they make. let's see if washington would allow the american people the freedom to reclaim their lives rather than waiting for a washington bureaucrat to give them permission to move forward with their lives. . and he would love to provide health care for his employees but he can't afford to. why? it's because of the government mandates. do his employees go without health care? no, they don't. almost all of them have health insurance either through a spouse or purchase health care on their own. what would employees like to see? they would like to have health with full deductibility on their tax returns. also, if they could purchase health insurance in the same way they purchase their car insurance in a competitive,

free-market manner. many of them would like to see increased use of health savings plans. they want to own their own health insurance because they want to be able to take it with them in case they want to change jobs. madam speaker, fully 77% of all americans respond that they prefer their present health insurance. they like what they have. and they want to keep it. but they think, madam speaker, they will be shocked if they learn they could lose their private health insurance and would be shocked to learn if their only option would be government as their only health decisionmaker. on page 16 of the house democrat plan that was revealed last week of the government takeover of insurance is quite a shocker. page 16 says that no new private health insurance policies will allow to be written after passage of the bill. government insurance is expected to be subsidized by taxpayers to

the tune of 30% to 40%. approximately 114 million americans are expected to leave private health insurance. why? their employer will drop the insurance because the taxpayer-subsidized plan will be 30% to 40% cheaper. this action will collapse the private health insurance market and then the federal government will own the health provider game. the problem is, then every american will have to hope that the government will act toward their case. why? because government will be the only game in town. we can do better, madam speaker. we have done better. we can take a plan that truly represent compassion and the best interests of the american people by offering them freedom and true options. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under

the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. fudge, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. ms. fudge: i ask for unanimous consent that all members be given five days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. fudge: the congressional black caucus, the c.b.c. is proud to present this hour on health care. the c.b.c. is chaired by the honorable barbara lee from the 9th congressional district of california. i'm representative fudge from the 11th district of ohio and i'm the anchor for this hour. mr. speaker, i would now like to yield to our chair, the honorable barbara lee, the gentlelady from california. ms. lee: thank you very much. mr. speaker, first let me thank my colleague, congresswoman fudge of ohio for leading this special order not only tonight but each and every monday night to keep our caucus and the

country focused on addressing the key issues, which are looming today. she consistently and is constantly on the case making sure that we speak with one voice on the very, very critical issues, which our country and the world faces. thank you congresswoman fudge for your leadership. as chair of the congressional black caucus, i join my colleagues tonight in this very timely discussion of health care. and our efforts and i also want to make the case tonight for prevention as a very cost-effective strategy for health care reform. prevention and public health should be the cornerstone of any true health care package. prevention that takes place outside of the doctor's office can be just as important to impacting the health of americans as health care on the

back end when one ends up in the emergency room. disease prevention is universally popular from across the coast. americans understand and appreciate the value of prevention -- the value especially for reducing disease rates for improving the quality of life and for lowering health care costs. and yes, given the rising deficit, we are all extremely concerned about the costs of health care, but we must remember that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. but for whatever reasons, those experts who are giving us the numbers in terms of the costs don't seem to, for whatever reason, want to tell us how much we will save based on prevention as a key element and strategy in our bill. in a new poll released last month by the trust for america's

health, americans actually ranked prevention as the most important health care reform priority. the poll also found that more than 3/4's of americans believes the country should invest in keeping people healthier. and by a ratio, they support putting prevention on disease rather than treating people after they become sick. people are convinced it will save the health care system money, but surprisingly the poll also found that 70% that investing in prevention is worth it, even if it didn't save money, because it will prevent disease and save lives, but we also know it will save money. this is not about lecturing people about behavior, but instead what we want to do is remove barriers to good health that are beyond the control of most people.

one role of government in health care to provide opportunities to make it easier for people to make healthy choices. americans are not as healthy as they could or should be and this is resulting in skyrocketing health care costs that threatens to bankrupt american businesses and our workforce is less productive than it could be or should be as it relates to competing with the rest of the world. tens of millions of americans suffer every day, every day from prevent i believe illnesses like diabetes, cancer and inif he can issues disease that rob them of life and drives up health care costs. more than half of americans suffer from at least one chronic disease. 2/3 of americans are obese or overweight and 20% of americans smoke. due to the epidemic of obesity today's children could be the

first generation to live shorter, less healthy lives than their parents. this is very scary. the nation's economic future demands that we find ways to reduce health care costs, helping americans stay healthier is one of the most effective ways to lower costs and to ensure that our workforce is strong and productive enough to compete in our global economy. according to the united states centers for disease control and prevention, a vast majority of chronic diseases could be prevented through lifestyle and environmental changes. for too long, the health care system has focused on treating people after they become sick instead of keeping them healthy in the first place. we need to shift from a sick care system to a health care system. prevention can improve the quality of lives of americans, spare millions, millions from needless suffering and eliminate billions of dollars of unnecessary health care costs.

research shows that strategic investments in disease prevention programs in communities can result in a big payoff in a short time reducing health care costs, increasing the productivity of the nation's workforce and helping people lead healthier lives. let me just conclude by saying i have to take a moment to commend congresswoman donna christensen and the congressional black caucus health task force as long as the hispanic and asian pacific task forces for their work to ensure that any health care reform bill includes a real public health option and provisions to address the racial and ethnic disparities we face each and every day. people of color are disproportionately seen in emergency rooms because they don't have health insurance and can't get preventive care. for example, frims are three.5

-- 3.5 times to get amputations. african american men are 40% likely than white men with the same condition to receive major diagnose gnostic and treatment procedures too late. so, mr. speaker, as we debate health care reform, let's look at the real costs and focus on the billions, and i mean billions of dollars that we will save if he we remember that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk about this issue tonight. ms. fudge: we have the honor of being joined this evening by the majority whip. i would yield to the the gentleman from south carolina, mr. clyburn. mr. clyburn: i thank the

gentlelady for yielding me this time, mr. speaker and i request permission to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. clyburn: i would like to say to the american people that this whole issue of health care reform is something that needs to be focused on not as an individual condition or situation, but what is happening to the american families, what is happening to american businesses and what is happening to the american economy. this is not about government-run health care. it's about removing insurance companies and costs from health care decisions and allowing you and your doctor to make those decisions. the status quo is not acceptable. and it is not sustainable. and here's why. every day americans worry not

simply about getting well, but whether or not they can afford to get well. millions more wonder if they can afford preventive care to stay well. premiums have doubled over the last nine years. rising three times faster than wages. the average american family already pays an extra $1,100 in premiums every year for a broken system that supports 46 million uninsured americans. for american businesses, soaring health care costs put american companies at a competitive disadvantage in a global economy. small businesses are forced to choose between coverage and layoffs. the broken health care system will cost us as much as $248

billion in lost productivity this year alone. we have the most expensive health care system in the world. we spend almost 50 times -- 50% more per person on health care than the next most costly nation, but we are no healthier for it. if we do nothing in a decade, we will be spending $1 of every $5 on health care. in 30 years, it will be $1 of every $3. health care reform is curbing health care costs. the single best tool for deficit reduction. now, i want to answer a question for all the american people. what's in the reform plan for the average american?

without reform, the health care costs for average family of four is projected to rise $1,800 every year for years to come. and insurance companies will make more and more health care decisions. americans middle class deserves better. here's what's in this reform package for you. no more co-pays or deductibles for preventive care. no more rate increases for pre-existing conditions, gender or occupation. an annual cap on your out-of-pocket expenses. group rates of a national pool if you buy your own plan. guaranteed affordable oral,

hearing and vision care for your kids. there is greater choice. keep your doctor and your plan if you like them. more choice with the high cost of public insurance options competing with private businesses. and so, i want to say to the american people this health care plan that we are marking up in the energy and commerce committee over the next two days, there -- it has already been marked up in three of five committees in both houses of the congress. it's a plan that will say to the american people, you know longer have to worry about the costs shifting that's taking place in our current health care system. you will no longer have to worry about your premiums going up in

order to cover that cost shifting for those people who do not have insurance. there will be ability in your families -- there will be a decrease in your premiums and there will be an expansion in the coverage for all americans. this is something we cannot afford not to do. and with that, i yield back. . >> mr. speaker, i'd now like to yield to my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from texas, mrs. eddie bernice johnson. ms. johnson: thank you very much, mr. speaker, and let me thank our congresswoman from ohio, congresswoman fudge, for organizing this special order on health care. over the years the degree of accessibility and quality of health care in the united states has faulted. we are a nation in crisis.

many americans who are uninsured and unable to pay their hospital bills are deprived of the care and attention needed to ensure their well-being. fundamental change is necessary to truly make progress toward a healthier america. we must rescue our health care from the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies. my experience as a state and federal legislator and a nurse have provided a unique vantage point from which to discuss this issue. during my 15 years as a professional nurse and that of a chief psychiatric nurse at the veterans administration hospital in dallas, texas, i witnessed the diminishing state of our health care first-hand. our system of health care is especially weak when it comes to mental health, for example. individuals with mental illness

do not receive sufficient coverage from insurers. while some are uninsured and unemployed, others may make too few dollars -- too much to qualify for medicaid. the limited options that our health care system offers mental health patients result in their inability to obtain appropriate treatment. some years ago in the state of texas there was a lawsuit and the ruling came down, said patients had a right to treatment. many of the patients that were in state institutions were discharged because we did not have the staff to treat them. guess what happened to them? they became homeless and many went to prison. they become victims of our flawed health care system, become unable to gain employment and at times really have no

other place to go but to the swalks and the streets in the -- sidewalks and the streets and the doorways. people with mental illness are amongst those least served by national and local health care stfers -- systems. individuals and families across the country are being affected by the faults in hour -- our health care system. today americans are spending more on health care than housing or food and they sometimes must choose between paying their health premiums or their rent or even their prescription medications. with our elderly economy, americans should not be forced to make that choice and now is the time for reform. we must not allow these millions of dollars that are going to lobbyists to distort this plan. we can reform our health care system by improving and expanding our current systems of medicare, medicaid and making

them available and affordable to all americans. i don't think we ought to have a total federal or a government plan. but we ought to have a choice because the insurance companies have no one to compete with now and they can charge what they want and limit what patients can get. they're dictating to doctors what they should order. that needs to end. we need a guarantee and provide quality and affordable health care to all. we need to ensure that care is patient-centered and accessible. setting higher benchmarks for quality and efficiency, we need to enforce rules that make sure our insurance companies put health care over profits. they've had their day. americans should able to keep the health care that they have, but also have the option of a public plan that does not lead -- leave anyone at the measuresy of fate in order to stay healthy

and avoid bankruptcy. we can take the best of our current models, lessons learned and use that to reform our health system, 46 million uninsured americans, including 5.7 million in texas, are in great need of health care coverage. many of our uninsured in texas are working people. we need to act now to reduce health care costs as well as health care disparities. to ensure the well-being and the healthness of all americans. this country we call the leading nation and the most -- richest country do less to make sure that the people here, the citizens, are healthy. we must change this now. we must not allow the millions of dollars going to lobbyists, distort this and defeat it this time. thank you. ms. fudge: thank you. thank you very much.

