is when a political group starts to step on the free speech rights of others in this nation. you may feel like this is a position that i'm taking that is untenable, but i'm going to tell you that 652,000 people in the various districts, most of the districts in my state, have grown to a million now, send a person to washington, d.c., to speak and to communicate with them back home about what's going on here in washington. they expect to hart words and the ideas and the thoughts of their elected representative when that elected representative is communicating with them back in washington, d.c. . but recently, in fact, it started seeing some of this pop up during the -- what they call

the cap and trade and we call the cap and tax bill, but it has gone now to where it has become ram pant in this issue of health care. and an organization that is designed to set rules concerning how we spend government money in communicating with our people back home is called the franking commission. it's made up of as i understand it, three republicans and three democrats. and both submit communications, say a weekly news letter that is sent back home or the lead-in to a telephone town hall or an e mail back home telling people what's going on this day in congress. and these things have to be submitted if they are being paid for by government money to the franking commission. and the franking commission in a

simple way to say it, they don't think you should be using the government's money for politics. but they have never in the history of the republic taken the position that you don't have the right to express your opinion on the policies that are being proposed. or that you must reword the policies to suit the language of someone else. it's almost like, i hate to say it, but political correctness has run amuck. and i want to start off by telling you what happened to me and what has happened to some of my colleagues and i am going to be joined by some of those colleagues. and it's important that you understand that i write to my folks and communicate with my folks back home every day and i use the telephone town hall. and on the telephone town hall, you make a recorded message that leads into the town hall.

and part of the recorded message is to tell the people what you're going to be talking with them about for the next hour so they know what the subject matter is because it far oost the scope and we get to narrow the things we talk about. and so we made up a telephone town hall recording submission to the franking commission and which i proposed to say, the democratic party is offering their government-run health care program in the next two weeks and this is what we're going to talk about tonight. the franking commission came back and told me i could not say government-run health care. and i could not say the democratic party. i had to say the majority party is submitting its public option

health care program. in other words, what they're telling me is i have to use the same language that the president of the united states uses in his speech or that nancy pelosi uses when nancy pelosi talks about this, public option, which they have done polls to discover that public option sounds better than government-run health care. but that's their opinion. i, as an american citizen and a member of this body, am entitled to express my title for that to my constituents back home, and in fact, to the entire american public to say in my opinion, they are submitting their government-run health care program. and i would submit that there is no other real way you can describe that if you believe the government's running it because it says the government's running it. it's not like they are going to contract out subcontract to

insurance companies to put together a policy. no. the united states government is going to offer a health care plan for the american public. and it's going to be run by the federal government, the united states government. that's the plan. that's what they're submitting. in their 1,018-page health care plan, which to this point has not been completed or marked up and we haven't seen the final product. if it's gone the way since we have been in congress since january when mr. obama was sworn in, this congress will present it to us between midnight and 2:00 on the morning before we vote on it. but getting back to the seriousness of this situation, i was taken back by what they did to me. it's not just about me. if it was just about me, i

wouldn't be standing up here. but i felt like they were telling me what i had to say, i had to use someone else's words to describe something that i wanted to describe. but that wasn't all. my colleague, kevin brady, from texas, and he may be here later on. we were delayed because of weather for a long time and mr. brady said he would get here as fast as he could during this hour. my friend kevin brady, prepared this chart. and what this chart is, is mr. brady's interpretation of all of the entities that exist or are being created by the government-run -- this plan that is put together by the democrats and it's what stands between the

consumers, this little body of folks right here and the health care professionals over there. and all this stands between them. and mr. brady was told that he could not mail this to his constituents. he asked why, and they said it's not true. and he said, well, that's fine. point to me one entity that's not in the bill. one. just one. and i'll pull it down. no one could point to any entity that's not contained in the bill. everything that is here on this chart is contained in the bill. but it was not -- the point of this was, they were trying to curtail mr. brady's freedom to express himself, his freedom of speech in this body. now, if you want to say, well,

sure, that's fair, they ought to be able to do that. well, let's look at something here that's kind of interesting. back during the hillarycare debate, another chart was introduced into this congress. it's not as pretty as mr. brady's, because it's not in color. this chart during the hillarycare debate was submitted to the franking commission back in i believe it was 19 -- i don't know the date. maybe it's on here -- anyway during the hillarycare debate, 1994, 1993, back in 1993. dick arm ey of texas. it went to the franking commission and the republicans

and democrats approved it as appropriate to communicate to constituents with. so what has changed between the 1990's and the first debate about health care, which was approved by both parties and today, 2009, which was blocked and refused by the democrat members of the franking commission. what has changed is someone is trying to tell us we don't have the right to speak our minds in the united states congress. now, when you get a huge majority like they have in the house and 60-vote majority in the senate, maybe you feel like the mandate is so great that you havethe right to circumvent the freedom of speech of the members of congress on the minority side, but you don't.

congressman joe barton used the word democratic majority in his news letter. franking commission kicked it out and said he had to use congressional majority. but nancy pelosi's news letter in 2006 when she was in the minority and you find this statement, but too many here and across our nation are paying the price for the ren can congressional majority's special interest agenda. so why was it ok for the now speaker of the house just in 2006 to use republican congressional majority, but it's not ok for mr. barton to use the term democrat majority? he has sent this along with mrs. pelosi's statement back, and is awaiting a response from the franking commission. now what's wrong with that?

well, what's wrong with that if you wait for a response, then you lose your time to communicate. you try to communicate on issues as they come up. this has to do with cap and trade before it passed the house and he's not allowed to use it. another colleague submitted a review for the week of july 13 and said, this bill imposes a new payroll tax on employers who do not provide their employees with insurance. the democrats demanded it be changed to read, this bill imposes a new payroll tax on employers who do not provide employees with insurance. the problem is, it's not an opinion, but a fact. it was pointed out to them on page 150 of their own bill that says specifically the language that was quoted by our colleague from florida. mr. ken calvert from california

pointed out that he quoted veer bait imfrom president obama in a speech that he made at a recent town hall that he made on health care. quote, when the lady asked about her elderly mother and special treatment for her elderly mother with heart troubles and receiving a pacemaker, this is a direct quote from his speech, which was not allowed to be sent out and was deleted from mr. calvert's newsletter. look, first thing of all is to understand that we actually have some choices to make about how we want to deal with our end-of-life care. we as a culture and society can start to make better decisions within our own families and for ourselves, at least let doctors know and your mom know, you know, that maybe it isn't going

to help. maybe you are better off not having the surgery, but taking painkillers. that was a direct quote from the president at his news conference , which was not allowed to go into mr. calvert's newsletter by the commission. the following people have had censorship of their language recently. representative herger, representative lamar smith, representative lamborn, bonner, westmoreland, always ston, shuster, gingrey, fleming, boustany, brady, conaway, price, culberson, garrett, kline and lee, all have been in some form or fashion censored in their freedom of speech. now, folks, if they'll take the

freedom of speech from members of congress, when will they take it away from the press? when will they take it away from the people? when will they take it away from you? and your children? and the next generation of americans that we pass this great freedom on to, the right of americans to stand up and speak their mind. and yet this party in control of this house is starting to interfere with the freedom of speech of american citizens who are elected by other american citizens to represent them on the floor of congress. i have talked a long time, but i'm upset by what's going on. i'm joined by some of my colleagues and let my friend, judge poe from texas, judge,

i'll yield to you whatever time you need. mr. poe: thank you, judge carter. i appreciate the time to address this issue. you have brought forth an excellent argument and concern. and as you have mentioned, a bigger problem about what is occurring has to do with the constitution where the first amendment says congress will make no law abridging the freedom of speech. this body, this group of people in this house, of all places on earth, should have the absolute freedom to speak freely about things that concern the people we represent, things that concern america, things that are good about america and things that we need to help for america. this place, congress, and yet this own body through this censorship commission prohibits us from talking to people in our

own district in a candid way, so much so, you and i and other members throughout this house of representatives can say anything we wish on this house floor, almost anything, if it doesn't violate the ethics rules that we've agreed on. but yet we can say things on this house floo that we cannot say to our constituents back home in the form of a newsleteror a telephone call. the example you gave, we can say government-run health care plan, but we can't say that to our people back home. and the reason is is because there is a censorship commission that garnishes and looks after our words and says no, you cannot have that freedom of speech. . this issue is bigger than health care, energy cap and trade, it's bigger than all those issues. the issue is the freedom to speak freely as a member of congress.

and now we are slowly entering the abyss where words that we want to say in our own way are going to be controlled by the speech police in congress. who would have ever thought this would occur? but yet as you mentioned this is occurring because of the things that we wish to communicate with people back home in texas or california or michigan or iowa. we cannot tell them in a candid way what by think -- what we think about what's going on here and answer their concerns when they ask us questions through emails and letters and phone calls. we are being now told there are some things you just cannot say as a member of congress. and it's very disturbing. the first amendment is first for a reason. because without the first amendment none of the others can be enforced. and freedom of speech and the

freedom of press are spirs along with the freedom of religion and freedom to assemble because they are the most important amendments and rights that we have. and now it's disturbing as you said that we find ourselves in a place where we have to get permission to say things from a censorship board that prohibits us from communicating our thoughts and our ideas back home. things that we can say on the house floor that we can't say in writing. who would have thought it? it ought not to be. i yield back to you, judge carter. mr. carter: i thank my friend from texas for a very eloquent presentation. it is that serious. those of us who spent our lives in the courtroom trying to protect people's rights. as judge poe will tell you, we spend an inordinate amount of

time making sure the rights, all the rights of americans that appear in the court system are protected. we in this body should spend an inordinate amount of time making sure that our rights and the rights of the american people are protected. there's others here. my good friend and classmate, mr. mccotter, who is from the great state of michigan. he is going to have a few things to say. mr. mccotter: i thank the gentleman from texas. i thank him for allowing me to borrow the disputed chart. one of the things that i think frustrates americans is when they entrust elected officials with office. especially congress. and the members of congress forget a simple thing. we do not represent washington to our districts. we represent our districts to washington. and i think that that important principle is often missed in the debate we are currently having.

by all objective standards the people want health care reform and they want it done right. yet in the rush to misjudgment they are very concerned that one of the truisms americans understand will once again be proven that no matter how bad a situation may be, congress can still make it worse. the rush to judgment now to pass a bill before the august deadline to me is based upon one fact, the more the american people learn about what's in this 1,200-page health care bill, the more they are opposed to it. thus, if this congress leaves without having passed a flawed health care bill that will increase costs, decrease quality, eliminate choices, and kill jobs, the american people will have time to tell their duel elected representatives what they think of this -- duly elected representatives what they think of this bill and it will not be be present. thus we become before the congress tonight which is the inability of members of congress

to put out a chart that shows how the process would work under this bill. the chart in question is here before us. it is on the floor of the u.s. house. it is being broadcast by c-span across the country. and yet members are not allowed to put it in materials to be distributed to their constituents. i can find no logical explanation why this chart can be shown to you here and yet cannot be shown to you in a piece of mail in a flyer or anything distributed out of the office of a member. and i would eagerly away the logical rationale as to why this is the case. because quite simply if the majority has its way and does not allow members of congress to put forward the chart of their own 1,200-page health care plan, you will not see this chart. this is what they want you to see.

