a phone conversation. i told him that. because this has been happening and i help to contribute, i want to make clear that in my choice of words, i think i unfortunately gave an impression that i was maligning the cambridge police department and starting crawly specifically. i could account. those words differently. i told those wars to sgt crowley. i continue to believe that there was an overreaction in pulling professor gates out of the home to the station. i also continue to believe, based on what i have heard, that professor gates probably

overreacted as well. my sense is you have two good people in a circumstance in which neither of them were able to resolve the incident in the way that it should have been resolved and the way they would have liked it. . .

because of our history and because of the difficulties of the past, even when you have a police officer who has a fine track record on racial sensitivity, interactions between police officers and the african-american community can sometimes be fraught with misunderstanding. my hope is that, as a consequence of this event, this ends up being a teachable moment where all of us, instead of pumping up the volume, will spend a little more time listening to each other and try to focus on how we can generally improve relations between police officers and the minority communities, instead of fleeing

accusations, and regional be reflective as to what we can do and work toward more unity. lord knows we all need it for now. over the last two days, as we discussed this issue, i do not know if you have noticed, but no one has been paying much attention to health care. [laughter] i will use this time to spend more words on health care, although i cannot guaranteed that that will be true next week. one last point the would make is that some would say that, as president, i should not have stepped into this at all because it is a local issue. the part of it, i disagree with. the fact that this has become such a big issue is indicative of the fact that race is still a

troubling aspect of our society, whether i were black-and-whit oe -- me commenting on thiss is pat of my portfolio. at the end of the conversation, there was discussion -- my conversation with surgeon crowley was that he and i. and professor gates can meet at the white house. we have not scheduled that yet. [laughter] he wanted to find out if there was a way to get the press of his lawn. -- get the press off his line.

i told him that i cannot get the press off my lawn. [laughter] he pointed out that my lawn is bigger than his lawn. [laughter] if any of you have any connections, the sergeant would like the press to stop traveling his breast. -- his grass. >> i have all the confidence in the world lethat whenever i say will not end in the press tonight. [laughter] i was told that the 0 week ahead is in the front pocket of my four older. -- of my folder. >> did anybody in the white

house rejected mr. gates -- reach out to mr. gates? >> no. >> [unintelligible] he city beer, that is something you throw out there. -- he said a beer, that is something you throw out there. >> i was not at his phone conversation. >> [unintelligible] >> it was about a five minute conversation. i think that it was sgt craowley's suggestion. >> [unintelligible]

>> hold on. you don't have to talking to the microphone. we all heard your question. as the president said, and i think that is why the invitation is a real indication, -- a real invitation, is that a moment like this can be used to teach us and be used to have a communication and dialogue that is constructive outside of the moment. >> when did the president decide to make a phone call? was there a conversation that prompted him to do that? >> it was earlier today, but i do not know the exact time. the call happened and lasted about five minutes. it was probably around -- just

recently, to 50 p.m. -- two o'clock 15 -- 2:40 p.m. >> what kind of communicate or letters or calls have begun at the white house? did police organizations from around the country hope make this decision for him to come out? >> i do not know what engagement the white house had yesterday with groups or individuals. on the correspondence charged that we get, i did see that health care was the biggest topic yesterday, and in terms of comments and concerns, but that is all the information i have.

>> since you acknowledges that race is still an issue and there's sensitivity about that issue, is he thinking about possibly doing something along the lines of what bill clinton did, having a conversation on race? >> in many ways, i think the question, the answer, the event, i think we're having that conversation. i do not think it is a separate initiative. i do not think it is an announcement. you heard the president say that these are important issues that play out in our daily lives and should be discussed in the oval office. >> it sounded like he made an apology to the officer. would it be fair to characterize it as that? >> i think you understood -- i

think he understood, as he told you all, that his words contributed to this being ratcheted up. i think that is the reason that the media is on the sergeants' lawn. he wanted to let him know that the word torrez was not one that -- the word choicone was nt one that was constructive. >> [unintelligible] >> i feel comfortable with the answer i just gave. if the president does not want to characterize the conversation

-- characterize it in the conversation he had with you all, i am not going to. >> did this, as part of the preparation, the gates matter -- did this come up as part of the preparation, the gates matter? what was discussed about that question? >> i am a good to get into that. i did -- my opinion on that does not matter. >> will there in fact be a meeting here of the white house? >> i think the president hopes again, he believes this is a moment in which we can discuss these issues. >> what part of that statement would he take back?

>> again, you just heard from the president. i would quote him liberally and i do not want to get into parsing him. >> i want to make sure what he is referring to. is he referring to mr. gates in his response or is he referring to the president's own response to the issue and the question in the press conference? >> i think -- i know that statement -- he is not speaking about an individual situation. the reason he came to work on an issue like this in the state senate was because of historical tension. that is not an individual thing. >> when he was asked the

question, he could have dodged it appeared but he jumped into it. -- he could have dodged it. but he jumped into it. >> maybe because there was a local issue, he said he could have or should have steered around it. >> as part of the health-care issues, most of the doctors in this country support the initiatives. as for small businesses are concerned, some of them are concerned about how they will pay for issues to have a health issue. >> lets me address health care

and small business. that is an issue that the president has been quite a bit of time on throughout the week in meetings, in town hall meetings, in meetings with the bluebells, and in meetings here today. -- in meetings with the blue dogs, and in meetings here today. it gets harder and harder its stake to provide for their employees. one of the things that the president wants to seek out of health care reform are ideas that will cut health costs for small businesses. we would like to encourage others who want to do that.

they wanted to be able to do that as well. >> about hillary clinton's visit to india, what kind of message was she carrying from the president? [unintelligible] >> i have not talked with the secretary of state. i know that the secretary of state met with the present for lunch today to discuss the trip, but i have not had it -- with the president for lunch today to discuss the trip, but i have not had a chance to talk about it. >> [unintelligible] >> you have a call commae in. you have an officer respond to a potential break-in. there was clearly a point

sometime after that in which both sides could have stepped back a little bit and maybe they would not have had all of this play out the way it has. i think he understands the enormity of the job that law enforcement has. i think he spoke today about the attentiotension that has been tn some african american communities with law- enforcement. working together and having that dialogue and communication, which can make things better for both involved. >> what is he going to do over the next month to keep up the momentum of health care? >> in the week ahead, he will

travel on wednesday to raleigh, north carolina. you'll also trouble to read it to be determined city in virginia. -- he will also travel to a yet to be determined city in virginia. i think it is safe to say that we have all assumed that the president would continue to talk about that, to talk about this and other important issues, like the economy and energy, even while congress was back at home. >> was it in southwest to virginia? >> it was this morning, but it has not been confirmed. if i knew where it was, i would -- >> [unintelligible] >> not if you cannot pinpoint

virginia. >> is a letter from the six days bbefore says that the plan, h.r. 3200, it implemented would add $239 billion to the deficit by 2019. what is the administration's reaction to the cbo's scoring? >> i do not have anything specific on what they say happens in the 10th year of that 10-year window. i can simply reiterate what the present has now said on any number of occasions. health-care reform legislation that he signs will not add to the deficit.

he means that. >> [unintelligible] >> he is not evaluated from -- he has not evaluated from a budgetary perspective, h.r. 32 reform. that is not his job. >> are you going to restore the devil as part of the breach? -- restore the gaggle as part of the breach? >> i hope so in no way that we can meet some of your earlier deadlines, talk about some issues off camera, and hopefully margaret will continue to bring down its. -- bring doughnuts. >> has the president had any experience from his time in cambridge, when he was attending

school and harvard? are you aware of any of that? >> now that i have heard in the last couple of days or that i have heard in the several years that i have worked for him. i think it was brought up yesterday that there is a story in the chicago tribune from 2003, i think around the time he was working around the issues of racial profiling, that he mentioned a suspicion of that, but i do not think it makes mention of a specific incident. >> he referred to professor gates as a friend. do know how long they have known each other? do know the nature of their friendship? >> i do not know how long have known each other or the depth of that. but i can talk with the president and find out. >> the uno is the president has decided not to sign -- do you

know if the president has decided not to sign a health care bill that does not have [unintelligible] >> i think he has discussed his principles, the strong need to provide a choice and competition, his belief that a public auctiooption provides thr millions of americans who, in different health exchange markets, will not have access to competitive plans. as i said, i think he outlined that in his principles. >> he seems to be getting pressure on the public auction shouoptions. >> it seems that about half of

the savings that the president is counting on [unintelligible] >> given that medicare itself is in fiscal trouble, how can this president counting on anything from medicare? >> understand that the reason that it is going bankrupt is that the new amount of money that is in the trust fund and the obligations with which that trust fund is being drawn down on. you heard the president talked a lot about what the status quo means. the status quo means that we're

going to continue to spend -- healthcare's were to continue to climb at a rate of three times that, roughly, increasing three times the rate of wages. we can continue to spend the type of money that we are spending on health care and not expect it to bankrupt government. we have to put medicare on a different spending trajectory. i think the president addressed the fact that he believes that we can do that without threatening the quality of benefits in any way. i think that is why aarp has come out in favor of health-care reform and for the pharmaceutical manufacturers and the drug companies have been noted that we can squeeze some savings that of the system and also put some money into

actually filling the gap in medicare that exists in medicare part b four seniors on drug expenses and the actually do it in a with it is paid for. >> [unintelligible] >> if your obligations are less, you're going to, by definition, take a trust fund and a drawdown on it less rapidly. i think it will extend the life of that and put it on a path toward sustainability that we all recognize is tremendously important. >> the bill has failed in the

energy reform kb. -- energy reform committee. they said that talks are impossible. >> i know that they will continue to meet. i know that the meeting that was had here in the white house was seen as productive and they will continue to do that. >> the president said that the only way you get anything done in this town is by setting a deadline. would he like to establish a new deadline, september or october? seriously -- >> i think that we have made progress in many ways. the president did polk and prawod -- the president did poke

and prod. i think that the message from senator reid issue is ok because he sees that we're making progress. they met at the white house today. i think both sides found it to be a productive meeting. regardless of august, we were always on to have to come back and reconcile legislation and go through the process again before something up to the president's desk. i think the president continues to believe strongly that we can see health care reform this year, this fall.