mr. speaker, c.b.c. members are advocates for families, nationally, internationally, regionally and locally. we stand firm as the voice of the people. we continue to work diligently to be the conscience of the congress. we are dedicated to providing focused service to citizens that elected us to congress. the vision of the founding members of the congressional black caucus to promote the public welfare through legislation designed to meet the needs of millions of neglected citizens continues to be the goal of our legislative work. tonight the c.b.c. is going to focus all of its attention on health care. i am proud to serve on one of the three house committees that are working on health care reform legislation. i serve on the education and labor committee, the other two committees are ways and means and energy and commerce. while each member of the c.b.c. has his or her own area of concern, i will focus on two

categories which directly affect the most vulnerable citizens. the poor and those with mental illness. i will examine how the house's health care reform bill, h.r. 3200, the americas affordable health choices act of 2009, assists these two groups. i will begin by examining the problems of people with low numbers and those in poverty face when attempting to access our current, pensive and broken health care system -- expensive and broken health care system. one quote comes to mind, mr. speaker. this statement was made by dr. martin luther king jr. more than 40 years ago. dr. king said, of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane. sadly, dr. king's statement is still relevant today. statistics prove that the high cost of health insurance causes

or deepens financial hardships. the service employees international union reported that in 2004, half of all people filing for bankruptcy cited medical costs as the reason. and in 2008, half of all home foreclosures will were due in part to the high cost of coverage and care. the numbers also prove that the high cost of health insurance causes people to remain or become uninsured. due to the high cost of health care coverage, one in six or 43.6 million americans you understand the age of 65 do not have any type of health insurance. that comes from the center for disease control. the children's defense fund reports that nine million children are uninsured in america. statistics demonstrate that the high cost of health insurance and lack of access to quality

health insurance disproportionately affect african-americans. according to a new report issued in june of 2009 by the u.s. department of health and human services, minority and low income americans are much more likely to suffer from a chronic, debilitating illness than whites and are far less likely to have the kind of coverage that would ensure quality care. for example, nearly half or 48% of black adults suffer from some form of chronic condition compared to 39% of all adults. yet one in every five black americans lax health insurance compared to one in every eight whites. considering the statistics that i mentioned, i am glad to report that affordability and access to quality health care are two problems that are addressed by

the americas affordable health choices act. effective in 2013, assistance will be available for individuals and families that fall below the 133% to 400% of the federal poverty level. financial assistance will limit individual and family spending on premiums from a minimum of 1.5% of income for those with the lowest income and maxing out at 11% of income for those at 400% of poverty or more. all effective 2013, people with incomes at or below 133% of poverty will all be eligible for medicaid. in addition to the financial assistance provided by our bill, while vitally necessary, monetary help will only address part of the problem. prevention and wellness measures need to be a part of the solution as well. fortunately there are measures that are included in our legislation to address this gap.

i was speaking with a constituent the other day, mr. floyd perry from my district, who was born in 1938. he is in good health and does not take any medication. mr. perry, attributed his good health to preventive health care and he wanted me to share with everyone that preventive health care works. h.r. 3200 authorizes additional funding for existing community health centers and creates community-based programs to deliver prevention and wellness services. and waives cost sharing both co-insurance and deductibles for preventive services which means you will no longer have to pay for cancer screenings or adult and child immunizations or vision screenings or hypertension treatment. now, i would like to turn my attention just for a moment to the needs of citizens with mental health issues. in my most recent tele town hall

meeting, many people were concerned about health insurance. some questions were fairly general, of course, and others were very specific. one woman in particular was concerned about mentally ill felons who are released from jail without access to the medications they need to remain mentaly stable. my constituent found that ex-offenders with mental and emotional problems are more likely to commit crimes again due to the lack of treatment. fortunately access to mental health care will be improved under the current house health reform bill. but the distinct needs of ex-offenders are not explicitly addressed. among others, my office is currently working on this issue with representative rush of illinois. the following statistics will help us understand the current problem felons and ex-offenders with mental illnesses face. according to the bureau of justice statistics, at midyear,

2005, more than half of all prison and jail inmates had a mental health problem. including more than 700,000 inmates in state prisons, more than 78,000 in federal prisons and almost 500,000 in local jails. more than 2/5 of state prisoners, 43%, and more than half of local jail inmates, 54%, reported symptoms that met the criteria for mania. about 23% of state prisoners and 30% of all local jail inmates reported symptoms of major depression. we also have problems -- problems with mental health hardships with our children. according to the american academy of child and adolescent psychiatry, while almost one in five children suffer from a diagnosable disorder, only 25%

of children receive treatments for illnesses such as attention deficit, hyperactivity disorder, eating disorders, depression and substance use disorders. the department of health and human services reports that serious emotional disturbances affect one in every 10 young people at any given time and our general population faces many more problems with mental illness. one in four uninsured adult americans has a mental disorder, substance abuse disorder or both. adults with serious mental illnesses die 25 years sooner than those who do not have mental illness. . almost one in four stays involve mental health and substance abuse disorders. treatment for mental health and substance abuse disorders is effective. recovery rates are comparable to and even surpass the treatments

success rates for any conditions. 85% of people with depression who are treated with a combination of medication and therapy experience substantially reduced symptoms, enhanced quality of life and increased productivity. mr. speaker, i see i have been joined by my colleague and friend, the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the gentlelady from ohio, first of all, for bringing this important special order to the floor of the house tonight and for her continued leadership. allow me to thank, mr. speaker, for his leadership as well in these many issues, because this is a dialogue with our colleagues on an important topic. and so i'd like to begin by just congratulating you for focusing

on the mental health issue and some of our colleagues focused on preventive medicine and our majority whip indicated a message to the american people just what would be occurring. i would like to follow suit and try to walk us through the construct of what we are trying to do here in the united states congress in the light of day, if you will, the tri committee, members of those three committees have marked up their bills starting last week. that markup is continuing. members will have an opportunity to engage in issues that they believe are extremely important. but while i discuss the bill, i think it is important that i point out that this is, in fact, the organizational chart of the republican health care plan. i hope everyone can see it. and so as i discuss it, we see that there is one option, it is the option that the president

and the democratic leadership and members of congress, which we hope will be bipartisan will focus on curing the cancer, if you will, of uninsured people in america. when i say cancer, of course, yeem speaking in the metaphoric manner meaning it is people who cannot have access to health care. on july 25, congresswoman, i'm going to hold a job fair, because houston has the highest unemployment since 19867. and many people believe texas has been immune. and of course, i know some will pick up on that and suggest they told you about the sfluss. we understand the stimulus is -- stimulus. we understand the stimulus is making its way into communities. but various cities are being impacted at various periods of time. we'll have that job fair and we

expect any number of employers to come and we expect to have success. but in the interim, we realize that people are without health insurance. they are part of the 47 million -plus, including those who never had health insurance and those with pre-existing diseases. what is the democratic health insurance plan? it is answering the call who need home care, who have articulated the major disparities in health care. i heard my good friend from texas talk and rise about the native americans. the tri caucus is focusing on the issue of disparities in health care. this past weekend i joined with the organizing for america to work with volunteers as they re calling to explain to constituents just what this

health care package is about, because we are not trying to hide the ball. and so it is about reducing costs, because rising health care costs are crushing governments, businesses, individuals and families and must be brought under control. about guaranteeing choice. every american must have the treem -- freedom to choose their doctor. ensure affordable care for all. and unfortunately, i'm hoping that we are watching the plan that our good friends have so we can realize how important it is to focus on what we're trying to do and it is complex. what we're trying to do in this health care reform is to answer the call that more than eight in 10 of those surveyed, americans, say it's extremely or very important that the legislation make health insurance more affordable. we think that's very important. without reform, the cost of

health care for the average family of four is projected to be to rise to $1,800 every year for years to come. and so our draft legislation has -- and i want us to have the comparison of what we are seeing from our friends on the other side of the aisle. we will have no more co-pays or deductibles for preventable care. we use a term in our community hallejah. you have the cleveland clinic and you have done great work for cleveland clinic. can you imagine those scientists and doctors who have the ability to design a preventive medicine program -- i'm sure they have one. the texas medical center will design a preventive program. dr. jones who heads a minorities population program will be able

to get his way to work on the issue of disparities in health care but work on prevention. no more rate increases for gender or occupation or pre-existing conditions. how many of us have heard the stories of catastrophic bankruptcy, financial col apartmentses because people have had to deal with catastrophic illnesses. group rate of a national pool. if you buy your own plan, oral, vision and hearing plans for your kids. children, as chairwoman barbara lee said, are the most vulnerable. we realize we have to do something. by a great margin, americans endorse enacting health care reform this year. they call it extremely

important. and the idea of not having a health plan is really nightmarish if you will. 68% of all personal bankruptcy are the result of health care expenses and that 75% of those filed by people who had health insurance. given that, it is clear that the existing system of private health insurance companies is no protection against financial ruin. that's why we need a robust financial option. and i refute the arts that are being made that if we have a robust public option then all the people in the private sector will run for this. no they won't. there will be criteria and standards they will meet and standards which we meet. there may be extras that the private insurance has. we wish them well. and they will be judged by the market and their particular members will be subscribing on the basis of their desires and their ability. but i think one thing that we

need to be careful of and we need to find language to ensure is that we know they are writing the bill, we can't allow for corporations to close their doors on the most sick of their employees and throw them, in essence, without their will, without their desire into another plan. that's what we have to protect against. and i believe we'll do so. the public option is going to be a very good plan. but if you're in a corporation and an employee, you should not be thrown unless you desire to go into the public plan. we will protect against that. i think it is important to note that our plan is, again, not one that is throwing money out and around and funding -- flooding the streets by throwing them out on the street. we're not talking about that. we are talking about being fiscally responsible. let me tell you how we're doing that.

and this is important. and the argument is that this is a tax bill and doesn't bring relief to anyone. we know how it will be managed and fully paid for. but we are committed to being responsible with the taxpayers' dollars. we will be working on programs that will prevent waste, fraud and abuse. this will be health care reform with integrity. i ask the american people, lift up the curtains. we have the lights on right now. you can see what is going on as we mark up this bill. we will strengthen medicare and medicaid for suppliers, providers and contractors. no more willie nily rates and no more having no knowledge of how much things cost. there is one proposal that we d disagree with. they will adopt compliance programs for participating in medicare and medicaid and we

quire contractors to carry out orders and review and we will be looking at why are you charging something. paying $1,200 a wheelchair and buy it for $300. let's slash and burn that out. that's what we will be doing. and the american people will understand that. and provide screening and create a pre-enrollment screening program to determine if potential providers have been excluded from other state programs. allow enhanced oversight periods or enrollment moratoriums. and require that only medicare-enrolled physicians can order durable medical equipment or home health services paid for by medicare and a number of other checks we're going to

have. this is not a fool-around type of effort. this is going to be a serious effort. may i share with you a few other thoughts and i'll show you how our plan is going to work. i am likewise very pleased to have been part of the c.b.c. health task force for a number of years, but i want to congratulate the congressional black caucus health task force and donna christensen who is involved in marking up the bill. we have worked for a long time on this issue called disparity. since my colleague was speaking just a few moments ago about native americans and that public system. and you know what? i gee. it hasn't been run by a health care system, but run by the bureau of indian affairs. we need to overhaul that as well. a robust public option doesn't entail the abuses that my good

friend was talking about. let me tell you why the tri caucus includes native americans and what we're going to be doing is ensuring that community health efforts, particularly those that will expand access to care and improve the health and well-being of communities that have been hit the hardest, including native americans, are integrated into health reform. we will be looking to fix the broken native american health system. high rate of diabetes and heart disease, bad nutrition, not good care for children. we are looking at turning all americans on this soil into healthy, healthy individuals. priority idse -- this is what i really like -- prioritize public health promotion in community health centers.