this will lead no one to an informed decision about what is in the bill. this will lead no one to an informed decision about how one of their most intimate relationships they will have between themselves, their doctor, their health care insurance will be affected by this bill. all we ask is that rather than allowing the people less information about this bill, that the majority do what is right and allow the american people time to make their own determination based upon what is in the bill. and allow them to see this chart , contact their members, tell them what they think of it, and let us come back. let us get rid of a flawed bill, and let us come together from the center and work out for true health care reform that is right for americans. that will decrease costs, increase quality, empower patients as consumers. and continue to make the best

health care system in the world even better for all of our citizens. i yield back to the gentleman from texas. mr. carter: i thank my friend for yielding back. i'm now going to yield time to my good friend from the state of iowa, congressman king. he is going -- he always has great things to say. he's a man of compassion and passion. i yield such time as you may choose to consume. mr. king: i thank the judge and gentleman from texas for organizing this special order and bringing this point. and for getting the media out so the american people understand what's going on. i'm looking at the two charts that the judge has put down there. one is the hillary care chart that was black and white you remember from a few moments ago, mr. speaker. the hillary care chart in black and white in 1993 was enough to sink the national health care act. hillary care went down because the american people saw a chart. they saw all of those government commission that is were created and every time you create a

government commission, they knew intuitively that some of their freedom was going to be gone. some of their choices was going to be gone. taxes were going to go up. services were going to go down. lines were going to get longer, and the quality of health care was going to be diminished, all in the name of leveling this thing down to the lowest common denominator would be how i described it. that is when that flow chart in 1993, 16 years ago, was in black and white. this ghrow chart is in full -- flow chart is in full technicolor. when you look at this chart, i hope you have studied this chart thoroughly and understand all of the 31 agencies that are created here in this full technicolor chart, and the maze of government bureaucracy that's created by it and the loss of quality that will result from it and the increase in costs that will come from it and the dependency that will be brought about because this safety net turns into a hammock and no individual will really in the end have the incentive to take care of their own health

insurance because they'll be crowded out by the public option. this is a national health care plan, this is socialized medicine. and i'll say socialized medicine real clearly to you, mr. speaker, and here in this house of representatives. if i had the notion to put it on frank mail, we'll see how that works, too. but the public option is the president's words, and the national health care plan, the government-run insurance, is what it really is. we know a little bit about government-run insurance. a lot of western civilization has government-run insurance. they have government-run a lot of things that have crippled them to the point they couldn't compete with us. when you get down to the extreme in this, there is a reason why we won the cold war. because we didn't have government run. we had private sector run, private sector motivated a. whole mass of worker bees that went out and contributed and they were entrepreneurs and they were creative and they sparked this commifment anti-vitality of

the american -- economy. and the vitality of the american system created not only the highest quality health care system and medicine in the world. it created the most dynamic, competitive economy that tied together with strong political, military, and cultural country. in the end the soviet union imploded because they couldn't keep up with us economically. and here we are looking at the rest of the world having failed in their central planning models, which ever side of that great iron curtain they originated from, we can look at western europe, the plan in france, in the united kingdom, we can look to our neighbors to the worth in canada and see what they have created when they started down the path of trying to produce a substitute for the private sector health insurance models. we have over 1,300 health insurance companies in america. over 1,300. that's not policies, that's companies. companies with multiple policies, mr. speaker.

and the president has this idea that we need one more competitor. one more injector of good ideas per propose -- proposal into the health care debate. all of the people that spent their lives creating good ways of providing a more competitive model of health insurance, the president's not going to think of a better idea than they came up with. he proved himself here a couple days ago on the cambridge issue. the president doesn't always come up with good ideas. sometimes his ideas are not so good. to look in on an industry and decide you want to create a government competing industry so that you have more competition, when you have more than 1,300 health insurance companies, there's only two things that can happen with this. that is this circle on the chart, down at the bottom in the purple circle, on the side that would be the left hand of those people watching on television, is the white square that shows all the traditional health

insurance policies that are there. they have to flow into qualified policies. qualified policies will be pol sighs that will be qual -- policies that will be qualified when the newly appointed health insurance czar decides what kind of rules to write for these private insurance companies, these 1,300, that will have to change their policies to conform with the new rules that will be written by a person yet to be named by the president of the united states. there will not be 1,300 that qualify. they all won't qualify. some will decide they can see the writing on the wall and they'll know what's happened. they will just pull the plug, pull the pin and drive away from the wagon we have and decide to get out of the business because they know the government's come. the government is coming with your tax dollars and the government is determined to build this administration at least and the democrat majority in this congress is determined to build a health insurance policy to compete with 1,300 private insurance policies. which means they are going to do

two things in some combination. i could say one of two things. i think they'll do both things. the new health insurance czar, who is a guy in the blue box with the yellow letters above the two purple circles, dead center up about a third of the way, the new health insurance czar will write new rules. they'll be compliance rules earn those rules will be things such as, they will mandate, they will mandate mental health coverage, which is good to cover mental health, when some of the states have mandated it, some have not. they will mandate mental health coverage. contraceptive coverage, they'll probably mandate anything you can imagine and in addition they'll mandate, they will not step away from this so we know, they are going to mandate that this policy fund abortion in america. and they will trample over the top of more than 50% of americans' deeply held conviction that is life begins at conception and sacred in all its forms and they are going to ram this policy at us all, and

some of these companies will decide out of moral reasons they are going no longer be in business in a country that will compelled abortion or mandates for example. all those mandates on there will drive the premiums up. now, if the health insurance czar, the newly appointed obama health insurance czar, which is a guy in that rectangular box in the blue box with the yellow letters on it, that will be the health insurance czar, he will write those regulations tough enough that a loft companies will drop out and the others will have to raise their premiums. when they do all that, then the federal government can compete with their public plan that they want to have, just one entity out there to compete with the private sector, and they will be able to compete more easily and still be able to have premiums that are competitive for a time. . when they find the competition is not working that way, they

will subsidize the premiums in the public plan and drive the private insurance companies out. we know the model in canada. they started out with a similar proposal. i think that's where president obama got this idea. the canadians don't have any competitive health insurance plan today. there are no two purple circles, one of them the public option, the collection of them, and the other, the private. they have one circle, one size fits all. and everybody has to submit to one health care system in canada. and they have to stand in line. and the result is rationing. and so, for example, if you're waiting for a knee replacement in canada, the average wait i is 340 days. when you are waiting for a hip replacement, 196 days. heart surgery, like i think it's not as long a wait, but we know this, if people have to wait for health care and have to get in line for health care, they will

die in line. some will die in line. we have seen numbers that are pretty stark. and i'm going to hesitate on quoting them, but i'll tell you a week ago thursday night, we had a speaker in the policy committee that mr. mccotter who just spoke, from michigan, chairs. and that was a doctor from michigan who has practiced medicine on both sides of the border, in michigan and canada. and told the story of going up there to work in the e.r. in the hospital in canada and they brought a patient in that had a knee that was all torn up, a torn miniscus and a.c.l. and the knee was a mess. and the doctor did tests and said you need surgery right away and i'll schedule you for tomorrow morning. well, it must have been the doctors real foray into canadian

medicine because he found out he couldn't schedule the surgery for the next morning but had to schedule another6 c1 doctor who was a specialist. and by the way, this doctor is a specialist. and couldn't get him scheduled not for that night or the following morning or the day after, which would be a real stretch in america. can you imagine laying around in a hospital for a specialist to come along, your knee swollen and waiting for a doctor to show up -- two days? and i say, mr. speaker, no. we wouldn't wait two days for a doctor to show up to look at a leg. if he couldn't be there that night, he would be there in the morning and do the examination and find a way to schedule the surgery and do that surgery as quickly as they could because they care about quality of life and service and want to make sure you're not in an ambulance going to a hospital somewhere else telling them that you couldn't get in at so and so

memorial hospital because there was a long line. they don't want that to happen. in canada and this patient, this real case that was related to us before the policy committee, a week ago last thursday night by a doctor from michigan, it took six months for that young man with that torn-up knee to see the specialist to be diagnosed in order to be approved for surgery that this doctor would have like to have seen done the next day. and then six months later, they actually did the surgery, a knee torn up, a man who is in the productive time of his life on crutches for 12 months waiting for surgery and then we know that the leg at trowies and the rehab gets to be longer and he was out pretty close, i believe, 15 months he was off work when they could have had to work back in a couple or maybe even less if he could have had the surgery

right away. that's the example of canadian health care. i recall reading through a stack of collier's magazines, 1948, 1949. they featured the united kingdom's socialized medicine plan they passed in 1948 in britain. they showed long lines outside the clinics and doctors that were just frazzled that they had to see so many patients in order to hold their economics together and didn't have time to be a doctor-patient relationship. but just rammed through as fast as they could do so. all the predictions, the things that we see today were even predicted. they were real in the first year of a socialized medicine plan in the united kingdom. here wer we can't call this government-run health care? government-run system? who will be running this system if it's not the government? who is poised to pass this

legislation if it isn't the democrat majority in the house of representatives and the democrat president in the white house and it will take a democrat majority in the united states senate to pass this skem attic, that takes away the american people's freedom to purchase their own health insurance policy and access to their own health care, all in the name of trying to provide for the people that are not insured and been blurring intentionally the language between health insurance and health care. if we had $1 billion every time somebody on this floor had blurred the language between health insurance and health care, intentionally, i believe, mr. speaker, we would have enough money to fund this. people are being confused intentionally. i have seen this language unfold for two years.

people don't have health care. every american has access to health care. and we can have the argument about whether going to the emergency room is the right way to do it or not, it's not the cheapest. but if they have access to health care, we should not tell the american people they do not. we need to tell them every american has access to health care, not every american can afford their health insurance policy. break the numbers down and start subtracting those that are here in america illegally. let's just say this great gift of automatic government health insurance had to be delivered to these illegals in this country by the department of homeland security, they would be obligated to deport those people rather than reward them with a government run and owned health insurance plan. subtract them from the 306 million. subtract those from those who

are here legally. we don't hand entitlements to people who come to the united states. subtract them. subtract those who make $75,000 a year. if you subtract the people that are eligible for medicaid, but are not signed up -- and by the way, mr. speaker, almost half of those eligible for medicaid just aren't signed up. and i don't know why we would think if we would just give everybody free access to health insurance that they will sign up. subtract the medicaid people that are not signed up. subtract the people who are eligible for an employee-run option, but don't sign up. and you get down to a study that is this. one was by a pair of penn state professors, 10.1 million americans are the chronically uninsured. and i think it is the c.b.o., but 12 million uninsured.

10.1 million and 12 million americans are chronically uninsured. that's the universe we are trying to get to, 10 million to 12 million americans. that is about 4% of this population. 4% of the population chronically unshurd. and we know the people that are chronically not covered by medicaid, just simply don't show up. why do we think the chronically uninsured are any different type of person utilizing the health policies that we have. so i will submit that even if we handed them a tree policy, probably not more than half of the 4% that are chronically uninsured, the rest you would have to chase them down and staple the policy on their collar and show up in the emergency room, we will take care of them anyway. the provision of health insurance when you can't get

half of them to actually sign up. we get 2% of a population of 306 million people at the price of $1.5 trillion and raising taxes $8 billion and deficit of $239.1 billion and deficit $500 billion on the upside. i'm always open to debate, but when iut numbers out here, some will say, you're wrong, congressman. and i say what's your number? they don't have a number. if they don't have a number, they don't have any right to challenge my numbers. i'll put the numbers out here. but this is about access to health care. this is about our freedom. this is about whether 1,300 private health insurance companies in america can do a better job of providing the options that are suitable to the american people and the creativity and research and

development, innovativeness in the modern health care system that sets the standards for the world -- and the rest of the world poaches on the american health care system. we create more pharmaceutical and surgical techniques than anybody else by far. and they're available to the rest of the world for a cheap rice if anything at all is charged. we set the standards. the americans pay the price and still, they can't keep up with the results we have here in america. i could go on, mr. speaker, but i think i have made my point. and i thank the gentleman from texas for bringing this up. and can i say this like a texan, judge? this is our chart. kevin brady of texas put that chart up. it shows 31 government agencies, new ones. it is accurate and shall stand and shall not come down. and like that first flag down in texas with that cannon on it, if they think this shouldn't be something for the public to see,

they should come and take it back. i yield back. mr. carter: i thank my friend for reminding us of texas history. in reading over the list of people that have had the franking commission censor their language, i failed to mention congressman spencer bachus who has had just horrendous hard times this year with the issues of bailouts and all the things that have gone on in the financial services industry, he submitted the term government-run health care. this is an exarkt sentence. government-run health care system proposed by president obama and liberal allies in congress. they would not allow him to say that. he was told during the cap and trade -- we say cap and tax bill, which is our description of the bill, they were not letting him use the bill cap and tax.

they wanted it to be climate bill. he also had his language censored. one of my colleagues made the point and said, when people start censoring your language and telling you what to say, i think that most people in america start saying why are you doing that? we got frespeech in this country. those are my elected representatives. they have the right to express their opinion. why are you not letting them have their right to express their opinion? why can't they call something a government-run health care that you want to call a public option plan? that ought to be part of the debate. i think the american people would ask that question. i also think they would ask the question about this chart, why are you wanting to hide this? what's there to hide? if it creates those agencies, then it creates them. and we have asked and asked and asked to point out what agency

that says it is being created that aren't in the bill. and no one as yet has pointed out one that's not in the bill. so why can't we show it to people? why would ap branch of this house -- a branch of this house tell members of this house what they can and can't say to the people who elected them to come up here and speak on their behalf? i think we should be concerned about this. i think americans should be worried that if they start telling us what we can say, what are they going to start telling you what you can say? and that's something, you know -- if we let it go, we are just as guilty of those who have let tyranny go in the past. we as americans fought a revolution to be able to set

down in black and white on paper, our god-given rights, and that's what our constitution says. man is endowed with these rights by his creator, certain inalienable rights. and we define those rights by setting them down in black and white in amendments to the constitution. and the first amendment, first sentence says, this house, this body, this government shall not infringe the right of free speech. . it is a direct directive to this government. that means the house of representatives, the congress cannot interfere with the freedom of speech in this country, the senate cannot interfere, and the executive branch, the president, or any of the agencies, cannot impose upon the right of free speech in america.

