page, if obama's health care comes through, doctors will be mandated to go against their beliefs and perform abortions, women will get them on demand and nurses will perform an assist. that is where i'm coming from, sir. thank you. guest: of i will not wait into the health-care debate. there are other more experts, far more than i on that. but in terms of secretary clinton, i happened to be in china when i was there and i give her a lot of credit for initial very good impression in china. she can be a pit bull but i am sure she is a pitfall in private because and public she was nothing but flowers. i have to take my hat out -- had

off to her because she set a tone and is continuing that tone. host: faults the look of your web site link that our website, c-span.org. that will about do it for us. just a reminder that coverage getting underway now on c-span3 , 216 senate office building, a judiciary committee gabbling in to vote on the nomination of sonia sotomayor to the supreme court justice. that is senator patrick leahy on the right and senator jeff sessions did you can follow it on c-span3 c-span.org and online. . see you tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] .

>> you are watching c-span, created by america's cable companies. a look at the ongoing health care debate in congress. at 10:30 a.m., the house comes in for morning speeches. at noon, in return for legislative business. on the agenda is bills dealing with tracking absentee ballots and efforts of helping small businesses. >> the senate is beginning the day right now. members plan to continue work on fiscal year 2010 energy and water spending.

the $34 billion measure would phan -- would fund the energy department and army corps of engineers at $5 billion. a final vote is passed in tomorrow. the senate is live on c-span2. 3 on , -- on c-span3, they are voting on the supreme court nomination of sonia sotomayor. jeff sessions announced he will vote against confirmation. a final vote in front of the full senate could happen before the chamber breaks in two weeks for its august recess. >> on c-span radio, lbj phone calls with his secretary of state. republican presidential nominee richard nixon and billy graham, saturday 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span radio. >> a discussion about the ongoing health care debate in congress. it is from this morning's "washington journal."

we will show you as much of this as possible before the house comes in for morning our speeches. host: of wanted to show you an article on the front page of the "new york times." the headline was health policy is carved out at a table for six. they say the fate of health care overall rests on the shoulders of six senators who have gathered twice a day for many hours at a stretch in a conference room with -- in the office of max baucus. we can look at this actual coppens room and a look at some key players. -- we can look at this actual office room. senator grassley and olympia snow. why is so much attention being focused on this committee? guest: on capitol hill there are

five committees working on healthcare reform. the finance committee is one of the two in the senate. it is the only committee working on a bipartisan piece of legislation. bipartisan is not so important in the house because of the supermajority, but in the senate is important to get a bill passed to have bipartisan support. this may be necessary to get it through in the senate. host: tell us about the house. where did things stand with the energy committee? guest: the house is on-again, off-again. yesterday the house democrats went four hours last evening and sat through a tutorial to learn what the committees have been considering so the members can understand what is in the legislation they're talking about. the house energy and commerce has been stalled because there

are conservative democrats who had similar concerns to what the republicans in the senate have, so they have been discussing. the goal had been to start marking up that bill last week already. but they have been stalled over a number of issues. now they are on again, there are talking about medicare and creating a new medicare entity to have more power to deal with medicare payment rates. the idea is that that kind of a proposal might actually bring down some of the costs in medicare spending. right now that is what they're working on. host: i want to make sure our viewers can get into the conversation. our numbers are on the screen.

you can also reach us at twitter and e-mail at c-span.org. on the cost, congress's own budget office has had very serious things to say about the concerns of the legislation. guest: the congressional budget office is working around the clock and over the weekend. they came out with an analysis that really said that the house -- so far, we have been looking at the cost over a 10- yearperiod, but they said there would be budget deficits after that 10 years, so they took a step beyond and things did not look so good. host: is it a reality that this could not be done without a tax somewhere along the line? either a tax on health plans or

a tax on upper income earners? guest: we're talking about bills that could cost $one trillion over 10 years. every committee that is looking at raising the money to pay for this is looking at a tax increase, whether it be a surtax on the wealthiest, whether it be a tax on health benefits, everybody is looking at some kind of a tax because it is hoped -- hard to get to the trillion figure. host: let's get to our callers. caller: i have the answer to the problem with health care. get rid of all the health care refinanced for iraq and make it for america. i don't understand the issue because right now you can do a google search of cnn and health care, you find out that we finance health care for the

iraqi people. what is so bad about us doing something for americans and our own people? anyone who is supplying health care for people in iraq. host: it is a little out of your territory, but do we cover health care for iraqi citizens? guest: i don't think so. i cannot say. it is a little bit out of my territory, but i can say that we do provide health care help to many nations, but usually it is in the way of helping to create health care systems. we have done a lot of work in afghanistan in helping to build up their hospitals. i don't think it is anything like we are paying for insurance in those countries. most countries worked very differently than we do in terms of insurance, but we do provide

help to other countries. i am not sure if it is to the extent you might think it may be. host: here is a call from washington. caller: good morning. i wanted to talk about the issue of health care in reference to a childhood obesity, diabetes, and how there is overwhelming evidence to suggest we can put a lot of money in these prevention programs. guest: that is correct. in fact, there is a lot more attention being paid to the issues of childhood obesity and wellness issues. these are issues we have not paid a lot of attention to in the past. they are just starting to take hold and we are starting to see evidence that these problems, us

not taking care of ourselves is leading to significant health care costs, not to mention the fact that it is not good for our health. host: a report came out yesterday reporting that obesity is a link in the soaring health- care costs. part of a conference on obesity being held in the nation's capital, some of which is being covered on c-span. good morning to catherine on the independent line. caller: thank you for having me and thank you for doing this subject. unfortunately she is too representative of the health care experts who too often do not know answers to questions they are asked by your is. -- questions that are asked by viewers. i don't understand why we were not debating single payer health

care. there is tremendous groundswell of enthusiasm when obama tried to have town hall meetings around health care, he had to shut this down because people were clamoring for a single payer health care to get the insurance companies out of medical care. they do not belong there. it is interesting that a previous caller seemed to bring up aspects of shame and decency around this issue that we as americans are supposed to be blind to it. that is our media propaganda. i would just ask c-span to please be more sensitive to the public. if you're going to be a public service, you cannot be a life support for the republican party. it seems to meet -- host: rehabing marilyn werber serafini -- we are having