recognizing that the traditional medical home has been the office of the family and other primary care providers, efforts must be undertaken to increase their numbers and must be a part of this process. these words are very important. every measure must apply equitably to american indian tribes and the territories and barriers to federal health programs and the territories must be eliminated. this comes out of the tri-caucus health care reform and we are work ink to make sure we get those elements into our particular health care reform. i want to conclude by suggesting that after you see this health care plan, organizational chart of the republican health care plan and we look forward to maybe something coming on this chart, but i think this is easy to read. this is the path to health care for all. and this is being done by -- i'm

the vice chair of the progressive caucus. so this has been been done by keith ellison of the progressive caucus and i believe this is a straightforward neutral presentation that anyone of whatever viewpoint they have, they can understand how this can be the path to health care for all, every american, employer-based insurance, exactly what you have now, except costs less. no more discrimination for pre-existing disease and at least 85% of premiums must go to patient care. would anybody refute and reject that? i think not. public programs, medicare, medicaid, chip, still available to children, seniors and families below the poverty level. we are going to re-invigorate medicare and ensure that payments are made. then health insurance exchange, individuals, small businesses, subsidized up to 40% of the poverty level, which will

include a public plan and private plan. the good news is that small businesses -- and small businesses can be one person, that wants to go out and follow their dream and want to be inventtive, they want to be creative, they want to do what they desired to do maybe from a child, now they are without health insurance, their families are without health insurance, their mothers, their father, elderly relative is without health insurance, we give them the opportunity. and so i want everyone to set their eyes on this as i come to a close on a very important point and i hope i can encourage you to be interested in this point and that is the issue of physician-owned hospitals and specialty hospitals. . i hope we'll have the opportunity to recognize how important these hospitals are in care. for example, in the state of texas, we find, let me make it clear, the economic impact of

physician-owned hospitals which cover eight states concluded that texas physician-owned hospitals employ over 22,000 texans, have a net economic impact of nearly 2.3 billion in texas and will pay approximately $86 million in taxes in 2009. what are they? many people believe that they are bow teak hospitals. no, they're not. they're hospitals in the valley where people in the valley of texas, we call that south texas, had no hospital. they're a hospital in the heart of downtown houston, in the 18th congressional district, where the hospital was about to close and it serves a population that some are below the poverty line, some are above, it, but it's called st. joe he self's hospital and it was the only hospital that stayed open during hurricane ike. so we want tone sure that public hospitals or physician-owned hospitals have their fair chance. very briefly, the emergence of

physician-owned specialty hospitals have generated significant controversy yet it is unclear whether physician-owned specialty hospitals differ significantly from nonphysician-owned specialty hospitals. the scrutiny on this lacks significant merit. our objective is to support physician-owned specialty hospitals that deliver a significant share of their services to underserved. that could be part of the criteria. currently the houston tricommittee bill contains provisions that effectively eliminate these services. we would like to see a revision of that. and we have, when i say that many of us who represent these hospitals, i had visited them. i visited the one that is in south texas in the state of the -- it's state of the art. people are healthier. emergency rooms work and it works. i do want to conclude and share just a comment and yield to the lady and i -- the gentlelady and i think this is my third one, but i am concluding, i hope the bill will include a review or that we can review this issue of

physician-owned general acute hospitals in underserved areas. they should not be penalized. i would like to make sure that we increase health care professionals. i think that is already in the bill, in underserved communities, especially provide grants to secondary schools and i came across a program in new york where a nurse by the name of jose, i'll just call him jose, is going out to high schools, taking his staff, and doing mock operations and having them dress up in scrubs and getting high school and middle school students exposed to health care professionals. i like that idea. and i'd like to see it supported. provide tax intendtives for the development of community health care centers that are environmentally safe, introduce language to provide employers a tax credit to develop preventative services for all employers and launch a pilot program that seeks to discover proven alternative medicine and also to address the question of abuse of prediction drugs. mr. speaker, and to

congresswoman fudge, let me thank you for the opportunity to share these thoughts and to be here to show the comparison between the work that's being done by the democratic leadership and our caucus and the work that is being done or represented to be done by the critics who are at this point criticizing the plan. let's roll up our sleeves, let's work and let's do what is right for america. a good health care reform package. i yield to the gentlelady. ms. fudge: thank you so much and i found very interesting the charts that you have there and i'm certainly hoping that people at home will see what we are trying to do for them. i mean, certainly i think it's important that they understand that our job is to represent them. and our job is to make sure that we can provide the best plan that is possible and i believe that we are moving in the right direction to do that. i certainly do want to talk a little bit more about small businesses. that has been a real issue in this congress as to what is

going to happen with small employers once we move to a plan such as this. let me just say that i do sit on the education and labor committee and was able to include an amendment, a very important amendment, that will provide small employers, those who have 100 employees or less, tools that can give them the resources and counseling to help them make better health care plan choices once this plan takes effect. we want to keep our small businesses very strong. we know that small businesses represent 99% of all businesses in america and employ more than 53% of our nation's workforce. so we cannot afford to not help our small businesses. i don't know why people continue to say, oh, we're not going to help small businesses. we indeed are. we all understand how important it is. we're going to help them when they have to make the important decisions about affordable health care and coverage for their employees.

i believe that this assistance will greatly reduce the chances of a small business choosing a health care plan that does not serve their interest or that of their employees. i too want to thank the congressional black caucus for their work and dr. don an christensen who has worked so tirelessly on this -- our bill, which is the health equity and accountability act of 2009 which was under her leadership. but what they're talking about is making it easier for people who live in underserved communities to be a part of america and a part of what it means to be a healthy and well-rounded person in this country. we're going to talk about improving workforce diversity, strengthening and coordinating data collection which is so very important -- very, very important. we're going to ensure that there is some accountability and we're going to improve the evaluation and information that comes back to us so that we can say, yes we are doing well or, no, we need to change or we can get better

at this area, so we're going to work very, very hard to improve all health care services it for all americans. and i want to just thank you for spending some time with me. i certainly do believe that if we put together the kind of plan that is on this, on this chart, then we're going to do what the american people want us to do. we know that 72% of all americans today want health care reform. i believe that if we want to do the job that people have sent us here to do, they have -- they have given us a direction, they have said, we want health care reform. and i believe it is incumbent upon to us provide that. ms. jackson lee: will the gentlelady yield for a moment? you have eloquently articulated, i think, what our marching orders should be and i would just like to add an addendum to the vastness of what we're doing. i want to congratulate you for that amendment. with the rising number of seniors who are now reaching the point where good medicine is

keeping them where they can be with their families, this bill is going to be looking at home care. we appreciate the vast network of nursing homents, but we're finding out that that's more efficient, to be able to keep seniors in their homes, giving them good care. i'm experiencing first-hand with a senior mother who is lively at home and enjoys the neighbors, but needs home care. and it's a very important aspect of our work. we're going to do that i love the expression or the emphasis on prevention. why weren't we doing this before? we can then have a generation who have been engaged in preventive medicine, making them healthier, middle aged people are healthier seniors. the other point i think is important is that the returning soldiers that will be coming home, some on active duty, they do have a system of health care, it's called tricare. i'm glad one of our hospitals has been named a hi care site. historically a -- tricare site.

historically a black hospital. we have all of those individuals that will be out and about, whether it's veterans, whether it's through the tricare system or whether they'll be going to a civilian system. that's why health care reform is so important and i yield back to the lady by saying i'm proud to stand by a system that responds to the needs of all americans. ms. fudge: he will met say this as well, as we talk about health care. i do live in a community where we have some of the best health care in the world. but what i also know is it costs three times as much to go to a hospital emergency room as it does to go to your doctor's office. what i envision with this preventive care is that people who now only see a doctor when they are so sick that they have to go to an emergency room will now go to see a physician on a regular basis. they will go and have annual physical exams, they will go and have their mammograms, they will go and have their cancer treatments. they had will go and do that because it will be less

expensive, they'll have the health care to do it. we're going to put money into these community clinics so they can get to these clinics and go on a regular basis. i just believe that if we do this we're going to see a much healthier and happier america, we're going to be able to take care of our seniors, to take care of our children and i think it's going to make a huge difference in where we go as a nation. so i just want to be as supportive as you have been as all of us are in where we're going to take this country with where it goes with health care. with that mr. speaker, i thank you for the opportunity to address you and this body. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.

mr. king: mr. speaker, i ask to be recognized to address the house under a special order for 60 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i appreciate the privilege to be recognized to address you here on the floor of the house and in the aftermath of the previous special order that has discussed primarily the health care and health insurance

issue here in america. i notice continually the expression, health care gets substituted for the expression health insurance and there is a distinction. everybody in america has access to health care, which means everybody in america has health care. everybody in america does not have health insurance. and when we blend our verbiage sometimes it's intentional and sometime it's it's not and i catch myself occasionally using the wrong expression because our debates here blur the two. it's comparable to the situation when people say immigrants. they sometimes mean illegal immigrants and sometimes they mean legal immigrants. sometimes they mean legal and illegal immigrants. well, health care and health insurance have been blended the same way but there are distinctions and we should remember, everybody in this country has access to health care, everybody in this country that needs service will get service. we're talking about how we address those that are uninsured, not those that don't

have access to health care or that do not have health care. i thought it was interesting that jafmente texas put up the poster, the republicans' ideas on health care or health insurance, i've forgotten which that is, and i look back on last week on the gentleman from ohio, mr. ryan, put up a poster that actually had about the same title to it. the gentlelady from texas' poster was blank on republican ideas and the gentleman from ohio's poster was full of question marks on republican ideas but they were both generated by the same people, the democrat majority caucus produced these posters that come here to the floor. well, we're full of all kinds of ideas and i'm happy to talk about those ideas, mr. speaker, and some will say you can't beat something withing in no -- nothing and i would submit you can beat bad ideas with most anything and a really, ready bad idea is socialized medicine, national health care, hillary care, obama care, united kingdom

care, canadian care, european union care, all of that is bad stuff. freedom is good stuff. i'm all about freedom. and these proposals that are coming from the democrat majority are about diminishing our freedom, about taking away our rights, about taking away our responsibilities and in the process of doing so, deinvolving downward the american vitality, the american dream, the american can-do spirit. what kind of american would sit around and ring their hands and say, woe is me, i can't figure out how to take care of myself? did anybody can come to america and walk through the great hall at ellis island thinking, i'm so glad i'm here now in this welfare state where i don't have to worry about taking care of myself? woe is me no longer because the united states of america will take care of me? that kind of people didn't come through ellis island. ellis island is now a tourist

center, the united states of america is a welfare state. now they sneak into the united states thinking, yes, america will take care of me, they think, they have now arrived at the giant a.t.m. of the western hemisphere that will provide for everyone's wants and needs and if they aren't so sure they just have to listen to congress here for a while and somebody over on this side of the aisle as a rule will articulate some other defined want of some people that's not in need but even though it's just a want, not a need, it will be declared to be a right and maybe even a constitutional right. . it's real people that are working and have real jobs and toil away to produce goods and toil away to produce goods and services that have a markettable value and they're being taxed day after day, month after month, tasking into their sweat

of their brow and being told your taxes won't increase, but everybody else's taxes will increase and obama care will be a better deal. but if you like yours, then you don't have to worry because if you like the health care you have, you get to keep it. if you like the health care or the health insurance, i'm not sure which phrase he was actually talking about, if you like it, you get to keep it. the problem is, it's not true. and the president of the united states, however powerful he is, he cannot make that promise with any sense of confidence that he can keep that promise, because it will not be the president that decides whether wal-mart, for example, keeps the health insurance programs that they have in place for their employees. that will be decided by the management of wal-mart, who, a little over a week ago announced they would support a employer-mandate program that requires employers to provide

health insurance for employees. now once they made that decision, it didn't necessarily mean they endorsed the obama plan, because there isn't quite an obama plan, but only concepts. but they said they would endorse an employer-mandate plan. that opens the door for wal-mart to be in a position to make the decision when the public option, the federal government-run health insurance policy would be set up to compete directly against the many hundreds of private insurance policies that we have. and for the president to say if you like your health insurance policy, fine, you get to keep it, you only get to keep it until there is a better alternative. your employer, like wal-mart or any other proud, private sector company that's there that is providing health insurance for a majority of their employees will be making a decision on whether

they want to opt into the public plan or maintain the private plan, but also the newly to be named health insurance czar will be writing new rules forever single health insurance company in america. now, that lays the backdrop for what was said over the last hour and the way we need to be thinking what transpired here in the last hour. however, i have come here to talk about a number of different things. and one of them is that if we remember correctly, speaker pelosi came to this congress and she said she was going to drain the swamp. she was going to drain the swamp of corruption and allege that there was crups. and night after night, a team would come down here for years, i would say two, three or four years and make allegations about certain members of congress,

allegations about the motives of certain members of congress and the culture of corruption was fairly baffling to me. but nancy pelosi pledged she would produce thmost open congress in history. and that there would be legitimate debate and there wouldn't be favorites being played. here's an example of what nancy pelosi said. she said i don't want to have legislation that is used as an engine for people to put on things to do things that we are are not set out to do, which is to turn this economy around. i have the most to prove with this package. the choices we are making are those that will work, that must work. our economy requires it. america's families need it. this is urgent. that's speaker nancy pelosi, january 25, 2009, this year, end of january.