and yet a body created to decide how -- is telling us what we can and cannot say to the people that sent us up here. i don't think i'm blowing this out of proportion. i don't think when mr. brady is told he cannot publish this -- initially in any form or fashion until it was discovered that the internet, the internet is a great protector of american freedom. because the average american can make a copy of this and he can send it to the world on the internet. and the franking commission can talk all they want to. it's already out there. and he had something to hide, the fact you had something to hide will also be be out there all over the world.

but, you know, we feel like we have a duty and responsibility to talk to and communicate with the people that sent us up here to represent them. and the majority party has every right, the democrats have every right to express their opinion on bills, say what they think they say. we can say what we think they say. we can describe them as we want to describe them. that's what this house is all about. we like to say this is the greatest experiment in democracy in history. the greatest experiment of self-government in history. it can't be if somebody is curtailing the voice of even one of the members of this body. if somebody is telling one member they can't do it. if this chart was written every third word said elect kevin brady to congress, the franking

commission would have every right to do because that would be using government money for your own personal business to get elected to congress. if it said elect only republicans to congress, you shouldn't use -- i agree, the franking commission would have every right to say that because that's why they are there. to keep us from using government money for political purposes. but when you're expressing your opinion and you have gone to the trouble with four researchers to dig through and find out every agency that's been created in the new health care plan that's being proposed by this congress at the instructions of this president, mr. obama, if these things are created, why can't you tell people about them? if i want to describe the federal government's public health care plan as a government-run health care plan, then i choose to describe it

that way because the government's going to run it. this isn't rocket science. the government is going to run it. in fact, a whole lot of these agencies are established to help them run it. and i want to describe it that way. i've got a constitutional right to do that. and no colleague in this house, no organization set up by this house has the right to curtail the freedom of americans, especially the representatives of americans to speak their minds. and it may be a little thing, but you know what? it just takes one drop of water and eventually the bucket's full, and then the barrel's full , and then the lake is full. and if you're going to ignore the fact that i didn't count these names, but i can count them, this list right here, 24

members of this house have had their language censored and their communications stopped because of something that they said like government-run health care, like democrat majority's -- using the term democrat majority in the newsletter. if this is going to happen, if you're going to tell people you can't state the bill imposes taxes, when it does impose taxes, if you're being told you can't send the letter out, you can't communicate, i don't see how you can define it any other way than curtailing the freedom of speech in the united states.

and that's what's going on. i have talked in the past about the fact that a while back, middle of these special orders where we have been talking about the rule of law and other things, congress just adjourned. we had a -- we have a three-day reading rule proposed by thomas jefferson. has been set as the standard for this house of representatives since the beloved thomas jefferson, patron saint of the democratic party. and yet the three-day rule promised by the speaker, promised by the president, established by thomas jefferson hasn't applied to a single one of these bills we have had thus far. not one. not one of these major bills, starting clear back in the summer -- in the fall, not one of them has given us three days to read them. yet if you remember john boehner

dropped one that was about that tall. 3,000 pages, dropped it on the floor to show we had it eight hours to look at. now, i guess it's one of these things if you don't step up and speak now when it's the little thing like making you change your language, you can't mail your letter, at some point in time it's somebody's going to tell you i'm sorry, congressman, your opinion is not wanted here on this floor of the house. sit down. you can't talk at all. or i'm soarry, that party's opinion is not wanted. and you can't talk at all. or whatever. or maybe your opinion is not wanted and you can't express it at all. and i don't think that's -- that's not america. that's not the america that we created. that's not the america we are

proud of. that's not the america we honor when we salute the flag and when we sing patriotic songs. that's not the america that we want. we are talking about the national health care plan. i haven't gone into the merits of it. i think my colleague did a very good job. i'm so concerned about the fact they are censoring the fact, all it said was government-run it's like i committed a crime. what in the world would happen if i started saying what i thought about it? but i did see something on television yesterday on pbs, it was winton churchill, he was kicked out of office in 1946, 1947, 1948 something like that by the labor party in england. but he was re-elected i believe in 1950. don't hold me to those dates. they were showing him making a speech. and he said, i won't quote it exactly, he said, two years ago

we thought socialism was the solution to all of our problems. today we know that it's not. and in fact it has failed miserably. however they passed socialized medicine in 1948. even though mr. churchill came in in 1950 and said socialism has failed, that's almost 60 years ago and they've still got socialized medicine. it failed then, it's failing now. but ronald reagan said, the hardest, the most closest thing to eternal life on the face of the earth is a government program. once it's created you never get rid of it. so the government-run health care plan once it becomes law,

that's why it's in such a hurry to do it this week, we don't have any time, the sky is falling. we can't wait 30 more days to discuss this problem that's going to change america as we know it, it's going to completely change the way we do health care as we know it, we can't have just 30 more days to talk about it back home with our constituents. we can't kick this ball down the road. we've got to do it where it really came to the center portion of this house two weeks ago. most of the bill -- the committees that reported it out, reported it out last week. and we were told if we don't do it by friday we'll keep you saturday and sunday, if you don't do it saturday and sunday we'll keep you next week. but you're going to do it before you go home for august recess. i stood up here most of last august talking to a dark chamber because they turned off the lights and wouldn't let us talk. we just talked in the dark. so i don't mind.

i'll stay up here the whole august recess if that's what's supposed to happen. but they are trying to get in a hurry because the closest thing to eternal life seen on this cert a government program. once these government programs are in place, we'll never get rid of them. that's the consequences of getting in a hurry. i just point out that we got in a hurry on tarp. we got in a hurry on fannie mae and freddie mac. we got in a hurry on the stimulus bill. we got in a hurry on cap and trade. we have been in a hurry on everything we have done this year. and i think everybody is seeing the results of nothing thinking things out and not doing what we are supposed to be. i love it when somebody says we are the greatest deliberative body on earth. let's deliberate. i have had juries deliberate longer on an issue than we are

dealing with on health care for america. hi a jury deliberate for two weeks -- i had a jury deliberate for two weeks. we are in the second week this week and we haven't even gotten one committee has not marked up and reported out a bill yet. the most -- biggest committee, and the most -- arguably the most important committee, energy and commerce, has not sent us a completed bill. and yet we are expected to finish it this week. and i had a jury deliberate i believe it was two, maybe three weeks, close to 21 days, on a water tank and a water system in taylor, texas. so this has got to be a little more critical to the american people than that. it's about freedom.

it's about liberty. your liberty and my liberty. to rely upon. the bill of rights and the first amendment of the bill of rights. it says that this congress shall not impose upon the freedom of speech in america. i thank the speaker for his time. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. fudge, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. -- majority leader. ms. fudge: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. fudge: mr. speaker, i'd like to set the record straight. i have listened to my colleagues

from across the aisle i do want to make clear to the american people that if you have health insurance now and you want to keep it, you can. you don't need to change. i also want to say to the american people that this plan is one about choice. it's not about government-run anything. it's about choice. it's about making sure that we spend more time worrying about the people than we do about the insurance companies. so i just want to make sure that people understand -- i'm very curious to understand and to know what my colleague meant when he kept saying they, they, they. don't know if he was talking about retirees or the working poor or if he was talking about minorities or he was talking about people who have been laid off or people who have lost their jobs because their companies closed. i don't know who they is, but certainly at some point i'd like to know who that is. now to my remarks, mr. speaker. the congressional black caucus, c.b.c.s. proud to present this hour on health care. the c.b.c. is chaired by the

honorable barbara lee from the ninth congressional district of california. i am representative marcia l. fudge from the 11th district of ohio. i'm the anchor of this c.b.c. hour. the vision of the founding members of the congressional black caucus to promote the public welfare through legislation designed to meet the needs of millions of neglected citizens continues to be a focal point for the legislative work and the political activities of the congressional black caucus today. . tonight the c.b.c. will focus its attention on health care reform. i am proud to serve on one of the three house committees that authored h.r. 3200, the america's affordable health choices act of 2009. the public health insurance option also known as the public plan is an essential part of h.r. 3200. the public plan is an innovative tool that will move america's health insurance system beyond the status quo and into a system

that provides choices and forces private insurance companies to compete. competition guarantees that all americans will be able to access quality coverage while preserving what works in today's system and expanding choices and containing cost. some argue there is no need for a public plan, as did our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. others say that a public plan will put private insurance companies out of business. i say this, today's health insurance companies are operating in a manner that is making health coverage increasingly out of reach for the average american. premiums are soaring higher and higher and health insurance choices are becoming fewer and fewer. for example, in my home state of ohio since 2000 the average family premiums have increased by 92%.

that's 9-2, 92%. when faced with such an increase, you would think that ohioans would have a number of choices and could decide to move to another insurer that offers a more competitive premium. well, it's not that easy, mr. speaker. because choice of insurance companies is severely limited in the state of ohio and across america. in ohio the top two insurance providers control 61% of the health care market in 2008. in fact, 94% of the metropolitan areas in the united states are highly concentrated, meaning that one insurance company or a small group of insurance companies dominate the majority of the market. and the problem is even worse for small businesses. in ohio the top five insurers control 85% of the market that provides health insurance to

small businesses. this is what we call a consolidated health insurance market. there is no real he competition. so the companies that are monopolizing the market are setting the prices and the standards that have led to more than one million uninsured ohioans and 46 million uninsured americans. a public plan will be one of several options within h.r. 3200. the new health exchange that it will provide, that is needed to reform our health insurance market. as i mentioned earlier, h.r. 3200's public plan offers competition. currently our health insurance system is inefficient and expensive. without competition private insurers have no incentive to improve. by forcing market reforms in the area of administrative cost and through better delivery of services, the public plan will serve as a real competition and set the standards by which other

insurers are measured. the public plan will operate as a guaranteed backup that will ensure everyone that everyone has access to affordable health care, no matter what happens. a public plan will give millions of hardworking families a piece of -- peace of mind. both the public plan and competing private plans will offer a standard benefit package that covers essential health services such as in-patient and out-patient hospital care and maternity and mental health services. the package will also offer preventative services like well baby and well child care and screenings for diseases like diabetes and hypertension. preventive care is a benefit that is important to cutting the cost of health care. providing preventive care will allow us finally to spend less by keeping healthy people healthy instead of waiting until someone is very ill and then providing more costly treatment.

under the standard benefit package, patients will no longer pay for preventive services. and the annual dollar amount spent on health care by consumers will be limited to $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family. therefore no one should ever again face bankruptcy from health care costs. the private insurance market must be reformed. we cannot afford to do nothing. $100 billion of america's $2.3 trillion in health care spending goes to the cost of administering private insurance. that's $1 billion of the $2.5 trillion goes to the cost of administering private insurance. projections have shown that it is possible to save more than $3 billion in 2009 alone and $40 billion over 10 years simply by reducing administrative spending

in health care. the status quo is unacceptable, mr. speaker. things will only get worse if we continue to let private insurance companies set the standards. every american risk losing their health insurance and-or seeing their costs skyrocket. without action, families will continue to spend a disproportionately large amount of money on health care expenses. the cost of an employer-sponsored family health insurance plan will reach $24,000 in the year 2016. an increase of 84% if we do nothing to fix our broken system. american businesses will continue to fall behind. employers' spending on health care premiums will more than double. $285 billion, excuse me, mr.