marilyn werber serafini because she is a reporter from the "national review." guest: the thing about single payer is there are people in congress to support this. many of the democratic leaders in congress would love nothing to is -- and to see a medicare style single paye systemr for everyone, but even those folks have pulled back on this because of political reasons. they understand there is not enough support for it. they cannot get it through, so they have backed off on that issue. i wanted to mention that there is a broad consumption that most other industrialized countries have a single payer health care. some of them do but many of them do not, and many of them are pulling away from single payer. they have tried it and

discovered that they have not -- it has not worked as they wanted it to. there are not abandoning it completely but there are many european nations moving from strict government-run health care and starting to add back in private insurance. it is actually a bit of a misconception. host: that caller mentioned lobbyists. here is one from the "american medical association" on their vision. how different is the lobbying effort this time around from 1993? are lobbyists lining up against legislation or in favor of it? guest: it is very different than the clinton effort in the 1990's, because back then we had the clinton's coming out with a very specific plan early on and presented it to the industry

and to the public, so there was something already out there. this was the way it was going to be. there were many elements that folks did not like, so they came in and hit hard and killed the bill. this time around president obama learned and study that effort. as a result, he came in not with a very specific plan, but he handed off to congress. congress has been working on a bill, but in the meantime, the industry groups have had a seat at the table. they have let their feelings be known from the beginning and wanted a seat at the table. as to result, we have seen industry coming in with these deals, their own voluntary deals. i will help you to reduce costs by this much. we have seen it from the pharmaceutical industry. i think we have seen it from the hospitals.

and the insurance industry also. they are coming in and saying we will go ahead and accept all these new regulations on the insurance industry. for example, we will take everyone with pre-existing conditions and higher health risks if you cover everybody. so there is a lot of deal-making going on. the industry groups have really held off on any big attack. host: one of our viewers want to ask your opinion regarding the administration's selling of the need for health care reform. it seems to bea want and not a need. guest: my opinion is different. i think the administration sees it as a need in terms of this is what the country needs both for economic reasons and for consumers, but also there is a

political factor here. the administration, president obama really ran on doing something about health care. if he comes up short on this, the thinking is it will not be good for him politically. host: here is tom from massachusetts. caller: good morning. i would like to thank you for having me on. i heard on my morning news that there seems to be bipartisan consensus in the committee that would eliminate the public auctiono -- publicption as well as allow for pre-existing conditions and cracking down on insurance premiums. that concerns me and it sounds like the insurance lobby is winning, and people will still be threatened by bankruptcy with medical costs and insurance premiums over time will start to rise again.

i would appreciate it if marilyn werber serafini with luck into that because this is i opening new estimate. -- i wish she would look into that. guest: there were some very interesting developments yesterday. you were speaking about the senate finance committee. that is the group working together. there were two key decisions that they made, but nothing is final. one of the things they decided to do was to not have a public insurance plan available to people that would compete with private plans. we have been talking about having this exchange that would allow individuals and perhaps some small businesses to go through that entity to give folks a choice of private insurance and also won public plan. the public plan has been a concern for many members of

congress, so the finance committee decided that they would not have a public plan. a public plan. these folks also decided these would not have an employer mandate, meaning employers would have to either offer insurance to their workers or pay something into the system to help them buy insurance. this is very different from what the other main committing in the senate is doing, the health committee which is senator ted kennedy's committee. in that committee, they have already decided to live and employer mandate if employers to not offer insurance but have to pay 750, close to that, a year per employee. host: california, collin on our

democrats line. caller: i worked my way through college -- certified nursing assistant. i've decided to teach because i did not want to go any future in medical because of staffing shortfalls but in the 10 years of working, constantly were short. any one of these plans -- a shortage of nurses, are they addressed and what of these plans going to do to affect the number of people going into medicine. are they going to still want to go into medicine if one of the plans go through? i work my butt off and i have not had a pay raise in five years. i would like to know. i would not stay anywhere near madison work-wise because even if it is a constant job, it is

not worth it to burn myself out that way. guest: your concerns are shared by many and policymakers also share your concerns. in massachusetts where we already had some experience with a moving to universal health care or near universal health care, this problem has really come to the forefront. folks are having trouble seeing doctors. there are physicians and nursing shortages. this is throughout the country, even without going to universal coverage. some of the discussion among policy-makers is that we need to change the way we pay medical providers.

there is a real disparity especially among physicians, we pay certain specialties huge amounts of money while we pay our pediatricians and internists much left. a lot of the payment changes and payment reforms they are talking about on capitol hill -- but there are other proposals on the table to try to ease some of the shortages, both in terms of loan forgiveness programs and that nature. host: our guest is marilyn werber serafini who covers health care issues on "national journal." i want to pull this issue and show a headline from this morning's "usa today." they write that vermont could be a guide. the article talks about covering the uninsured is at the heart of the debate in washington beard

also as carver struggles on how to offer and pay for health care reform for more than 46 million in the usa without coverage, the green mountain state, vt., to get different turn. they cannot afford to cover everyone, so they focused on cutting costs and improving care what the goal of ensuring more people. they won over critics of the legislature and the public by not raising taxes. instead, the state persuaded insurance companies and hospitals to kick in. the federal government gave, the flexibility how to spend medicaid dollars and the only hit to the public was a tax on cigarettes that is 80 cents per pack and a $365 per employe penalty for businesses that don't offer health insurance. sounds like a smaller scale of some of the ideas talked-about on the hill. guest: i think it is. it is very different from massachusetts, which is cover everybody, get everybody in the system and later on we will deal

with the cost issues. both of vermont and what we are talking about here in washington is a different strategy. we don't have the flexibility here in washington to move forward basically because of budget rules. budget rules won't allow congress to spend $1 trillion to cover everybody and not pay for it. it just won't happen, which is why we are talking about needing to contain some of these costs. at the new phrase is bending the cost curve. host: most dates have to have a balanced budget so they have that to deal with on their level. -- most states have a balanced budget. ron, independent caller. caller: several bills that were presented by republicans to --

for small businesses to pool their resources so they can get insurance cheaper as a group. but that was killed by the democrats. it seems to me they say there are 45 million uninsured -- that it is a bogus number, really have that, and that includes illegal aliens. why do they have to take over the whole health care insurance? why not just come up with a plan to ensure those who don't have insurance? host: is that still alive, allow small groups to ban together? guest: really what we are talking about now are these health insurance exchanges. again, this is an entity where individuals who don't have insurance -- this would be available to some small businesses also, that they could go through this entity perhaps to buy insurance and to make it easier. in a way, it is something of a

similar concept in that it allows them to be part of a group. and this is a very large group of the uninsured. there is also discussion about giving small businesses tax credits or some kind of help to entice them to offer insurance. so that is also a possibility. host: hanover, pa.. republican, chris. caller: i have first a comment and then a question. first of all, i have had hmo's for most of my life, and i don't understand why everybody is so against insurance company, and in the titular, hmo's. first, i gave birth in 1988 and in 2001, and, yes i paid premiums through my employer, but when i go through my hmo, i

never get a bill come all the paperwork and that everything is paid up front, it is done come over with. host: you are happy with your hmo? caller: i yes. then became disabled. now i have medicare. i have to have a premium just to get part b, and i have paid since 2000, started out at $30 a month, and now $93.95 dollars a month, and that doesn't cover my prescription, it does not cover dental, all it covers is going to the doctor and hospital, plus i have a co-pay. and that is with my limited income on disability. so, i would like a question -- nobody really in this bill is actually dealing with the most major issue of the government which is medicare and medicaid.