and that was her statement about how we were going to direct the efficiency of the stimulus plan to doing what's good for our economy. the truth is this economy -- we're going to turn this economy around. well, i came down to the floor and put up this very same picture. and this very same picture is of the saltwater harvest mouse. it's a mouse that speaker pelosi has been trying to get special earmarks for for a long time. and she has been resisted on that. i pointed out that in the stimulus package there were $32 million set aside for the salt water harvest mouse. and i came to the floor with the picture of the mouse and the numbers on top and the spokesperson for the speaker and the defenders of the status quo and the defender of the person that was going to come here and clean up this congress, the one

who has now established the draconian congress i believe in history, the one that is the least deliberative body in history, launched an all out assault on deliberative democracy and said she didn't have an earmark in the stimulus bill for this salt wallet marsh harvest mouse. and others said steve king made it up and made an allege that there was an earmark for the mouse. however, now we are far enough down the road, here are the real facts. $32 million has been reduced to $16.1 million and now the mouse has an earmark of $16.1 million and sets his bracish marsh down in san francisco so he can hop around and setting the marsh at the cost near san francisco at

the cost of $16.1 million. madam speaker, there's no economic stimulus plan -- we're going to do the things that count that do the most for the economy? the language here, turn this economy around, we're going to do that by setting aside a hopping zone for a pet project here, saltwater harvest marsh. i needs that ear notched because he is now a $16.1 million earmark, all this, borrowed, expanding the debt to the american taxpayers and to americans not yet born where the debt to every man, woman and child in america today totals up to $37,000 per individual. and still, their hearts are hardened and they want to raise the debt and still spend money

on frivolous projects that don't have a merit that affects the people that are paying the taxes, nor could a project like that ever gain the support of the majority of the people in this congress. this is like the little mouse bridge to no where. $16.1 million for the little pet project, notched little earmark, the saltwater marsh harvest mouse and speaker pelosi said she came here to clean up this process to make sure there weren't favorites. and president obama said he wasn't nt going to sign any bill with any earmarks in it. then president obama made other remarks about the integrity of the process. and yet, we have seen earmark after earmark, billions and billions of dollars that have been unfolded here going on our

debt, stacking it up against the american people. and we have seen a process that has been shut down where we get -- we get surprise bills that get dropped on us. the stimulus package was the last-minute drop on us and we could count not days, but hours in reading and understanding what's in a bill, thinking in terms of 1,000 or more pages with eight or 10 hours to read the bill and then try to analyze all that it means when bills reference other sections of existing code. they reference definitions that exist other places. and then if you get something like that read through, you also have to figure out what's not in it, what's missing, what's been omitted. and furthermore, what are the implications of what is in it and what are the implications of

what's missing. that's why we need the public. there is no one person, in fact all 435 members of this house of representatives do not have among them, even if given enough time the ability to analyze the implications of big pieces of legislation on their own, not without our staff, not without our constituents, not without people that have a direct responsibility for the components of the legislation that affects them the most. good legislation is written by members of congresses that go out among the constituents who are paying real taxes among their income and profits, taking a look at the circumstances of what's right and what's wrong, listening to the proposals that come from them and putting together careful legislation that brings about a right result. and once that's put together you float that out to get the input

from democrats and republicans and it isn't just the input from people who sit in these seats, mr. speaker, it's the input of the american people that talk to the people that sit in these seats that make the difference. when you short-circuit this process, when you take this process and bypass the committee process or do a mock markup, a sham markup in a committee process and pass a bill out and then do a bait and switch and bring a different bill to the floor than passed out of the committee and it has happened at least three times this year, a different bill came to the floor than was passed out of the committee because they didn't like an amendment that passed in the committee, they don't seem to understand that the job of the speaker or the job of the chair of a committee is to bring out the will of the group.

that's the essential responsibility of someone who is the speaker or someone who is the chair of the committee, bring out the will of the group. it's not to impose their will on the group, but to bring out the will of the group. and even when the chair of the committee recognizes that there are good ideas that have come before the committee but maybe it doesn't fit the politics that they have been directed to bring out of the committee and when the amendment comes out of the committee, for example, an amendment that would have blocked all funding to acorn, and changed the language or send a different bill to the floor of the house of representatives and the members here have a right to have full confidence that the bill that comes to the floor reflects the product of the committee. too often it does not. and the window for reading a bill and debate and deliberation

has been so short and on the cap and trade bill, that mr. bilirakis: of 1,100 pages that we had a short time to digest was brought to the floor, filed, scheduled for debate and at 3:09 a.m., there was 316-page amendment that was dropped into the record, 316-page amendment that was dropped into the bill and we with are to debate, deliberate and understand and evaluate with good judgment and due diligence the implications, ramifications and factors that come out of the one of the biggest most important bills in this congress and i believe congress -- the house of representatives made the most biggest mistake ever made in the history of this house. 316 pages at 3:09 a.m. on an

1,100-page bill. no one had a chance to read it, evaluate it. it was a surprise tactic -- actually, it wasn't a surprise. we expect those kinds of tactics. but bad policies results from those kinds of tactics. if you are passing legislation that can't withstand the light of day, it must be clear that it must be bad legislation and the american people will reject it. and to have time to read a bill, i would direct, mr. speaker, your attention and the public's attention to section 108 of the legislative re-organization act of 1970, which reads, in part, a measure or matter reported by any subcommittee shall not be considered in the house unless the report of that committee upon that measure or matter has been available to the members of the house for at least three

calendar days. and that's three calendar days prior to the consideration of that measure or matter in the house of representatives. we have law, mr. speaker. we have a law that requires three calendar days to read a bill. but madam speaker, the saltwater harvest marsh mouse speaker, insists that a bill can come to the floor and it can be a bill that no one has seen and one that is written in the speaker's office and can have an amendment written right behind it just as a surprise tactic and before the public can understand what's going on and actually before they can believe someone would tear us under this deliberative process, it's an act of the house of representatives message over to the senate. . and on the cap and trade bill,

the 1,100 pages sat down here and the 319 pages didn't. when the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, asked was the bill before us, the answer from the speaker's chair, i don't remember exactly, but i remember the response, well we don't quite have it yet but everybody knows what we're talking about. after many exchanges, finally, we suspended the operation for about 35 minutes while we went through this exchange of trying to determine is there really -- what is the subject of our debate? shouldn't the house of representatives have, even if no one else can get their hand on the paperwork or the electronic version, shouldn't the united states house of representatives have at least one copy of the subject? we've got a dictionary over here a big, unabridged dictionary if someone wants to argue about what the english language is, go to the dictionary. but we're arguing about a bill

no one can look it up and read, the amendment was not here, the bill was, the amendment wasn't. later they brought the amendment down and began to integrate it. it takes a long time to integrate 316 pages into 1,100 and get it right and the question was asked, if this bill passes the house and it's not available for inspection to any member of the house, is it possible for us to message that bill over to the senate if it doesn't exist at the time of its passage? well, somehow we did. but it shouldn't be possible. the process has to be right. we should follow the law, we should follow the section of the law that is section 108 of the legislative reorganization act of 1970. that's one law we should follow. we should follow the law of common decency and respect for each other and respect for the process and the founding fathers and for the constitution and do due diligence and not put generational legislation up and

pass it because there was a political momentum, get it done before anybody can see what it is we're actually doing here and do it sometimes in the middle of the night. i would be really happy to yield to the gentlelady from minnesota who i know has been very engaged in these issues and on top of helping to clean up the open doors that are here for the culture of corruption that exists under this leadership of the house of representatives. i yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlelady from minnesota, mrs. bachmann. mrs. bachmann: i thank the gentleman from iowa for this moment to speak about what's happening here in washington, d.c. i don't think anyone has seen anything like what we've seen in recent months. we can trace it back to last fall when the democrat congress could not wait to get past the tarp funding bill. that's together with the former bush administration. they were in a hurry. just like the gentleman from iowa has stated, we're seeing this is a congress that's in a

hurry. in a hurry because they've got an agenda. they're on a steam roller path a blitzkrieg path and they've got to get everything done yesterday. we can't have time to read bills. we can't take time to truly count the cost. we're in a hurry, there's an agenda to be performed. we heard the president of the united states tell the democratic caucus, we can't miss this opportunity for reform, we've got to do it now, we've got to do everything now. that's what we were told last fall. we were told that we would see economic ample ged don if we didn't pass the $700 billion tarp bill. what was that? that was a blank check. it was the trust me defense. just trust the treasury and the secretary. they have to have $700 billion or we will see an absolute collapse of the financial world. so we were all pushed into it, i voted no on that bill, but congress passed the, the

democrat-controlled congress passed a $700 billion bailout for the banking system and also for foreclosure and the subprime mess we're. in where are we at with the subprime mess? we're seeing foreclosures still at a record high. we're seeing unemployment at a record high. did this help us, this $700 billion blank check that went to the secretarier of the treasury? what did that lead to? president obama was all for the tarp bailout when it came when he was senator obama. when he was president-elect obama, he prevailed on the president, he said we can't wait, i am asking you, president bush to release to the automobile task force something like $17 billion so we can bail out g.m. and bail out chrysler. because it's got to be done today. we can't wait until january when i'm sworn in.

it's got to be done today. so president bush gave that $17 billion to the automobile task force at president obama's request and we all know what happened. we saw what happened to chrysler. it essentially collapsed in a shotgun wedding, fiat, a foreign car company, was brought in and forced to purchase and buy out g.m. we saw the bondholders, whose rights were virtually stripped away from chrysler, and we saw the u.a.w. instead jump in front of the bondholders and take advantage of that position and now the federal government and the u.a.w. and fiat own the company. what happened to g.m.? we saw the u.a.w. own this is a company and the federal government now as of the friday before last is the 61% shareholder. what did that get us? 150,000 jobs lost because we saw pink slips go to 3,400 dealers of chrysler and g.m. across the country and 150,000

people, potentially are out of work. well then we had to get the stimulus passed. the largest spending package in the history of our country. $1.1 trillion. think of that. $1.1 trillion. but it had to be done today. we didn't have time to read that bill, oh, no, sir, we can't read that bill because this is too important. president obama told us, we had to pass the bill. the bill was passed by congress, i voted against it, representative king voted against the stimulus bill but president obama had to have that bill. did he sign it? no. he went to chicago, he played basketball, he took four day, and then finally he got around to passing this bill he had to have in his hands because we had to pass this $1.1 trillion stimulus bill. well we didn't get that bill very much ahead of time either. it was a little bit embarrassing because of all the earmark this is a bill contained too. oh, we were told they weren't

earmarks, but there were earmarks nonetheless. all sorts of special projects were in the bill. then we were told we had to pass the budget bill. over $400 billion. 8% increase over the previous budget bill. we couldn't wait, couldn't have delay, couldn't have extra time for debate, we had to pass it now because otherwise bad things might happen. what happened as a result of the stimulus bill? we were told if we didn't pass that stimulus bill we could see 8% unemployment. wouldn't that be terrible. what's unemployment today? 9.5% nationally. in the state of michigan it's 15.2%. what about jobs? what about all the job crease ated? two million jobs have been lost since the stimulus bill was put forward. 150,000 jobs were lost because the government got involved in g.m. and chrysler and handed out pink slips. this isn't going well for us. then cap and trade. cap and tax.

the ultimate authority that government could have over every person's life in the united states. we're literally -- where literally every time we flip on a switch, it will be the government telling us how much we're going to pay to flick on that switch or if we could have the power to do that. cap and trade, the mother of all bills, and we got that bill 13 thundershowers before we passed that bill. 13 hours before. 1 1rks00 pages, don't worry, trust me, trust me, it'll bring good things to this country. what will that give us? we already know. 2.5 million jobs a year will leave the united states. we might as well call it the china-india stimulus plan. because we're going to lose 2.5 million jobs, bibi-- bye-bye, away they go out of the united states. what's the next bill in front of us? an article today in the newspaper said on the health care bill we're looking at,

we've got to -- that by the way we've got to pass. it was revealed last week, here it was 1,000, 1,800 pages long, the next day, the ways and means committee had to vote on it. revealed to the public, the next day, members of congress have to be prepared to vote on a 1,018 page bill. it isn't that members of congress are lazy or too stupid to read the bills, it's the fact that the democrat leadership in this house is unwilling to allow us to read the bills. we had the majority leader, steny hoyer, in probably an accident, admit that a very many members of this -- that if very many members of this body read the bill, people wouldn't vote. here's the quote from mr. moyer, if every member pledged to not vote for the health care

if they hadn't read it in its entirety, there would be very few votes. i agree. that's why the obama administration and the house leadership are steam rolling them through because they know, as was written in the paper today, this is by president obama's council of economics chairwoman, she said this bill will cost employers $300 million and cost workers five million workers jobs. five million workers from health care jobs, 2.5 million from cap and trade, that's every year, though, then two million from the stimulus, 150,000 from g.m. and chrysler, i don't think we're going in the right direction. this is from a president who said that he wouldn't be raising taxes on 95% of the american people.