>> [unintelligible] >> i think the president is encouraged as long as he and the administration and those on capitol hill feel that they're making progress. >> would it pass if it meant going around the energy committee to get to the blue dog issue? >> [unintelligible] >> just one clarification -- >> sure. is that all have to do is call on some deals? [laughter] -- call on somebody else? [laughter] >> he often says that he does not watch cable news much. do staff tell them he needs to

address this? >> i was with him yesterday. the reports on cable tv that this was taking a a lot of time. >> at that time, you let him know? >> [unintelligible] >> was there any discussion of him issuing a written statement rather than coming in -- it is incredibly unusual to come in here today. >> and miss meeting with you? the president wanted to come. [laughter] i don't know who is laughing out there. [laughter] if you laugh like that, we will move you up to the front row. to come in here and tell you all about it was the president's decision. >> the president has actually

apologized to that cambridge police department, has a not? >> i think i have answered this three times. i feel comfortable with my answer. >> did the president leave the conversation feel confident about -- >> they feel like they are making progress and i think the president believes that. [no audio]

you were unable to meet that goal. " is when to happen now over the cost -- over the course of august that his book -- what is going to happen now or the course of august that will change people's minds? >> of this is not being rejiggered to address -- august is not be rejiggered to address this. whether it made before -- whether admitted to the house before after the recess, we would mobilize the president's voice in travel to address what he feels is an issue that we cannot avoid addressing any longer.

i think you heard him describe this week in very personal terms what the status quo means. i have described it today in a bit. on some legislative issues, the notion that, if you don't do anything, if you don't get reform more improvement, then everything just stays the same trick i think the present has taken the last -- stays the same. i think the president has taken the last several days to explain that. families pay more money for their premiums. more people are discriminated against based on pre-existing conditions trying to seek insurance. i think he will continue to press the case for what doing nothing means. he will continue to press the case for the principles that he has outlined to cut costs for families and small businesses, to make it affordable, to make it accessible. i think those are the things he

will do. >> [unintelligible] >> despite that, we have had meetings today that we think have been productive. i have no doubt that our staff will be working this weekend with committee members, on the house and senate side, as well as next week on making progress. i think the president is a strong believer in the fact that you can continue to talk and work some of these issues through, that sitting down and having that dialogue is important to try to make that promise, and he is still optimistic that we can. >> first of all, has the president expressed any disappointment that the average surrounding the gates incident

has focused on his word choice and not on professor gates arrest? >> i think the present -- i think the president explained what he felt he had unnecessarily contributed. >> when talking to the present, has he ever talked about the contract between the senate -- when talking to the president, has he ever talked about the contract between the senate compared to previous administrations? >> in what way? >> [unintelligible] >> i have not heard him do that. >> was its most logistics and planning and timetable? >> when there was obviously committee process and -- >>

there was obviously committee process and there were issues of substance in dealing with issues that remain unresolved in the committee. >> in the last two days, he has expressed an interest in penalizing insurance companies [unintelligible] does he still have an interest in that to? >> i do not know exactly whether or not they came up or in what form. >> at least 300 people have died in this country from the swine flu and many more around the world. how close are we to the medicine or a shot or whatever they're going to have, especially with

the flu coming? >> i know there are regular meetings here at the white house hosted by senior white house officials, including john brennan and others, to continue planning for what the president and his administration talked about earlier this year. what we saw building up and what affected communities throughout the company and affected countries throughout the world hit in many ways at the back end of our own flu season. that very likely give us a preview of the severity that we will face come the fall. we are taking steps by working with state and local officials, working with communities, working with school districts, to ensure that they have the best information and what steps

can and need to be taken to get ready for what we know is coming. obviously, many countries around the world -- we have seen a preview of the attacks in nature that this is going to provide, the ability of which this is going to affect our infrastructure. i know the team is working through the decision making on the development of antiviral and production of anti barrels and production for the texting -- anti-virals and production of that vaccine. there are a lot of things that we can and need to do to get ready for what we know is going to happen. in some ways, we are fortunate

that, when we experienced this, it was at the end of their flu season. we're not likely to be that of the in the fall -- to be that lucky in the fall. this allows us to be ready at all levels of government to address what is clearly going to be a busy, busy flu season. thank you, guys. >> [unintelligible] >> i almost forgot. >> thank you for answering lots of people's questions. >> my pleasure. the weekly radio address is, not surprisingly, on health care. it will be out fairly shortly.

the president will spend the weekend in washington. there will be a parade later tonight at the marine barracks the. secretary clinton and secretary diner will share in the dialogue -- secretary geithner will share in the dialogue. the president of 5feetfifa -- >> [unintelligible] >> i think the united states has a big in on the future

world cup. i know he wants to go, but i do not think anyone has confirmed it. both of us do. the president welcomes the w. nba champions -- the wnba champions. there will be an event here on wednesday. the president will hold events in raleigh, north carolina. the president of the philippines will meet here in the white house on friday. i think we will do something in the oval. thank you, guys. have a good weekend.

>> on tomorrow's washington journal, we will speak with richard more about his state's health-care system which is seen by some as a model for a national program. time magazine correspondent muscle called recede discusses his article about president bush and vice president cheney last days in the white house. we will discuss the present system with bryant -- with ranking. and there will be looked at illegal immigration with the head of immigration works usa. >> race and the american criminal justice system, with sandra day o'connor and charles ogle tree, that is

saturday. >> now we have a look at health care legislation from house republicans. they say it will not passive speaker nancy pelosi bypasses the commerce committee and brings it to the floor. the group, including the ranking member of the commerce committee, talked about the republican proposal. this is 40 minutes. inutes. >> welcome. i am congressman joe barton from texas, the ranking member on the primary committee for healthcare jurisdiction in the house. we sure that jurisdiction with the ways and means committee and the education and work force committee. i think everybody knows that this was the week that the energy and commerce committee was supposed to mark up the president's health care bill. i think everybody knows that this is the week that was at. that did not happen. there are rumors that is not going to happen next week, that the speaker is going to take the

bill away from chairman waxman and bring in directly to the floor. i predict that if that happens, that the bill will fail on a rule vote. i do not believe the democrats on the energy and commerce committee and the blue dog democrats and the institutional democrats in the house would vote to bypass the committee of primary jurisdiction. in the chance that there is a markup next week, we wanted to hold this press conference to talk about our republican prescription for a healthy america. if you look down beside me here, you will seat two boxes. there are 15 other boxes. there 17 boxes of republican amendments that are at the desk over in the main committee room

of republican amendments to help put together a healthy america in terms of the health care plan. when the democrats say that we do not have a plan, where is their plan? if they cannot get a plan out of committee, where is their plan? among these amendments, and i will go through them briefly, first and foremost we agree with president obama that if you have insurance that you like, you should be able to keep it. the current plan in the energy committee does not allow that. it requires mandates that many current plans will not be able to meet, so most americans within five to eight years, if they have an insurance plan the like, they will not be able to keep it under the president's plan. we have an amendment that does

that. any system based on a free market needs transparency. i think it is telling that as soon as the president and mr. waxman of the blue dogs announced this medical review board, people went crazy opposing it, because they are afraid that that board, in addition to taking power from congress, that board is going to insist on transparency. people that have information about health care choices, outcomes, and cost, are usually going to make a better decision about where to put their health care dollars. we believe that senior citizens should be able to have choice in the kind of medicare package and have. we believe that low income families that are eligible for s-chip the premium assistance. and then the no. 5 on our list,

probably one of the more important ones, if access to health insurance is really the issue, i think there is an access issue and a cost issue. if access is the@@@@@@@@@ i= necessary from 10 in the morning

until 12 at night or however long it chairman waxman wants. we think there should be a marker and the energy and commerce committee, and we think we should adopt some of these amendments. the only true negotiations that have been held between republicans and democrats in the house on the health care package have been done in the open markup process. the ways and means committee for a day, the education committee for a day, and last week about a day in the energy and commerce committee. the only committee still in play is the energy and commerce committee. we think there should be transparency in legislation, not just in the bills that go into effect. we hope chairman waxman and speaker pelosi will let there be a markup. if there is, we stand prepared to offer these amendments plus many more to try to improve the package. with that, i would like to introduce the deputy ranking member of the committee and chairman of the healthcare

solutions working group appointed by the leader. >> let me just make a couple of points to follow up on the ranking member had to say. first of all, we want to reform the system. republicans have been working hard for six months. the solutions group has been working hard for six months. we put principles out long ago. those principles are outlined in the amendments that we hoped to be able to offer in these various committees. the principles are what are really important here. our principles really reform the system, and we are convinced that have the right impact on cost instead of the wrong impact on cost. one of those principles is a more competitive marketplace. we had a hearing yesterday that included people from canada and the united kingdom, and particularly a doctor from the united kingdom repeatedly said

competition plus choice equal quality. he could have also said competition plus choice equals overprices. we want to have a system where there is more opportunity for people to make choices. the idea that if you like what you have, you should keep at is fine. we would like to add to that, even if you like what you have, you should have more choices than you have now. ere are easy ways to put more marketplace dynamics into the system. you might want to look at the "wall street journal" editorial today that references the daschle-dole observations about how to get more choices in competition into the system. they mentioned are advance of refundable tax credit in our concept of robbing and marketplace are not too far out of line with what the daschle- dole concept on the marketplace was. we might not agree with tom

daschle or bob dole on every issue, but on the marketplace extension we do agree. how do you get cost savings in health care system itself? that is something that the president's plan -- everybody agrees it save no money. what can we do within the system to save money? we would first look at medical liability reform. we would look at more help information technology and more transparency. what do people charge and what kind of results did they get? none of those things are in the plan that the democrats are offering, if there is a plan. there are about three different bills and house right now, but every time you see the bill, it is 100 pages bigger than the last time you saw it. if anybody here believes there is a bill that any single democrat knows what is in it, we will have a debate on that,

