. they were required to report back with savings at the end of 90 days. that was 91 days ago. i wonder if you have any list of the spending cuts. >> those are being reviewed now and we will review something and -- we will release something in the coming days. >> there are republicans who have suggested they want to block this, but isn't the hold up now democrats? conservative democrats who are concerned about taxes going up? what is the president doing to engage them to move forward? >> he speaks with democrats and republicans every day.

they spent a decent portion of their meat and working with capitol hill and with that -- and with democrats henry -- and with democrats and republicans. i would not suggest that someone sitting at the table working to find a solution to these problems is more the delayed than somebody who goes out to give a purely political speech about how they are looking at this issue. not for the hearts and minds of millions of americans who are sitting at their kitchen table right now trying to figure out what bills to pay my bills they cannot pay and hoping that if they have to change jobs their coverage does not get dropped. not looking at this through some political lens, which clearly, that is the only view some people have. >> there are concerns about adding to the debt. today, the office of management

and budget suggested they will delay the release of the mid- year review and there are suggestions by republicans in particular that your delay and is beyond because you do not want the bad news about the budget to shape the health care debate. >> at happens and of virtually every transition year in the government, at the end of the year reviews tend to get pushed back because of the transition of moving people in and out of their former and current jobs. for instance, the mid-session review under the most previous administration took place on august 22. president clinton's first year in office, the review was released on september 1. i think the notion that this is somehow motivated by anything other than a transition from one administration to the next is a

little on the silly side. >> changing the way business has done, pushing the deadline back for years -- quite the deadline does not get pushed back because of the way washington works, the deadline gets me because the people who have to review the budget and economic conditions have to get to their desks. when it gets pushed back in the first year of the clinton administration after 12 years in the republican administration, it takes time to get people into those desks and to put their calculators on. it takes a whole group of people time to get in. on the other side of that eight years, after the other side of the other eight years, after the other side of that 12 years -- the notion that somehow this is a lot of the ordinary seems somewhat silly. i think, as we discussed, the economy is not that they point

-- not at the point we were hoping. we have seen the first six-seven months of this year a fairly rapid deterioration in the very beginning of this year on the economy. . >> i do not know when the decision was made.

>> knowing the history of this, why did you promise it? >> it is congressional labor required -- is congressional ily required. >> you know you mean you made the decision to delay this. >> i did not know the answer when the question was asked i could 37 seconds ago. >> on health care today, the president did not mention august for the first time. should we read something into that? >> i think peter was pretty clear on the subject. i think he said -- [unintelligible] he said august. i appreciate the attention that

you paid to the presidents were. >> you just said that peter was clear. there seems to be some flexibility here. >> we're making good progress and the president thinks we can get this done by august. >> back on health care. >> we did not leave health care. >> more contacts, some are saying that this could be his waterloo and will break camp. -- and will break him. is he saying that we disagree but the president on the policies on a whole range of issues where they favor free- market solutions? [unintelligible] he apparently was free-market solutions for these things. you think the president makes a

statement on philosophy and that is pure politics? they are talking about their philosophy. why should we be surprised that he would like to break the president politically and in direction -- and move in a direction with his policy? >> the difference is that the president has a different interpretation of what he said. you not being able to enunciate what it is that he is proposing in nazi term debt freedom loving solutions, the grasp of what he was saying all lot less on what he was proposing and what the president was proposing and much more focused on the pure and over politics in this. justice site -- let me quote someone else. this is bill kristol. there will be a temptation for opponents to let up on the

criticism or try to appear a constructive or at least responsible. the temptation to appear responsible. we have been asked a lot in this room about what the president and others are doing in order to work in a bipartisan way. the president calls senator grassley to talk about health care. the staff goes to meet with democrats and republicans. the president and his team are working constructively and responsibly. bipartisanship is not a one-way street. it has to be at two-way, two- lane street. we want to work with people who want to work with us to find solutions for the problems that the american people have faced for years and years. i would suggest but comments that were made by the center and by this particular republican political strategist are not designed to, or omit particular

policy solutions but to perpetuate the same washington games. >> to your using them for political purposes. you know that they are vulnerable and they are being political. >> they seemed help little bit by being overtly political. if i would call something you're waterloo, i don't think you would interpret that as an effort to do anything other than to arrive -- derive the end of what ever we were talking about. it is not that type of message. there you go. there enough. >> on thursday there is a town hall. is this going to be a real town hall or one of those invitational planes? >> if you have not been invited, i guess it is an invitational. i appreciate your --

>> it is a serious question. helen will join in. >> europe hoping for help from helen. -- you are hoping for help from helen. i am happy to look into it. >> the first town hall that you held, you have been bragging about it. is this one different? >> i appreciate your penchant for asking these questions about something i said i would look into. in the intervening 17 seconds, i have not figured out the answer to chip's questions. >> it implies that there is a policy change. >> let me figure out what the distribution policy is before you go off and get half cocked and decided -- >> ok, hi. >> would you like to follow up on chip's question >> >> this is

on health care. this white house is filled with veterans of congress to understand how the time table works. could you explain how it is even at this point to get -- possible to get a bill through considering that we do not have an agreement, much less legislative language or marked up, which would have to be scored and as conflicting with the sotomayor hearing? >> we do have a piece of legislation that has gotten through extensive committee discussions, had 160 republican amendments added to it, pass through the committee on something that does incorporate a good chunk of what hast happen on health care. . we are like you, working with

and watching the finance committee to see what progress can be made. the administration worked with them throughout the weekend to go through issues that they raised. we are making progress on the house side as well. in all little bit longer than the house says. >> everyone knows that finance needs that act as well. is there not -- is there enough time remaining? >> we're going to continue to work with the committees. the finance committee, if they were the, some think -- with something relatively soon, have a marked up early next week, giving us all a little more than 1.5 weeks, sure. >> you said and the president often invokes the session.