speaker, the premiums will more than double to $885 billion in the year 2019. and one in five employers will stop offering health benefits altogether because of rising cost in the next three to five yeerings. further, our government will not be able to keep up with the rising cost of health insurance. as americans lose their private insurance, many will be added to the already strained government programs. combined with the rising cost of care, spending on medicare and medicaid will double from $720 billion in 2009 to $1.4 trillion in 2019. it is time to level the playing field with a public plan. the public plan will be required to meet the same benefit requirements and comply with the same insurance reforms as private plans. individuals and families will qualify for financial assistance

in purchasing health insurance and will have an option to choose among the private carriers and the public plan. today's health insurance companies can either be more efficient and provide the coverage that americans need or make way for the insurers that will agree to be responsive to the financial and health care needs of millions of uninsured americans. in closing, in closing i would like to highlight two important pieces health reform legislation. the first, to address the needs of the poor and those with low incomes, i recently introduced the health information technology public utility act of 2009 to. facilitate nationwide adoption of electronic health records, particularly among america's free clinics. although health care i.t. funding wag included in the american recovery and -- was included in the american recovery and reinvestment act of 2009, america's free clinics are not eligible for funding under the act. this piece of legislation has

also been introduced in the senate by senator john rockefeller, a democrat from west virginia. lastly, recognizing the health care needs of our nation's underserved populations, the c.b.c. introduced the health equity and accountability act of 2009 under the leadership of delegate donna christensen. along with other c.b.c. members i urge our colleagues to include this legislation in the america's affordable health choices act of 2009. with that, mr. speaker, i would now like to yield to the distinguished member from the virgin islands, my friend and colleague and an expert in health care reform, representative christensen. mrs. christensen: thank you, congresswoman fudge. thank you for yielding and thank you again for being so steadfast in anchoring this special order every monday night. i know many times i've wanted to join you and have not been able to be here to be supportive, to support you in it. but you've managed to keep it going and to provide good

information on many, many topics to the people who are listening across america. i also want to thank you for your very clear explanation of what the public plan really is. we've heard a lot of misinformation about that public plan as congresswoman fudge -- plan. as congresswoman fudge says, it will offer choice and it is not a single pair, -- payer, it's nothing like the canadian plan. not to disparage the canadian plan. they have a good system. but ours will not be that. it will be an exchange where you have -- the american public will have choices and can choose a public plan or a private plan. so thank you for making that clear. and as we meet, mr. speaker, the democratic caucus is probably finishing up down stares discussing the health care -- downstairs discussing the health care reform bill, going through

it section by section. and there's no nothing about abortion in it -- and there's nothing about abortion in it. there have been many complaints about the bill and some of them are rather weak and just plain wrong. some people complain that they don't know what's in the 1,000-page bill. well, the basic outline of that bill has been available for almost four weeks now. and the bill itself for over a week. i think that has given enough time for everyone and their staff to have the opportunity to read the bill if they wanted to and as important as that bill is, is i hope everyone has taken the time to read it. other complaints are of regional disparities in medicare and medicaid reimbursement. they've been a big issue for us. it's one that may now be solved at least on the regional level and poor and minority communities which have also had historically desperate and low reimbursement rates will also see that fixed in h.r. 3200. but no one has more of a

disparity than the people i represent and those in the other territories who are not getting equal treatment in medicare or medicaid and who as of now are not even in the insurance exchange. and yet, despite all of that, because of the overall good this bill will do for us and the territories and our fellow americans, i fully support this bill. i want to also address some of the myths that are out there. no bill is perfect, especially not one that has to do as much as this will have to do to fix the long standing systemic malfunctionings of our health care system. what we have produced after many meetings, many preliminary hearings, followed up by a week of day-long hearings where over 50 people and organizations testified, it's a good bill. and we can get it out of the energy and commerce committee this week. if we can do that we're not going to bring it to the floor and keep everyone in here.

but we'd like to get it through this week so that when we go home we have time to read the final product, discuss it with our constituents at home and come back prepared to pass it when we return in september. but i firmly believe that we have to keep moving forward. if we don't it won't be a president obama loss or a speaker pelosi loss or even a democratic party or caucus loss, it will be a serious loss of the american people. especially to the moore than 46 million who are uninsured -- especially to the more than 46 million people who are uninsured. it will be a loss to the poor and rural and minority communities in our country. too many of the unand -- un- and underinsured are the people of color. that's why we've devoted for our more of our special order times here on the floor of this house to this issue and to urging support and passage of the

health care reform bill in the house. it's why we met with speaker pelosi last week, why we're going to sit down with the president and why we've written or discussed our concerns with chairman and ranking members of the -- chirmen and ranking members of the relevant committees in the house and senate. we're joined with the congressional hispanic office and congressional asian and pacific islander caucus as a tricaucus in support of this bill. to go back to some of the gross misrepresentations and to explain the real provisions of the bill, let me say that one erroneous criticism that's often heard is that this bill will put washington bureaucrats in between the patient and the doctor. or other health care provider. nowhere is there anything in this bill that would do that. yes, the democratic members of congress want to include a public plan. yes, we want to ensure that every insurance provide a comprehensive basic package of

services, that they must accept you for coverage, that they do not exclude you if you have a pre-existing disease, that they cannot drop you if you get sick and cannot put a limit on how much they will pay over a year or over your lifetime. what we in washington want to do in this bill and will do when we pass it is to make sure there is no obstacle between you and your doctor. . we want you to be the healthiest you can be and again we are taking down important barriers that stand in the way of your getting the health care you need. preventive care such as colonoscopy, immunizations, and others will cost you nothing. and we insist if you have insurance or provider you like, as congresswoman fudge says, you can stay with those, can you keep that provider. and that insurance carrier. we do not put government between you and your doctor.

many of you either have or work for a small business. you're the target of much of the fear mongering out there. rather than raise taxes on small businesses as the opponents of your getting your health care would have you believe, this bill makes it easier for small businesses to provide or continue to provide insurance. because of the exchange, because of the public plan, and the tax credit that they will get if they provide insurance for their workers. and smaller businesses which are unable to pay high salaries or have less employees will be exempted from having to provide that insurance, but the employees would have access to the exchange and be able to have their insurance premiums subsidized so that it won't take a big chunk out of your already stretched salary. some of you like many in my district who are medicare and medicaid beneficiaries have difficulty finding a doctor or provider who will give you the services that you need. some of you live in communities

which don't have a hospital and have to travel many miles to one because the one that was there was not able to keep its doors opened because of low reimbursement rates in your community. the house health care reform bill, h.r. 3200, will increase reimbursements. many of our congressional districts lose over $100 million every year in uncompensated care. and that compromises the ability to get the quality of care you need and deserve. first of all, with this bill, your local hospital will be able to survive, maybe even return, because when it is passed, they will be paid for every patient that they take care of. secondly, medicare will pay more, especially to primary care providers, and those providers who come together to make sure your care is better managed and more complete. in groups called accountability care organizations or medical homes. and if the community you live in can demonstrate that they not

only provide good care but improve your health, the reimbursement will also be increased. so this legislation that we want to see passed will not only increase payment to help make sure the providers you need are there in your communities, but those providers will be supported and encouraged to take the time needed to listen to you and to coordinate your care to ensure that you will be healthier. this is a real win-win. those of us who become health care providers choose this life of service to help individuals and communities have a better quality of life. and help individuals live long enough and well enough to see and enjoy their grandchildren. the new payment structure and the eliminated co-payments for preventive care will help us do what we went into our professions to do in the first place. and then as we have always said, for those who have not had the ability to be fully a part or fully utilize the health care system for many reasons, just

providing insurance as important as that is is not enough. and for african-americans and other people of color who are the most disenfranchised in the current system of health care delivery, the additional services and support are critical if we are ever to close the health care gaps that cause us to die prematurely from preventable causes, that causes our live expectancy to be seven o eight years shorter than other americans and causes over 86,000 excess deaths, deaths that should never have happened, every year in this rich country. and so the bill includes major expansion of community health centers, more national health service core scholarships to help more of our young people inter' health profession, more loan forgiveness, especially for those who are going to be a primary care provider, the main doctor, or nurse practitioner you see to get an-e and manage your health care. there will be funding to help more students better prepare for medicine, for nursing, for pharmacy, allied health, and

other health profigures the, and support for institution that is train underrepresented minorities. this is important because although there is a need for many more primary care providers, it is just as critical that they come from all communities, including communities of color which make up more than 30% of our mop pew lation -- population. the congressional black caucus has always taken the position also that communities know best what they need anti-way to ensure that when health information and care is provided, it is done in way that will be understood, accepted, and effective. we have therefore been able to have community base and driven programs included in the bill. these provisions are patterned after our health empowerment zones which provides technical assistance and funding to enable communities to not only meet their specific health care needs with respect to specific diseases, but to also be able to address the social and economic determine nance of our health, hoifing, -- housing, economic

opportunity, safety, environment, nutrition, and others. also included are provisions to ensure that data is collected which includes race, ethnicity language, and other socioeconomic factors, and also provides that provide the language differences would not be a barrier to getting health care. this bill, h.r. 3200, america's affordable health choices act, must pass and must not be allowed to be derailed by any group or industry that does not have our best interest at heart. the basis of the opposition has nothing to do with better health for all of us who live in this country. we recognize as the gentleman said this effort is about change and change is what the people in this country voted for. it's about major change which is always difficult. but this is change that must happen and it must happen now. surely there will be losses to some in the interest of providing more to everyone. to ensure the benefits of this country will be more fairly shared.

that's a basic tenet on which this country was founded. and in no place is this more important than our health. this country has the best and most advanced health care services exe. perfect tees, and technology -- expertise, and technology. but because so many are not able to access it we lag behind the rest of the industrialized world in life expectancy, and health in general. closing the insurancep gap as well as the racial and ethnic minority gaps will make this country the true leader in health that we ought to be. so my plea to those who are listening outside of the beltway is, do not let the misinformation and self-serving propaganda steer you wrong and away from supporting this important legislation that many of the best minds in this country have guided to ensure that your right to health care will be protected and delivered. this bill is important to the african-american community, it's important to the native american community, and all communities of color.

it is important to rural areas and it's important to every american. with your help and support t. can also provide more equity to your fellow americans in the u.s. territories. passing h.r. 3200 is important to all of us, our families, and our communities. we cannot lose this great opportunity that president obama hasegawa worked so hard to bring this far. as he has said to us, it is not if we can afford to this bill, or if we can afford health care reform, the real issue is, we cannot afford not to do it. covering everyone, providing increased access to preventive care and disease management, will surely reduce health care spending because prevention saves. but most importantly it will improve and save lives. so i join my congressional black caucus colleagues in saying,

let's pass this bill. let's get it out of the energy and commerce committee. let's give the american public a bill before we leave for our recess and let's come back in september and pass it and provide quality health care to every american. i yield back the balance of my time. ms. fudge: thank you so much. let me just again thank my colleague, dr. christensen. i just have to say that there are so many of us in this house who look to you not just because you're a physician but certainly because you have studied health care for many, many years and have advocated for reform. we thank you for your work. and certainly want to support your efforts in making sure that this gets done the way it should. we have now been joined by our colleague and friend from the great state of texas. i'd now like to, mr. speaker, yield to the honorable sheila jackson lee, the gentlelady from texas.

ms. jackson lee: let me thank the gentlelady from ohio and i appreciate her anchoring this special order in order to pursue a very important discussion on the leadership of the congressional black caucus and the health task force, along with the work of so many of our members who are on the jurisdictional committees and also as i indicated earlier the importance of the c.b.c. health task force of which i have served on for a number of years. i, too, want to add my appreciation to that task force, to the chairwoman of the congressional black caucus, congresswoman barbara lee, and as well the chairperson of the health care task force and

health reform task force, dr. donna christensen, who was just on the floor. thanking her for leading us through the years. i have worked with her through the years as we were able to get the chips program and a number of other steps toward complete health care reform. i'm glad to have been able to do so. i had an adeand we have inter-- an idea and we have had an -- entered into discussions to include the hispanic caucus and asian pacific caucus, the progressive caucus, and also part of the progressive caucus negotiating team on health care reform. and we have done that. we found that we have had now maybe a quadruple caucus that has overlapping issues equallying more than 100-plus members, maybe upwards of 200 members who have a common goal on dealing with health disparities as well as dealing with the question of public option.

i'd like to just for a moment, congresswoman fudge, go through some of the important issues. i think we should re-establish the fact that there are 47 million uninsured americans. many people want to break that down. there are people who don't want insurance. there are others who have other problems. why don't we just say that we have 47 million uninsured who have not been given any other option. so they are uninsured. who knows if they were presented a plan that addressed their needs within a reasonable cost, small businesses included, which of course hire or in fact the employers, small businesses of upwards of 50 million plus individuals, i think the number is larger than that, if we gave small businesses, the uninsured, many of the people are working, they are in all smaul businesses, they are uninsured not because they don't want that opportunity but because they have invested every single cent they have in that small business. many of the small businesses are

sole proprietors. i believe the work the congressional black caucus and this quadruple caucus conglomeration along with our caucus is emphasizing how we expand these various aspects of ensuring that americans get insurance. now, you could point to the fact that maybe one poll would not be accurate. maybe two polls. we have four polls here that say people want a public health insurance option. and the interesting thing is, as this is a very strong element of the congressional black caucus, is that the public option has three elements to it. the premium plan, and premium plus. the highest number is the nbc-wsi poll, 76%, cbs poll, 72%, the ebri poll which speaks about the public option having