because i am sure that is not true. if you watch the president the last two days as he was asked questions about his plan, he clearly did not have answers. our plan, more competition, more choice, let market forces work in a way that drives prices down. do not defend the current system, but make the current system work better for consumers, and then also make the current system work better at the point of health care itself. those to the principles over and over again are reiterated in the 17 boxes of amendment sitting in the commerce committee, waiting to be offered if they will ever have a hearing. you cannot offer your ideas if there is not a legislative forum to offer them. it also cannot combat their ideas if they change by 100 pages every time you walk into the room. we are eager to have this

discussion. we have been right up to the edge of pounding on the door for six months. our pounding on the door has been calling the white house chief of staff, talking to the president, sending letters saying we want to work with you on this. we want to make the current system better, and no one is responding to that. obviously they are not responding because they do not have an idea that meet any standard or the goals we ought to be working toward in health care. of our committee, the member that over the last decade really has been more engaged in this than anybody else day in and day out has been an integral part of the solution, is the ranking member on health care subcommittee, nathan deal. >> let me put our circumstances in terms of schedule and perspective. most of us believe that the

decision as to major reform of how americans get their health care in this country deserves at least as much time and deliberation as it would take to select a puppy to reside in the white house. it took the president six months to decide how long and which puppy he was going to have, and to expect congress to do something on major health care reform in six days is totally irresponsible. let me talk about a couple of areas we are concerned about. as you have heard, we believe the current system needs some reform. we believe the current free enterprise system of delivering health care through private insurance companies has some things that need to be fixed. for example, we believe that exclusions for pre-existing conditions must be addressed, that the portability of insurance must be involved in any plan that is adopted, because people should not have to worry about losing their health insurance just because

they might lose their job. we believe that people should not have to worry about having their health insurance denied at a point in time when they file a claim, simply because somebody in the insurance company goes back through their original application and decides that did not put everything down exactly right. we blew -- we believe those are the kinds of substantial reforms. they mention another area, that of illegal immigrants being a part of a publicly financed health system. we have been through this debate before. we have a number of amendments that would assure the taxpayers of this country that they are not going to be using their hard-earned tax dollars to pay for people who are illegally in this country. those are things that i think resonate with my constituents and certainly with most people across this country. i am afraid we will not have the opportunity to offer those kinds of progressive reforms, not only

to the current system, but also to the proposal that the democrats have on the table. >> that meet echo what they have indicated. the president obviously has not read the bill himself. i will have a very simple amendment. nothing in this division shall prevent or limit individuals from keeping their current health benefit plan. that sounds pretty simple, doesn't? the president said, if you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. if you like your healthcare plan, it will be able to keep that health care plan. that is the president's statement. you saw my amendment. what does the bill say? i have a copy here for anyone who's interested. on page 17 it says after five years, the commission, with the exchange, mandates that all

health-care plans in america must meet a qualified health benefit plan under section 101, including the essential benefit plan under section 121. that means that all the plans that the patients have it will have to conform and be mandated to change or they will be eliminated, terminated. so the president says he wants everybody to have their own choice of doctor and health care plan. they will not have the right to choose. simply put on page 17 of this plan, it outlined specifically after five years, all plans will be mandated to comply to the government health care position , or be eliminated are terminated. possibly the president needs to talk to mr. waxman or revised page 17. what he says does not comply, and i do not think he has read this section.

>> we do want people to know what is in this bill. that is the reason for bringing all of our amendments to you today, so that you will see what we are offering for the committee to consider. we certainly want to make certain that health care works for americans. this morning we had a great press conference with some female business owners that came to capitol hill to express their concerns. i will recap just a couple of those for you. they are concerned about costs, because they know that costs need to be addressed. they are concerned about accountability for insurance companies. they agree with us, as you have heard ranking member deal mentioned this morning, that some of those issues of portability with insurance, some of the issues of accountability do need to be addressed. pre-existing conditions -- and we have amendments that will do that. we look forward to the

opportunity to present that to the committee, to congress, and to the american people. we certainly want to make certain that people have transparency and the options that are there, that people on their health insurance and their health records. these are some of the highlights from the conference we had this morning with the female business owners. they are going to work are with us as we continue to push through the next few weeks to look at what happens here before we go out on recess, to look at the opportunities that exist in august, as we talked to constituents and business owners, big and small, as we talked to health care consumers, to make certain they understand our commitment to stand with them to preserve their access to affordable health care in their own communities. >> i am from the third district

of arizona. health care reform has been a passion of mine since i got here. a work on reforms with, current back in 19951997. i have written a comprehensive health care reform bill every year i have been here. i have written legislation to enable people to buy health insurance across state lines. let me make it clear there are things we agree upon. i want to make sure you understand them. republicans believe in and support legislation to fix the problem for people with pre- existing conditions and chronic conditions. we believe those people ought to be able to buy health care through a high risk pulled mechanism or reinsurance program at the same cost as every single one of us. this is not just talk. passed legislation to encourage states to do that at least four years ago. i know because i wrote the bill. there is agreement on that issue.

we would like to go further now and make that a national high- risk pool so it covers everybody. covering all americans -- many of us have offered legislation that covers every single american. we would give every single american a refundable tax credit to cover it every single one of them. those are the two biggest issues. let's talk about where we do not agree. we believe that the tax code has to be fixed. it is an outrage to say to american businesses, you can buy health insurance with pretax dollars, but we want everyone else who does not have an employer sponsored plan to be responsible and buy it, are we will smack you down by making it cost you one third more. that is the law in america today. if anyone of you people do not have employer based health insurance, you have to buy it with after-tax dollars.

that is unfair and an outrage. i have been trying to fix it since i got here. everyone of these republicans wants to fix that problem and empower people. the fundamental difference is the democrats want a top down bureaucracy driven, punishment driven, command people around, mandate coverage by businesses and individuals and punish them if they do not comply. @@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ k%@

>> i would just pick up on that point. a year ago, you would not ask the government to pick out what car you can dibuy, but now may e he would. we had a good amendment drawing we had a good amendment drawing in texas for liability reform that has done a lot toward lowering malpractice rates in texas and also bringing doctors back into practice in that state. i offered that last friday. it was the first amendment that

was offered in committee, and it was struck down on a technicality. we have been recessed since monday night. on the issue of being denied by one of these boards, if the democrats' bill passes and they have these boards that will decide, shouldn't the patient have the opportunity to come back and at least have a hearing in protest that denial of care? we asked our insurance companies to do that several years ago. should we ask the public plan to do the same thing? there will be a vast expansion of medicaid under the democrat'' plan. if that is going to happen, should we not insure that those patients have access to a doctor? we can ensure that every state will reimburse physicians at no less than 75% of the state plan rates. those are simple, common-sense things. we were not allowed to offer those amendments because the committee has been in recess all week.

let's open the doors and get down to the business of writing legislation that actually works for the american people. >> i am a member of the energy and commerce committee. my colleague from georgia spoke just a second ago about what kind of dog the white house would have ended up with if they had to rush that through instead of taking months to selectively come up with that portuguese water dog. they would have ended up with a junkyard dog if they had rusted through, just like on this health care situation. we want affordable, accessible, and affordable it is universal health care for everybody. instead, we rush it through an end up with a universal nightmare. we can do this right. you heard represented shattuck talk about republican legislation, so much for all of visible about republicans having

no bill. we definitely do. all these amendments -- let me just mention one i have submitted that would say, if this public plan is so good, let's sign up immediately the president and vice president and every member of congress. they should be on the public auction. put your money where your mouth is. if you are going to talk the talk, let's walk the walk. that would be a great message to the american people, to say that this plan is good. we will not be in this plan if we are want to end up getting denied coverage. let's put up or shut up. i think we have some great plans. i am proud to be here with my fellow members of energy and commerce, and i will yield the

podium. >> this is my 17th year in congress. i have experience dealing with private health system as well as a military nba. i look back over the years. we have worked on -- address and portability issues, and we try to maintain that which is right within the private system and work on that which is wrong. the advocates today of the government option of health care, calling it reform, or the individuals that voted against things that we tried to do in successive congresses when republicans controlled. that was associated health plans, being able to allow businesses to pull together to spread the risk and lower those premiums. we love john shattuck's

initiatives. look at what you did with automobile insurance. you are able to buy that insurance across state lines, and we ought to be able to do that with health care. taking another step forward, if you are a good driver, you get a discount. what if you are responsible in how you take care of your body? you exercise, you watch your cholesterol level, you do not smoke or drink. should you get a premium discount? we believe you should. it is called wellness programs, and trying to encourage people to keep -- take a greater incentive in their personal wellness. i tried to work with some democrats. i have an amendment coming to do that. the white house advised one of the democrats on the other side not to work with republicans on that amendment. that was pretty bizarre to me. it is the president himself to talk about some of these

companies that are doing these wellness programs, and now they are saying they do not want to do that. it is clear that the government option is their plan. they are calling in health reform, but is all about government control. it is all very disturbing. >> last week i was pleased to offer a simple, common-sense of government and then and aimed at stopping wasteful spending, and passed by a vote of 29-27. my men and gave the blue dogs the ability to show their teeth and show that they are willing to work in a bipartisan way to eliminate additional levels of government inefficiency and red tape in our healthcare plans. shortly after my amendment was adopted, chairman waxman shutdown the committee process before it led to even more common sense reforms.

to many families are struggling with rising cost of health care. we stand ready to reform the system, control costs, make coverage more affordable, regardless of pre-existing conditions. our healthcare system is in need of reform, but it should not come at the expense of our nation's small business and straining the doctor-patient relationship. since then, barack obama has been on tv a lot. he is stressing that he wants to eliminate wasteful spending. if his plan or so good for america, why is the biggest majority of the energy and commerce committee, the largest majority in 50 years, why cannot they pass this bill? i have not found one man or anyone out there who thinks this is a good idea in my district and outside my district.