they are trying to take all of the insurance companies, tried to take them all in. host: alright, we will get a response. guest: of the most recent discussions on capitol hill have been about medicare and how to make the program more effective. this has a little more than a week ago the congressional budget -- congressional budget office brought this issue to the forefront. he raised concerns that the health reform -- health reform proposals would not do a whole lot to bring down health-care costs in general. that is when a lot of discussion really started to kick up about medicare and what you can do about medicare. that is why in the house we have a lot of discussion about creating some sort of a medicare

entity, an independent entity that would be controlled by the administration that would have more power than the current medicare payment advisory commission, which advises congress on medicare payment policy. the whole idea is to give this entity more power so that it can make medicare more efficient and lower costs. host: is an op ed cartoon this morning and "washington post." the august recess, the ambulance driver is running away from health care. why is it important to democratic leaders to get this done before the august recess? guest: if you don't get it at least through the committee by the august recess, then there is great concern -- getting it through the committee and then you have to get it to both the house and senate floor. once you have been on the floor,

it has to be passed. then you will probably end up with significant differences between the bill that the house passes and the one the senate passes. the two have to work out their differences. that is a lot of work to be done by the end of the year if you do not get a lot accomplished before the august recess. what happens is if you do not get the whole thing done by the end of the year and signed by the president, it spills over into next year. next year is an election year for congress. folks who have been in congress awhile understand that a lot of politics start coming into this issue, and that can kill a bill very quickly. right now the president still has a lot of political capital. his ratings are still very high. a lot of that starts to disappear along that this waits. host: one person's rights he is

missing a few key players that would have been there in the past, including ted kennedy who is absent from the health committee negotiations, john mccain who has often gone against his party, and also tom- all -- tom daschle. what would he have brought to these discussions? guest: you just mentioned the big players. not having ted kennedy for a very active presence from him -- some people believe that has made a big difference. whether you agree with him or not on his policy, he has been one of the most effective legislatures at bringing both sides to the table together and coming out with something that can actually work.

when you speak about tom daschle. he was the original pact to be the health and human services secretary and also their health reform czar. tom is the former senate democratic leader. senate democratic leader, and not only that, he was an obama adviser during the campaign. so he really was very well connected. he knows the workings of congress, he has directed ties into obama. so, to not have his presence right now, many people believe things may have gone a little smoother. host: is he having any input lobbying? guest: he is saying what the things, talking to folks. what he is having -- not having

a direct role. -- is a direct role. host: floyd, a republican. caller: i know a lot of people are saying that nobody has read the bill, and i'm wondering if you read it. the woman who called in on the weekend, i believe paige for the injured and 50 there was a provision where older people -- i believe paige for 50, the was a provision of all the people would have to go to counseling on how to die. host: we had that bill here yesterday in front of us but we don't have today. what do you know about his question? guest: i really don't know anything about your question. it is interesting. i will look up. host: there was a report in " congressional quarterly" about that meeting of the caucus and they report a democrat from

colorado saying, nobody can say we haven't read the bill. they had a lengthy session, at least on the democratic side. guest: they did. what was interesting is that -- they had a lengthy session, they wanted to go over it. in fact, the democrats were promised a period of time to review the bill before it is actually considered in the house. the republicans came back yesterday saying, well, this is proof, the fact that you need to sit down and have this lengthy review process, it is proved that it is too complicated. host: marilyn werber serafini writes for "national journal. could you talk about your own encounter with h1n1 flow and you tie it in to the health-care debate. i would need to briefly tell us what happened. guest: it is interesting. in mid june my own daughter was ill and i took her to the pediatrician, the test of her and she came up positive for flu, just

>> the house is about to gavel in for morning our speeches. live coverage on c-span. the speaker: the house will be in order. pursuant to the order of the house of january 6, 2009, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate . the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado, mr. salazar, for five minutes. mr. salazar: request permission to address the house for five minutes. the speaker: without objection. mr. salazar: madam speaker, i rise today to honor my mentor and close friend, mr. richard d. "dick" mccravey. after 26 years as secretary and executive director of the colorado congress, dick is announcing his retirement. throughout his tenure, dick helped enact a multitude of legislation to help protect

water resources throughout colorado. as executive director, dick sought 350 of the 419 colorado water congress-supported bills enacted into law. in addition, only one of the 123 bills opposed by the colorado water congress became law. this impressive record demonstrates dick's effective leadership and dedication to protecting colorado's water. during my time in the colorado state legislature, dick took me under his wing and taught me a great deal about water legislation. as a farmer and lifelong resident of the san luis valley, i understand the importance of water. this precious resource is the lifeblood and essential to maintaining our way of life. dick understood the needs of everyone, from farmers like me in rural colorado, to those in towns like aspen, carbon dale and telluride, aurora and colorado springs. with his guidance, i helped craft a piece of legislation, the basin origin protection, which i am very proud of. although this bill was never

enacted into law, the lessons that dick taught me during this experience were invaluable. i will always consider dick a great mentor and a friend. dick's dedication to protecting water and serving colorado started long before his involvement with the colorado water congress. he served three years as executive director to the council of governments and seven years as executive director of the colorado municipal league. while at c.o.g., dick guided the well 2008 water quality management planning effort. in 1970, dick served as chairman of the colorado good government committee for the promotion of state constitutional amendments, one, governors cabinet, two, state civil service re-organization, and, three, local government modernization. all three amendments were approved overwhelmingly by the people of colorado. in addition, dick was involved in six other statewide initiative campaigns and was successful in all six