unfortunately, it appear this is a that promise -- it appears that that promise has already been broken. mr. king: i can't help but reflect the president's earliest promise on the stimulus package was that he would create or ave 3.5 million jobs. that got lowered as far as two million altogether. the instant those words came out of his mouth, i thought, why would somebody say, create or save. what does that mean? what would be the boundaries of a promise that he would create or save 3.5 million. the answer of course is, if you say i will create 3.5 million jobs, you have to identify which jobs it is you created. was it caterpillar who he said actually signed on with him in his stomach liss plan until he went to them and they didn't really say that, that was an assumption on the part of president obama. where are these job, you'd have

to point to them and get a c.e.o. say, because of the stimulus plans, i opened this plan, and here are 20,000 jobs. but if you say create or save -- or save -- jobs. you can always point to existing jobs and claim you have saved them system of in the analysis of rationale if someone is going to create or save 3.5 million jobs, if there are remaining, everybody can be laid off except the last 3.5 million and you can say, well, yeah, that's the ones i saved. i saved the 3.5 million that were left, even though we lost 137.5 million jobs in the process. and he'd still be telling the truth. this is a situation where we have the master of ambiguity. we do have the -- we have the master of mess herization going on at the same -- mesmerizeation going on at the same time. the language is crafted to

appeal to our hearts instead of our heads. when he says he'll create or save 3.5 million jobs, that's mostly on the save side not the create side. we've seen the unemployment go to 9.5%. that number is 14.5 million unemployed. that's the ones on the unemployment roll. then there's another 5.8 million people that don't qualify for unemployment that are looking for a job. it isn't hard to get up in the number of over 20 million and there was an article written just the other day, i believe it was in "national review," i've forgotten the name of the author that did the calculations, it's closer to 25 million people unemployed, especially when you account for those that are undermed -- underemployed, those that have seen their hours redeuced. we have day that that shows that un-- we have data that show this is a unemployment is longer than it's been, i believe it's the longest been

been in 48 years of unemployment and at the same time, it was extended the length of the unemployment benefit we've seen people who are working fewer hours per week system of we have a lot of underemployed that don't qualify yet as unemployed. . this is the experiment of the keynesian of people on steroids, grow government and replace private sector jobs with government jobs and borrow tax dollars and buy goods made in china and borrow money from the chinese to buy them. this doesn't work. you have to produce things that have value and you have to lay out the truth when you do it. i want to go back to this statement i made earlier and just very briefly point out this is section 108 of the

legislative reorganization act of 1970 that says this and without reading that language through, it says three days to read a bill or we aren't going to take it up on the floor. that's the law. that's the law. but apparently the speaker of the house isn't bound by the law. and i hope there was a way to enforce that and i don't know how we enforce such a law. republicans are doing all they can do procedurely. this is a quote from the majority leader that said if every member read the bill, it woubt wouldn't be a bill, because they would come to grips with their senses. many of these were addressed by the gentlelady from minnesota. in the 111th congress, every controversial bill passed by the house has been forced through in less than three days in

violation of this section of the code here in less than three days. every one has violated this section 108 of the code. every one of these controversial bills. and to take you through them. the american recovery and reinvestment act. the stimulus bill. $787 billion. that was rammed through in less than three days. in violation of public law section 108. children's health insurance program, schip rammed through and this violates it in the first place and designed to bring about to close the gap so we end up with a mandatory national health care act. they passed out a bill that was passed at 400% over poverty. people making over $102,000 in

iowa. 70,000 american families are paying the alternative minimum tax even though their children's health insurance is paid for because s chip is designed to pay health insurance on families who can't afford it. the rich man's alternative to minimum tax and they can't provide health insurance for their children. and we rushed the bill through and by the way in there, it opens up the door for medicaid to provide health care for illegals under medicaid. that rule has also changed that. and the data i put up proves to be the fact. lilly ledbetter act. she alleged she was discriminated against and statute of limitations on that bill and on the legislation that

sought to sue her employers under, her statute of limitations had long past and they argued that even the supreme court upheld the statute that they thought it just wasn't fair. the old it ain't fair brothers at it again. i'm all ok with changing the rules after the fact as long as it doesn't affect the people living during the time. this was like double jeopardy for the taxpayers and the lilly ledbetter act rammed through this congress. the pay check fairness act rammed through congress. omnibus appropriations act of 2009, the big stacked bill that runs the government for one year, afraid to do appropriations in a legitimate way, rammed through. no amendments either by the way. then to impose an additional tax on bonuses received from the

a.i.g. bonuses. so we had to ram through tarp and then when the rules weren't written on oversight, a.i.g. paid millions of dollars of bonuses to people who worked for them, in retention bonuses. but they got the bonuses, too, they had to be ram, inc. that through because democrats were july nerble to criticism and rammed the legislation through quickly so there wasn't an opportunity to scrutinize. and the result was hundreds of millions of dollars paid off to pay off retention bonuses to a.i.g. executives. so we had to pass legislation to take the public's pressure off of the people that opened up the door for that legislation. that was that. the supplemental appropriations act of 2009, rammed through.

the american clean energy and security act, which i'm sure -- here wer the cap and tax bill, rammed through. all of these major bills rammed through in violation of public law section 1808, three days to read the bill. that's the law. you know, we have the votes to repeal any piece of legislation that has been passed by any previous congress. we have the votes to do that. you would think -- remember the awe dassity of hope that comes from the white house? you would think you would have that to change the law instead of violate it. that's what i'm seeing here in this congress and it really hurts me to see people do this to our congress and to our system. this is the president's promise. i spoke to it, but i didn't quote it. the president said, we need sunlight before signing bills.

too often bills are rushed through congress and to -- too often bills are rushed through congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. as president, i will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the american public the opportunity to review and comment on the white house website for five days. barack obama. hmmm? sound like anything we have seen him do? mrs. bachmann: does that mean once the bill gets the president, he will allow it to rest on his days for five days and give people a chance to comment. but the public law that the gentleman from iowa displayed, members of congress are supposed to be able to get a chance, too. i think this is wonderful that the president wants the american people to have five days to read

a bill. but it would be wonderful if members of congress could have five days to read a bill before we vote on it. after all, maybe we should took an evelyn woods' speed reading course, because if we have to read 1,100 pages in a bill in 13 hours, we will need those recordings where they are speed up a little bit where they sound like alvin and the chip monks. but members of congress should be able to read the bills. so this doesn't say much. if president obama says that a bill should maybe on his desk for five days. if members of congress aren't given that courtesy, after all, we are the people's representatives, we are sent here to read these bills, talk about these bills between republicans and democrats.

isn't that we're supposed to do? talk about what our ideasr what the ideas are on the other side of the aisler present it and put it on the floor. maybe part of the problem is maybe we are trying to do things a little too fast. that's what it seems like to me. that maybe this congress is trying to rush through too much, too fast, maybe that's why we have a greater deficit than we have ever seen before. we ran out of money in april, back in april, this congress spent all the money that it had in its budget already in april. so every day we have been spending billions and billions and billions every single day that we don't have. now today, it's july, we are already over $1 trillion in deficit. we are going to be nearly $2 trillion in deficit. here is something else i don't understand. the president is supposed to release in mid-july, the budget

update. we have the numbers already. but the president has said he's going to wait until mid-august to release his budget update. this is a little concerning to me, little fishy to me. because we're being told, mr. speaker, that in less than two weeks' time, the president of the united states expects that we will pass legislation that will allow the federal government to take over 17% of the private economy. now there is an economist from arizona state university two weeks ago on the front page of the "new york times" who has said, we now have the federal government for the first time having control or owning 30% of all private business profits in this country, 30% of our private business profits in america are owned or controlled by the federal government today. if president obama and if the

democratic-controlled congress gets its way, that will be an additional 17%. this president has only been in office for six months and 30% of the private business profits are owned or controlled by the federal government. now, by august 1, he wants to make that 47%? i hope we can read these bills first before we are asked to do that. i yield to the the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: as you are talking about that percentage, 30%, the private business profits in the country, who would have believed a year ago or eight or nine months ago, who would have believed that eight huge private sector entities would be nationalized by this administration. we have three large investment banks nationalized by this administration. one large company, a.i.g. insurance nationalized. fanee and fanee, they are wholly owned by the federal government

with 5.5 billion in contingent liabilities wrapped up in fannie mae and familiar -- fam. and then criesly and you have also the canadians that own 12.5% of general motors and the unions. there is not a lot left out there. who would have thought eight huge entities, hundreds of billions of dollars and taking these companies off -- out of the private sector and putting them in the hands of government control. and the president fires the c.e.o. of general motors and hires his guy and the president cleans out the board of directors of general motors and appoints all but two of the board of directors. and the president says i don't have nationalization of general

motors. it is something we just have to do. here's the irony of it. president obama was elected at least in part because he tacked george bush for going into iraq and not having an exit strategy. now president obama has gone in and nationalized these eight huge private sector companies that i have listed here and he says he doesn't want to be nationalizing or be in the day-to-day operations, but names the c.e.o. and replaces the board of directors and car czars is on the phone every day with the chairman of the general motors -- the former car czar. we don't know what the future car czar is going to be. we have 32 czars. he got invested in all of that. he found a crisis, capitalized on it and nationalized. i have read the web wage for the democratic socialists of

america. it's their plan and in print and more aggressive than they are on their own website. the president has nationalized proud private sector corporations and he's done so without an exit strategy all at the same time, being critical of president bush for not having an exit strategy in iraq. president bush's exit strategy is in print, which is the status of forces agreement negotiated by president bush president bush and it was victory with honor and leave a self-governing democracy that could govern themselves and control their own national destiny, all of that is in place today. and president obama is carrying out the exit strategy of george bush to the letter, spelled out in the status of forces agreement without a peep in the media about what's going on over there.

all they talk about is we're deploying out of iraq. we aren't deploying out of iraq cities back to bases because the surge worked. president bush had an exit strategy. he didn't talk about it, because he had to be flexible. he carried out his exit strategy. he handed over an iraq and a war that was won. the war was won on the day that barack obama took the oath of office here just outside these doors and now it needs to be sustained and maintained. afghanistan is a lot harder, but there is an exit strategy in place set by george bush. there is no exit strategy for these eight private companies that have been nationalized by president obama. and when i see the picture of president obama standing next to hugo chavez and ask me what that tells me, i say, you know, the chief nationalizer is our guy, not their guy. our guy has nationalized more

companies and more billions of dollars of privately held assets than chavez has even dreamed of doing. chavez might have added more companies over time, but he has taken only one rice plant and nationalized that in venezuela and seen these eight companies that i have listed. it is a chilling thought to think how fast this nation has merged to the left and lept off the abyss and we have to fly to get back to where we were on the free markets again. i yield to the gentlelady from minnesota. . mrs. bachmann: the gentleman has every reason to be concerned because when the government takes over an area of national life as we have seen, the american people lose choice and lose control over their economic destiny. here's one thing we've been hearing about from the speaker of the house.