>> there have been a number of foreign entities that have come out and been specifically critical of the legislation. i think the interest group that is run -- that has repeatedly run commercials where mr. demand get his motivational speech, according to chip -- mr. demint gave his motivational speech, according to chip. >> he does have a piece that i could read to you. >> we will do that later. what is the name of that group that ran -- the conservatives. >> is there a special interest group? >> i think there is no doubt that some of the insurance companies have been opposed to comprehensive health care

reform. >> which one? >> there are some and i think we have seen some business groups. i remember how savagely that wal-mart got attacked when it put out a letter that they thought that continuing to incur rising costs after rising costs year after year was a bad deal. they were savaged by them. there are plenty of people that are -- whose strategy is it the way. there is no question about it. >> is the president's strategy on health care reflecting expanded concern on his part that the republicans were that naysayers and gaining ground in traction with their arguments

against this plan? >> particularly the president's schedule, his focus on this issue the notes the seriousness with which he comes at this and his strong desire to see something finally get through congress, rather than debating this year after year. >> but will he work every day on this? >> many, many days, yes. obviously this is a crucial time for health care reform. you have got upwards of five committees in congress working on legislative solutions. i think the president's time and public schedule will reflect that priority. yes, sir? >> is there any consequence if the house or senate or both do not get a bill out by august 7?

>> consequence? again, i hate to do ultimatums at this point. the president believes that we are making constructive progress and i think we can continue to see that. double>> there is no consequency yon holding their feet to the fire? >> again, delaying reform year after year. >> through the august recess? >> we will see what the leaders decided, based on as we get closer to the calendar. >> the rnc seems to have appeared -- have appeared to seize on a poll that the performance of the president on health care is slipping, emphasizing the risky, in terms

of cost, risky and terms of availability of health care and two people -- how does the president saleh and argue against michael stich -- sell it yet and argue against robert steele -- >> michael steele. >> started. how is he selling it to people who have health insurance already and are worried about becoming -- it becoming more expensive? >> i forget the exact percentage but by and large the vast majority of people in this country have access to affordable health care insurance. but we talked about this a few weeks ago -- as the costs rise, businesses will have to make a decision as to whether or not it will keep that health insurance. people coming into the health- insurance market because their

business drops it, they aren't the whim of the private market -- they are at the whim of the private market. they can exclude you if you have a pre-existing condition. there are a number of different ways that the president can continue to discuss with the american people the strong benefits of health care reform. not to mention the price that each and every one of the space as a result of uncompensated care, when somebody who does not think they will ever get sick or does not have access to affordable health coverage gets sick or in a car accident, doesn't have insurance but goes to the emergency room to get care. all of that drives up the costs for what those with insurance pay for health care. so i think those are some examples of why everybody has a stake in this game. it is not just about those that

are unfortunate in the sense that they do not currently have health insurance. but there are great risks even to those who were lucky to have that coverage now, because as we have seen, when the cost of a premium for health care outstrips any increase in your wages by three or four to one. it will not take long before businesses, particularly in a bad economic environment, will make the decision to get out of providing health care. >> and in that bad economic environment, the president is proposing a fairly expensive effort t. at what point do you begin to worry about or worry more about overall spending? the overall size of the deficit, given that we are in a place no one thought we would ever be in

right now? >> the president will do this without -- throughout the week -- address the budget challenges that we face. we talked a little bit about them here today. the main drivers of our federal budget deficit are things like medicare and medicaid, that unless proposals to see cost savings as it relates to medicare and medicaid are instituted, it is going to be hard to drive down the budget deficit and the cost of health care from the government's perspective. understand that this -- none of this is going to be easy. i will set way to a different subject. the president has laid down a veto threat on f-22's. this is 1.7 $5 billion for a plane that our pentagon and the

previous pentagon say they do not need. -- this is $1.75 billion for a plan that our pentagon and the previous pentagon say they do not need. it is in direct competition with the resources that our troops in iraq and afghanistan need now. that is an assessment held by our secretary of defense and a former secretary of the defense. our share of the joint chiefs and the former chair of the joint chiefs. we're in a neck-and-neck battle just to cut $1.75 billion for a plane that the pentagon itself says it does not want. it will not be easy to change this budget deficit but the budget -- but the president will continue to work on it. >> how much concern is there in terms of uncompensated care? is there some concern that people with health insurance don't see this? >> the president started to

emphasize that even more today. i do not doubt that we have to continue to make the case to everybody involved that they had a genuine stake in health-care. but that they have access to affordable health insurance or not, i think that is one of the things that you will see the president continue to highlight this week. understand that everybody involved has a stake in this. everybody that has eight care or concern about the budget deficit has a care or concerned and has scan in the game as it relates to the correction of our health care spending from the federal and state and local level. all that, i think, is something that the president is concerned about in the american people are rightly concerned about as well. >> just two questions. >> i was going to deal with the