people tell me, do not support that government run plan. we are happy with our healthcare system. >> all of us up here agreed that our health care system needs to be reformed, but you do not blow up the best medical care system in the world to fix the problems that exist. we strongly oppose a government takeover of health care, with the rising costs and massive increases in taxes that go along with it. you can see your from the large number of alternatives that we are offering to chairman waxman, many of which he may not let see the light of day, that we have a lot of really good, common sense ideas that share bipartisan support. we hope these ideas get brought forward. if you judge by the last two weeks, we had the congressional budget office in committee about two weeks ago. unfortunately, you did not know

about it because chairman waxman through the public out of that meeting. while they talk about transparency, they literally shut down the meeting to the public, through the media out, and what we heard was think they probably do not want the public to hear. they talked about all the savings we hear about -- one of the president's pledges was that nobody that makes less than $250,000 a year would see their taxes go up. the problem is, the president breaks his own pledge in the bill that they fall. there is a clause in the bill. when you write down the numbers, you have about 7 million uninsured people, but they are blowing up the entire system to address that. they admit that millions of people will still be uninsured. they have a 2.5% tax on individuals that do not have health insurance after this bill passes.

if you are uninsured today, by their own admission, millions of americans will still be uninsured if their bill were to pass. they actually tax those americans to the tune of $29 billion. cbo confirmed that when i asked the question. clearly, most of those people would be people who make less than $250,000 a year. there are over $800 billion in new taxes in this bill in addition to a government takeover that allows a health care czar to ration care and literally interfere with the relationship between you and your doctor. their approach is the wrong approach. we have lots of alternatives and we are willing to stay as late as ranking member barton said, as late as the chairman would allow us to bring these alternatives up. we need to have a healthy discussion with all the american people seen the details of the bill instead of their approach of ramming this reckless proposal through before anybody gets a chance to see it.

>> i think america deserves the opportunity to have these amendments debated and voted on. we have progressed from chairman waxman telling the democrats in committee to defeat our amendments to not even being able to offer them now. as chairman barton mentioned, it seems pretty strong that it will come straight to the floor, whether it is next week or in september, bypassing our committee and eliminating the opportunity. if any of us think we will have an open rule that allows these to be introduced, they are crazy. we do not expect that. america is not going to see these amendments, and that is their agenda. what are some of the amendments in this box that america will never see? the one that we drafted that says all white house and members

of congress have to participate in the public option plan. i think that is fair. i have had lots of constituents suggest that to me, but that will never be debated. we have hospitals that are run by religious organizations that are very concerned about the conscience clause. that is more of the minister after that i wrote. we will not be able to debate that and protect hospitals' rights not to perform abortions, banning taxpayer money of abortions through these policies in the exchange is not going to be debated. it will not be voted on now. so the opportunity for the taxpayers to be protected, that their tax dollars now, depending on what the commissioner would rule, would have to be used for abortions. there are many people in america

that oppose that. we will not have that debate or vote. that is what is being left behind. that is the atrocity of these decisions made by chairman waxman and speaker pelosi. those are just three ideas that i co-authored. i am downright angry that we will not have that opportunity. >> before we take questions, i stood here and watched all our members. the only to receive only two of them do not need a hair cut. everybody else, myself included, needs to get a haircut. we will take your questions now. >> could you elaborate about the

chances that the bill will be defeated and why that might be what you are hearing? >> i don't think that speaker pelosi would do this but if she did, every democrat on the committee, it would be a direct slap on all 36 of the democrats including chairman waxman, mr. dingell, mr. cologne. they would be predisposed to vote no on a rule and i think that the blue dogs would vote against it because they would not be able to continue their negotiations. i think that a number of the progressive democrats that have concerns about the timing of the bill would also be predisposed to vote no. they would rather vote against it as a procedural process than

to vote no on the bill. i don't see the votes being there to get a rule to get the bill on the floor. adopt a rule that allows 86 republican amendments on the floor. >> he talked a lot about the health care system, do support comparative effectiveness research -- do you support comparative effectiveness research? >> it would depend on what the use of the research -- the research itself the republicans would support. for what use we have some question. we do not wanted to be used for a rationing of health care. dr. gingrey had some amendments on that, and i will let him address it. >> in the little bit of markup, the one day that we marked up and had several amendments -- it

addressed just that issue. and what decision making they can have and how much power they can have. the two amendments i submitted were rejected. i think we got one democratic vote. they could not make that final decision between a doctor and patient. we are for comparative effectiveness research on a scientific basis that shows best practices for different diseases and what works best. and to suggest and make sure that all physicians are well informed about that. theocratic oath -- and physicians know that they have that 6 cents where -- that 6 cents -- sixth sense. the comparative council could

not make decisions that ration care, particularly in regard to our precious senior citizens. maybe they reach a certain age, up 85, 90, and they cannot get things like knee replacements. >> other questions? >> mr. gang green said that there is a republican bill. -- mr. gingrey said that there is a republican bill. >> would be a comprehensive substitute for the democratic bill. it would encompass -- not everything is in the substitute. it would substantially encompass it. >> can i just that -- and many of us have offered, publicly,

republican bills. we have the improving health care for all americans act that covers all 12 of those points. mr. kemp has already been working out a comprehensive bill, working with the group that mr. bond has. at the right time, we would offer that legislation. >> anybody else? thank you for being here. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> now more of the health-care bill with house debate between republican whip eric cantor and steny hoyer. >> i did not help -- i did not hear the gentleman speak of the prospects of the house

considering the health care bill. i would ask the gentleman the status of that discussion and whether this house will be delivering on the speaker's commitment that this house was going to vote on her health care bill. i yield. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. as the gentleman probably knows, is still in the energy commerce committee. they have not reported out that bill. i did not know the speaker's commitment, but the speaker and i both have the hope that we would be able to pass the health care bill by the time we left here on the thirty first of july. my view is, at this point in time, it may not be possible. that does not necessarily mean that we won't be here longer. i hope that is not the case,

but if it proves to be necessary, we will be here a little bit longer like this saturday the third or the fourth. do not be planning on that, but currently, the status of the bill is that it is still at the energy and commerce committee. >> i would ask the gentleman for some clarification. then i just hear them saying we will not be considering the health care bill this week? >> i did not say that and some in words, -- in so many words. we would have 48 hours notice. this is a very important bill. it is a bill that is of great consequence to all americans. and we are going to meet that -- those targets. in light of the fact that the bill is still in committee, it may be impossible to meet that commitment and to get the bill

on the floor on the thirty first. as a result, the probability of doing that bill by the thirty first is very small. >> i think the gentlemen. to reiterate, i would say that i heard the gentleman say that the probability of taking up the health-care bill by the thirty first is very small. i suspected that is due to what we have read in the news reports of four successive days now about the difficulty that your side is having in gain a majority support for the bill. >> we have said all along that there is a bipartisan majority against the health care bill being proposed by the speaker. that is because people are unsure about the direction a government health care plan would take them. mr. speaker, the gentleman knows that we stand ready and willing

to work together to try to affect reform for the american people. we on the republican side of the aisle did not accept the status quo. we want to see a health care reform bill that works for the american people, maintains joyce and quality, reduce its cost some more folks can have access to coverage -- maintains choice and quality, and reduces costs so more folks can have access to coverage. given that he and i have had some discussion about the schedule, how long will we be in session beyond the thirty first? i yielded to the gentleman. >> we think that the bill that is pending at -- we're not sure that your premise is correct. we think your premise is probably not correct.

the people on this floor want to vote for a gulf -- it for a health care reform bill. -- want to vote for a health care reform bill. i did not accept your premise that there are not majority votes for the bill that is being considered in this house. having said that, my point was that we want to give appropriate notice. if we can't give appropriate notice by the thirty first of july, it is possible -- i am not saying we're going to be doing this, but it is possible that we would move on to either saturday the first or monday and tuesday the third and fourth. if need be, and if that was appropriate. it may or may not be. i do not want to say at this point and time -- this point in time. but i do want to give members notice that it is a possibility. >> i think the gentlemen.

if the process had worked differently, if i suggested to the gentleman that we were allowed to try and put forward the kinds of proposals that we are attempting to do and there was a receptivity on your side to allow for some of the free market principles and cost controls suggestions that have been made, according to a member on your side a few days ago, maybe we would be on a better course. in the same way, i think -- and a colleague from the gentlemen's state said that the bill is not out of committees and we are already talking about voting on this. we feel the same way that there has been very little willingness to work together to try and get a health care plan right. mr. speaker, the way i believe we get it right is to tell the people of this country exactly

what would be in store for them by the insistence that there be a government plan involved in their health care. i would tell the gentleman, we obviously stand ready to work with him and the speaker to perfect a plan that could get much larger than just probably be small majority that he will be able to produce given the news reports that we are hearing. and with that, mr. speaker, i would like to ask the gentlemen about his anticipation of next week's appropriations bill. he and i have had a longstanding discussion on rules. we on this side of the aisle have been extremely accept -- extremely upset about the change in president of this house. -- precedent of this house.

that it was ok to insist that we not be able to hold open discussions on issues surrounding constitutional obligations of this body. even after the good faith attempt that we have made to open up rules, is that his hope for his intention that perhaps, on the d.o.d. bill that we could see that happen? >> we're going to have good faith on our side as we have had all along all the defense appropriation bill. there are well over a hundred amendments that have been filed. if we allowed all 100 men mints -- all 100 amendments by one member, we would never finish

the bill if we stay through august. having said that, i have talked to the chairwoman. it is my belief that mr. flake will be given ample opportunity to choose which amendments he wants to offer at the time that we consider the bill. i do not know the other amendments. i do not know what the rules committee is going to do. i would tell the gentleman as i am sure he knows, the bill will come under a rule. we believe your side of the aisle has had most of the amendments offered, and mr. flake and others will be given the opportunity to offer a number of their amendments on earmarks which i know are of great concern to both sides of the aisle. i would say that we expect to take the defense build up under a rule similar to those under which we have operated.