campaigns. in 1988 dick was appointed to colorado vision in 2000 and he became part of the legislative council subcommittee on long range planning for state government. from 1969 to 197 is dick served on a national league of city board of directors. he served as a member of the boards for the colorado water pack and colorado water education foundation. dick is a member of the american society of association executive colorado association -- colorado association of executives, international city management association. dick is one of colorado's great leaders. he's been involved in many aspects of colorado life and has worked tirelessly to protect our current and future generations. however, it is his tireless fight for water that has been most inspiring to me. in 1999, dick was named the 19th recipient of the wayne apenall water leader of the

year award. this is named after a former congressman of the district i currently represent. mr. aspenall was a water champion for colorado and ensuring that the colorado residents have access to a safe water supply. after i was elected to the u.s. house in 2004, dick gave me a biography on wayne aspenall. and in it he wrote a letter. to john salazar, this book is about one of colorado's great members of congress. you will someday rank as one of congress' great. your friend, dick mccravey, january 7, 2005. madam speaker, this note touched my heart and i keep my book with me in my congressional office. while serving in congress, i will continue to fight for colorado's water and i hope that my efforts will make dick mccravey proud. i wish dick well in his retirement and want him to know

that he will always have a special place in my heart. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlelady from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen. ms. ros-lehtinen: perm -- permission to address the house and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. ros-lehtinen: i rise to recognize hope for vision, a wonderful organization in my congressional district as well as their two newest good will ambassadors, alex and stacy campos. both hope for vision as well as the campos family serve our community with tremendous distinction. as a member of the congressional vision caucus, i'm proud to work toward elevating awareness and finding solutions to the problems that surround vision loss and vision impairment. in this pursuit, there's no better partner than that of hope for vision. started in 2005, it amazes me

every day just how much hope for vision has accomplished. in just four short but very successful years, hope for vision has been able to raise millions of dollars for the development of treatments and cures for blinding diseases. finding a cure tore dejen tif blindness and other retinal diseases holds untold promises for new treatments and beyond which is so important to reduce the massive costs that our nation suffers due to vision loss. vision loss and impairment not only have an extraordinary financial cost, but it also carries a deep personal cost as well. when individuals suffer the inability to see clearly, they must depend on others for help. simple tasks like locating keys or avoiding obstacles in a walkway become virtually impossible without assistance.

literally left in the dark, a person's blindness becomes an entire family's responsibility. this is compounded by the fact that the health care costs related to vision alone are more than $67 billion annually and this number will only increase as the population continues to grow and age. hope for vision understands these issues, and they have the biggest challenge they know is to ensuring that this crucial work is fully funded. by far the most impressive thing for hope for vision is that 95% of the money raised is given directly to research at top academic institutions. and when it comes to the administration of success for hope for vision, few no better than that of alex and stacy campos. these two champions of vision care have served selflessly for the benefit of our south florida community.

as well, they have true afforded many in need the blessing of renewed sight. as good will ambassadors, mr. campos will sit on the board of directors for hope for vision and will use his skills gained from the financial industry to make hope for vision as successful as it is today. together with his wife, stacy, and her continued participation in many charitable foundations, the work of the campos family has provided hope for vision with the means it needs to grow and succeed even more. without a doubt, mr. and mrs. campos satisfies the role of good will ambassadors. their reentless commitment to service and helping others is of true distinction. it is because of their dedication to hope for vision and their fight against vision loss that countless families today enjoy the freedom of sight. alex and stacy campos have been a great resource for all at

hope for vision, and our entire community has benefited from their partnership. hope for vision will be sure to maintain itself among the elite in organizations working to fight against blindless and retina degenerative diseases, through the actions of dead caded individuals like alex -- dedicated individuals like alex and stacy. i congratulate hope for vision for the great work that this young organization has already done and i look forward to hearing many good things in the years to come from hope for vision and all the brave individuals involved in this fight for maintaining vision awareness for all of our community. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. connelly, for five minutes. mr. connelly: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to discuss the continuing success of the recovery act and righting our

economic troubles. we all know too well the results of the bush administration's lack of oversight in the financial sector and lack of focus in the nation's domestic needs. in december, 2007, this nation entered the worse recession since world war ii. almost seven million americans lost their jobs on the bush administration watch. housing foreclosures moved to record levels, millions more struggled to keep their homes. when chairman bernanke, chairman of the federal reserve, testified before the house committee on the budget in june he stated that the recovery act specifically the government funding for infrastructure has had a positive effect on the economy. without which we would be in worse trouble than we are now. imagine, madam speaker, that when critically needed transportation and other infrastructure projects receive funding, they actually create jobs. putting americans back to work.

chairman bernanke said that but for government action, the nation was days away from the collapse of the financial sector last fall. for those who regret the actions, i ask if collapse would have been preferable. the last time i discussed the recovery act, i mentioned the positive impact in my district, sfeskly the greater prince william county health center. because of the recovery center, we'll keep that open and we'll create new jobs and keep people working and serve a population that otherwise would not access health care in my district. today i want to discuss another positive aspect of that act, which is on a number of critically needed transportation projects in my district. it provided funds to expedite construction of the dulles- fairfax line.

it will help alleviate our traffic congestion by removing up to 93,000 vehicles off the roads each day. though the federal government previously committed to expedite the project this will allow us to save $15 million in project costs. we hope we can accelerate funding even more. the recovery act will not only allow jobs to be created more quickly but also the necessary project work to start faster and get this completed earlier than even anticipated. the recovery act provided funding for the purchase of additional buses for the transportation commission in prince william county that will provide vital capacity for a current crowded system, allowing greater choice for commuters and taking cars of the roadway. as the president announced, the recovery act also provide funds for the completion of the

long-awaited fairfax county parkway, waiting decades to be completed. thanks to the recovery act, we'll be able to complete that parkway and make vital connections with fort belvoir. while the recovery is by no means out of the woods, we're seeing positive signses of recovery. though the total number of unemployed remains high, new filings for unemployment claimings have, in fact, come down. retail sales rose 0.5% in may and 0 .6% in june. the fourth month this year with gains. consumer confidence is at a nine-month high. the meltdown in the housing market was a leading cause of the recession and it's encouraging to see that housing starts in may were up 7.2% over april. and new housing sales are up 11.2%. during the traditional business

cycle, resessions have tended to last nine months. madam speaker this recession began in december of 2007. 14 months before president obama took office. while no one -- while no one solution will cure it overnight, the recovery act is one piece of the actions that will help. through the recovery act, we've seen positive results of our actions and creating jobs in the 11th district of virginia, providing critically needed transportation improvements to our region, putting our people to work. i commend my colleagues for their support of this legislation and protecting the interests of all americans. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, for five minutes. mr. flake: i thank the chair. madam chair, later today, the rules committee will be promulgating a rule for the defense appropriation bill that i believe we will consider tomorrow.