4:00 today, lester. >> if you will be back. [unintelligible] i am not going ask about that. >> we will say that for next time. >> i want to change subject to the manned space programs. from a budgetary standpoint, can america afford to go back to the moon or to mars? i know it is under review. >> as i said, you are always worried about many expenditures about cost. the administration is committed to human space exploration. we have said that throughout the campaign. as you mentioned, there is a committee set up through nasa to evaluate this and come back with recommendations as to nasa's policy going forward later in

august, and the president looks forward to seeing those commission recommendations. i have no doubt that the president will get an opportunity to listen to astronauts that walked on the moon 40 years ago, listen to their perspective, and get a sense of what those missions did for scientific discovery and how that will impact the future. >> in today's dollars, the new project because hundreds of billions of dollars. is it conceivable that that kind of money could be spent in this environment? >> i think that without looking at that steady, my assumption is that if you haveprogram, there are significant startup cost and development costs, r&d costs that are factoring 40 year-ago

dollars in the car decisions, they may not extrapolate quite as perfectly as one might presume. but the president and explored to the committee's recommendations. >> i would answer a different way. [unintelligible] i made a joke. it clearly did not -- will try again in a minute. [unintelligible] now you're going to laugh and mess up your whole budget -- mess up your own joke. you can quite hold it. i think the president is confirming the number of difficult challenges. many challenges that have been put off for many years, but finally have to be addressed,

and not all will be easy. many of them -- some of them will compete. i would note that if you look deeper into the paul justin of a " post," a majority of those support the health care and the ideas in net. 59% is a pretty darn good number for six months. >> [unintelligible] >> obviously the president continues to share concerns that everybody has that nothing will be learned by what happened just a few months ago. obviously the president has put

a strong focus on financial regulation to ensure that what happened and got us into this mess cannot be repeated, and continues to believe that the decisions that banks make and that executives make have to be made in the long-term interests rather than short-term gain. that is what the president intends to focus on. >> this wednesday the president has invited prime minister maliki to join him. what is the significance and timing -- in timing on this? >> obviously we are -- we will be joined by ambassador hill. the president speaks regularly with general odierno. that will continue. security challenges that we have to be mindful of as well as much

as the political -- much of the political change that still continues or eight needs to continue in order us to continue to see progress in iraq. i have no doubt that will take up a large part of the meeting with the prime minister. they had a chance as you all know to sit down earlier in the year in baghdad, and continue these discussions. we want to make sure we continue to keep the focus on the political engagement that past happen to see necessary progress. that is one of the reasons the vice-president is focused on this as well. >> a question about how you interpret one of the campaign committed -- commitments that is relevant to the discussion about health care. when the president said in his campaign that he was not going to raise taxes on anyone earning

less than two ordered $50,000 a year, does that mean -- that $250,000 a year, does that mean a tax goes up for these people, even if offset by other benefits and savings in the same legislation, or does it mean no tax goes up for those people at all? >> i pointed to what the president said earlier, some time last week, about holding the line. >> to you understand what i am asking? >> tax versus net tax. >> does that mean that or any tax? >> my impression was the former rather than the latter. >> the president told reporters in cairo is that he wanted to stop at indonesia when he goes to singapore in the fall. as the white house reevaluated that given the events of last

week? >> i think stocks in terms of that trip in the fall will be the subject of some meetings this week with deputies and principals, including the president. i have not seen those drafts. i doubt, but i have no reason to believe that the events of the past few days have changed or less and the president's desire. obviously it is a country with the largest number of muslims in the world, important to him from that standpoint, as well as personal. >> as a consultant secretary clinton about health care and her experience? -- has he consulted the secretary clinton about health care and your experience? >> i have not heard such a discussion. >> a surtax on the wealthy may

be necessary, and some say that the bill can be financed for savings. does the president believed that he can finance this through savings? >> i do not know what representative clyburn has in mind about the full panoply of savings. we have outlined a number of what people round here called kaine changers in terms of the direction of federal spending -- kaine changer gam>> game-- as ge changers. i don't have in front of me what mr. clyburn has in front of him. >> you have mentioned the number growing sentiment that

they do not want to to the tax increase. what it your sense of politics -- what is your sense of politics? what about those above $350,000? >> we addressed this liked week of little bit. when you talk about those numbers, they have tended have a pretty good time of it for quite some time. without getting into this tax for that tax, i think the president has laid out ideas that he thinks are best in order to move forward, but will let congress move through its progress of deciding how to find health care reform. >> now that the hearings of judge sotomayor are over, what impact it at all today have in terms of the president's thinking about future supreme

court nominees? >> well, i have not heard the president discusse the the impact of those hearings one future nominees. like every president, he is hopeful to the point -- hopeful to zero. many to the supreme court. i think he is focused -- he is hopeful two. to appoint many to the supreme court. >> it references to the standard of empathy for judges? >> i am not heard anything. >> going back to the president's visit to iraq, he reportedly

told the pope that he would work to do all he could to reduce the number of forces. >> he said that at his speech at planned parenthood in 2006. >> could someone reasonably say that in doing all he can do to reduce those forces, it would mean supporting the hatch amendment to the health care bill that would prohibit federal funds going to abortion? >> i have not seen the amendment. the president believes that current policy for medicaid prohibits the federal funding for abortions. that is the hyde amendment. when it comes to designing a benefit package, president and this administration agreed that that benefit package is better left to experts in the medical field to determine how best and what procedures to cover.