which i have facilitated 11 of the 12 appropriation bills having passed. while i was not sure what was going to happen on the health care bill, we will achieve our objective in a timely fashion. i yield back. >> we are trying to get things right here. spending billions of dollars is not the goal here. i know he agrees with me on that. that we are trying to affect the most prudent expenditure of taxpayer dollars, and it is very difficult during economic times. we voted on a paygo bill this week, and frankly, the spirit behind the bill was to attempt to restrain the type of spending that we have seen this congress conduct. in fact, this week, and one of

the reports, one of the authors of an opinion column said, frankly, the spending paygo bill that was passed this week is full of loopholes. we know that the bill that was passed was that, it wasn't a holistic pay go -- paygo bill that will do much to address the runaway spending. we still sit here, mr. speaker, wanting to have an open process so we can contribute to a holding back the runaway spending in this town. i would say to the gentlemen, just as he has said to me, we ought to be looking to try to open up this process again. we were not allowed to do so on the paygo debate and address the

number one concern of this government right now which is a runaway spending. if we are going to be here through the weekend as the gentleman may suggest, why is it we couldn't take that time to debate the d.o.d. bill in an open and transparent manner? >> as i said, we will have a rule similar to the one we have considered the previous 11 bills under. >> i did not hear the gentleman, mr. speaker. >> we will be considering the defense bill under rules similar to those which have led to the passage of the other 11 bills. i yield back. >> i say with much disappointment, and really reflecting the disappointment on the part of the american people, we should be having a

much more robust debate on these issues. certainly of we're going to be addressing the issue of health care, the gentleman says that his side is insistent on rushing back to the floor and insisting on some political that line -- deadline, why is it we could not have a debate on some other issues if we areoing to be waiting around here until next monday or tuesday? i thank the gentleman, and i yield back. >> now democratic leaders told a briefing on the status of the health care reform bill. rep steny hoyer told reporters that it might not be possible to finish health care legislation until the fall. this is 10 minutes. >> as i have said many times, every member of the democratic caucus has expressed to me and to all of our leaders -- our

whip counts them. all of them want to vote for health care reform. we believe we are going to pass a very good health care reform bill. last night, we made very significant progress. in number of the ways and means committee moderated -- a member of the ways and means committee moderated, but at all times elicited the opinions of members on the very critical issue of medicare reimbursement. there are regional differences. it members have been very concerned and animated about it. there have been real differences as you would expect with an issue of this magnitude. i am pleased to report to you that last night, they reached a consensus. this morning, they met with the leadership and went over the

language. they indicate that we have a full agreement on that issue. i want to congratulate them on that very significant step forward and the process of reaching a consensus. we are continuing to work towards consensus. we believe that the energy and commerce will continue its work. we're looking forward to marking out -- marking up the bill next week. we are absolutely committed to passing a health care reform bill. we are energized by the progress we made last night at the progress we're making today. the leadership is committed to that end. i believe our members are committed to that end. we have every intention of passing a health care reform bill and sending it to president obama for his signature by the fall.

>> on the floor and hour or so ago, you expressed -- can you elaborate on that? the require that this bill come out of energy and commerce, or will you reserve the option to bypass it? >> we expect the committee to be able to work its will. that is the speaker's expectations, my expectations, we're looking forward to the energy and commerce committee doing its work. the colloquy to which you refer, the speaker and i had a pledged time to review the product of the committee and the product of the rules committee. what i said on the floor was -- and the process has taken longer than it initially

anticipated, as i said, we made real progress last night. these are difficult issues. it would be difficult to meet the time requirements by this coming friday. i do not believe we will be able to meet those time constraints. we might be meeting on saturday or the third or fourth. we will see how we progress. i will tell you this. whenever we do, we intend to keep working on this very hard between now and when we come back. we expect the bill to pass out of committee. as you know, we have three bills in the ways and means committee of which three of the leaders are members of the education and labor committee. the energy and commerce committee will be the third leg of that school -- of that stool.

>> if i could clarify, do agree that this -- we should delay recess? are you committed to passing this before the august recess? >> the whip can obviously speak for himself. what we think we want to see happen, and we think we're making progress -- i want to stress how optimistic and encouraged we are at the fact that we had such progress last night. obviously in consideration of a bill of this magnitude, you have different opinions. you have opinions that differ pretty substantially, and you write about it. we're making progress on a great victory last night and this morning for which i congratulate all of the people who worked on that. it is my expectation that we will continue to move forward.

i have been in discussions with the white house. they want to see us make progress, and i am sure they will join with us when we have a committee product out of the three committees. and we will bring those bills together. it may take some sign -- some time, so we may be working on that during the august break. >> the blue dogs have become so inflamed over the last week. you are very optimistic, but it seems it has become quite hot. >> i am pretty close to the blue dogs and henry waxman. i have known him for 45 years, and i have known a lot of the blue dogs. their close friends of mine. in a legislative process, sometimes people get animated about their positions. these are very important issues, and this is a critical bill for

the american public. we are absolutely committed to passing a bill that will give the quality, affordable health care to every american. i am confident that the blue dogs it who want to vote for health care reform bills -- they have certain opinions as to what that bill ought to look like. mr. waxman clearly wants a health reform bill. with everybody wanting to accomplish the objective, i am confident we can do that. >> i know you're confident and talking about the blue dogs, but mike ross said he does not see how we can do anything. this whole thing when you were up your -- when you were appeared -- obviously, none of that happened. >> why is he to be

congratulated? number one, he does an excellent job as our vice chair of the caucus. but as well, there were very strong feelings in that room, believe me. he saw those expressed to you from time to time in terms of very strong feelings about the rates that medicare pay and the regional discrepancies that exist. they were resolved. i am confident that based upon that, we can resolve these other differences and bring us to a position where we have a bill out of committee and ready to be put together and brought to the floor. i want to also say that i think your premise is incorrect. i think others would say that as well. the agreements reached is helpful to the blue dogs. it is it what they were seeking

per se? no, they have other issues they were interested in as well. it was certainly of help, and i think the blue dogs felt it was a positive step. it was not the step for them, but it was a positive step. >> will you work until the bill is done? >> we are going to work until the bill is done. we are not going to stop working.

>> now, an event with john conyers. he discusses health reform and the incident with henry louis gates. >> for more information, please visit our web site. on behalf of our 3500 members worldwide, i would like to welcome our speaker and our guests and those of you who are watching on c-span. the of looking forward to today's speech and afterwards we will ask questions. please hold your applause so we

have time for as many questions as possible. for our broadcast audience, if you hear applause, it might be from the guests and members of the general public and not necessarily from the working press. i like to introduce our guest and ask them to stand briefly . larry distanbevins, dr. patricia burg, dick bryan, dale digail

dixon, parry applebaum, angela keene. we have bob wiener. marcy ia dyson, barbara reynolds, deb price, irv chap man. [applause] jack anderson once called our

guest today a junkyard dog investigator watching out for taxpayer wallace by rooting out fraud, waste and abuse. surely, there has been a shortage of that in the 40 years that john conyers jr. has served in the house of representatives as a democrat from michigan. congressman conyers is the second longest serving house member and before winning his own seat, he served as an aide to the longest serving congressman, john dingell. that means he has been reelected 22 times. [applause] along the way there have been great achievements and some great controversies. among his claims to fame, he is a founding member of the congressional what office. the is an original enemy on president nixon's enemies list. [applause]

he introduced the first bill in congress to make martin luther king jr. day a national holiday. [applause] congressman conyers now chairs the powerful house judiciary committee where he has been an outspoken critic of president bush's policies regarding interrogation and warrantless wiretapping. he pursues investigations into those policies. he is also front and center in the national health insurance debate as a longtime advocate of the single payer system in which the government would provide health care to every american. we look forward to hearing his take on what now appears to be the stalled health care bill. please join me in welcoming congressman john conyers. [applause]

>> thank you for a well-prepared introduction. i drew that one of myself and you delivered it remarkably well. to everyone here, the head table and all of you, many of my friends, i am happy to see you today. wiener, pat, dick ryan, larry, john april, barbara, a stiff pricdave price. -- dave price.

this is a good time to have a discussion about where we are. but always asked my staff to over prepare me and they did not let me down today. [laughter] we have 29 pages in addition to some things i asked about. i always go off on my own anyway. this is a great help. eric holder must appoint a special counsel to review the

bush administration abuses of power and misconduct. a criminal probe has got to do that. that is why love being at the press club. you hear about this. i did not have to call him. of course, he knows how feel, anyway. i have a bill the calls for a blue ribbon panel about the same thing. we need both because a special counsel is not going to work in the public. they have to work confidentially, of course. we need a 9/11 tied panetype pao

members of congress on it, so that we can go into what we talked about and have been doing. i was surprised as i was looking over my notes, they said that we had 55 hearings on this subject matter. the administration, it's a piece of power, its misconduct. i said, 55. may i see them, may i see the titles. so, we went back to 2007 and started off with all of these and i have them available for anyone that would like to get a

copy. i would be happy to make it available to you. we need to enforce the subpoena as that i have issued to my friends in the other administration for declining to join us in the room for some questions under oath at risk of perjury. the role of congress has been diminished as the role of the

executive has increased. when you get around to say, everyone says i cannot come because this is executive privilege, i cannot tell you, i work in the white house, i cannot answer these questions. we try to counter with, wait a minute, you don't know what questions we are going to ask. besides, if you ask one that you think deserves to be challenged, we will set it aside and see if we can work something out. anyone near the white house doesn't have to come to a hearing. that doesn't wash. my son's freshman class class in atlanta much less than with me. so, we are in the process of

enforcing the subpoenas against harriet miers, josh bolton. bolden was the chief of staff. he has lots of documents. all the bread crumbs go right to the white house, it is not hard to figure out. the firings of the u.s. attorney's politicizing the one branch of the administration that should be as free of politics as possible. then we are trying to get hate crimes through -- ovoid, someone wanted to add the death penalty to the hate crimes act in the

senate. thanks, guys. nothing like cooperation with the other body. the subjects that has commanded so much of my time is a universal health care bill. i started with this so long ago, not as the leader of it but when hillary clinton called us into the white house. we had 100 and. -- we had 100 then. this was the most popular bill in the congress and yet there is this effort to lock it in the

juror, let's talk about it as little as possible. the one that most americans have been told to want. this reaches everyone. a universal health care bill from the moment you are born until the time you go to heaven is what we need in this country. most industrial countries already have some form of it already. so, i spent an enormous amount of time with other organizations over 500 labor organizations. democrats, progressive democrats of america, churches, community

groups. i will be speaking sunday night with the national american association. -- american medical association. we want to lay down some guideposts because one of the problems in this democratic process of our is is that if you do not, it is assumed that it is okay. you did it under the past administration and there was the usual liberal critics.