this is a, in my view, quite remarkable, that we'll be considering the defense bill. it spends hundreds of billions of dollars. we'll be spending less than a day debating that legislation. what is remarkable about it as well is that there are 1,087 earmarks in the bill. more than 1,000 earmarks in the defense bill. that was considered by the full appropriations committee for a total of 18 minutes. not 18 minute pers earmark or per section of the bill or anything else, but the appropriations bill, full committee, appropriations committee, considered that bill for 18 minutes, past, done, markup, finished. now we've got that bill on the floor tomorrow. unfortunately, as is the case, or as has been the case with

the rest of the appropriations bills this season, it will come to the floor under a structured or closed rule, where the rules committee, the majority party, will determine which amendments the minority party and members of the majority party get to offer. breaking from tradition that has held for decades and decades and perhaps centuries in this institution where appropriations bills have come to the floor under an open rule this will come to the floor under a rule that only allows amendments to be offered that the majority party wants to see. not those that the minority party necessarily wants to offer. there are 548, at our count, earmarks in this bill that will go to private companies. these will be no-bid contracts for private companies. now the majority party will say, well, we're inserting language saying these earmarks have to be bid out. the purpose of an earmark is to

ensure that that contract is not bid out. otherwise, why earmark it? why not just let the defense department decide where to spend its money. these are earmarks. they are -- these are no-bid contracts. they're going private companies. in many cases, those private companies will turn around and executives from those companies will make sizable campaign contributions to the members who secured the earmarks. that's been the pattern in this place for year, not just with the majority party in power, but when the minority party was in power as well. it's simply gotten worse over time. our ethics committee forces members, and it's a good thing to sign a certification letter saying they have no financial stake in the earmark they are securing that a family member doesn't work for the firm receiving it, for example. but there's also guidance issued from the ethics committee that says that campaign contributions do not

necessarily constitute financial interest, members in this body are given a green light to basically earmark for campaign dollars. the so-called circular fundraising that's become the norm around here. if this wasn't bad enough, there are investigations swirling outside of this body, members' offices have been subpoenaed, some people on the outside have pled guilty and are working with authorities, involving earmarks and campaign contributions. there are allegations of straw man contributions that are set up, where individuals are reimbursed for contributions to members who secure earmarks. there are investigations swirling outside, yet we're moving through this appropriations process as if nothing were wrong and we'll consider a bill in one day and limit the number of amendment this is a members can bring forward. now this isn't the perfect way to scrutinize or vet a bill.

i recognize on the house floor, but it's all we've got when the full committee, appropriations committee, takes a full 18 minutes to approve a bill that spends hundreds of millions of dollars and contains over 1,000 earmarks, 548 of which are no-bid contracts to private companies. we do that nall a day, then tell members, oh, but we're going to limit, we're only going to allow the amendments we want to see, not necessarily the ones you want to offer. in the legislation we consider tomorrow, there's an earmark going to a company called prologic. it's reported it's under investigation by the f.b.i. the status of the investigations are unknown. there are just reports of investigations. this company, lobbyists, those associated with it have contributed more than $400,000

to congressional campaign committees. yet we're still allowing this bill to go forward. let's have a new rule for the bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from rhode island, mr. kennedy for five minutes. mr. kennedy: thank you, madam chair. this legislation, america's health affordability choices act of 2009, otherwise known as our health bill this year which guarantees all americans access to affordable health care without pre-existing condition discrimination, imagine that, getting health care insurance without being told that your pre-existing condition is going to result in higher premiums, higher deductions, higher deductibles or higher co-pays. imagine being able to change your job at will, without having to worry that you're going to lose your health insurance. imagine having no worry that you're going to have to exceed a lifetime cap.

imagine being table know that you're going to have catastrophic health care coverage. imagine knowing that we're going to now move in our health care system if a sick care system that just is the most expensive that we know to actually a health care system where we actually pay for preventive care. 10 that we actually get health care in this country, not sick care. where we pay for prevention, not sick care. we don't have to wait until an asthmatic gets an asthma attack before we get a doctor to that asthma patient. with edon't have to wait until a diabetic gets an amputation before we get the critical care. we get prevention and chronic care management. what is so great about this legislation is that it includes full parity for mental health coverage. i was proud last year to author the mental health and addiction

equity act of 2008. what it required is that we finally recognize that mental health and addiction equity is part of our health insurance system, meaning insurance companies could no longer discriminate if you had alcoholism or addiction or depression. imagine that. we finally acknowledge that the brain is part of the body. mental illness is a big part of our country's health care system. it accounts for over 50% of the trauma admissions in our trauma one centers and emergency rooms every single weekend. suicides in our country exceed homicides by two to one. suicides do. and you know what? we don't have a mental health system in this country to speak of. because you know why? there's a stigma out there

against mental illness. we still believe in this country that it's your fault if you have a brain illness. if somehow you have a lower dopamine level orer is toe anyone level it's your -- or serotonin level, it's your fault. pick yourself up by the boot straps, it's your fault, it's a moral problem. we forget the fact that to this day we can take brain scans and tell whether someone has a differing brain or not from a normal functioning brain but today, we are enforcing what we know to be scientifically true, what the a.m.a. said in 1955 and that alcoholism is a disease. that there is such a thing as brain disorders, substance abuse disorders, eating disorders, depression, bipolar disorder and things of that nature. in this legislation in this

health care bill, we require parity in health care coverage. we say we ought to reck are nice these disorders for what they are and furthermore, we say we ought to have prevention. even more in this legislation, we're going to say we're going to require medical school education to have education teaching all doctors to recognize this. that is what is important in this legislation. and i am pleased to ask my colleagues that they ought to support this legislation so that we can finally have justice for all in health care in this country and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes mr. lungren of california for five minutes.