she's been talking about how the nationalization of health care will be paid for through prevention, it will keep americans healthier and realize over $500 billion in savings from prevention. where is it? itemize it. what is it we're not doing now that we're going to see occur in prevention. it isn't there. we know where the savings will come from. it will come from the federal bureaucracy. we have a federal bureaucracy contained in the bill the democrats have put forward. this big mess on this chart are 32 new federal government agencies. this is what will stand between any american and their doctor. so think of an american standing on that side of the paper, 32 bureaucracies, you've got to get through this labyrinth, mr. speaker, before you can get to your physician. now is this what americans want? a study was just completed that

showed that 89% of americans today are happy with the health care they receive. another study that was done said 77% of americans are happy with the health care we receive that doesn't mean our health care system is perfect. it isn't. one of the greatest things we could do is make all americans medical expenses deductible on their insurance. that would be something great we could do for the american people. the biggest problem in health care today is not access, it's the cost. health care premiums are going through the roof. what can we do? we could change the tax code and we could allow americans to purchase their health care the same way they purchase their car insurance. cross state line, buy in pools, bring down the price and have true competition and allow small clinics, like the minute clinics in minnesota be set up across the united states and have health savings accounts so

you control your own cost and take it with you. the government doesn't own your health care, you do but mr. speaker, this is the plan president obama wants for the american people. a great labyrinth of bureaucracy. how are you ever going to get your health care if you've got to go through this bureaucracy? one thing we know about bureaucracies, they justify their own existences and they all make a lot of money. the average federal employee today makes about $75,000 a year plus benefits. there's a lot of people out there that would love to make $75,000 a year. we're creating 32 new bureaucratic agencies. this is nonsense. this is about a government-created welfare bureaucracy. that's what this is about. it's not about ensure -- insuring more americans. even under the democrats' own forecast, not all americans will be covered. potentially up to 1/3 of the --

about half of the people that are uninsured now can afford to pay for that insurance. of the other half that can't afford, we have a good amount that are people under 35, who are in very temporary situations, about a third of those people are illegal aliens. truly only between 12 billion and 16 billion people aren't insured. that out of 305 million. surely we can find an answer for them. why wreck the health care that 89% of american says they like so we can give government control over 17% of the american economy? why do we want to do this? this is poth because ma's vision for american health care. it's not what americans want. there's no savings to be extracted out of prevention. not to the level they're talking about. we need to get real about health care and that's why the

american people need to melt the phone lines of their member of congress and let them know what they think about this plan before it's too late. i yield back to the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: i thank the gentlelady for minnesota. having seen the techny color, modern version of the national health care act delivered to us courtesy of a committee or two here in the house of representatives, i went back through the archives and dusted off this scary concept here. some will look at this and recognize what this is. this is the 1993-1994 hillary care version. this is a copy of the poster that is the precursor to the full-color one merchandise bachmann put up. -- full-color one mrs. bachmann put up. this was the one on the wall in my construction office for years, it hung there for years as a reminder to me of what they could cook up if you put

people in a room and closed the door. it was a secret process too. it's a process they don't want the american people to weigh in on. they met in secret week after week, with all this intensity, these people were meeting in there smart people, put smart people in a room, i can tell you what happens when you put a whole lot of smart people together and give them an assignment, mr. speaker. highly intelligent people will always overcomplicate things. the reason they do that is otherwise there wouldn't be any particular advantage to being highly intelligent. you could go down to the simple solutions of complex problems and let human nature take over and it would be fine. but we put highly intelligent people in place, they are generally liberal elitist, they think this is the be-all and end-all -- for them, not for us.

here's the hillary care version. there are some things that concern me a lot. regional health alliance, the ombudsman, why do you need him? the accountability health plan that sounds familiar. i think that might be a different lingo there the h.m.o. provider plan. i don't know that that's in there. h.m.o.'s were de rigueur then, but now they have reached criticism. here's one, the global budget. why do you need the global fwounlt provide national health care? then, of course -- so of all of these things, this schematic, this scheme-atic, the flow chart, the american people looked at that and it scared them that anyone could cook up such a schematic thises the black and white version that could be printed back then about just shortly after the advent of the internet. mrs. bachmann has the full techny color version, i'd

appreciate -- technicolor version, i'd appreciate it if the camera could turn there. i just inquired as to how much time is remaining? spripe the gentleman has two minutes. mr. king: if the camera could focus on the color chart, on the bottom are two identical-sized purple circles. the one on the left is the qualified health benefits plan. and on the right is the obama plan. the obama health insurance plan. the white box to the left of the left purple circle is the existing health insurance the traditional health insurance plans. none of them could qualify to sell insurance to any american until the health insurance czar qualifies them to go into the purple circle, the qualified health benefits plan circle. the health insurance czar would be the guy who would make sure the new public health plan could compete with the private

plans. if you're going to write the rules for your guy, are you going to make one size fits all? are you going to put conditions on the private insurance plans so the public plan can compete? or take the public plan and try to get it to compete with the private sector. i think it's the former not the latter. i think we'll see a one size fits all. mrs. bachmann: if the gentleman would yield, that was the aspect of the hillary plan, it was an outlawing of private plans. one thing we know is no more private insurance policies can be written. you can't write more private insurance. if the public option is subsidized by government, 30% to 40% less than the private insurance plans, what we know from the lieu eling group is that 113 million americans will be collapsed out of private insurance, put into the government option, collapsing

the private insurance industry and it will all be government. that's how in five years we'll send see the end of private care and the public. mr. king: mr. speaker, i appreciate your indulgence and i know i've convinced you deeply and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. does the gentleman have a motion. mr. king: i move that the house do now sgradjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 10:30 a.m. adjourned until 10:30 a.m. tomorrow.

>> and after that, today's news conference with defense secretary robert gates and joint chiefs chairman admiral mike mullen. >> how is c-span funded? >> maybe donations. >> some kind of sponsorship? >> taxpayer funded? >> through philanthropy. >> fundraising. >> government maybe? partly? >> how is c-span funded?

30 years ago america's cable companies created c-span as a public service. a private business initiative. no government mandate, no government money. >> now here's president obama on health care legislation. this happened after a meeting with health care providers at children's national medical center in washington, d.c. it's about 10 minutes. >> i gist first of all want to thank the children's hospital for hosting us today, and i want to thank the participants, joseph wright, brian jacobs, uwande johnson, michael knapp, and cath league quigley. i just had the opportunity to talk to doctors, nurses, fish's assistants and administrators at this institution. we spoke about some of the

strains on our health care system and some of 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. we spoke about the growing number of americans who are uninsured and underinsured. we spoke about what is wrong with a system where women can't always afford maternity care and parents can't afford check ups for their kids and end up seeking treatment in emergency rooms like the one here at children's. we spoke about the fact that it is very hard even for families who have insurance to access primary care physicians and pediatricians in a city like washington, d.c. you have got all the doctors in one half of the city, very few doctors in the other half of the city. and part of that has to do with the manner in which reimbursement is taking place

and disinventives for doctors, nurses and physician's assistants in caring for those most in need. and we spoke about where we are headed if we once again delay and defer health insurance reform. these health care professionals are doing heroic work each and every day to save the lives of america's children. but they are being forced to fight through a system that works better for drug companies and insurance companies than for the american people that all these wonderful health professionals entered their profession to serve. .

in a relatively short span of time which is putting enormous strains on the system as a whole. that's the status quo, and it's only going to get worse. if we do nothing, then families will spend mores' more of their income for less and less care. the number of people would lose their insurance because they have lost or changed jobs will continue to grow. more children will be denied coverage on account of asthma or

heart conditions. jobs will be lost, takehome pay will be lowers businesses will shutter and we waste hundreds of millions of dollars on insurance company boondoggles that add to our burdens without making us healthier. so the need for reform is urgent and it's indisputable. no one denies we're on an unsustainable path. we all know there are mow efficient ways of doing it. i just spoke to the chief information officer here at the hospital, and he talked about some wonderful ways in which we can potentially gather up electronic medical records and information for every child, not just that comes to this hospital but in the entire region, and how much money could be saved, and how the health of these kids could be improved. but it requires an investment. now, there's some in this town

who are content to perpetuate the status quo. or in fact fighting reform on behalf of powerful special interests. there are others who recognize the problem but believe, or perhaps hope, that we can put off the hard work of insurance reform for another day. another year, another decade. just the other day, one republican senator said -- and i'm quoting him now -- if we're able to stop obama on this, it will be his waterloo. it will break him. think about that. this isn't about me. this isn't about politics. this is about a health care system that is breaking america's families, breaks america busy businesses and economy, and we can't afford the policy of delay and defeat when it comes to health care. not at this time.

not now. there are too many lives and livelihoods at stake, too many families who will be crushed if insurance premiums continue to rise three times asaphia as -- as fast as wages. too many companies will have to scale back coverage or drop coverage unless we get costs under control. the reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings, and inefficiency to our health care system, and greater stability and security to america's families and businesses. for the average american it will mean lower cost, more omnibuses and coverage you can count on. it will save you and your family money. you won't have to worry about being priced out of the market. you won't have to worry about one illness leaving your family in ruin. you don't have to worry you won't be able to afford treatment for a child who gets

sybil. we and can we must make all these reforms and we can do it in a way that does not add to our deficits over the next decade. i have said this before. let 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. that's how we can ensure that health carry reforms strengthen our nation's fiscal health at the same time. now, we always knew that passing health care reform wouldn't be easy, we always knew that doing what is right would be hard. there's just a tendency towards inertia in this town. i understand that as well as anybody. but we're a country that chooses the harder right over the easier wrong. that's what we have to do this time. we have to do that once more. so let's fight our way through the politics for the moment.

let's pass reform by the end of this year. let's 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 don't have an overcrowded emergency room that's putting enormous burdens on this excellent institution. i think we can accomplish that. we're going to have to do some work over the next few weeks and the next few months. thank you very much everybody. [applause] >> more about health care legislation now from republican national committee chairman michael steele. he was at the national press club for an hour. >> here's my favorite part.

good morning everyone. welcome to the national press club. my name is donna. i'm a reporter with usa today, and i'm president of the national press club. we're the world's leading professional organization for journalists and we're complete committed could a future of journalism, and fostering a free press. for more information about the press club, please visit our web site at www.press.org. on half of our 3,500 members worldwide i would like to welcome our speaker and guest and the audience. i would like to welcome those who are watches us on c-span. i will ask as many questions from the audience as time permits. please hold your applause during the speech so we have as time for as men questions as possible. four our graft -- broadcast audience, if you hear applause

it may be from the guests and general public and not necessarily from the working press. our guest today took a twisting path to politics. michael steele was class president and a member of the fencing team, but nearly was expelled when his social life eclipsed his studies. he went to georgetown university. a corporate finance attorney by profession, he founded his own company, the steele group, a business and legal consulting firm. formerly lieutenant governor of the blue state of maryland, the mounted a strong challenge for the u.s. senate seat in 2006, losing out to ben carter in january he was elected chairman of the republican national committee in a battle that went

six rounds of balloting. he is the first prime minister prom -- african-american to hold that post. today, he has the stage to himself to talk about the republican alternative to the democratic plans of president barack obama and the party's congressional leadership regarding the critical subject of health care reform. raising the stakes of this debate, president obama has promised a health care bill by the end of the year. the nonpartisan congressional budget office says it does not reduce the costs. this wednesday the president will be holding a primetime news conference to try to take command of the health care agenda following criticism of his input or lack of it from democrats on capitol hill.

mr. steele has the chance to put forward an al turn tonight to what the democrats are offering. please join me in mcing mr. steele to the national mess club. >> it's a pleasure to be here. i appreciate the national press club offering this opportunity to address one of the most fundamentally important issues in generations our country has to face. president obama is a good man and cares deeply about this country, but he is determined, with an unprecedented single mindedness, to transform it into something none of us would recognize. candidate obama promised change. president obama is conducting an experiment, a dangerous experiment with our health care, with the quality of our lives. he is conducting a reckless experiment with our economy and conducting an unnecessary

experiment with our tax dollars, experiments that will transform the way of life of our country and its citizens. the president is rushing this experiment through congress so fast, so soon, that we haven't had a moment to think if it would work, or worse, to think about the consequence0s to our nation, our economies and our families if it doesn't work. the president obama experiment with america is a risk our country can't afford. it's too much, too fast, too soon. surveys show a solid majority of americans are concerned if president obama has no strategy to reduce the deficit. perhaps that is because president obama's strategy is to increase the deficit. in only his first six months this hit budget sought to take on nearly as much debt as we have taken upon ourselves in the entire history of our country. the deficit for this user alone will be the hest in u.s. history, nearly five times as

much as just two years ago. his economic experiments have left us all with a staggering bill and the experiments are not working. so far his experiments in that economic laboratory called congress have simply failed or blown up. president obama told us that a stimulus package could keep unemployment under 8%. it's now at 9.5%. and now he tells us that unemployment will go, well to 10% anyway. that experiment cost us 787 bill. to try to understand the enormty of that number, consider this. the interest alone costs us nearly $100 million every day. president obama has committed to borrowing trillions from foreign creditors. in return they get the lion's share of our nation's future

economic output in short our children will be working to build productive capacity and improve standards of living but not here in america but for our foreign creditors. let me quantify that a bit. in a typical year the total profits for american business amount to 6-7% of gdp. president obama acknowledges our debt will increase 100% of gdp in the next decade. that means even assuming benign interest rates, which is no safe assumption well off the inflationary policies the president pursued, 5-6% of our gdp will pay interest on the federal debt. capital roughly equal to all the business profits profits in the, capital that enabled to us improve or standard of living will go to our creditors, largely china and opec.