>> and also, over the weekend at the national press association, the governor of tennessee said that he feared that congress was about to bestow the mother of all unfunded mandate on states and health care bill. gov. reticent has been dealing -- bredesen has been dealing with this court to get what terms. how closely has the administration studied that plan? >> i don't know the degree at which people have looked dead tenncare or other programs. >> we are leading this for live coverage of house. members are returning for votes. this is the anniversary of the moon landing. live coverage on c-span.

pursuant to -- for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: pursuant to clause 2a1 of rule 9 i hereby notify the house of my intention to offer a question on the resolution of the privileges of the house. the speaker pro tempore: gentleman may state his notice. mr. flake: the form of my resolution is as follows. whereas "the hill" reported

bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: madam speaker, a message from the speaker.

the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: ms. secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate shall convene as a part of impeachment at 2:00 p.m., july 22, 2009, for the purpose of receiving the managers on the part of the house in the matter of the impeachment proceeding against samuel b. kent. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. cap want o'of massachusetts for today, mr. crenshaw of florida for today and mrs. mccarthy of new york for today and through july 31. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted.

the speaker pro tempore: if member could please take their conversations offer the floor. the chair will begin entertaining one-minute speeches.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> thank you so much, madam speaker. i am pleased to announce that today the department of commerce awarded a $15 million grant to my alma mater, the university of miami, for the construction of a new marine science research facility at the school of marine and atmospheric science. the chair: the gentlewoman will suspend. -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman will suspend. the house is not in order. the gentlewoman may proceed. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much. the rossen steel school, madam speaker, will construct an

integrated seawater laboratory building that will also house a state-of-the-art marine life science center. the lab will be the only facility in the world with the wind wave storm surge simulator capable of generating hurricane-force winds and a three-dimensional test environment. building beyond the initiatives to protect coral reefs and florida's unique habitat, the university of madam speaker will be conduct research to understand -- miami will conduct research to understand how environmental challenges threaten human health and how dynamic action can enhance resiliency and protect lives. all of us will be safer due to the advances that it will yield in technological innovation, environmental protection and public safety. madam speaker, again, it's a $50 million grant from the department of commerce to my alma mater, the university of miami, for a new school of

marine science and atmospheric marine research science center. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? without objection. ms. jackson lee: madam speaker, i rise to express grave concern for one of our soldiers being held in harm's way by the taliban in afghanistan. i join with secretary gates to call this disgusting and knowing the brave men and women of the united states military, i know they will not leave one soldier behind. the 18th congressional district has approximately the largest amount of returning active soldiers from iraq and afghanistan. the numbers are large throughout the state of texas. we are in grave concern and sympathy with his family. we want them to know that we do care. we want them to know that we will not, as the soldiers are on the battlefield in afghanistan,

not stop until he is found. it is necessary to express our belief that our soldiers are precious. we thank them for the sacrifice they make on behalf of our freedom and no, we will not leave one hind. it is disgusting and the taliban need to know we will never give up. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there any further requests for one minutes? for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> i rise today to honor and celebrate the 40th anniversary of apollo 11 mission and notably the commander of that crew, neil armstrong, as the first person to set foot on the moon. president kennedy told a joint session of congress in 1961, i believe this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal before this decade is out of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth. that goal was achieved nearly

eight years later on july 20, 1969, by ohio's own neil armstrong, along with bud aldrin and michael collins. tonight i honor neeled and the men and women who worked tirelessly to make apollo 11 a success. i as a child was mesmerized by apollo 11's mission. i was one of the hundreds of millions who watched on television as he took that historic step on the moon. landing on the moon wasn't just an american event, it was a proud and historic event for all mankind. in the wake of this incredible accomplishment, neil armstrong has received many, many awards, most notably received the highest reward offered to the u.s. civilians, the presidential medal of freedom. neil has taken on several endeavors since walking on the moon and i'm especially proud of one, professor of air space engineering at the university of cincinnati, my alma mater. i'm proud to call him one of my constituents. madam speaker, let me leave with

you the quote that has become the core of our american mystery. that's one small step for man and one giant leap for mankind. thank you, neil armstrong, for taking that giant leap and thank you to everyone who have made apollo 11 a success. 40 years later we ponder its magnitude. the speaker pro tempore: are there further requests for one minutes? for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker, next week congress will likely vote on a health care bill that costs over $1 trillion and has serious repercussionser to every american. i simply request that every member be give be the appropriate time to review the final bill. just a few weeks ago a 300-page amendment was made to the cap and trade bill at 3:00 in the morning and voted on just hours later without allowing members and staff ample time to per use through it. the over 1,000-page stim less bill was similarly hustled