83% of the support of the american people. because they know that we are not constructing a second class plan, we are constructing a plan that will give the option for so many people to be engaged. in addition one of the emphasis that we have had is this question of reducing health disparities. this is enormously important and including in that we have the secretary of h.h.s. is required to conduct a study that exams the to which medicare providers utilize or make available information on various aspects of disparities. i think it's very important. this legislation also provides for promoting primary care mental health services and coordinated care. key elements. we know we passed the mental health disparities bill. this keeps that in place, but it also has provisions to promote and support the increase ever primary care provisions -- of prior may -- primary care

physicians which means we are trying to get people to the doctors before they are ready to be admitted to a hospital. this is a very important aspect of preventive care. you come for a checkup not come to be admitted to the hospital. and this is an element of that. one of the disappointments i had is that the congressional budget office, which is only language that people inside the beltway understand, called the c.b.o., and headlines across america you hear the term c.b.o., has not given us a real figure for how much money we will save by upping the amount of preventive care. i think that is key and something that the members of the tricaucus and now with the addition of the progressive caucus have supported emphasizing. . i want to go to the question of this economy. we inherited this economy and i think the important to own up to the facts. some people may argue that this administration has been overly busy, has done a mountain of

legislative initiatives. what more are they going to do? well, the facts are that our economy was crumbling when this president took office. the bailout structure was already in place. the tarp moneys were already in place. the automobile industry was already collapsing. and we simply had to come in as the red cross, as the boy scouts and the girl scouts, and try to make our camp better than we found it. that's what we're doing here today. and part of the work that's being done by this number of caucuses, including congressional black caucus, with the emphasis on preventative care and the public option option will do this, it will ensure early periodic screening, diagnosis and treatment. case management for chronic diseases, dental and mental health services and even language access services. so we're getting ahead of the problem. we're diagnosing what the problem is. these percentages show that the american people understand where we're trying to go.

and i just want to add this as i talk about the president and his whole concern on this question of the economy, is to make mention of the fact that the economy generates unemployment. in my district, i hosted this past saturday a federal job fair because i believe that since we know that there are about 600,000 federal jobs, we need to break outside the beltway and get out in america and tell americans what options there are for public service, first, and, two, to work for the united states government. we had an organized effort, very open facility that had free parking, but we were expecting about 1,000 to come. over 3,000 houstonians came in the heat of the day to be able to access u.s. federal jobs. i would guestmate that the large percentage of those who came do not have health care. and that's why we're here on the floor today. unemployment equals not having

health care for yourself or for your family. many of those were long-term workers, some of those were recent graduates, and some of those were people who had been chronically unemployed for a period of time to no fault of their own. but they came because they want to work. but they have no health insurance. what we're doing now is on the basis of responding to that need. and let me tell you a component of this health reform that i believe we need to work a little harder on. and that is to recognize the value of what we call physician-owned hospitals. in a recent meeting, a member got up and explained in the far reaches of new england how physician-owned hospitals are crucial in instances where there are no hospitals for miles and miles around and particularly where there's no other competition. as we stand today, physician-owned hospitals under the current health reform bill, 104 physician-owned hospitals underdeveloped, 42 of which are scheduled to come online by 2010

would have to be shut down. we have a simple fix. it's so change the date of which these hospitals will be grandfathered in to the date of enactment of this bill. what that would mean is that you would keep 104 hospitals which are at risk right now, 20,000 new jobs will be lost in 21 states and over 40 hospitals in my own home state as well. at least $5 billion in current investments will be lost. it will also affect hospitals that were built to serve working men and women with little or no insurance. this is not a partisan issue. this is about providing more care through the physician-owned hospitals. and as well, it would highlight the work that physicians do to maintain good health care because if they're invested, they're obviously concerned about their work product. in this -- as an example, i just want to cite st. yo self's medical center. 80 medical stf members out of 500 elected to purchase a stake in the hospital to keep it from

closing. because of this partnership, it remains today as a viable institution caring for hundreds of thousands of patients each year through the various services of this general acute care inner city hospital with an emergency room that only --, the only downtown hospital with five million workers in that surrounding area. nearly 5,000 new houstonians are born annually at this hospital. the first maternity hospital in houston. and so as we look to ensure that we have value in our health care reform, i believe that we're going in the right direction, i believe we should do this now. but as we do so, let us not leave out institutions that have been very helpful in the past and let us look to our physicians who have both the management aspect of a hospital but really the caring part of it, the nurturing, the medical aspect of it. what a wonderful partnership and not close those hospitals in 21 states because we have an

obligatory date. it is, of course, something i think can be resolved. just as i believe that we can resolve shoot dealing with home health care. more and more of us, of all economic levels, are finding it more fiscally responsible to have our carat home, whether you are ethnics, african-americans, hispanics or asians or in the majority. these are resources that can provide the kind of comfort of carat home. let us not undermine the home health care. let us make it more fiscally responsible, let us make it more efficient. but let us not undermine it. let me conclude my remarks by making sure we emphasize, as i move this chart, people want a public health insurance option, don't let any media or any advertising that is biased, that's going to tell you that this is going to take away your own private health insurance, that it's going to be second class or third class, the american people know what they want.

they understand that the public option will have to be competitive. be reminded in 1965, prior to that, we did not have medicare. we saw the mortality rates, the passing away of americans at a younger age, over and over again. if you take the statistics of what age you pass that before 1965 because of poor medical care, you see the distinctive difference in today where we have those who are living past 100 years, those who are in their 80's and they're living well because they've had medicare. the american people understand that. but as i close, i think it is important to note that when we look to our friends who are on the other side of the aisle or are trying to oppose working together in a collaborative way, it says the organizational chart of the house republican health plan and it's very colorful but it's full of questions. because we don't know what the

plan is. we do have to make sacrifices. we have to make sacrifices to work together on preserving physician-owned hospitals. it's not just st. joe jo self's charity hospital in -- joseph's charity hospital that adds to the economy, paying millions of dollars in taxes, providing $40 million of uncompensated care each year. it says, sisters of charity. $40 million in uncompensated care means that's what they give to the indigent. this is a chart that says thing will happen. and i believe it is important for the efforts to be made in collaboration with the congressional black caucus, which really was out front on this question of inequities, in health care, the disparities in health care. we have a decade-long history of working on disparities in health care and it's economic disparities as well. it means people who have less means are not getting access to good quality health care. i don't know what the answer is with this plan. it's all questions. i don't know what the answer is

to pre-existing disease. i don't know what the answer is to home health care. i don't know what the answer is to providing a huge segment of preventative care or producing more primary care doctors or nurse practitioners. i don't know what the answer is here. but we in the congressional black caucus want to make sure that we move this legislation forward, that we have an opportunity to make people whole and that we look on the fact that any state that is looked upon such as texas is not -- as not billion vulnerable to unemployment, then you can imagine what is happening across america, people are unemployed. we know that we're going down in the economy before we go up. the stimulus is going to work. but we must have a public option plan that america wants and we must have it now. i want to thank the gentlelady from ohio for allowing me to participate and to be able to emphasize the importance of moving forward on this health care reform with viable changes that will make it better for all

americans and particularly to thank the congressional black caucus for starting out 10 years ago on this question of disparities, this question of access to health care and this question of recognizing the need for 47 million uninsured americans to cease anddy sift and might i say, the american people are wise because they know if we don't do it today, it will be 47 million, 57 million, 67 million, maybe upwards of 100 million who will not be unsure -- insured and not have the ability to take advantage of good health. that's what this special order is about and i thank the gentlelady and i yield back to the gentlelady at this time. ms. fudge: i thank so much. just want to, mr. speaker, again thank representative jackson lee. she's always well prepared. she understands the issues and she talks very clearly to the american people. so i thank you again for participating and would now like to yield some time to our colleague, the gentlewoman from california, who has, i think

maybe the first time joining us in the last few months in the last couple of months. representative diane watson. we are looking forward to your remarks. ms. watson: thank you so much, madam. mr. speaker, i am so pleased to be here to join my colleagues with the black caucus. we've spent a day in a seminar so that we would understand every single provision in the bill that will be in front of us at the end of the week. it is so important that we come together because we have a golden opportunity to plant the sappling of health care reform. and i want to remind all my colleagues that america's affordable health choices act is just the beginning of a better national health care structure. together we can work to make it grow. we must plant this sampling now -- sappling now before it is

killed by the wayside as it has so many times been done before. our efforts to tackle health care began under the leadership of president harry s. truman who attempted to include universal health insurance under the fair deal reforms. hillary clinton in 1993 spear headed this effort. now thankfully president obama has made it one of his top priorities. we have known our options for years. just because our republican colleagues began to listen only recently does not mean that we have not carefully considered what is at stake. we are not rushing through deciding the fate of millions of americans. rather we have taken too long to

deliver what is necessary. the naysayers have rallied around the cost of this health care reform. please recall that we have spent tens of billions of dollars in iraq, $15 billion a month, factually. and if we would take that money, we could have the most thorough and the most beneficial health care system in the world. my city, the city of los angeles, alone has spent $9 billion and the nation has spent $890 billion since the start of this unauthorized war. i agree that the $1 trillion price tag of health care is hefty. but it is a better use of our

taxpayers' money than a war in iraq. i would rather reform the system now and reduce the costs that my constituents must bear directly. employer-sponsored health care premiums have more than doubled in the last decade. this is four times faster than the average wage increase. middle class americans have seen the average annual family contribution for employer-sponsored coverage rise to $3,354 in 2008 from $1,619 in the year 2000. for a family earning $50,000, health premium costs now consume 7% of their pre-tax income.

incomes are not rising to keep up with these costs, especially in an economy where so manage many people are losing their jobs -- many people are losing their jobs. if this reform fails, we will have little hope of reining in the skyrocketing cost of health care for the middle class. to reduce the cost of health care for the average middle class working family, we have to reform the system and introduce a public option. . mr. speaker the public option is a necessary and pivotal part of the health care reform. with it in place, congress introduces competition into the health care system. with fair price competition, we introduce efficiency and quality not bureaucracy. your government is not going to

stand in between you and your doctor. your government is providing an opportunity for you to choose your insurance. i want to make this crystal clear. we have close to 390 million people in the united states. we are focusing now on the 48 million without health insurance. the rest of americans who have their insurance and like them are not affected. they can keep whatever they have. we are focusing on those who don't have it so that we will see to the health care of all americans. with the basic benefits guaranteed in the exchange, i hope that insurance companies and the government will be left outside of the examining room. it is a fallacy to believe that we are going to get in between a

doctor and a pashent. with -- patient. with the public plan we offer americans personal patient choice. let me repeat that personal patient choice. and the freedom to stay healthy. i want to say that once more. this reform is about the freedom of choice. our plan offers americans to keep their health insurance if they choose to keep it. in the public plan we are only offering the public in the exchange the option to choose the plan that is created by the government. created by the government. the public plan may not be perfect, but it establishes a strong framework that we can build upon.

bringing health care to the floor means that congress is ready to ensure that americans have health insurance. we are making small businesses more attractive by providing them with a means with which to offer their employees health insurance. we are reducing the crushing cost on our large employers. and we are providing the people with more choices. i truly hope that the understanding of what is being presented and the multitude of hours by many committees, many members and staff will be the historic first step on the road to making health care for all americans possible. mr. speaker, i look forward to voting with my colleagues on this issue and i would like to

see it done at the end of the week so there's not a meltdown and the naysayers take the day. so let's do the right thing for the american people and let's ensure that this country remains a strong, healthy country in perpetuity. thank you so much, mr. speaker, thank you. i yield back the remainder of my time. ms. fudge:00 thank you so much. i do, indeed, want to thank my colleague and friend, representative watson, from california. certainly she presented us information that i think is important to the american people. well thought and well said. i thank you so much for being a part of this hour. mr. speaker, i would now like to yield to representative jackson lee from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank you. i enjoyed having the opportunity to be here with congresswoman watson from california. i know that she has steady on

these issues. i think it is extremely important that we do work together. and one of the points i think we will have an opportunity to engage in discussions is to ensure as we continue to make our way through the putting together of this bill is to ensure that we each have an opportunity to reflect some of the concerns that could help make the bill better. here are some of the ones, issues i think will help make the bill better. i am interested in gnts to high schools and middle schools that would increase health care professionals, particularly those in underserved communities. i mentioned a week or so ago that i was visiting in nork -- new york and met a nurse who started a program through his hospital where he would go to middle schools and high schools and allow the children to dress up in scrubs and participate in

mock operating sessions or operating room. what a difference is makes. it almost like our children would dress up as firefighters or police officers and that would incentivize the children to think of the medical profession as something they were interested in. i am looking at hopefully submitting a proposal for an amendment that would address that question. providing incentives for the development of community health care centers that are housed in healthy green buildings. because we will be seeing a large amount of money going out to increase the number of community health centers, qualified federal community health centers. i think they are excellent sources of health care. why don't we incentivize them to make sure that they are put in green buildings that's free of various toxic that would probably undermine the good health the people are coming there for. tax credits for employers who not only offer good health care benefits but encourage their employees to utilize these benefits.