to expand their economies and improper their standard of living. mr. president, you're putting your party's entire big government wish list on america's credit card. but that card comes with a bill. it is more debt our children will have to pay because this reckless administration has an unrestrainable urge to splurge. when reb reb -- president obama faced a credit crisis, whatever the problem was, he responded by spending, spending, and more spending. and now our president is proposing more debt, more risk, more experimentation. his next big ticket item is a risky, mull by time dollar experiment with our health care, including a government-run health care plan. it not only risks our economy, it risks every american's health, too.

he says he wants to reduce costs. republicans agree. health care costs are way too much. health insurance premiums have risen three times faster than wages. health insurance is costing families and businesses too much and certainly we have to fix that. but here's my question. how come the democrat plan to save money will cost us more money? how come their plan to reduce health care costs will cost it trillions more in tax dollars. democrats boggs their plans cost only about $1 trillion. now, you need to consider the absurd diof that idea. that is a misreading of the data. the nonpartisan congressional office, cbo, projects to which they refer for the next ten years, but the democrat aren't plans are only fully immigrant policemenned towards the end of the window. once this plan is fully

implemented it will cost hundreds of billions of dollars each year. in the case of the house bill, $202 billion in 2019 alone. and note i said best guess. the thousand-plus page house pill was not released until less than 48 hours before markup, and the cbo had not completed its revenue analysis. for example, cbo stated, quote, we have not yet estimated the administrative costs to the federal government of implementing the specified policies. end quote. in other words, the staggering costs estimated by cbo does not even include one of the biggest expenses in the bill. only washington could make saving money more expensive. it doesn't matter if your insurance charges you more through the front door in higher premiums or whether president obama charges you more in higher taxes. it's the same thing. under the obama-pelosi plan,

costs are going up. and you, the american people, are going to pay. let's just use common sense here. when was the last time washington ever made anything cheaper? or cost less? if you're a small business owner you will see a tax hike on 0 your income, your payroll and your investments, all of which won't help you grow and create more jobs. if you are a senior, you face $400 billion in medicaid and medicare cuts. if you're working you face $600 billion in new taxes, and they're just getting started, folks. some democrats are complaining they're not raising taxes enough. if you're getting health coverage at work they want to tax your health insurance. but they're not finished. if you're thirsty, they're considering a 10% tax on a can of soda, and if you need a stronger drink, after hearing that bad news, i have more bad news for you. they're thinking about raising

the alcohol tax, too. in addition, they're considering a new tax on employers equal to 3% of payroll, also under consideration is a value added tax, national sales tax up to 1-1/2% or more. now, foolish me. all this time didn't know raising taxes on something actually made it cost less. that's like those commercials you can eat all the cake you want and still lose weight. who knew. a good doctor, though, make as thorough diagnosis and prescribes a remedy that it target it what ails the patient. if you come in with a sore knee. he doesn't do triple bypass surgery. and for thousands of years physicians pledged to adhere to one principle, first do no harm. we should approach health care reform in the same way. we must specifically target

reforms at what ails our system. do no harm to what is right about it. in fact, much about our health care system is in vary -- very good shape and we should make sure they're strengthened, not eliminated. 260 million americans currently health health care coverage. the great majority through private insurance, and pulses consistently show they are pleased with their current coverage. second, american is home though highest quality and most innovative health care in the world. you don't have to take my word for it. ask the canadaans at the mayo clinic or the british at mass general, or ask the committee thattards the nobel prize for medicine. they the honored researchers have been americans. so what is the diagnosis? the problem for which we must provide a remedy? in a word, costs.

we spend a huge amount of health care, over 15% of our gdp. the next highest industrialized nations spend 10%. for that amount we have similar health care outcomes. our uninsured are a symptom of the cost problem, problem senator daniel patrick moynihan characterized health care cost diseasements for certain some of-under uninsured have the means to purchase health insurance but unwisely choose not to in the hopes that, well, they'll stay healthy and save money. others qualify for government assistance but do not receive it. for most of the uninsured, the problem is easy to diagnosis. they just can't afford the insurance. yet president obama's response is to make health care insurance even more expensive. let me throw at statistic at

you, one that remarkably received little or no coverage from the media. according to the latest cbo estimates, under the house 0 democrat version of the health plan, after it's implemented, the cost of insuring each additional individual would be nearly $30,000. an amount far greater than the average annual cost of insuring an entire family. in fact, according to the henry j kaiser foundation, the average cost of an employer health plan for a family of four is about $12,800. what is more, to add insult to injury, every version of the democrat health plan, even after spending trims of dollars, will leave millions still uninsured. the democrat plan does not contain costs, it shifts them to the taxpayer, to our children, and to future generations that have to cope with this crushing debt. by implements huge premium subsidies and establishing a

government controlled health care plan in fact, the president's plan prescribes short-term pain relief instead of trying to fix the source of the pain. if he was doctor that would be malpractice, and his plan is likely to be worse than the plans most americans have now. don't believe me? then believe president obama. on his abc health care town hall he refused to pledge he would limit his family to getting the same cures and treatments his public plan would give the rest of us. now, if the president doesn't have faith in his plan for his own family, how can we trust his plan for ours? the american health care system should not be more like the european health care system, where patients who are over 7 or -- 70, your too old for cancer screening or sick sic -- sick people have to wait in line for tests. no the. the president tells he want is

it as another choice to compete with health care insurance you have now. he said you won't be forced to join, but his plan does exactly the opposite. in fact, the president's proposal creates yet another government czar. what are we up to now, 20? who will push government health care while dictating to your insurance company the health care services you should receive. now, we all remember hari -- harry and louise. this your they replace bid another couple, harry reid and nancy pelosi. they're not doctors but are just trying to play one on capitol hill, by insisting on a big government takeover. say you have job in a grocery

business or office store or hardware story. imagine if the u.s. government knocked on your door and said, we're opening up a business right across the street, and it will be a government-run store. we came her to compete with you. and we're going have to lower prices a little bit cheaper than yours because we're the government, and quite frankly we don't have to pay our bills. we just leave them for your children to pay later on. how do you think your store will survive? how long do you think you will stay in business? how long would you have your job? when big government competes, one congressman said, it's like an alligator competing for a chicken, and the health care you have now is the chicken. the democrats' plan could lead to 119 million americans being dumped out of their private

coverage into a cheaper government-run health care program. that's why they're posting members of congress to vote on legislation to reshape the economy in a fundamental way before a single member of congress has even read the bill. i don't know how you read, let alone understand over 1,000 pages of legislative text in few hours. the democrats are determined to shove this bill through without permitting any meaningful scrutiny. that's why they're cutting republicans oft of the press. they have no intense of having a bipartisan bill. they have. the president has arranged for some nice photo ops but that is it. in 1949 when hillary clinton tried to cram a health care plan down our throat. one senator stated he would not vote for a bill that did not have republican support. i'm waiting for a democrat. any democrat, could show that

sort of courage today, and don't through up the blue dogs at me. the press have been pelosi's most reliable voting bloc. the very first major health care reform bill introduced this year was written by senator ron widen, not just a democrat but a pretty liberal one but his bill had some good ideas and has drawn as many republican co-0 sponsors as democrats. republican support health care reform that addresses the biggest problem in our system, runaway costs. we don't need to spend more money on health care. we're spend far more than the industrialized world. what we need to do is spend it better, starting by reforming a third, party payment system that proposed waste, limits choice

and misallocates resource. we want the 2 # 0 million americans who have -- 2 -- we want people to choose their own doctors and make their own choices. we want to focus on health outcomes, keeping people healthy through preventive care and promoting good fitness and nutrition. under the obama plan the vast majority of americans will pay more to get less. we will spend trillions more, trillions, and the 260 million americans who now have insurance will have fewer options and worse care. and we still won't cover all of the uninsured. this is one-sixth of our economy we're talking about. of we screw this up it could last a generation, and congress is trying to do this in the next two weeks? they want to get a bill done in the next two weeks? this is -- this reckless approach is ill conceived

attempt to push through an experiment and all of us should be scared to death. so slow down, mr. president. we can't afford to get health care wrong. your experiment propose -- proposes too much, too soon, too fast. your experiment with our health care could change everything we like about our health care. and our economy as well. so it's time to stop the experiment with our economy and with our health care and our future, mr. president. if u you will only slow down long enough to see a better way. republicans stand with a agreeing number of americans sporting the patient centered health care reform movement. it offers the best way to reduce health care costs bottom-up with patients and doctors in control, not the government.

the old system the democrats propose prescribes the treatments and cures your dock can prescribe for you. republicans have a completely different vision of how to make it affordable. they support simple, common sense fixes without the big washington experiment. obama, pelosi want to start building a huge closed health care system where washington decides. republicans want and support an open health care system where patients and doctors make the decisions. so, mr. president, let's talk about some common sense reforms that the american people and their doctors can trust. let's have doctors and hospitals post pricing and outcomes. in this day and age, why aren't the costs of all tests, treatments, procedures and office visits as well as effectiveness of treatment posted openly on the internet?

that will bring down costs. and how about if we make health insurance companies compete with each other with simple, understandable contracts and minimal benefit packages so insurance is simpler, cheaper and fairer, just like many banks are doing with car or home loans. and why not put in place a simple one-page reimbursement form. that will bring down costs. and let's protect doctors from frivolous expensive lawsuits so they can work together with other doctors and patients in their communities to reduce unnecessary and expensive tests, procedures and costs. i appreciate the president's very brief flirting with tort reform. we like to welcome you back to that tort reform table, mr. president because that will certainly bring down costs. so we change the law so you can take your insurance with you

when you change jobs. that will bring down costs. and we cut out the washington health care middleman. that will bring down costs. let's support new paperless computer age health care i.t. systems to reduce the cost of health tear management. that will really bring down costs. and let's make sure every american has the equal opportunity to get the best value and buy the cheapest insurance no matter where they live or who they work for. let's change the law so any american can buy the lowest cost insurance available nationwide, not just in their states, whether from insurance companies, businesses, church groups, or groups like aarp. guess what. that will bring down cost, too. don't you agree that companies like target are best suited to

bring down costs than any politician in washington? let's use consumer buying power, not washington price controls to bring the costs down. let's support a bipartisan idea, effective prevention. wellness. and disease management programs. they will improve our health, too, and that will also bring down costs. let's support incentives for companies to development treatments and cures because that's smarter than paying foron chronic, long-term illnesses. that will bring down costs. every american should get a tax credit for their health insurance premiums. certainly that will bring down costs. further, under current law, economyees not -- employees not cold by health care plan cannot deduct the cost of insurance premiums.

incredibly, rather than remedying that injustice the democrats make it illegal for anyone to purchase a new individual plan. we believe in bottom-up health care savings for the middle class and the working poor. and here's another idea. how about we give small businesses the same cost saving break big businesses get by forming small business coops. that will bring down costs. let's support tough penalties against anybody who rips off the health care system, whether its an insurance company physician, units cal physicians or patients or government penpushers. that will bring down cost, too. and no lifetime health care benefits and insurance for congressmen who leave their jobs unless and until everyone else in the country gets to share in the same benefit. that's the right thing to do and it brings down costs. i know, president obama has some tough challenges.