through congress without time for members to even read it. this is not an acceptable way to run congress. to that end i'm co-sponsoring a bill that would require legislation be available on the internet for 72 hours so that the public and members of congress will have the chance to see it. as we debate health reform or any other issue, the american people want us to get it right. to do that we must avoid arbitrary deadlines and passing measures in the dark of night without full debate or proper transparency. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: madam speaker, on july 20, 1969, america accomplished the greatest single technological achievement in the history of the world. americans walked on the moon. and on that july afternoon, 40 years ago today, we all crowded around our tv sets and radios listening to mission control in houston, texas. at 4:17 p.m., the distant word

came from the lunar modgeual flight commander neil armstrong, houston, the eagle has landed. shouts and cheered rang out at mission control in houston and spread across the united states. six hours later, kids in america, including me, were way up past their bedtime. neil armstrong stepped down this in from that ladder in the lunar module in that big bulky space chute and said, one small step for man and one giant leap more mankind. he was standing on the moob. they then planneded -- -- moon. they then planted the stars and stripes on the moon's surface. they had done something unbelievable. by their achievement, they summed up the greatness of america. a country founded by bold explorers had boldly explored the university -- universe. the moon men proved that in america, no mission similar possible. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? -- the gentlewoman from

minnesota rise? mrs. bachmann: to address the house for one minute. madam speaker, i rise today to honor the memory of members of the minnesota national guard who were killed in the line of duty this past week in the service of our great country. minnesotans gathered together last evening in a silent vigil in my hometown in stillwater, where they remembered, cried and prayed for five brave members of our american military who willingly laid their lives on thal tar of freedom. on friday i spoke with the parents of one of these service men who only hours earlier received a knock on their door. the knock that no parent ever wants to answer. and in their conversation with me, madam speaker, the parents honored their son amidst their grief. their pride in his bravery elling their hearts. may these families be comforted in their sorrow and may the memories of these brave soldiers live in our hearts forever and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: are there any further one-minute requests? for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? ms. waters: -- walwal madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that -- ms. woolsey: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following any legislative business, the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes, to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous materials. ms. waters, california, ms. woolsey, california, ms. kaptur, ohio, mr. defazio, oregon, ms. jackson lee, texas. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: madam speaker, i ask

unanimous consent consent that today following legislative business and any special orders entered into, the following members may be permitted to address this house, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. mr. carter for july 22, myself, mr. poe, for july 27, mr. jones, for july 27, mrs. schmidt for today, mr. mccotter for today, mr. moran for today, july 21, 22, 23 and 24, mr. buchanan for july 22, mrs. bachmann for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and under a previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. ms. woolsey of california. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. waters: address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

ms. waters: thank you very much, madam speaker. i've long been an advocate of consumer protections and consumer rights and i'm proud of the work we have accomplished on these issues this session. laws such as the recently enacted credit cardholders bill of rights which i am an original co-sponsor, will have to ensure consumers have access to fair and easy to understand credit products. that said, there's still much more work to be done in order to safeguard consumers from predatory and discriminatory lending products. this congress is about to embark up on the adoption of regulatory reform. we've had an economic meltdown and a subprime mess and we discovered that our regulatory agencies were asleep at the wheel and we discovered that there had been deregulation that led us to the point of this economic meltdown. judging from the proliferation

of products such as subprime mortgages and paybay -- payday loans our regulatory framework does not adequately protect consumers. there are many reasons why we need a new consumer protection agency. there will be a piece of legislation that will talk about how we do credible regulatory reform. but of all that's in the proposed legislation that's being developed, we're getting a pushback from the financial services community from the consumer protection agency. why is that? why is it that, given what we have gone through, the financial services community can boldly and boldfacedly come before us and talk about why a consumer financial protection agency is a bad idea? i suppose one of the reasons is jurisdictional. there are several types of

consumer financial products which, because they're offered by nonbanks, fall into what may be classified as a shadow banking industry. these products and institutions escape federal regulation, yet often lead to federal problems such as our current economic and foreclosure crisis. a prime example of this is mortgage servicing. mortgage servicing is an important part of our housing market and consumers often have more contact with their mortgage servicers than with their mortgage broker. real estate agent, or bank combine. however, lately, many services have been unable to properly assist consumers due to lack of capacity or perhaps of a will to do system of the servicers are the ones supposed to be doing loan modifications. they're supposed to be helping the consumers to unwind the mess that many of them have found themselves into because

of the predatory lending. there is currently no federal agency with specific jurisdiction over the mortgage servicing industry and therefore no mechanism for anyone to address this pressing issue. the proposed consumer financial protection agency would bring nonbanks who offer financial services to and interact with consumers into our regulatory system. another reason we need a consumer financial protection agency is to protect consumers from complicated products and hidden and predatory fees. according to harvard professor elizabeth warren, the average credit card offer comes bundled with more than 100 pages of fine print. buried within this fine print are provisions about restrictions, teaser rates, and penalties. this fine print is nearly impossible for consumers to make informed decisions and