education, outreach. making sure that employees have information about accessing their health care. a pilot program to study and demonstrate the benefits of proven alternative medical techniques and medicines. these are simply to look at holistic ways ever being healthy as well and making sure people have access to the information. a program to study this ongoing problem of people who seek to overutilize prescription drugs. that is to work with doctors, nurses, clinics, hospitals, and other health professionals to educate us about the issue of using prescription drugs. so i'm hoping that as we make our way through and as we continue to work with the congressional black caucus on these spre importantish -- very important issues of a public option of ending health disparities, of ensuring we have universal health care as americans seemingly have come together to rally around, i believe we will have a better product by listening to the

members who have some constructive thoughts and proposals that don't undermine the basic structure of the bill. not undermining the public health option. not taking away large sums of resources so that we can not do it in the right way and give quality plans, but various small , if you will, various proposals that would enhance the bill is the way i think we should go and keep the basic structure of what we all are committed to, the public option, and a complete health care reform that will help the american people. with that i yield back to the gentlelady. ms. fudge: thank you very much. mr. speaker, in closing i would like to say two things. one of course is that we all know that health care needs to be reformed. we all know that the time is now to do it. we know that the cost to not do it is going to be significantly higher the longer we wait. i just want to say that people who think that those who are

uninsured shouldn't be given an opportunity, nine million of the uninsured today are children. we need to do something about that. many are seniors and we need to do something about that. i would hope that all members of this house would look at the needs of the people we represent and move to do the right thing. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the chair now recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, for 60 minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the privilege of being recognized to address you here on the floor of the house. having been able to listen to some of the dialogue in the previous hour, i think it's quite curious that there would be a chart that went up with question marks on it that would be described as the republican's

health care plan. there are all kinds ever question marks in this democrat health care plan that we have. and this is the censored flow chart, mr. speaker. this is the chart that the franking commission i think after having been leveraged by house leadership decided that it couldn't be be mailed to the constituents -- it couldn't be mailed to the constituents in the members of the house of representatives because they want this to say government-run health care. because that's pejorative for the democrat health care plan. that's pejorative. so instead the democrats put up question marks on the floor of the house they say, republicans don't have plafpblet they don't know. there are all kinds of questions about the democrat plan. first of all, why is it so sensitive you have to censor the truth? secondly, let's see, we can go through a whole list of questions about the plan. great big question marks. how much does it cost? we don't know. someplace between one and maybe

a little more than $2 trillion. we don't know. we aren't even within $1 trillion how much we think that's going to cost. that's the democrat response. how much deficit will it create? well, maybe a minimum of $239.1 billion. it could be well over that. it could run into six or seven hundred bill dollars. who will get to keep their health care? who can you actually guarantee and point and say you can seep keep more correctly your health insurance program? no one can be promised that even though the president has said so. he can't guarantee that promise. as the questions go on and on and on, what insurance companies would survive after we have this plan and looking at this scary flow chart, this schematic, mr. speaker, there are 31 different new government agencies that are created in this plan. now, first i'm going to back us back to 1993.

i think it's instructive. this is the 1993 hillary care plan. and this is the chart that would -- hung on my office in my construction company during those years. hung in my office all the way through the 1990's. i didn't take it down. i think this chart that showed this great growth in government all of these configurations here, government agencies programs, this whole list, a lot of these acronyms don't recognize anymore, all these flows down here in the drug prizing, call this a scheme. drug pricing scheme. i justalled it a schematic, they called it a scheme, drug pricing scheme. how about the global budget? that's in here. as you read this through, the configuration between the president, the national health board, state governments, the regional health appliance, the corporate health alliance, the ombudsman who is there to smooth out all the things and make sure when you have trouble dealing

with government, mr. speaker, that there is an ombudsman there who will take care of that for you because we know how difficult it is to find your way through the maze of paperwork when government is involved. this chart, mr. speaker, was enough to scare the americans off of the clinton health care plan. commonly known as hillary care. this chart came in black and white. it didn't come in technicolor. it showed you-all of these agencies, this creation. and people understood they were being offered in place of their own health insurance program, they were being offered a government maze that swallowed up all of the things that were private and completely took it over for government. the american people love their freedom in 1993. and they rejected giving up their freedom to purchase a health insurance plan of their choice. to control their health care decisions themselves. they rejected -- this is h.m.o. provider plan. that's another piece that's not

so popular today. the american people were scared away from the clinton plan by simply looking at this chart and listening to harry and louise. some of them that's all the further they went. they knew they didn't want, they didn't want a government option when it was going to be the only option. they didn't want to have their options taken away and put in the control of a government bureaucrat, a government-run plan, a democrat health care plan. that's what it was then. that's what it is now. the difference is this is in full color, mr. speaker. as opposed to the black and white chart from 1993. this chart is flat out accurate. it does describe 31 new agencies created by the bill. anything you see in white are existing agencies. the things you see in color in green, yellow, orange and red and blue, those are all new agencies if you count these dots that are colored, they are --

there are 31 of them, mr. speaker. and one can get animated about having to wade through that mess of government red tape, but when you wade through it down to the bottom is where i get the most concerned. that is i go down to this square right here, mr. speaker, traditional health insurance plans. . that are the plans that insure the majority of the american people today. any private health insurance plan, and there are over 1,300 companies that provide health insurance plans and generally they have multiple plans out there, so we don't know how many plans there are to choose from, but reasonable estimate might well be 100,000 separate plans by the time you figure the options on the deductibles and the different thanges that are there so people can get a health insurance plan that serves them at a price that they can best settle to. all of those, 00,000 plans,

roughly, 1,300 companies dumped into this box right here. and that's how our health insurance is provided for and paid for and administer and funded, is all right here in the traditional plans. but under, i don't know how to describe it, -- this, the democrat government proposal, all of these health insurance plans, if they were going to stay in business after that, would have to qualify. they'd have to become qualified health benefits plans. that's this little purple circle here closest to me. there are two identical circles in size, but the qualified health benefits plan would be where all the private health insurance companies go if the bill is passed and the president signs it, which he'll sign anything that says national health care on it and that's what -- i suspect that's the case. he wants a bill. and they want to start this down the path because they believe that this will morph into a single payer plan. that's what he really wants.

that's what the speaker wants. that's what the liberals in the congress want. they want to take away the american people's 100,000 policies and roll them eventually into one government, one-size-fits-all plan over here. so these 1,300 companies, 100,000 policies in this square box, if they were going to do business after the bill was signed, they have to get qualified. they would be qualified if they met the new government standards, the government would tell them, you have to cover maternity, you have to cover mental health, you have to cover abortion, mr. speaker. that's the standard that is coming out of the white house these days. if the white house doesn't tell you that they're opposed to forcing americans to pay premiums to fund abortions then you know that if it comes the way they plan it, there will be abortions funded by the american people through the dollars they with would pay to these

premiums. there isn't any history in this country of this government not funding abortions unless there was an explicit exemption written into the language of the bill. there is no explicit exemption written into the language of any of the bills that are working here before this congress now which should tell anybody that studied this and watched this issue since roe v. wade in 1973 that they planned to take the money from the american people and use it to kill babies. that's going to be in this plan and all of these health insurance policies will have to pay for it the same way the government intends to pay for it over here in the public health plan. and many americans are going to object to that but what they do is, when they require, when they require that in this health insurance policy has to cover

everything they think it should cover and they write so many mandates into it that the health insurance premiums will go up and so will the co-payments and so will the deductibles go up and as they go up, then it will be easier for the public health plan, the obama health insurance plan, to compete with the private sector. and they will do two things with this -- these two purple circles here. one is they will regulate the traditional private providers to where they become mirrors of the government plan and then have to compete with the premiums that the government plan will charge and the other thing that they will do is they will subsidize the government plan. so that they can keep those premiums down low enough to compete with the private plan and that will squeeze out the private plans and you can expect, mr. speaker, that there will not be private health insurance in america in a relatively short period of time. whether that be, probably not five years, by 10 years we'll see the picture, by 15 years to

20 years it should be settled in if this happens. we can look around the world and see where they have made these mistakes. in great britain they have a completely socialized medicine program that was implemented into law in 1948 in germany they have the world's oldest socialized medicine plan that went in under autobahn bismarck in the late 1800's. that plan provided for -- provides for private health insurance. today about 90% of germans are under the public plan and 10% under the private plan. those are thank are on the private plan are generally self-employed people that have some means to try to provide a plan that they think gives them a little better access and maybe even a little better quality health care than the 90% of germans that are under the public plan. but one thing that they have in common in the united kingdom and germany is they wait in line, their care is rationed and the quality isn't what it is in this

country. their survival rates for cancer and -- in the united states versus that of the united kingdom or the european union are some four times greater here in the united states than they are in those countries that have socialized medicine. and now, mr. speaker, we can also look to the north, to canada. and understand what went on up in canada. when canada passed their socialized medicine program it was set up to compete with the existing privates and eventually they were all squeezed out and today there exists a law in canada that prohibits anyone from jumping ahead of the line or going to create a new line, one size fits all, all canadians have to comply with the same health care programs. government-run, socialized med anyone? canada. and -- medicine in canada. and now thinking about what that means, for the canadians, lost

their freedom, when they decided to go for a little security and still try to keep some freedom. they lost their freedoms on their health insurance and maybe they are a little bit more secure, but the quality of their health care doesn't match up to the quality here in the united states. and so what we know is that, let's just say the cancer survivors in canada, their numbers look better than the people in the united kingdom or the european union that have been diagnosed with cancer. more canadians survive with cancer than do the other countries that have a socialized medicine program. and i don't know the numbers and i probably won't get time in this debate over the next week or maybe a little more to drill back into this and be able to compare the statistics. mr. speaker, i'm going to suggest that a factor involved is the canadian proximate imity to american health care -- proximatity to american health care has helped canadians live longer, it's helped their survival rate, it's helped it

such that when people get diagnosed with cancer and can't get treatment in places like the united kingdom, germany, across europe, they die sooner than they do in canada and they die sooner in canada than they do in the united states. people live longer here after they've been diagnosed with a cancer than any of those countries that i have mentioned and i've seen no data for any others. and i'm going to suggest that the canadians' access to american health care helps their life expectancy because at least they can sneak across the border and get in line down here, even if they have to pay for it out of their pocket. those would be the factual circumstances involved. and so we have democrats asking the question, what's the republican health care plan? i'll ask the question, what do we know about the democrat plan? we know it will cost a lot, we can guess within $1 trillion. maybe $1 trillion or $2 trillion. we know it's going to create a deficit, $239.1 billion on up to $600 billion in deficit.

we know it's going to create lines. lines are rationing. people do die in lines. we know it's going to discourage doctors and specialists for taking the years necessary to be trained so that they can be proficient enough to provide the quality health care we have so we'll have fewer doctors, we'll have fewer nurses, fewer people will want to go into the industry because the government will be telling them how they're going to treat patients. there isn't going to be any way that the democrats in this congress will agree to pull the government out of the relationship between the doctor and the patient. there was an amendment that was offered in the energy and commerce markup that specifically said that the government would not interfere with doctor-patient relationship and that's a short summary, and it was voted down except for one, all on a party line, all but one democrat voted no. every republican voted yes. we want the doctor-patient relationship to be maintained.

democrats do not. we also have the rules that will be squeezing out these private carriers that will not be 1,300 that will qualify and they'll be squeezed out by the public option here, this public health plan, this government-run health insurance plan. what the regulations -- the regulations will be written by the health choices administration. it's got a nice little acronym, h.c.a., health choices administration. you know, the people that wrote this are for choice, right? so they have named that there will be a commissioner of the health choices administration. that commissioner is a modern fancy name for czar. we have 32 czars. and the american people are fed up with czars. so now we're going to start calling them commissioners. some said, well, commiczars. but the commissioner will be calling the shots on what these health insurance plans are.