mr. lungren: madam speaker, this week it is still uncertain as to whether we'll have an opportunity to vote on a health care proposal before we go home for the august recess. i would just suggest, madam speaker that what we do is ensure that we have are absolute transparency, the capability of every member to look at whatever bill comes to this floor. we've been told that the bill may be in excess of 1,000 pages. that we have an opportunity to have a full debate and full amendments to be debated on the floor. why do i say this? because many people would say, that would be what is to be expected. unfortunately, other the last several month, we've had an experience in this house in which we've had major pieces of legislation brought to this

floor, in some cases the bill itself with very little notice in other cases huge, 300-page amendments being dropped on us at the last minute. we've had some suggest that it is unnecessary for members of congress to read the bill or have their staffs read the bill or understand parts of the bill. rather we are told, just trust us. well, i remember ronald reagan's very important admonition which is trust but verify. if we are being asked to alter approximately 18% of the entire united states economy, if we are being asked to change in fundamental ways the delivery of health care to the men and women and children of this country, if we are being told that what we are going to do is

going to change medicare and medicaid, if we are being told that what we are embarking on this week is to fundamentally change the manner in which men and women and children of this country receive their health care, if we are to be told that we must make a decision this week as to what the relationship between the doctor and the patient ought to be, if we are being told that we will have to make choices as to whether or not the government shall insert itself between the doctor and the patient, if we are being told that the president believes that there are doctors -- suggestion what the generalization was that most doctors would require a tonsillectomy for a young person rather than continue treatment of a cheaper kind to

take care of sore throats, if we are being told that we have to review the entire health care system in the united states compare it to canada, compare it to england, compare it to france, compare it to sweden, compare it to the ideal, if we are being told that this week we have to make the decision as to whether or not the program we put forward will have government decide whether 100-year-old woman who is in extraordinarily good health needs a pacemaker is being told by the government that merely she should take a pain pill as the president suggested on television not too long ago, then make we owe it to the american people to give ourselves sufficient time. rather than have some sort of artificial deadline, maybe we ought to take the time to go back to our districts and

present the arguments to our constituents and at least give them an opportunity to tell us in our town hall meetings, tell us in our teletown halls, tell us in the meetings with various groups as to what they think ought to be done. why would we have a rush to judgment here? other than the fact that we have an august recess, other than the fact that the president said we must pass it by a date certain, shouldn't we take the time to do the work that the american people expect of us, particularly when it deals with something so precious, so personal, so important as their health? and so i hope that rather than meet some artificial deadline we will take the time to allow the american people to see the bill in all of its glory, to see its good points and its bad points, to see whether we ought to change it, alter it in any way and then come back and make

a decision here for the american people. there are very few issues that are as fundamentally important as this issue. let's make sure we do it right. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky, mr. yarmuth, for five minutes. mr. yarmuth: thank you, madam speaker. it's an honor for me to take the floor after patrick kennedy from rhode island who along with his father, senator edward kennedy, have devoted so much of their careers, their emotions, their passion to resolving the health care problems in this country. and as we talk about health care, reforming our system, we talk a lot about billions and billions of dollars, we talk about government agencies, we talk about the politics of it, but at its core, this issue isn't about any of those things. this is about human beings.

this is about men, women and their families and trying to help them deal with health care crises, wellness issues, things that every american has to deal with. yesterday in southern indiana right across from my district the subcommittee of the energy and commerce committee held a field hearing in which we were able to see the face of this issue. three people who came before us to tell their stories about how the health care system in america has failed them. one of them was a constituent from my district, patricia riley. patricia is a small business person. for 20 years she was insured under a small business policy by the same company. she paid her bills every month religiously. the only claim she ever made was some painkillers for a back injury. and then last year she was

found to have breast cancer. she had a double mastectomy. she contracted a staph infection while she was in the hospital. and while all that is going on, she received notice from her insurance company that they were not going to renew her policy as of june 30 of this year. she's still fighting that staph infection. she's unable to work, and she's still fighting without insurance because the only insurance available to her now is far beyond her means to pay. she is the real person, and someone whose situation could be replicated in any household across this country if we don't do something about reforming our insurance system. another woman who was at the hearing yesterday, a ms. baiten from dallas, texas. ms. baiten is 59. she had an individual policy. she also contracted breast cancer, had a double

mastectomy, except before she could have that operation, the insurance company rescinded her policy. basically said we know we insured you, but because there was a notation in something in a medical chart years ago that referred to a skin issue, namely pimples, and somebody misinterpreted it as saying it was precancerous, which the doctor denied, we're not covering your cancer treatment. fortunately congressman barton from texas intervened on her behalf and was able to eventually get her policy reinstated. but by the time it was her tumors had grown by more than 300% in size and the treatment that she got was vastly more complicated and more expensive than it ever needed to be. these are the faces of the insurance crisis, the health crisis that we face.

and we have to change our system. 14,000 americans lose their health insurance every day, every day. it could be any one of us. and you know what, in that situation that we heard about yesterday, that as three insurance companies testified before congress a month ago, three insurance companies rescinded 10,000 insurance policies. they save $300 million by doing that. but that was only the cost of the care they denied, the claims they refused to pay. not the perspective cost of covering and treating all of those illnesses, which would have been in the billions of dollars. so as we debate health care over the next week, over the next few months, let's remember that it's more than about money, it's more than about government agencies, it's more

than about process. this is about american human beings and their only simple desire to have quality, affordable care. that's what we're about, and that's what we intend to do. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlelady from florida -- pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in reces

>> yesterday that committee's ranking republican announced that he would not vote for the confirmation. a final vote in front of the full senate could happen before the chamber breaks for the august recess. now, from today's washington journal, the chairman of the health debate in congress. of the representative john larsen represents the first district, hartford and bristol and other towns joining us from the canon office building and he chairs the democratic caucus which had a meeting that ran late into the evening. rep larson, well -- welcome. tell us the results. guest: it was five and a half

hour meeting starting at 4:00 and the idea was to make sure we went through every single section of the bill, some 31 seconds -- sections, and answered questions for the members and debunked a lot of the myths out there. but i am proud to say our caucus continues to make progress and we feel confident that we will have a bill and that health care reform will be enacted this year in the congress. because the american people demanded. we want to make sure we arm our members so when they go home they will be able to go back and have town hall meetings and inform the public and debunk a lot of the myths. you know, americans understand and want to make sure we do away with pre-existing conditions. that we make sure that their insurance is guaranteed issue. that it is portable -- whether you retire or get fired, you are able to take your insurance coverage with you, and you will

not go bankrupt, that we will have caps on catastrophic care so if it happens to be one of those unfortunate circumstances where someone in your family has leukemia, that that doesn't put you into bankruptcy. and we are going to do it in a way that bends the cost curve and brings it down so it is affordable. every time you talk about health care we are really talking about the economy and jobs. people understand with 14,000 people understand with 14,000 people a day los we had a very positive caucus that lasted 5.5 hours. our members are energized, and certainly more educated with respect to what the bill does. host: we will have representatives larson with us for the next 25 minutes. we will take your calls. how did members of the subset, at the blue dog caucus, it reacts?