pick the credit card or other lending product which is right for them this leads some borrowers to be trapped in credit cards or loan products with hidden and abusive fees this agency could solve this problem by working with the industry to reduce fine print and hidden fees. the final reason we need this new agency is stability. our financial markets are built on consumer lending. our current crisis began when collateralized debt obligations and mortgage-backed securities were packed with exotic products such as no doc loans and liar loans. it was exacerbated as consumers were squeezed with excessive penalties and fees from bank products, leading families everywhere to make tough decisions. a strong regulator, one which focused solely on consumer safety and championed simpler

disclosure and products could have prevented all of this we need a consumer financial protection agency to deal with this kind of crisis so it never occurs again. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: mr. poe of texas. mr. poe: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. poe: request per noigs address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: government-run health care leads to doctor shortages, rationing of services and long waiting lines. the united states government has been trying to run health care for the american indians for over 200 years and it's a miserable failure. it has resulted in medical malpractice against native american indquans. over the last two centuries, members of congress have spoken out about the way indians are treated by the federal government. among those outspoken critics include david crockett and sam houston. a prime example of mistreatment today is the government-run health care for native

americans. in 1787, the federal government agreed to provide for the health, safety and well-being of indian tribes on reservations in exchange for over 450 million acres. the united states government has been running indian health care ever since. the indian health service is a part of the department of health and human services. they took over the indian health care in 1954 from the bureau of indian affairs. now indian health services oversee medical care for about two million american indians and alaskan eskimos in 35 states. last week, i talked about a few of the tense, tragic stories of the victims of the u.s.-government run health care. like the little girl who went to an indian health service clin nick montana. the doctor said she was depressed. she complained her stomach hurt and she stopped eating and

drinking. after going back to the same clinic 10 more times, her lung collapsed. she was then sent to a private children's hospital where she was diagnosed with terminal stomach cancer where she died a few days later. rhonda sandelin who lives on the sanding rock reservation in north dakota had to threat ton kill herself to get treatment for severe frostbite on her fingers. the government health care providers wanted to cut off all her fingers. a private doctor happened to stop by on the reservation and prevented the amputation. instead, he prescribed medicine that took care of the problem. then there's victor brave thunder, who had congestive heart failure. the clinic at standing rock gave him tylenol and cough syrup and sent him home he died of a heart attack a few weeks later. then there's harriet archenbald who died when her hypertension

medicine ran out. she tried five times to get an appointment to get her medicine refilled. shi never got to see a doctor before she dismede these are not isolated instances. the cheyenne river hsu tribal leaders have -- sioux tribal leaders have held meetings about their hospital. betry crow walked -- worked at the hospital for years. she said most of the time all they did was hand out painkillers. others testified that those who had appendix problems were given pain medicine and sent home until the appendix burst. betty's son had leukemia, he got his medicine through his wife's insurance, then they got divorced. bureaucrats at the butte indian services hospital wouldn't allow him to get the medicine.

jermaine means said nonmedical staff was deciding who and who would not get medical treatment. imagine that. in the indian health service agency a bureaucrat new york city a doctor, decides who can get medical care and who doesn't. that's called rationing. on the reservations, it's said, don't get sick after june because the government runs out of money and runs out of medicine. the indian health service agency itself calls their organization a rationed health care system. when the taxpayer runs -- when the taxpayer money runs out they can't pay for the services so they ration. america has proven universal nationalized health care results in rationed care by the way we treat the american indians. other countries have proven results in rationing and health care. there are other problems with the care. the government solution is to pay all doctors the medicare

rate for their services. they call it cutting medical costs. the main problem with that scenario is the medicare rates don't pay for a doctor's overhead, so they run the doctors out of business. why would anyone want to go to medical school and spend all that money to open up a practice that doesn't pay for itself. and make matters worse, the american medical association has warned us we're lose manager doctors than we're getting. madam speaker we don't have to wonder about health care run by the federal government and what it looks like. we have our own long, lamentable, sad, sick history to prove it doesn't work. socialized medicine has the competence of fee mark the compassion of the i.r.s. it's resulted in medical malpractice against the american indians. just ask them. that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: ms. kaptur of ohio. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. woolsey: i ask to speak out of order because i switched

with congresswoman waters. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. woolsey: the administration is currently reviewing our military strategy in afghanistan. general mcchrystal, the leader of u.s. and nato forces, is expected to give his report to the president in just is a few weeks. but the president isn't the only one who should be reviewing our policy. every member of this house should be reviewing our policy too. because we are once again relying on the military option. just like we did in iraq. that's just not the best way to stop the violent ex-timists who -- extremists who threaten us. if you need proof of that remember that al qaeda has launched more attacks since 9/11 than before 9/11. our national intelligence estimates warned thause al qaeda is getting stronger, stronger not weaker.