and he will decide what they will cover and what they will not and he'll also be the one that probably makes a lot of the decisions on how much health care is rationed in america. the results again will be long lines. how do with we know this? they exist in every country that's got socialized medicine and i ran into an individual in my district at a home improvement place, oh, about a year ago, and he was a legal immigrant from germany who had had a hip replacement over there and in order to get his hip replacement he had to travel to itsly to get his hip replaced and because the lines were too long in germany they were a little shorter in itsly so he got himself in the line in itsly, traveled down there and got a hip replacement. and he didn't think a lot of the system that they have in europe. but that was just a little anecdote al discussion that took place in a home improvement center and i will tell you, mr. speaker, that a week ago thursday night we had a doctor

that practiced medicine in michigan and in canada, he's written a book, at least one that i know of. he was our guest speaker at the policy committee a week ago thursday night. he told a story of a young -- he was working in the emergency room in canada, it must have been one of his earliest -- the first he'd been up there to work, is my guess, he probably didn't anticipate what kind of a bureaucracy they have. but they brought a patient in who had a knee joint that was all torn up from, i presume it was a sports injury, but i don't know. and he had a torn a.c.l. and an interior ligament and that knee was all swollen up. it was wrecked and he examined it, x-rayed it and told the young man, you need surgery. and you need it right away. i'll schedule you for surgery in the morning. well, he didn't realize how difficult it was. this is an american doctor working in canada.

he began to schedule the surgery the next morning and he found out that there had to be a specialist that evaluated the knee and then they had to file the forms, then they had to get him in line, then they had to get him approved so he could go ahead and have the surgery. well, the examination, the secondary examination that had to take place by the doctor who does the aproving for the surgery, in order to hold down costs, mind you, wasn't able to see this patient right away. so they put a brace on this patient's knee that was blown up like a can't lope and put him on crutches and after a while he left the hospital waiting for his examination by the doctor who works for the bureaucracy and who decides who goes noo the line. well that examination didn't take place the next day, mr. speaker, or the next week, or the next month, mr. speaker. the examination that if he

passed it would approve him for surgery took place six months later. when in america he would have had surgery the next day, he would have been in rehab and a couple of months he would have been back to work, even less than that. six months on crutches, six months with a leg brace, six months with a torn a.c.l. and then he went in for the examination, mr. speaker. and after the examination one might think that the examining doctor came to the same conclusion that the e.r. doctor from michigan did, that he should have surgery the next day. maybe that doctor did come to that conclusion, but they didn't have room for him for not a day or two or a week or a month, mr. speaker, six months. now i didn't say six months from the injury to the surgery. i said six months from the

injury to the examination and another six months from the examination to the surgery. and when we know that if you have a patient that's hobbling around on crutches for a year there are unused leg atrophies, the rehab takes longer, it takes a long, long time to get a patient back to speed after the surgery, when and if the surgery is successful, which, i guess i don't know. . many americans live along the border. it happens in maine, michigan, minnesota. the clinic, mayo clinic takes a lot of patients from canada. some companies in canada will write into their contract with their employees that they have an extra good health insurance program for them that if a -- if they are hurt or need emergency

surgery, heart surgery, for example, in the employment contract, they will have a policy set up they will fly a canadian employee to houston for heart surgery. if you have a health insurance and health care program that is in such condition that employers write it into their employment contract that they will export their employees out of state to come to america, come to the united states to get -- to access high quality health care, that should tell us something about what we shouldn't design. i think it would be very clear. so, the white house and the liberals in congress, maybe they don't want to say house democrats' health plan. maybe i should say liberal house democrat health plan. but this plan is very similar to the plan that was unrolled in

canada, where they had private health insurance for a while before it was squeezed out by the public health plan, which swallowed up everything and then canada, they passed a law that prohibited anyone from starting a new line or jumping in front. and some provinces in canada enforce it more than others. but the federal law in canada is you are stuck with the same health care as everybody else. there is no jumping ahead in line or creating a new line. you can't open up a clinic if you are a doctor unless approved by the government. the government will require you to put -- to strap on their harness and pull exactly the patient load and exactly the way they describe it. where in america, if you license yourself as a physician, you can open up a clinic and start taking care of patients wherever the demand is.

think of the difference between that where you have individual entrepreneurs who are seeking to serve a marketplace and maybe they're working for a hospital and look around and decide there needs to be another service, that they're not able to take care of the patients that are there, maybe they see a population or age demographic that needs to be better served. they will open up a clinic, hospital or surgery center or might go out and pick up some medical technical equipment and deploy that to a location where it's needed or go out to the rural hospitals and go ride the circuit, so to speak, and stop in and maybe once a week do the scheduled orthopedic surgery that is there. and it also happens with o.b. as well. they will schedule that as best they can and this schematic, which is -- remember hillarycare

called it a scheme, this schematic, color-coded should scare the day lights out of the american people and should be worried about the question marks in the democrat plan, that plan that will give us socialized medicine in america. we can understand that, mr. speaker. that's where it's going. and it will bust the budget and take away our freedoms and will prohibit a doctor from opening up a clinic where he sees the demand. it will prohibit a doctor from charging more or less -- may be some opportunity to charge less, but that won't last long, because they are going to squeeze these resources down. medicare is only reimbursing at 80% at the cost it takes to deliver it. in my state in iowa, we are the lowest in the 50 states, lowest

medicare reimbursement rate in all the states of the union. the proposal here in this flow chart is to squeeze maybe as much as half a trillion dollars out of medicare. now, all for what? what is the purpose of all of this, mr. speaker? why would america -- why would this congress consider upsetting, destroying, wrapping up, packaging and throwing away the best health care system in the world? why? what would be the purpose? and i'll submit, mr. speaker, that the argument is that there are -- the uninsured -- they continue to blur the words between health care and health insurance. they don't seem to know there's a difference between the two. everybody in america has health care. everyone in america can walk into the emergency room and be treated for an injury or an illness. everyone has that opportunity. we don't have people that are in

america that are denied health care. everybody in america doesn't have health insurance. and before i go down that path a little, i want to point out that we do spend a lot of money on health care in america between health insurance and providing that health care. and it's about 14.5% of g.d.p. in some of the european union countries, it's around 9.5% of g.d.p. maybe 5% more. so our health care here costs us $3, it costs them $2. is our health care that's provided in this country worth more? maybe. we are willing to pay it today, but perhaps not in the long run, mr. speaker. and we can do things to reduce the cost of health insurance and health care in america. and there is a difference. a number of those things would be, address the medical

malpractice, the irresponsible litigation that's taking place, the suing of doctors, clinics and hospitals and providers, all for an opportunity to try to cash something in rather than correct something that's wrong. and perhaps the word all is not the right one, because there are cases where someone has had the victim of being a victim of medical malpractice. we passed it off the floor of the house of representatives that limited medical malpractice settlements and capped the noneconomic damages at $250,000 and still took care of the patient that had been unfortunately subject to medical malpractice. paid the doctors' bills, pain and suffering, just didn't pay punitive damages, that $7 million for the cup of coffee that the lady spilled in her lap. that's the punitive damages that

we call it out here. it's called noneconomic damages in that bill. those are capped at $250,000. that's a model that california has that has been relatively successful. that's one of the things we can do to hold down the costs. another one would be very useful, and that is provide for 100% deductibility for everyone's health insurance premium. for a compings to be able to -- corporation to be able to fully deduct premiums, but if someone pays for that policy, they can't deduct that on their taxes. so if you're a sole propertyorship and have high health premiums and haven't formed a corporation, you might be paying $11,000, $15,000 in high health insurance premiums. let's say $15,000.

you can get around that deductibility by forming a corporation and paying yourself a salary and part of the salary package would be the health insurance premium. then you can deduct them. that's a lot of hoops to jump through to meet a government regulation, when there should be no particular advantage for one company over another, one individual over another. if we have someone who is let's say self-employed or someone independently wealthy and they are responsible enough to go out and buy their health insurance and pay the premium, every dollar that's deductible by a corporation should be deductible by an individual. we should raise the minor the maximum amount for health savings accounts so we can be sure that people that are young today when they arrive at social security age will have enough money in their health savings account to be able to purchase a

paid up medicare replacement policy and take the difference, the hundreds of thousands or perhaps more than $1 million, take -- cash in the difference on that tax-free if they are willing to take themselves off the entitlement rolls of medicare. that's something else we can do in the long-term. expand our hncht s.a.'s, provide deductibility, limit the liability for medical malpractice premiums and the cost of extra tests in order to protect themselves from the litigation that's bound to come when you have ambulance-chasing lawyers that are chasing doctors around. what 17% of this economy is going to the trial lawyers in america? and i say, mr. speaker, it is significant. so there really aren't questions about what republicans are for. there are a lot of questions about what comes out with this

chart. but the idea that the franking commission, which appears to be controlled by the democrat majority in this congress would censor this document and tell members of congress they can't send this off to their constituents, they can't package it up and put it national park an envelope and mail to their constituents because the democrats don't like the idea that it says house democrat health plan. and they don't like the idea that it says government-run. well, it is government-run, and it is the house democrats' health plan. there are bipartisan programs here when it comes to health care in this congress. the bipartisanship is in opposition to this kind of a government-run plan. that's what democrats and republicans that oppose this today, i cannot find a single republican that supports this plan. and i don't think that individual exists in the united states congress. so that would be my component of

the speech here that has to do with this schematic that should scare the living day lights out of the american people and they should rise up, the american people should rise up. and in august when their members of congress come home and start doing parades and town hall meetings and corn boils, crab frys, this chart should be out front and the people should say oppose this plan, give people their freedom. and we can do so in the fashion that i described. now, there's another huge entity that's taking away our freedom. right here, mr. speaker -- this

is a picture that i took of the headquarters of acorn and this is down in new orleans, louisiana at 2609 canal street, new orleans. this is a fortified building. i mean these bars are heavier -- the lower you go. this is up on the second or third floor of the building. i zoomed in on this window, because something caught my eye. acorn's national -- maybe even international headquarters where they have 174 or more corporations running out of this single building, four or five stories, glass with bars, the most fortified building in the whole neighborhood. but inside that window, you can see at least two posters there, obama 2008. acorn is registered as a

not-for-profit corporation, nonpolitical, nonpartisan organization, organization the corporation. if this is their headquarters and have obama posters inside, clearly displayed in the windows so people can see that and in the state where i come from, we call that electione emp ering. you don't do any electionering and don't post an obama sign in the front window of the national headquarters of the association for community organization reform now, acorn. and if anybody wonders about where this picture came from and i have got the pictures of the address and everything, but over here is the flag that hangs outside. kind of faded red flag and you can read it, that's the acorn

logo. the acorn logo hanging outside the national headquarters of acorn and the obama sign in the middle of the window displayed so people can see it, is it intentional or stupid? is it ok to say that something stupid happened in america? seemed not to be a very good tactic. but i see his name inside this window at acorn and i see the logo, 2609 canal street. now, this is an interesting turn of events. this took place -- i took this picture just before the 4th of july. . and last week on thursday, about the close of business there was released a report and this is a nonpartisan report from the u.s. house of representatives committee on oversight and government reform, ranking

member is congressman issa, california's 49th district. the subject of this report, and, mr. speaker, i hold this up, it's what the cover of it looks like, the united states house of representatives, the subject of this report is this question, is acorn intentionally structured as a criminal enterprise? the report is dated july 23, 2009, and if anyone should like to look this report up and read it, i believe if they googled isa-- is acorn intentionally structured as a criminal enterprise they will be able to find it or if they go to the government reform website or perhaps -- i know it's on mr. issa's website and soon will be on mine. i have here the executive summary. it's 88 pages long, i've read carefully through the first 2/3 of it. it has in it a list of 361

affiliated corporations. i've listed 174 in the amendments that i've offered, that were designed to eliminate federal funding to acorn. acorn has received at least $53 million in taxpayer funds to operate their criminal enterprise. and i have the executive summary here and just to go into it a little ways, mr. speaker, this executive summary of this report of the government ro reform, house of representatives that asks the question, is acorn intentionally structured as a criminal enterprise, july 23, 2009, the executive summary reads in part like this, the association of community organizations for reform now, acorn, has repeatedly and deliberately engaged in systemic fraud. both structurally and operationly acorn hides behind a wall of painer, of nonprofit

corporate protections to conceal a criminal conspiracy on the part of its directors to launder federal money in order to pursue a partisan political agenda and to manipulate the american elect rat -- electorate. corporate protections to conceal a criminal conspiracy on the part of its directors and launder money. that's the first paragraph. then it reads, emerging accounts of widespread deceit and corruption raise the need for a criminal investigation of acorn. by intentionally blurring the legal distinctions between 316 tax-exempt and nonexempt entities, acorn diverts taxpayer and tax exempt moneys into partisan political activities. since 1994 more than 53 -- $53 million in federal funds have been pumped into kay corps -- acorn and under the obama administration, acorn stands to

receive a whopping $8.5 billion in available stimulus funds. operation alley acorn is a shell game played in 120 cities, 43 states and the district of columbia through a complex structure designed to conceal illegal activities to use tax -- activities, to use taxpayer and tax exempt dollars for political purposes and to distract investigators. senior management is shielded from responsibility and compensated employees who serve as pawns to take the fall for every bad act. the report that follows presents evidence obtained from former acorn insiders that completes the picture of a criminal enterprise. so they describe them as a criminal enterprise and they describe them as to conceal a criminal conspiracy. a criminal enterprise, a

criminal conspiracy. and these are some of the headings under the executive summary. first, acorn has evaded taxes, acorn has obstructed justice, engaged in self-dealing and aided and abetted a coverup of the embezzle -- embezzlement by the brother of acorn founder. and that embrezzlement was $948,607.50. covered up by his brother, the founder, wade, whom it appears provided misinformation to the attorney, the counsel for acorn, and redirected, whether it was -- appears to be willful, to string it out and delay any kind of punitive action that would come to visit his brother. his brother,dale, who did

embrezzle the $948,407.50. it seems to be beyond question that that happened. some of the money was misappropriated to fill the hole in their accounting system. that's the first point. second point is acorn has committed investment fraud, deprived the public of its right to honest services and engaged in a racketeering enterprise affecting interstate commerce. committed investment fraud. that's the second point. third point, acorn has committed a conspiracy to defraud the united states by using taxpayer funds for partisan political activities. by having the equivalent of a slush fund where dollars were moved around from corporation to corporation, affiliate to affiliate, resulting in get out the vote efforts that may have had and likely did have not for profit taxpayer dollars invested in them, but used for political and partisan purposes, mr.