what can you tell us? guest: blue dogs were at the caucus. blue dogs want to see health care insurance for the country as well. there is not a person that i have talked to that does not want health care. they want to make sure the cost curve is spent, and number of very thoughtful individuals have participated in those discussions. all our vice-chairman -- our vice-chairman talked about regional disparity and the impact on medicare. all parts of very important and complex issues. when you're not on one of the specific committees, sometimes you feel left out of the discussion. that is why we went the extra length. more than 12 caucuses will be

meeting afternoon. we have more than 150 town hall meetings. this is because the issue is so important and so complex and because the american people need it. people in my district, for example, it's just the other day were reporting -- a small businessman, the cost for him has risen over 50%. it is unconscionable what is happening to individuals on out there. they want to insure their employees, but they have to have a system that brings about competition and low worst the costs. we will provide that opportunity for them. if the blue dogs have been an important part of that discussion. guest: tracy on our democrats line. caller: what i wanted to know was, how sure argue that there is going to be a public option in this bill? i am extremely disappointed at =

that single payor was taken off the table. i am not in debt over $250,000 in debt to a hospital. i cannot work. i've had to apply for disability. i know what will be that -- i know i will be denied. quote can you do people to assure people that they will be able to go to a hospital and not pay an exorbitant amounts of money? the sentiments of so many americans and i can assure you there is going to be a public offer -- option in the plan and robust. many who indicated in our caucus for a single pair could still prefer to see the system, understand that what we will be creating here with this bill is something unique in this world. we will have an american plan -- not a canadian plan, not and european plan, but an american plan that provide -- combines

the best with entrepreneurial instincts with respect to the private sector and arguments on the government side that make sure for people with pre- existing conditions, that make sure insurance companies cannot rescind people who have had coverage but then they go back and focus and say, you had a pre-existing condition or something we can decline you with. guaranteed issue. we will cap the cost. we will make sure we emphasize prevention so we are able under the bill as a first arts in 2010 that people on medicare, for example, no longer will pay co- pays intervention. host: would you say the issue of single payer is off the table on the house side? guest: i think the idea is never off the table but i think the practicality is that the bill is going to go forward that the president supports and house leadership supports and the two committees that reporter out so far all report -- support a

robust public auction. host: the speaker said she is keeping an eye on what the senate finance committee is doing. do you share those views? guest: we always keep an eye on what the senate finance committee is doing. i know senator chris dodd posset committee reported out a bill that is synonymous with what the ways and means have reported -- we like to think the ways and means committee sets the tone in terms of focusing on what kind of a robust option we are going to have, that is what the ways and means committee reported out. host: len the republican line. shelby, michigan. caller: listen, i've got many, many things to say about -- host: just a couple of them. caller: i know, i know. i am trying to put together in my mind as far as what to say here this morning.

one of the things that really gets me is the fact that these guys, and they are trying to put this bill together that they themselves don't even want. look at the health care bill that the congress people have -- are you going to dump your current health care plan and put it into the habit of this debacle that you guys call? guest: i think what the president says it is instructive, if you like the plan you currently have come on a matter where you are, you can keep it. but the plan we are modeling this after in terms of the public exchange where the public supermarket is going to provide people like yourselves and others with a choice. we will provide small businesses who don't have any choice who are getting forced out of this marketplace with the option of being able to go to an exchange, an exchange that will provide competition. i think competition is a good thing.

and in this instance we will be able to both cap the cost so instead of paying increases, just as i noted earlier with a small businessman and connecticut paying over a two- year period a 60% increase, they are capped at 8% in what the out of pocket expenses are going to be. so i believe that competition will work, that the program will be robust and we will have a unique plan and the private sector will continue to flourish, contrary to the myths where people saying this is a public plan and will get people out of the system. cbo reports that about 10 million of the 300 million plus people in this country will be part of the public auction by the year 2020. so i do think it will provide competition. people will make adjustments and that will drive down prices and also drive it down the cost, which will help us on several fronts, not the least of which is the economy. host: jackson, mississippi.

good morning. on the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to know in the health can plan -- now, i have glaucoma and at first i was getting ssi and medicaid, then after i got a search age, i am over 50, i got a certain age and they changed it over to social security and medicare. now what they are doing is having my medicaid pay for my medicare premium but i was forced to get a supplemental medicare program for drugs, the supplemental medicare program is paying for all of my doctor benefits but if the doctor don't sign up, medicare will not pay

for the doctor before i had glaucoma and stuff. host: how does the issue, the problems medicare have? caller: i am proud to say been ama supports the bill -- and interphase, i think the ladies problems suggest -- guest: i am proud to say the ama supports the bill -- the interface, doctors will participate in the plan. a lot more we have to do especially making sure we provide more primary-care doctors which this bill provides for an week incentivize through our hospitals. there are reforms in medicare that will help put more money back into the system while streamlining it and balance off some of the impact that medicare and medicaid share alike. so, i believe as we go forward with respect to the specific

concerns that this reform legislation is just what the doctor ordered, if you forgive the pun. host: a viewer asks -- what if i choose not to have health care and day out of pocket like to do now. that is not an option. guest: well, i think cbo scored at this as saying there are a certain number of people who certainly will resist insurance no matter what the case is. it will cover about 97% of all americans. if you choose not to sign up for a plan, you are subject to a penalty. but i heard many people say they will pay the penalty and resist that. i think as the plan unfolds -- and take a look at the benefits, look at what the cost will be and how they will be capped, i

think they will find this is a common-sense way of dealing with a very complex issue. if it were simple, it probably would have been passed that during the truman administration when it was first laid out before the public. but the time is way past due. the cost of not doing anything with the gross domestic product approaching 20%, just on workable going forward into the future. why can't i put -- we put our oars in the water together as a nation and make sure we come up with common arguments and combine that with our entrepreneurial greatness to buy the best plan for all americans, that is with the country wants. host: miami, florida. so be on our democrats line. caller: yes. ii would like to make one comment and i have one question. first of all, i think we have to start emphasizing more the moral aspect of this issue.