i get that. we understand that. and the president tells us he doesn't want to spend more than we have. he doesn't want the deficit to go up. he doesn't want to live off borrowed money but he said he didn't want to run an auto industry. the president has insisted at every step of the way his health plan will not add to the deficit, but just last friday, the cbo concluded that their plan will add $239 billion to the deficit by 2019. and hundreds of billions of dollars thereafter. that means, according to cbo, not michael steele. the obama-pelosi plan does not do either of the two things the president swore they would do, contain cost, and not add to the deficit. president obama justifies the spending by saying the devil made him do it. he doesn't want to spent trillions we can't afford but he says he just can't help it. even though he says he believes in less spending he says he has

no choice but to spend even more. even though washington is on fire with spending, he said he is compelled to conduct this experiment with reckless spending and pour more gasoline on an already growing fire. mr. president. the time to stand by your principles isn't just when it's easy. you need to stand by your principle when its not easy. the time your character is tested is when doing the right thing is tough. mr. president in your press conference on wednesday night, i challenge you to be honest with us. tell us the truth. don't tell us it's going to cost less when it's going to cost us more. don't insult our intelligence by telling us washington has to spend more money to spend less or save more. and i challenge the american people, whenup see the president's press conference on

wednesday night, tell the president and the congress exactly how you feel. if you think his experiment with our health care is too much, too fast, too soon, pick upper -- up your phone and call the white house, let them know what you think and how you feel. you are important actors in this process. you should not sit on the sidelines and just wait for what happens to you. in short, yes you can. show washington who is really in control of america's health care. in america, we don't allow one man to roll the dice with our entire nation. we do not allow one political lead tore risk our health care system and our entire economy. we do not allow one political group to gamble with the fate of generations. we have never allowed one political party to experiment with the future of tower -- of

our country, that is until now. it's time to end this experiment with our economy and health care system. this type of experimentation is not what america vote it for and it's time to put this experiment on the shelf. today the republican national committee is informing americans' the risky experiment. we're taking our message directly to you, the voters, through grassroots mobilization, through our web site, www.president barack obama experiment.com, and through advertising such as the tv ads we are launching today so that you, average joe and jane, understand what is at stake and what this administration is about to do to you and your family and your community. we want you mobilized, and we're going to mobilize voters to oppose further experiment on the

economy. voters may want health care reform, however they don't want this kind of reform. today, we're faced with loot of challenges. we're stymied with increased costs, and burdens that some can't bear. many democrats outside of the obama-pelosi-reid cabl know that americans woken start for this. that's why republicans would do every humanly possible to remind voters about the risky experimentation going on in washington and what we all must do to keep members of the house and senate out of the laboratory. this is a time of great economic uncertainty. this is a moment when the very structure of the global economy which depends on our economic might is below challenged. we will get through this storm but then we have to compete and

win in a new global economy that is growing to grow dramatically in size and complexity. who is going to get all that prosperity, america? and who is going to have the entire work force with baser payingcheck friday who is going own the future. the coming era of promising the most economic and technological going to their world has known. who is going to lead a world where health care is transformed and people live longer and healthier lives, building upon the most valuable resources on the planet whoirks going 0 settle a new global front tier of peace, prosperity and progress? i say we are. we, the american people. and i'm telling you there isn't anything before us we can't

achieve, any challenge we can't overcome. so be optimistic. the tints before you dwarf the opportunities our parents had. there are new miracles of science to be found, and americans will find them. there are new economic front tiers to be settled, and, yes, americans will compete and win them. the greatest time to be an american is before us. all of us here today have a great and noble purpose. as our country calls upon us to rise to this critical moment and keep america the greatest and healthiest country in the world. thank you. and god bless america. >> okay. we will good to some questions. feel free to pass them up here. mr. steele, is it morally acceptable for 30 to 40,000

americans to be without health insurance. >> i don't know if that a consideration for politicians versus a pastor. it's important and imperative that the politicians get it right. it is morally wrong to saddle future generations with a burden, a debt burden they knock pay. it is morally wrong to stake a claim on the future in which the government controls your individuality, the choices you make, and how you lead your lives. so, i think that this question is a very important one, with respect to the 30 or so million people who do not have health care. we as a make have committed ourselves to doing everything possible to help them. but we have to do it in such a way we don't hurt others along the way. and this opportunity to fix, if you will, the system to bring

those 30 to 40 million people into full insurance, is a great opportunity we can't miss, nor mess up. and our concern is that in a rush to try to get it done, we're losing greater opportunities to secure that future so that in five, ten or so years we're not facing something more catastrophic than just 30 million people without insurance. we're talking potentially upwards of 19 million people being kicked off the insurance they now have and that's a moral consideration as well. >> why didn't the republicans, when they held both houses and the white house, do something substantial to address the health care issue? >> i think that, you know there were efforts along the way, certainly. there was the medicare part d passage that the republicans did get through. there's always been a debate about that particular piece of

legislation. i think the other reality is, you know, the will to do it. and the pressures that have been mounting over the last few years have just grown so great, and the will there is now for the people to be involved in this as well as others. i think there's been just a general lack of focus on this issue by many in both parties. i have always believed if you're going to do health care, you have to do it right. you can't just do it partially. you can't have a conversation with just trial lawyers and insurance companies. you have to include patients and doctors. you have to include the pharmaceutical companies. you have to include everyone who is touched by the issue. and in the past that has not been the way we have approached it. it's always been piecemeal. from both republicans and democrats. i think i applaud the president

with the destrudo this. my concern is the rush to do it. too fast, too much, too soon. we're not going to get this done effectively and well in the next ten days. i don't think anyone in this room believes that. and i know that people out there in america don't believe it. what will the bill look like? what kind of health care do you get for something that is done in ten days? when it took a year and a half for them to put the medicare system in place in the 1960s. a year and a half to put medicare in place. so we're going to revamp the entire nation's health care system, one-sixth of our economy in ten days. in ten days. amazing. so i think we all need to stop and get serious about what we're confronting here and stop playing a game of russian roulette with the livelihood and businesses and health care of our community. >> wasn't this all lit gathered

-- litigated in the last election and your side lost? >> well, i don't know -- i don't know who got sued, but in the last election. we lost the last election so that means we shut up? i get it. we lose an election, therefore we just now sit back and let whatever happens happen as? really. you're saying that's a serious question. someone asked that question. last time i check i was an american citizen. i didn't stop being a concerned american because i lost the election. all right? so i think the question is a little little bit silly. think it's important for all americans -- i know a lot of democrats who won last year are right now sitting there going, what the heck is this? is this the change i voted for? a lot of democrats are walking out on this legislation. a lot of democrats who won last year who are scratching their haven'ts and going, this isn't the bargain i bargained for?

are they americans? i think they are and these why their concerned. so, for those who lost we're not giving up our right to be concerned about our country, and its prospects and history and health care. >> when will the republicans propose the alternative legislation they say they have been drafting since may? >> there has been any numbers of efforts by members of the house and the senate to put within the president's bill effective changes or accommodations to the totality of this process. now, you know, republicans can get up tomorrow and introduce its own bill but you and i know how washington works. the bill that matters is the one that the leadership puts in place. the democrats have the

leadership. it's tough too do when you have been locked out of the process and when your staff is not includes in the drafting, when the leadership is not included in the discussion, and then you're given a bill at the 11th hour to say, go vote on this this afternoon. that's not a bipartisan process. the republicans have, as i mentioned, been working with democrats from the beginning of the year to put in place and craft comprehensive bipartisan health care reform. and they have been set asite and called the party of no we're the part of say no to expanse of government no to an increase in taxes and spending. that's the no we're concerned about. we want to work with this president. we want to be at the table. we want to work with nancy and

harry. but they're making it awful difficult. when they don't even include members of the leadership and staff in the process. >> do republicans support mccain's plan to finance tax credits to help the uninsured? >> that's something the republicans in the house and senate are going to work through. there are different points of view on that particular issue. i stated very clearly in my comments that the idea of taxing health insurance premiums to me is not the way to go i just don't think taxes work in this economy. i just don't think that is how you're going to solve this particular problem. but the republican leadership in the house and senate will work through with senator mccain and others what is an

appropriate form to take and we'll see where they come out. >> do republicans support an individual requirement to get coverage? >> what do you mean by an individual requirement? >> to require people to get health coverage. >> do we support requiring individuals to get coverage? that's one of those areas where there's a different opinions by some in the house and the senate on this. and look, i don't do policy. i'm not a legislator. my point in coming here today was to begin to set a tone and a theme, and an approach to addressing this issue that is centered bottom-up centered on people struggling with this issue every day. my hope is that people will come together and recognize exactly what the american people need and want, because they're

telling them. trust me, this white house is polling just like the dnc and rnc are polling. so everyone has their fingers on the pulse. which beif youmake me wonder abt more government spending, more government introduction, when the polls polls and the people e saying they want as little of that as possible. so, we're hoping that the folks on the hill are paying attention to the people in america. who are making very clear what it is they want and don't want. >> why haven't a congressional republicans united behind single approach to oppose democratic bills? wouldn't that make your party more effective? >> again, that's a strategy that the leadership has worked out. i don't get to make that play call. and so, you know, i have enough play calls i have to worry about

at the rnc. so my job now is to work in as close coordination with them as poor as they see fit that helps them get their message out to the american people, and they make the the decision about who and -- with whom and how closely they work with their colleagues and with each other. >> does president obama's health care plan represent socialism? >> yes. next question. in. >> in 1965 republicans said medicare would lead to socialized medicine. how are you so sure health care overhaul with they'll the dire wednesdays when your party was so wrong about medicare? >> well, i think that there's -- i think there's a legitimate debate there about the impact that medicare and medicaid are having on the overall fabric of

our economy when you look at its costs and the fact you have to keep feeding this particular engine. i think in this case, unlike 1965, the level of spending, the level of government control, and intrusion, is far greater and much more expansive than anything we have ever seen. come on, folks. you guys -- you're journalists. you scrutinize this stuff. this is not unprecedented? that even you aren't shocked at the degree to which this administration is bringing the government, not just into our lives but into the relationship between the doctor and the patient, between the patient and the mashance company, between the insurance company and the market? this is far beyond anything we

have seen in 1965 or since 196 a 5. this is unpress denned government intrusion into the private sector. period. and you can sweeten that anyway -- any way you want and it still tastes bitter. >> how would your plan make the $12,800 affordable to whose who can't afford? how many of in the uninsured would it cover and what costs in subsidies? would you change the way doctors and hospitals are paid per patient rather than procedure. >> that's a good question and goes to the crux, the meat of this situation. it's drilling down on questions like that and looking at the fiscal as well as the relationship impact that is involved here. i'm not proposing any quick fixes. i don't have my eye up in the sky dreaming. i know this is going to take hard work and it's going to take

a real effort by both parties to come to the table and seriously talk about health care. not just in the abstract, not just in the self-interest of promoting one special interest over another, but in the interests of promoting what is best for the people. so when you're look how to take that $12,800 cost to families and how that is apportioned and how it's paid out, that's a legitimate question. we haven't begun to do that yet. we're rushing to get a health care plan passed by the end of the month without a discussion, without anyone answering that question who needs to. not mike steele. i can pontificate all day long but it's the legislators who right the bill. they have to put into law. but we're not having that discussion. we can't even get in the room to

ask the question. we saw what they did on cap and trade. a thousand page bill with a 300 page amendment which came at 4:00 in the more than no one read and everyone in the democratic party voted for it. how crazy is that? what are you going to do with this bill? ask the congressman, folks throughout in me, call your congressmen and ask them if they start reading the bill? can they tell our what's in it? they can't because they haven't seen it yet. and they will get it at the last minute and vote on it and they will think they have done something. what they have done is put us on the road to ruin itch they do that and so i want to see us good tote the table so we can address -- so the people who need to address the question like that can do it and then come back to us and tell us what these costs really are and what they really mean and how we're going pay for them because at the bottom line for us still remains, who is going to pay? and if you tax every wealthy person in this country, i don't

care how you define them you still don't cover the cost of what the president is proposing so the 95% of you who were told last year you were getting a tax cut? huh-uh. you're not getting a tax cut. you're getting a whammy of a tax increase in the form of a whole bunch of other taxes besides what you see coming out of your paycheck. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> do republicans have answeres to those questions? what are they going to bring though table? >> do you want me to go through them again? i can do that. let's talk about portability. let's talk about tort reform. let's talk about creating networks for small businesses to co-op so they can compete for the best insurance packages for their employees. there are a host of ideas that republicans have put on the table and they're not part of

the discussion. so all i'm saying, lets sit down in a real bipartisan way and do this. we like to sit down waive beer and watch the games. someone is going to lose a health care opportunity here if we don't get this right. main the american people. i think with have pit -- i will be happy to go through the lest. i have laid out in very broad terms and then there are more specific pieces of legislation that our members, house and senate, have proposed that should be part of the bill and part of the consideration. >> what will the political price for the republican party be if it succeeds in blocking health care reform? >> i'm not concerned bats political price that the republican party is going to pay. i'm concerned about the price the american people are going to pay if this passes. not looking at this through the

rose-colored glasses of our political fortunes. i'm worried about my health compare for my family. i'm worried about what my 21-year-old son and my 17-year-old son are going to do if they get sick or injured. i'm worried about my mother and my father who are trying to figure out how to pay their health care bills. that's my concern. that's the concern of every american. certainly know the concern of everyone who does what we do. i just want to do it right. i want to us get it right. and i think that the consequences will come for those who fail here. those who saddle this economy and our people with something they can't afford. not just in this generation but in future generations. so the price to be paid is steep. but it's not a political price. it's an economic one. it's a community one. it's one that your families and your neighborhoods will, you