forget them, it has been done, there is precedent. we are saying, no, not even to our dear friend, the 44. no, we are putting down guidelines. yes, when we have honest disagreements, we want to talk about them. that is what it is all about. i told president obama when we were in the white house of all the important things that you have said, the one that i think is the one that i want to thank you for right now is that obviously you said you wanted all of the people that supported the to keep advising you.

i said, my friend, you don't have to tell me that because i was going to keep advising you even if you have not said it. what made me proud was the fact that you did say it. no president has ever done that before. you get elected, thanks so much, now i have my administration, i have my staff, have my counselors. look, stay in touch. he said, keep the advised -- to me advised. i think that is what we have to do. so, in the spirit of keeping him and advised and the not congratulating him on all the things that [unintelligible]

i will take a moment and describe to you the circumstances then i think we find ourselves in on his 24th day of july in terms of health care and the political system itself. where are we? well, first the harris killed -- the health care bill is in trouble. i heard the president's talking this morning. he was being quoted on npr. first of all, we have to do it right and then we have to get it done. well, yes, but i don't think being done right.

-- i don't think it is been done right. not that it it is not a single pair. the president was a single pair and a good one -- not that it was simplngle payer. . .

>> it would make a great comedy if you took out the names, not to embarrass the people.

>> that will be the most second class health insurance policy anybody ever saw. and then of course to make it really difficult, we've got the question of a public option. and i am so proud, first of all, of dennis, who in one committee introduced the amendment that would allow arisa to be waived and for any state that wanted to try

universal single payer health care, they would be able to do it. and he got that through, and we are trying to keep it in. do not hold your breath on how long this can stay in. but at least he got it in, and we are not going to find out who doesn't want it in and so forth. so at least give us a public option that is worth uttering the term, and already we have had a number of senators that have already said public option is out. we are not giving the american people a choice between private insurance and a public plan which wouldn't have to advertise, costs would be down, administration would be down, profit-taking would be down, 3%

or 4% over head to medicare, 15% and up for private insurances depending on which one. they said no. take it out. we don't even want it. we don't even want a weak one. we don't want any at all. so we've got a problem. the president -- oh, god, what a guy. what presence, what intellectual force, what courage, what ability, mr. nice guy. there are so many people even in my group that say look, let's stop being so nice. these guys are no on everything. we've got the votes, let's take

them out. but he doesn't do that. he keeps saying please come to the table, have a drink with me on friday evenings in the white house. let's talk, negotiate. but that's smart. because once he starts swinging back, the media, like you guys, will be saying oh, there they go again. the d's and the r's are fighting, and it is all the same. and obama is all about making it not all the same, and that's why he is doing it. that's why i take exception to some of my friend that want him to punch back and all that sort of thing. now, i close with my observations about the political situation we find

ourselves in. it's funny. here is an old american respected political party self-destructing right in front of our eyes in every way. every day they call 18, two dozen votes, role call votes on everything they can think of. motions to adjourn all over the place. the minority leader had a fundraiser. he made them read the whole bill, 55 pages, for two or three hours. that was yesterday. what will they do today that

will make you either laugh or cry? it goes on and on. as a supporter of sarah palin for taking over the republican party, i'm one of her great advocates. i mean what an attractive young neo conservative reaction area. [laughter] wow. there has never been one like her. she attracts crowds. she is going to write a book. she is so busy she doesn't have time to govern alaska. hey, let's get ready for the big one when we go back in to take on obama. i want to encourage her on. [laughter] and then there is my former

colleague, speaker of the house, newt gingrich rich. -- newt has remade himself two or three times. and he always gets particularly vocal. he's got a book coming out. put me on everything. and of course with the vice president, there are groups in the democratic party who have been accused of helping get time to get on. as a guy who couldn't get above about 15% popularity when he wasn't hiding somewhere and claiming he is not in the administration, this is our kind of guy. oh, don't forget steele, the

chairman of the republican party, who has not gotten off one consistent speech ever since he became the chairman. i mean the whole thing -- i don't know who's left around there. but with an organization going down the drain, and with these kind of leaders coming forward to regain control, we have a couple of family values men that got caught. i won't mention their names or what they did because you know already. they were going to become presidential candidates. now they want them to take a hike out of the senate. we live in exciting, important times. what you do in the media is so important, and it is not always

easy, but many of you do it. many of the big leads we have got -- are you giving me the hook? >> no. >> ok. so many of you have been the ones that caused many of the things that we are investigating to happen, and i commend you for it, and i thank you for your patient attention to my remarks this afternoon. [applause] >> if i really knew the answer

to that, i would leave this luncheon and go straight to the speaker's office and make her the beneficiary of this wisdom that i do not possess. here are some of the problems, and we can expound on them. but one is that there are a lot of -- we've got majorities, but in some sense they are paper majorities. we got 60 in the senate. i wouldn't want to bet your house on that. we've got 60 in name. we've got fifty-something blue-dogs in the house, half of whom vote republican most of the time, or half the time. and then we have a number of men and women who are freshmen from districts that are

normally republican, and they don't want any tough votes at all. a strong breeze they think will blow them away. so these are the problems that you're confronted with. we want a strong public option in the house. the senate, some do and some don't. when you have a senator like max baucus helping us make the decisions on a reform health care bill, you're in trouble. and if you don't know it, you're going to find out over the next few weeks. so it is not an easy lift at all. the president says now is the time. he called us in at a summit in the white house, the first

health care summit, and said everybody get busy. and now he knows he has got to start. if he's waiting for us to serve him up with a health care reform bill, he knows now he has got to get into it. he has to expend some capital, and he's doing that. so those are some of the problems. the overarching problem is how are you going to pay for it, and will this put us into more debt? and of course the answer is with universal single payier, you end up with less debt. but we don't have universal single payier. as long as the insurance companies are there, as long as preexisting illness is a way to disqualify anybody that has got something that is going to cost them money -- after all, this is a business, conyers. the way you make profit in a

health care business is don't insure the people that are likely to be sick. and the ones that are, get rid of them if you can by any means necessary. that is how you make profit. ask the insurance people. they will tell you. >> why do you want to scrap the health care system when it is reported that 70% of americans are generally satisfied with their health care plan? >> because that is not an accurate statement, that's why. the majority of americans want single payer, and i've got two polls to back me up. and they are willing, many of them, to pay more for it. now the medical community has come around. when i first started out, i was invited to an a.m.a. conference

once. but now, more doctors support our plan than any other plan. and of course you know the nurses are all over this plan. they support it. the people support it. the unions support it. community groups support it. so telling me that -- look, 50 million people don't even have a plan to prefer. they don't have any insurance at all. >> how influential are the big fharma and big insurance lobbyists, and should your colleagues send back their campaign contributions from those groups? >> how could anybody have gotten the nation that pharma and the health insurance companies were giving campaign

contributions to influence the independent-minded members of the house and the senate? [laughter] where did anyone ever get that notion? well, if you were in a group where the chief check pontiff was making millions of dollars a year, wasn't even a doctor, and you have quarters -- the question is on the bottom line. how much money did you make? how are the stocks doing? of course they are the ones blocking this. why would they want a single payer when they have got 1,200 other insurance companies to fool around with right now and compete with each other? go down my street in my town, and what do i see? billboards. come to this hospital. we're the best in the country on baby care.

come to this hospital, another billboard five blocks away -- come to us. we are heart specialists. another one, something else, something else. they are competing. and until we take that incredible cost of advertising, administration, overhead away, it is driving some doctors out of the business. they can't afford all the administrative help they need to fill out this growing number of insurance policies. >> will oppose a health plan without a public option? >> no. i should say heck, no. i could say something else. [laughter] of course not. it's all i can do to support a

health plan without universal single payer health care. that is what i have been working on. and by the way, that movement will hopefully help a lot of people in the legislature realize that a public option -- a real public option. now look, the men and women on k street can write public options that aren't worth the napkin they were written on. i'm talking about a real pob option, not something a guy -- a real public option, not something a guy dreams up between mar tinney's and sends it down to us to enact. >> well, i want it because it is the best plan.

i can remember when obama agreed with me. i'm just guessing now because we haven't talked about it, but he wants it because of the randy moss manuel -- rom manuel factor. ok, i'm glad you asked me. [laughter] >> the rom emanuel factor, to quote him is that look, we want success, and we are willing to make a deal about anything. does that make you feel pretty comfortable about health care? and that is the whole idea, is that he wants a bill. he wants to win in the off year elections. he wants our president re-elected the next time he

comes up, and so do i. but i don't want anything stamped reform and let it go at that. this will not hold down costs. it will not cover everybody. it will not take away the misery of hundreds of thousands of people who have been caught -- we have so many horror stories about people having to go in bankruptcy. we are having a hearing on it next week in judiciary, about the major cause of personal bankrupt says is health care bills, hospital bills, doctor bills and the tragedy of people not being able to eat or pay ren -- rent or even get their pharmaceutical prescriptions.