if you need more proof, madam speaker, that mill tafere force doesn't work, i -- that military force doesn't work, i urge you to read the rand corporation report entitled "how terrorist groups end." rand studied 648 extremist group this is a existed between 1968 and 2006. it found that military force was effective against these groups only 7% of the time. in its analysis, rand discovered two strategy this is a work better. the first was negotiated political settlements. the second was the use of intelligence and police agencies to penetrate and disrupt extremist organizations. combined, these two strategies were effective 83% of the time. rand applied its analysis to al qaeda and concluded, and i quote them, they concluded that policing and intelligence

should be the back bone of u.s. efforts. that's the end of their quote. they believe this to be true in afghanistan and other parts of the world. this is because al qaeda consists of a network of individuals who need to be tracked and arrested. which requires the cooperation of u.s. and foreign intelligence agencies. rand also said that america should generally resist being drawn into combat operations in muslim societies since its presence is likely to increase the recruitment of violent extremists. madam speaker, instead of using military force, we must change our mission in afghanistan. we must use the far more effective tools of smart pow . smart power can do a much better job of ending violent extremism than bombs and bullet, invasions and occupations. in this session of congress, i introduced house resolution

363, the smart security platform for the 21st century. it calls for strengthening intelligence and law enforcement agencies to track and arrest those involved in violent acts while still respecting the rule of law. smart security also calls for improvements in civilian policing, a well-trained police force is a highly effective counterinsurgency tool because it is locate wrd the extremists actually lurk. my smart security platform also includes other initiatives to provide stopping extremism in afghanistan and other parts of the world. smart security addresses the root causes of violence and encourages diplomatic and multilateral action. it promotes nuclear nonproliferation and it ends our dependence on foreign oil. madam speaker, the death toll in afghanistan is on the rise. a summer of heavy fighting is ahead of us. let's stop this bloodshed before we have another iraq on

our hands. let's do the smart thing, let's change our strategy before it's too late. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> unanimous consent that i might speak for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> madam speaker, i rise to -- today to honor the outstanding individuals of the old guard headquartered at fort myers, virginia. the infantry proudly nicknamed the old guard has served our nation since 1784. making it the oldest active duty infantry unit in the united states army. since world war ii, the old guard has served as the army's official honor guard. soldiers from the old guard protect washington, d.c., escort the president and conduct military ceremonies at the white house, pentagon and national memorials in the capital, including funeral details and

other special ceremonies at arlington national cemetery. last month i had the pleasure of spending the morning at arlington national cemetery and seeing the inside workings of the old guard. one of their most recognized duties is to provide sentinels at the tomb of the unknowns. since april 6, 1948, the tomb of the unknowns has been guarded 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, regardless of weather. the sentinels rotate walks every hour in the winter and at night and every half hour in the day during the summer. they are all volunteers and considered to be the best of the old guard. each soldier must be in superb physical condition, hold an untarnished military record and be between 5'10" and 6'4" inch tall with the proportion weight and build. during the trial phase, soldiers are required to memorize seven pages of arlington national

cemetery history and the used sentinels learn the grave locations of nearly 300 veterans. the sentinels' duty time spent not walking is in the tomb quarters below the me he morial amp theater where they clean their weapons and help the rest of their relief prepare for the changing of the guard. the guards also train on their days off. a portion of the sentinel cede stayeds, and i quote, my dedication to this sacred duty is total and wholehearted and the responsibilities bestowed upon me, never will i falter and with dignity and perseverance, my standard will remain perfection. madam speaker, it was a humbling experience to witness these sentinels' dedication and commitment to honoring all service members who are known but to god. i encourage every american who visits our nation's capital to stop by arlington national cemetery to pay tribute to the

fallen military heroes of the past and to witness the dedication of the old guard. i also encourage my colleagues and congress to make the time to visit arlington national cemetery and meet with the fine soldiers of the old guard. their motivation and dedication to service should truly fill every american with pride. and as i close, madam speaker, as i do many times on this floor, i can ask god to please bless our men and women in uniform. i ask god in his loving arms to hold the families whose child has given their life of freedom in afghanistan and iraq and i ask three times, god please, god please, god please continue to bless america and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. defazio of oregon. >> i ask unanimous consent to speak out of term for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

ms. jackson lee: madam speaker, as a 12-year member of the house science committee and a resident in houston, texas, i, too, rise to celebrate and to commemorate the 40th anniversary of apollo 11. this coming friday the nasa community and all of houston will join in a splashdown celebrating the 40th anniversary of apollo 11 at space center houston. madam speaker, i cannot tell you the great excitement in our community because nasa has been a real anchor, both economically, but really one of great pride, even though we realize it is a national treasure. the words of a young president, john f. kennedy in his may 25, 1961, speech to congress rings clear in our ears because he challenged america, he challenged those who had the ability to dream and gave them the goal of landing a man on the

moon and returning him safely to earth. apollo 11 policeman was -- program was designed to achieve the goal established by president kennedy, by sending a crew of three astronauts to the moon and returning them safely. but he didn't realize the drama and the excitement and the inspiration that that would provide. he did not realize what it would mean when buzz aldrin and neil armstrong and michael collins took flight in apollo 11. he did not realize that when the crew of apollo 11 launched into space aboard a saturn v. rocket on july 16, 1969, it was almost equal to, i guessed, the discovery of this nation. and then on july 20, 1969, neil armstrong, buzz aldrin successfully piloted the eagle lunar module to the surface of the moon and who can forget the eagle has landed? it was exciting for all of us who really believed in the greatness of america, but also