speaker. it says acorn forged both form and informal connections with formle illinois governor, rob blagojevich. also with formal and informal connections with ohio senator brown and formal and informal connections with president obama, among others. each of these campaigns received financial and personal -- personnel resource contributions from acorn and its affiliates as part of a scream to use taxpayer money -- scheme to use taxpayer moneys to support an agenda. a scheme to use taxpayer moneys to support a partisan political agenda, mr. speaker. these actions are a clear violation of numerous tax and election laws. another point, the fourth point, acorn has submitted false filings to the internal revenue service and the department of labor in addition to violating the fair labor standards act,

flsa. the investigators tracked acorn's numerous failures to comply with federal laws that required the payment of excise taxes on excess benefits to daily rathky, seiu local 100, the union, under the direction of acorn founder wade rathky filed bogus reports with the labor department in order to conceal embezzlement. all of this off of this report, this nonpartisan house of representatives report that asks the question, is acorn intentionally structured as a criminal enterprise? dated july 23, mr. speaker. and, fifth, acorn falsified and concealed facts concerning an illegal transaction between related parties in violation of the employee retirement income security act of 1974, ariza. acorn falsified and concealed facts concerning an illegal transaction between related

parties in violation of ariza. findings go on. they should pierce the corporate veil and do an investigation, justice needs to do an investigation. something that they point out is that when acorn crosses the line, which i don't think anyone questions they do, the individuals harmed are the low to moderate income work whorms acorn was founded to protect. they hurt the very people that they were founded to protect. daily rathky, the brother of the founder's embezzlement, and the coverup are violations of acorn's corporate duties and they are fraud. identities and roles of those involved must be disclosed. this goes on, mr. speaker. i have poked through this report, i have spent hours and hours over the last four to five years tracking acorn. this report lists the 361 affiliates and in there will be information on campaign contributions, who received what

money, it will be easier to take that information and cross reference it back to the f.e.c. documents and see -- follow the money. it will tell us a lot about what's going on. i think there's an indicator here that's pretty interesting. i have in my hand the acorn celebration of 39 years. acorn was founded in 1970. they held a celebration in june 17 of this year. and the celebration takes place at the national education association atery um, probably birds of a feather, that's at 1201 16th street northwest, washington, d.c. this is the celebration of 39 years of acorn. it's interesting that some of the people who are less enthusiastic about doing the investigation of acorn are invited to be headliners there

at the acorn celebration of 39 years. now, i remember 39 years might be jack bennie's year to celebrate, but 39 years is not a year ending in a zero or a five, so this must be the annual celebration of acorn's founding. who's there to headline? who's honored? well, lease let's see. senator charles assumer -- schumer, new york. number one headliner for the acorn celebration. their annual celebration. i don't know that charles schumer has demonstrated a lot of enthusiasm to investigate acorn. i can't imagine that would happen. next one on the headline is, representative gutierrez, chicago, hm, chicago politics, chicago acorn, let me see, president obama made his first political reputation in chicago as an employee of project vote. he also represented acorn in court a couple of times.

some said proboneow. but in any case, project vote, according to this report, this u.s. house of representatives nonpartisan government reform committee, congressman issa report, dated july 23, 2009, according to this report it's indistinguishable between project vote and acorn. they co-mingled their funds, they had dozens of accounts and one affiliate that managed all the funds of all the affiliates, according to the report. but president obama, according to all reports, democrats' and republicans', made his political reputation working for project vote in chicago. project vote, inseparateble from acorn, thought of as acorn, and the head of project vote was also a top officer in acorn in chicago. chicago politics. remember rob blagojevich? he's listed in this report. well, chicago politics are

listed in this annual celebration that acorn held here in this city in -- city, in washington, d.c. senator schumer, representative gutierrez from chicago, representative maxine waters, who stood before an acorn celebration and told them all that they were all going to get together and vote the republicans some certain part of their anatomy out of office. so she has in a partisan way spoken before that supposedly nonpartisan organization that now, of course, we know they are a partisan organization. acorn is a get out the vote machine. it's a fundraising machine. it writes campaign checks to candidates and the three people that headlined this on the top of the list, charles schumer, senator, representatives gutierrez and maxine waters, all

tightly affiliated with acorn. none of whom are very interested in investigating acorn. if we go down through the list, kathleen kennedy town send, a number of interesting names. john podesta. henry of the clinton administration recognized and patted on the back for their afiltation with acorn. -- affiliation with acorn. it is a sad day indeed when we see the corruption of our election politics, mr. speaker. and we see it done by an organization that has set up now with 361 affiliates and strangely the congress doesn't have enough curiosity in order to do an investigation. and the justice department doesn't have enough curiosity to do an investigation and acorn themselves admit that they produced over 400,000 fraudulent

voter registrations in the last election cycle. their goal was to register, they said, i believe, 1.3 million, and they admitted to producing and turning in over 400,000 fraudulent voter registrations. acorn is under investigation in 12 to 14 states. across those states there have been at least 70 acorn employees that have been convicted of some time of -- type of fraudulent activity. most of it is voter registration fraud. . this isn't something that is an anomaly. this is a pattern. this is the m.o., mode of operations of a criminal enterprise that is corrupting our election process. and we know it's for political gain. we know it's for the money machine that gets churned. there's more to this.

those dollars pour into the covers of democrat candidates, not republican candidates. acorn hires people and gets volunteers to get on the streets and turn out the vote, turn out the vote for democrats, not for republicans. i don't know of a case that we have acorn supporting a republican unless it would be -- let me say it for tonight, i don't know of a case, although i have something in mind. this is the headquarters. acorn's headquarters, 2609 canal street, obama sign in the window, acorn sign on the outside. president obama got his start in politics in chicago-style politics. and with project vote, an arm of acorn, that was registering people and turning out the vote. and he has since hired acorn to turn out the vote to the tune of $800,000. and some of that money goes into the same accounts and

distributed out as if it is their own personal slush funds to build power and power base with. we also have the white house having reached out and signed an agreement with acorn to help with the census. now, any organization that can produce 400,000 fraudulent voter registrations can't be trusted to count the american people, not when there's political gain involved. this can be done without acorn. there has since been a statement issued by the census bureau that they aren't going to use acorn. i have to see it to believe it or not use any of the 361 affiliates listed in this government reform report. i think it's going to be hard to say, no, they aren't going to use any of the employees that work for them, mr. speaker. so let's not forget, president obama has been tied to acorn

since the first days of his political life in chicago. he has worked for them. they have worked for him. he has hired them with campaign money and they have contributed campaign money to him. president obama is part and parcel acorn. and when the chairman of the judiciary committee, john conyers, took interest in investigating acorn and made such remarks in a judiciary committee meeting a couple of months ago, i was given heart that perhaps we would start to investigate acorn. but three weeks later, the chairman came back through a public statement and he said the powers that be decided that there isn't enough evidence there to investigate acorn. now would would the powers that be be that are more powerful than the chairman of the house judiciary committee. would it be speaker pelosi or president obama? mr. speaker, i'm not convinced

that it's necessarily speaker pelosi, but i point this image out. this is the cover of "national review" magazine from march 23, 2009. they put this image out here, mr. speaker and i removed out the letters. it said "national review" on the top, date of the headline sign. look at the logo on the polo shirt. that says it all. we have a criminal enterprise that is being hired by the white house to help run the census that help put the president in the white house, a massive organization that reaches into 43 states and the district of columbia that has engaged in a number that approaches $1 million in embezzlement and covered it up for eight years. 400,000 fraudulent voter registration forms, federal tax

violations and violations of not-for-profit on conditions of 501-3-c. and we have the image and logo and we have the national headquarters here at 2609 canal street new orleans, louisiana, with the obama sign in the window and the acorn flag out on that side. mr. speaker, we've got to investigate this organization. we have to bring the judiciary committee to bear, the government reform committee to bear, we need the justice department to drill into this. no one single entity can unravel this spider web of 361 corporations. it must happen or it will could road and destroy this great constitutional republic, the united states of america. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does the

gentleman have a motion? mr. king: i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. the motion is agreed to. accordingly the house stands

>> the democratic caucus met to review the health care plans considered by house committees. john larson spoke to reporters about 9:39 eastern time. this is about 10 minutes. >> i am grateful to the members. that was a five and a half hour caucus. we went through the bill section by section, and the members were asking a lot of questions -- and we spoke about a number of the myths that the opposition has been putting forward. and we also -- [unintelligible] we also, it was terrific.

we also have the opportunity to have the members ask questions, many of them are not serving on the committee. many people did not dissipate in what has been worked out, and there were members that were still meeting with the commerce committee. i think that overall, everyone is wanting to see this go forward. there is no better marketing force in america than this caucus. they ask a lot of good questions, almost as good as the questions that you ask. [inaudible]

>> a number of the questions surround small business. this is a round regional disparity. the number of overall questions about the bill, and why this takes effect, and what goes into effect -- we provided a glossary of terms. this is my in terms of how this will come forward. and i think that this is very important, for us to bring members up to speed. there is a tendency in washington for everyone to huddle together, but we are not on this committee. the purpose of the caucus is to bring everyone together to

provide the opportunity, the chairman and the speakers and the committee staff. this was a positive experience and everyone has answers. we have not taken on anything besides -- and there is a reason why we have been waiting to pass this. this is a complex effort. and there was a reason that we spent five and a half hours on this tonight. you have to go through one of those sessions. we were gratified by this and when you get this kind of number, we had over 170 members that were there, and probably 102 of them throughout. and most of them were members of the existing committee, who are

knowledgeable about the bill. i cannot express this enough, the enthusiasm. >> you did not have many people who were disgruntled. >> this was not the disgruntled -- this was a caucus where people came to learn about the bill. this is because america is wanting to have the bill. there were a number of good suggestions and ways that people thought that the bill could be changed. i do not know how many different questions from the members, i would say there are hundreds of them. this is the school nurses, and

not understanding how this was implemented. the committee has not reported this, this was information that could be supplied. >> they are also meeting the blue dog democrats. what are you hoping that they will accomplish this week? will they actually make progress? >> i am convinced that they will. we will continue to have progress because there is a great understanding, i did not realize that this was in the bill. people know that there will be guaranteed issues and they did not know with small businesses. alaska wanted to know what the formula was that would be used. simple questions like, i did not know that the owner was involved with that. many questions were out there,

and in the absence of hearing this, this allows other things to feed in. the best marketers are the members of congress, and people will get back. and they are hearing this on the outside, from all of the concern and the interest groups, and as the president conducts his public forums, and his town hall meetings, and as the members go back and talk about the bill, i think the president said, in terms of what is in this for me, when we hear people talk about what this means to someone to come out tomorrow does not have to go bankrupt, because this is a catastrophic form of aid to someone who finds

out their child has leukemia. what does this mean to the businesses, who are based on attracting the employees to make certain that they are offering benefits, there is a conversation about how the things that the cbo does not get to score but we know will drive down the cost of health care. and a lot of talk about the economy, and how the economy is not part of this, how the economy will benefit from this. i think for us to be able to further educate our members, and for them to hear not only from the members and the staff, they said, we can't talk about how we are going to message this and how we are going to get more information. we