>> votes on the floor. >> 12 minutes left on the vote. four more votes to follow. many aapologies for congressman conyers. thank you very much. >> can we take a couple more questions? >> no. really? >> yes, really. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> thank you all very much. forgive me for doing this. maybe i will come on again and have more time. [applause]

>> ok. my aapologies that we are ending early, but i will make a few announcements about our future speakers. or july 27, which is monday, congressman barney frank, a democrat from massachusetts and chairman of the house financial services committee will join us. on july 29, senator john kerry of massachusetts and chairman of the senate committee on foreign relations with join us. coming up in the fall on september 29, ken burns, the documentary film maker will be here to talk about his newest documentary. also, on september 12, the national press club will host the 12th annual 5 k run and auction benefiting the national press club scholarship fund. for more information go to our

website. now would be the time to sign up for that. also i would like to thank you all for coming today. i would like to thank the national press club staff members for organizing today's lunch. also, thanks to the national press club's library for its research. the video archive for the luncheon is provided by the national press club broadcast operations center. our events are available for download on i tunes as well as our website. nonmembers may perform transcripts, audio and videotapes by calling our number or archives@press.org. thank you very much, and we are adjourned. [applause]

>> more on the health care bill now from democratic senator chris dodd of kth. this is 20 minutes. >> as some may know, i know my colleagues are aware of this. i have been put in the position of being the actsing chairman of the senate health education labor and pensions committee. the committee is chaired by our dear friend and colleague,

senator ted kennedy, who is wrestling with his own health care crisis at this very hour and so has been unable to be with us these last several months as we have begun the process of marking up, considering the legislation dealing with health care. so as the person sitting next to him on that committee, i was asked to assume the responsibility of chairing the committee as we considered the health care legislation. wednesday, after numerous hours, i point this out to our colleagues. many of them may be aware of this already, mr. president. we spent, on the "help" committee consideration of our bill, close to 60 hours. i am told that is the longest time in memory of memorial my we had some 23 sessions over 13 days. there were 800 amendments filed before our committee.

we considered just shy of 300 of them. of that 300, we accepted 161 amendments from our republican friends on the committee. many of these amendments were technical amendment. they all weren't substantive amendments. there were a number of very important amendments offered by our republican colleagues that strengthened and made it a better bill. it made it a bipartisan bill. at the end of the day after all of these hours and work, we didn't have the votes of our republican friends on the committee. but their contribution to the product was significant. as i mentioned earlier, senator greg and a number of our republican colleagues on the committee were concerned about the long term fiscal impact of the volunteer insurance program for long term care. we agreed with that. the senator from georgia raised

the issues of light care. we were able to accommodate his ideas in that area. others sought to increase employers' flexibility to offer wellness programs as incentives for employees. that was a very sound proposal and was added to the bill. senator harken did a good job along with others in reaching that accommodation. senator hatches amendment. the full hatch proposal what is adopted by the committee. our friend from oklahoma proposed an amendment to empower individuals to make healthy decisions by having the c.d.c. establish a web-based prevention tool that would create personalized prevention plans for individuals. that was accepted as well. we accepted senator hatch's proposal to establish a coordinated health tracking network from the c.d.c.

we had an amendment which allowed insurance to rate based on tobacco use. specifically the amendment allows sure remembers to vare premiums by one to five for use of toby came. several amendments were offered by senator bird with unanimous consent that makes they are they operate on a level playing field. fraud, abuse, quality improvement and many other provisions apply to the community health options as well. there were amendments that will now insure independent insurance agents and brokers will be eligible to be navigators in the gate ways. my point, mr. president, in addition to the technical amendment, there were many substantive amendment adopted.

i offered our colleagues' attention. we will brief any member. this bill is now on the website where the public can read this, make comments and ideas as well and respond to questions regarding the bill. while we are waiting to see the outcome in the finance committee, the second half of the equation, it is worth while to know that in the united states senate, of the two committees with jurisdiction over headache, the health, education, labor and pensions committee has completed its committee work. we invite our colleagues' ideas, attention and thoughts and how to dealing o deal with work force issues, fraud and abuse issues as well as coverage questions, which are essential as well. mr. president, obviously i had hoped that we might stay here in august to deal with this issue or continue the process. but the decision has been made to delay consideration of the health care issues until the

fall. i under how this works. things haven't moved as quickly as we all lieu like. some have said we need to slow down a bit, that we are going too fast on this issue. i remind my colleagues it has been 70 years, seven decades, and many administrations have grappled with this issue. while we have dell with various aspects such as children's health, medicare and medicade, every single congress and administration have failed in reaching the kind of consensus necessary to adopt national health care reform measures of we have been challenged by the american people to try and defy those odds, to do what no other congress or administration has ever been able to achieve. i understand that that we are going to too fast in the minds of some, but to those out there

beyond the halls of congress, that issue of speed may seem perplexing. every single one of us who serve in this chamber, every single congressman who serves down the hall, every employee here have a very good insurance program and coverage. we are blessed as part of the federal employee health benefit package. we never have to worry. if something should has been to one of us our our families, we are well covered with insurance. taking a break in august and rolling along poses no threat to us. but for millions of other americans who don't have that privilege of having the kind of coverage we do, this is an unsettling time, a very unsettling time, mr. president. in this country of ours, millions of our fellow citizens

don't get to sleep with that sense of suret carb security and assurance that it if something happened, they would have something to take care of the problem or go through a financial crisis that destroys their economic future. >> of all the brument says that occur in the united states, 62% of them occur because of a health care crisis in that family. of the 62%, 75% of those people have a health insurance program. they are not the uninsured. these are people with health insurance. if you are out there today saying i have health insurance, i cooperate possibly end up in financial ruin, the fact of the matter is the overwhelming majority of people who have gone interest bankruptcy because of health insurance have insurance.

today, mr. president, before the sunsets in the united states of america, 14,000 of our fellow citizens will lose their health care coverage. 14,000 people today and every single day in america that many people lose their health care coverage. while we sit here and say we are going too fast on this subject matter, slow down. that is easy for us to say, because none of us have to ever worry about what most americans have to worry about. and that is, god forbid, they end up with a health care crisis and end up being destroyed economically, or sit there with the anger and frustration that i can't provide for my family and spouse. this is the united states of america, we rang -- rank 37th in the world in medical outcome. we pay the most, and yet we

rank like a third world country when it comes to outcome. i don't think most americans like to think of our country as being incapable of taking care of the nation in that way. some people in this town seem to think that this process of health care is about them. did i get appropriately consulted? did i get invited to enough meetings? did i get a headline? what do my consultants think i should say about this? what are the right words to use? let's hire people to tell us how to describe all this? let me ask my colleagues, is there anybody here worried that they are going to lose their health care insurance over the august break? is anybody unable to afford the care they may need? has any member of this body or other body been staying up late at night with a sick child for whom they can't afford to get treatment. has anyone i have served with

here bounced from voice mail to voice mail as you try to find out why the insurance company you pay thousands of dollars to suddenly refuses to pay four spouse's cancer treatment. has any member of congress as they get through their august break, are they stuck at a job that pays too little because they have a preexisting condition, and they won't be able to get hired anywhere else? has anybody here been driven two bankruptcy or lost a home because of medical bills your insurance company wouldn't cold front? is anyone in this chamber, a small business owner and had to choose between cutting coverage and employees who have helped you, talking about laying them

off because of health care coverage. i suspect no. then why are so many people in washington asking this about us, whether whether or not you are a blue dog, red dog, a democrat, conservative, moderate or liberal as if that is the most important issue in the country. we are in danger of losing this once again and falling, as has every other congress and administration for 70 years, because it is always about us and not about the people who send us here to ask us to try and come up with some answers to relieve them of the fear and frustration that confronts them every day. it isn't true for american people. it isn't about us. it is about the 47 million who

are uninsured, the 87 million who are underinsured, and the millions who will lose it if we don't act. it is about the people who pay our salaries, our great insurance companies as well, and the people who accept us here to fight on their behalf. we pretend this is about us, and we treat health care reform like it is a political game or contest, who is going to lose? who can go in for the kill now and defeat someone, put them into trouble? maybe they will lose an election over this. if that is the game, as it appears to be in the minds of some, then you wonder why the american people get so angry and frustrated when they watch us talk about ourselves as if we were the only people on the face of this planet. mr. president, you better belief if any of us had to go through what we have heard from our constituents, you can go to

any state in our country at almost any hour, and you could repeat some of these stories that i will share with you this morning. i have heard them in my own state in connecticut. there wouldn't be people calling for delays if. we mentioned 14,000, 87 million, and 47 million, and it glazes over the eye in a way. is there any stories involved in these numbers? this legislation would be done by now if we paid attention to some of these individual stories. in 2005, mr. president, a young woman in connecticut named maria, diagnosed with non-hodgkin's lymphomaa. when she asked her insurance company for treatment, the company found out she had once gone to a doctor for a pinched nerve. the insurance company decided that the doctor visit mend the

condition was a preexisting condition and denied her claim. she died from that illness. a young man from connecticut named frank disclosed on his insurance application that he sometimes got headaches. several months after he got his policy, he went in for a routine eye exam. his eye doctor saw something he didn't like and sent frank for a neurologist, who told him he had multiple sclerosis. the insurance company said frank should have known that occasional headaches were a sign of m.s., and they took away his coverage receipt actively. frank's doctor wrote a letter saying there is no way anyone could have possibly suspected an occasional headache could be a symptom of hodgkin's. frank's condition got worse. he left his job and went on public assistance. people like kevin. i have held a series of town