the peace that america generated. and then on july 20, 1969, when neil armstrong took his first step on the moon, he became the first person to walk on the surface of another sleftral body. we know his famous, famous words, that in fact, as i paraphrase them, one step nor manned and one giant step for mankind. so we recognize how important it is to celebrate 40 years because we want there to be another 40 years of nasa, to recognize the economic arm that it presents, the economic -- to recognize the value of the inquisitiveness of scientists, mathematicians, doctors, those who are engaged in the business of exploration and human challenges. astronauts have come from all walks of life. they've happened to be my neighbors. we've lost some in columbia and challenger but we thank their families for their sacrifice. because we recognize that this is a time that we are now to pay

tribute to them by continuing our work with nasa. how excited we are to have retired general charles bolden to be the new nasa administrator, a former astronaut, the first african-american, a houstonan in the years that he live there had. so we celebrate and hope that this inspiration goes into the nooks and crannies of pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, primary, secondary education, college, graduate school. let us send forth more astronauts, chemists, fissists, biologists, doctors, engineers, all of the people that can help us discover a peaceful way to live in this wonderful universe. that's what apollo 11 was all about. showing us that it is a place of peace, the moon, that we can explore, we can find out information, we can make lives better for americans and others around the world. i always believed in the international space station and as a member of the science

committee, i was able to craft legislation to create a safety scheme, if will you, to ensure that the international space station is safe. we see now that there are constant checks and constant emphasis on ensuring the safety of this particular large building and space if you will, the size of large football fields. we know that that is important. even to the extent of fixing a toilet. so, madam speaker, i rise to support and to salute buzz aldrin, the lunar module pilot, michael collins, the command module pilot, and neil armstrong, the mission commander, who understood what it was to make this giant step. his other words as well, as we came in peace for all of man jnds kind, that should be the mantra, the standard, the medal, if will you, the heart of nasa. as we explore, we come in peace for all of mankind. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. inglis of south carolina.

for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> i raise the climb to speak out of order an address the house for five minutes and request permission to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mccotter: thank you, madam speaker. the iranian people's peaceful struggle for freedom continue despite the tyrannical regime's bash rouse crackdown in fact, in his friday sermon, the former president called questions -- called into question the legitimacy of the present government and rebuked the regimer to its crackdown on peaceful protesters and its cavalier rejection of the cries that the election was stolen. finally, former presidentraphy sent janney called upon the regime to free and fully account for all those peaceful freedom seekers who have been arrested in the repression. then on sunday, former president khatami called for a referendum on the legitimacy of the iranian

regime and asked that the results be tallied by an objective independent iranian body to ensure its accuracy. this led the current opposition presidential candidate, mousavi, to say, quote, you're facing something new, an awakened nation, a nation that has been born again and is here to defend its achievement. end this game as soon as possible and return to the nation its arrested sons. while humanity agrees, sue people are leader khomeini disagrees. and to leaders who both tacitly and expressly support the freedom seekers in iran, khomeini issued this warning, he leet should be watchful since they've been faced with a big test. failing the test will cause their collapse. i'd ask supreme leader khomeini to look at this picture.

her name is -- she was arrested near a mosque where she was on her way to attend hair dressing college. after her arrest she was raped,ed so mized and tortured by her captured, taken to a hospital in a coma and it was there that she died. upon her death, her body was removed to the outskirts where to prevent an autopsy, it was burned. she came from a religious family , she was only 19 and an only child. her family has been threatened to keep quiet and yet the resistance wants her story out. why? because here's the truth denied by khomeini and his murderous regime, your referendum has been

held and you have failed your test. they condemn you as the despicable killers of women. you have no legitimacy either in the eyes of the iranian people or in the eyes of the civilized world. you are doomed by your own hands. and it is but a matter of time until your regime collapses and the iranian people breathe free. madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: mr. burton of indiana. mrs. schmidt of ohio. mr. moran of kansas. mrs. bachmann of minnesota. for what purpose does do you rise? mrs. bachmann: i ask permission to speak out of order for five minutes and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. bachmann: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, all jobs are needed now in the united states. we need jobs here and we need jobs now. unemployment stands at a 26-year

high at 9.5% and what is the response of washington, d.c.? government is increasing the costs on job creators. by the end of this week, madam speaker, government will have mandated that the price of the minimum wage will increase another 70 cents per hour. this comes when teenager unemployment stands at nearly 25%, nearly another record. employers expect to be cutting more minimum wage jobs as a result of this action, not adding more jobs. teenagers in my district are going from day to day to day, many of whom have gibbon up now that it's the end of july, looking for work. unemployment stands at a high for teenagers. they're competing with 40-year-olds for jobs at fast food companies. so what else does washington do? washington is passing a crushing

debt burden onto the 19 and 20-year-olds with our $1.1 trillion stimulus plan. clearly the stimulus plan hasn't worked to create more jobs for americans. two million jobs have been lost since the stimulus law was passed earlier this year. the public was told that if congress failed it to pass the president's stimulus plan that we would see 8% unemployment. a lot of states today would love to see 8% unemployment. try the state of michigan. last week they reported their unemployment stands today at 15.2%. we can do better. so much better. we have before and we can again. let's ask every business owner in america, madam speaker, if it would help them if we would cut their costs of doing business with the federal government. let's ask the average american if they would like to see he government take le