haul meetings in my state, four or five of them over the past few months and invited people to come and share their stories on health care. this is outside of hartford, connecticut. it was at 7:30 or 8:00 in the morning. i asked my staff why are we having a antawn haul meeting at 8:30 in the meeting? no one would show up. 750 people showed up to be heard and talk about that. kevin has shown up at my hearings to talk about these issues. i met kevin at a number of these phatterings we have had held around the state to listen to people's conditions. he owns a small business. he ememploys seven people in that firm of has, some older, some younger and can't afford to insure them. the younger people use the

emergency room as their regular doctor. if one has a child with an infection, they will spend all day in the er waiting for treatment, costing the employee a day's work. to remind you, we can't afford to have any additional costs. think of this. if you have an insurance policy, on average your family is paying $1,100 a year on your insurance policy to cover people like kevin's employees, the uninsured. that is how much the average cost is per family. that's a tax on every insurance policy to pick up the cost of kevin's employees, the one who shows up in that emergency room. you don't get free medical care there. they are charging for it. how do they charge? the premium goes up an average of $1,200 per family in the insurance. kevin has three employees in

their 30's who have never had a denial check up or cleaning by a high generalist. one nearly died from a an infection he got from a cavity. kevin stepped in and paid the bills. that is the kind of better than this man is even though he doesn't have that kind of business. kevin stepped in to make a difference in that family. i know many do that. he is not alone in that regard. it is difficult to make a business work when you have to turn around and pick up the wages for someone who is not there at work, not to mention their medical bills and expenses. another one of kevin's employees left for a job for health insurance, even though the newer job gives him far fewer hours and pays him one third less than with kevin. another employee of kevin's was

rely on his wife for health insurance. she was laid off. they will be able to get cobra insurance for a short period of time. his wife is a breast cancer survivor. you tell me whether they are going to get coverage. kevin's employee has his own preexisting condition. you don't need to be a phd to know what is going to happen. they are going to get nothing, and they will be looking for help. they are looking to us, those of us gathered here. i don't know what kevin's politics or. i don't think he thinks that way. i think all he thinks about is

he is trying to take care of his employees and family. little maria i talked about with non-hodgkin's lymphomaa, the family doesn't worry about politics to get help. we are deciding to draft off for a few weeks or a month because we can't seem to get together or we are going to attack each other politically, and here this problem gross by the hour because we don't have to worry about that. i say it respectfully, but nonetheless it does impact the decision-making process. when you don't have an ounce of concern about your insurance and ability to take care of yourself and your family, you lose some of that motivation. it seems to me that we ought to be having here some of this when it comes to addressing these issues. i am going to be talking about these issues every day we are in session of coming together and addressing this issue. it is what i tried to do for 60 hours, replacing my dear

friend, senator kennedy, in that committee. i want to thank my 22 other colleagues who stayed there day after day to work on this. i particularly want to thank tom harken of iowa, who spent hours working on the prevention side of this bill, doing everything he could to come up with ideas to reduce costs and improve the causality of health . barbara, who is going through her own medical issues, having broken her ankle in four places , did a magnifique send job on walt issues. and jeff from new mexico coming up with ideas to reduce costs and make coverage more affordable. and patty murray who did a great job on work force issues. i see my good friend jack reed who did a great job on a number of issues affecting the bill. and on down the line.

jay hagen, sheldon, bernie sanders, bob casey, sherrod brown of ohio was terrific as well. i want to thank my republican counterparts. even though they did not vote for it, they brought good ideas. lamar alexander, john mccain, lisa, oren hatch. i am going to miss someone here. but the idea is we came together and worked, and we have a product now, and we need one out of finance committee. we need to get on with the business of working on this. you cannot sustain the present situation, and the american people deserve a lot better. they need the same kind of security in my view that we have provided for ourselves as members of the united states congress. i don't think the american people are going to accept the notion that they should have to live with the kind of fear and

frustration that is associated with having the kind of health care system in our nation, knowing we can do better. i thank my colleagues for the work we have done already, and urge us over this break, if we are not back here work, to listen to our constituents, hear their voices, and come back to these chambers in september with a serious determination and do what no other congress has been able to achieve and that is come up with a health care plan for our nation. i yield the floor. >> now more on the bill with former house speaker newt gingrich. this is a little over 20 minutes. host: we want to welcome back new gingrich, former speaker of the house and author of his latest book, "wiehl change." that began with what was said in the washington examiner. a fraud and abuse cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars

a year, more than enough to pay for high-quality insurance for every uninsured in america, but you say, for whatever reason, congress ignores this mass of pot of money, powerful help and insurance commerce committee henry waxman in particular. why so? guest: congressman waxman has been involved in these issues since the 1970's. all that time, there has never been a serious, methodical effort to approve -- and improve the amount of fraud we have with medicaid and medicare. the "new york times" has estimated -- i am not talking about waste -- people who are thieves have stolen about 10% of new york medicaid. it is about $4 billion a year in new york alone, in medicaid alone. i will give you two examples. in new york state, there was a dentist who was following -- filing 982 procedures per day. nobody disputes that is theft.

there was a dental office in brooklyn where somebody stood up front and said, if you will loan us your medicaid card for 30 seconds so we can do an imprint, we will give you a free dvd player. that is plain theft. in south florida, they found five pizza parlors which had applied to the federal government to be hiv aids transfusion centers and we're getting paid for hiv/aids transfusions even though they were a pizza parlor. terry williams, the head of the center for medicaid and medicare services, told me in december about a case that he does run a cross -- ran across where a patient -- a doctor filed four colonoscopy is on vacation in the same day. i hope that is fraud. there is a new book out of the product and out and in hard cover in late august called "stopped paying the crooks" and

it has 13, authors and it outlined systematically how we can save money on fraud and basically theft in medicare and medicaid. host: let me go back to that specifically because you take aim at congressman waxman in the together. -- in particular. guest: start with a simple fact, when you hear someone telling you that the government is a very low-cost administrator, had been the cost of that, and in

fact the government is the most administrator of health care in the united states. but what they do is they pay anyone who sends a claim accurate -- a claim in. the billions of dollars in fraud and they do not count that as costs. they say, we are really inexpensive because we write checks very well. that is true, but they don't find out whether the check ought to be written. second, we have outlined this at the center for health transformation. we are at the middle of a dramatic revolution in our ability to deliver high-quality health care. this is why the mayo clinic came out against the plan that was in the house. that is where three former heads of the american medical association wrote an article yesterday opposing the plan in the house. we need a focus on best practices where we know if you can migrate the country to best practices, you will save billions, maybe hundreds of billions of dollars because the very best places in america

deliver better care at a lower cost with better outcomes so people live longer lives more independently. that should be what we want to do. and at the center for health transformation, go to healthtransformation.net and there is an entire set of proposals. we would love to work with the president and get a positive bill through. and i think by going to a very liberal government tax model, they have made it very hard to pass a bill. host: wayne is on the phone from connecticut. good morning, wayne. go ahead. caller: good morning, mr. gingrich. i do not know how you can lower costs and give 9 million people coverage. and the gentleman who was just on, i wanted to talk to him and asked him if his wife did not take a raise, congress voted themselves a raise.

we're losing 14,000 jobs a day, supposedly. is that because the stimulus bill is not working? and in this bill that is going through, there is a billion dollars worth of earmarks supposedly in it -- there is $8 billion worth of earmarks supposedly in it. i have insurance through my work and it is 11 under dollars per person with insurance, paying for this -- $1,100 per person with interest, paying for this, why can't we get health insurance for other people? guest: let me say first, i think the economy is in connection -- in continuing trouble. the federal reserve reported last week that they expect unemployment to be higher than the rich -- originally estimated, above 10%. they even more sobering lee reported that we could have a jobless recovery, which would not be a recovery in my mind, in

which you could have basically no net new jobs for the next four or five years. they are projecting a% and 9% unemployment for four years. for us, passing a giant energy tax and health care -- and giant health tax is going to be very destructive behavior. it will make unemployment worse and poverty for employment and slower and lumber and weaker. i agree with you, the bill coming from the house is designed by the. and frankly, the reason you're getting these set-asides and your art is in an effort to buy votes. -- and earmarks is in an effort to buy votes. this is a 600 page bill. they wrote a 300 page amendment that they filed at 3:00 a.m. to get just enough votes to pass it and they voted on at the next afternoon. virtually no one had not read the amendment before they voted on it. i suspect something like 1000 pages. maybe we will not get 500 pages

of 5:00 a.m. to get enough votes, but that is a terrible way to legislate. this is not a game, this is not canned speaker nanci glos the ramp something true? these are laws that changed all of our lives over a very long time friend. we ought to be negotiating them and legislating them out in the open and carefully and with a lot of opportunities for people to have better ideas and to have amendments and to try to approve it before it becomes law. host: our guest is professor gingrich. çhe earned his doctorate from tulane university and author of 18 books? guest: yeah, so far. host: [laughter] so far. we would go to maryland, good morning. caller: good morning, i'm very nervous. i had a kidney transplant last year at johns hopkins. i have insurance through my husband's job, plus i'm 67 years

old, so i do have medicaid, medicare. my question is this, i feel the republicans, that is you, too -- do not care about the people out here. the poor people, that i consider myself poor and i was a nurse for 47 years. my husband is a teacher. but my point is this, you have your insurance, you are getting a good salary, and you do not care about the average person out here. what did you do when you were in there? we have been talking about health care for over 40 something years and we cannot get this problem solved. guest: look, i think this is probably one of the most complicated problems we have faced as a country. when i was speaker, i chaired the medicare reform task force and we worked on making sure that everybody could continue to get medicare and it would not go

broke within 10 or 12 years. when i was speaker, we also passed a bill to insure that -- to ensure that you could continue to get health we also passed a bill to create health savings accounts to enable people have a low cost, high savings rate to allow people to buy health insurance. if we had had the votes, we would have passed more reforms. when i was speaker, i helped found the center for health transformation. we are a membership organization that has people from all different parts of the health system. we have a number of tremendous break-through ideas we are developing, including an alzheimer's project that will save millions of lives. we think there ought to be a health system in which all americans wouav