because it is unthinkable that the christian right would accept all of these millions of american citizens that have no health care, no health insurance. it is something that should not be tolerated. my question also is, why aren't we emphasizing more the corporate powers behind the opposition via pharmaceutical and health insurance and the dollars that are behind it and the lawmakers about are behind the opposition be bought by the dollars. guest: well, look, you know, the president, i think, has been very good on this. from the start he summoned individuals down to washington. he explained how important was and i think all america agrees.

but people will cling to their turf and began and resist, then of course we won't be able to achieve this. he followed that up in may and i believe he had major key players -- whether they be hospitals, whether they be doctors, insurance, pharmaceutical, medical device companies, all came down. they pledged they can get about $2 trillion in savings. $2 trillion in savings over day -- over a 10-year period. our bill is roughly $1 trillion, slightly less than that. i believe that we have to hold them accountable to what they said they will produce. and this way trigger a response from government that if you don't live up to what you say you will produce, if you don't achieve the cost savings than a tax will go into effect on your industry and that will provide them with an incentive to achieve those goals and continue to lower-cost, etcetera.

to your point, you know, those interests, if they choose to come in and -- to fight this proposal, they can do so at their own peril. this is not anything new. certainly health care has been fought before by special interest. but nothing as big as this is more worth fighting for. we accept this challenge and this fight and we are going to be engaged to what august along with our president to make sure that on behalf of the american people we provide them with the kind of coverage and the kind of cost savings that they need. host: well, congressman, involved with the president of the spirit of the headline says nancy pelosi one might give up yet. the health care votes are still possible -- the headline. and in -- a story from the politico come house leadership issued an e-mail, health care events for august district work

period, to help you, meaning members, host a successful health-care reform of then. providing you with easy to use materials to explain and sell the legislation. plans in place for carrying this discussion through august. guest: i think the speaker -- no one ever underestimates -- certainly the speaker is referring also to the commitments president obama has to both houses. he asked them to live a plan before the august break and he asked them to do that because of the fierce urgency. speaker nancy blows a has always focused on the fierce urgency of not -- speaker pelosi has always focused on the fierce urgency of now and the people who can't wait, and she also has a great -- as a great leader has a strategy to go forward, not only in july but also in august and

then again in september. i can assure you this, and all the viewers out there, we will have health care reform and a bill this year. caller: i have a question. instead of putting the medical saying -- thing , well, making a mess of it. why don't you just aren't out by fixing the problem that we have now, like the people who had pre-existing conditions? common-sense been putting everything in a tailspin. also, i understand you want to take away quite a bit of our medicare to pay for this. i want to know if that is true. guest: that is not true.

while there would be savings from medicare, there will be money going back into medicare. we will close the hole. preexisting conditions will no longer be in effect. immediately, no experience committee -- no insurance committee will be able to extend a plan. community health care's will be open and running, and they all are in encouraging prevention in dealing with the issues of obesity and diabetes and other important issues that we know through prevention can provide us with the health-care savings that we need. so much of that cannot be scored by the congressional budget office. yet, we know that the savings exist out there. we're going to achieve those, but you make excellent points. >host: sandra on the independent line. caller: i went to the doctor and

got my bill. the doctor's visit was $166. medicare only paid 90. is this new bill going to limit what i paid my dr.? and is this plan -- s going to -- guest: under this new bill there will no longer be any co-pays for medicare. and there will also no longer be co-pays in medicare for preventative business -- visits, going to a doctor for checkups and making sure, no matter what you need, whether it is your eyes or just a regular physical exam, we want you to do that. we want to make sure -- we are closing of doughnut hole that

the board pay for the prescription drugs. it will reform medicare that will reduce some of the excessive cost but add back in some of the most onerous things that we've heard from seniors like yourself. host: phoenix, ariz., beverly, democratic color. caller: congressman, you are driving me crazy with your hands. guest: i am sure about that. if they tied my hands i would not be able to talk. host: go ahead, beverly. caller: oit made me forget my question. ok. i want public health. i am on medicare, so i don't need it. but public health is what we need. and if the congress has health care right now and that taxpayers pay two-thirds of your health care, why can't you all

paid two-thirds of the public health? if you can't, you need to reduce the payment to you, and if you would answer that question directly and don't go off on all of these other things, i would appreciate it. host: thank you, beverly. guest: thank you, beverly, for the question. congress people have a choice in terms of what insurance they would like. i don't belong to the congressional plan but you can belong to the congressional plan which you pay for. some have said it is two-thirds of the cost. i don't believe that is accurate. but certainly congress people would have the same opportunity to go into the public auction. and in that option they could select from a, b, c, or the program -- d being sued for health care or providing you

greater benefits. -- d being super health care. depending on your means, that is how you focus. that is how members of congress choose their plan. that is the similarities. host: we know you have to run in a moment. what can you tell us, the latest news on where the energy and commerce committee negotiations are. guest: i think the energy and commerce committee discussions are moving along. i think henry waxman has been working overtime. we started at the outset talking about the blue dogs. listen, let me say again, blue dogs want to have health care. and i think we will work in a corporate says veined -- part of sharing of which we will work in a cooperative vein, to make sure we have a bill today that will assist most americans. i predict that ended the week we

have the plan. all three committee will have come together to forge the bill. it remains to be seen whether or not we will be able to vote on that bill this week. but we will have the bill. and if we don't vote on this week will be e -- we will be abe >> the house returns at noon eastern today. they will talk about absentee ballots and efforts to assist small businesses. later this week, it will take up 2010 defense spending bills. also, all work on a bill that gives investors a stronger say in executive compensation. live coverage from the u.s. house again in about 25 minutes on c-span. right now, the senate judiciary

committee continuing their meeting on the confirmation vote for supreme court nominee sonia sotomayor york. -- sotomayor. a final vote could happen before the senate breaks in two weeks for the august recess. until the house cavils back in at noon eastern time, we will return to this morning's washington journal with a discussion on the relationship between the u.s. and china. we will also appear about the president's remarks yesterday at the u.s. and china strategic dialogue conference. we will show you as much at this as we can. today you looked out on the horizon of a new century them as we launch this dialogue, it is important to reflect on the questions that shape the 21st century. while growth based called by events like the current financial crisis or will we

cooperate for balanced and sustainable growth bringing more people out of poverty and greater prosperity in the world. will the need for energy read competition or climate change or build partnerships to produce clean power and to protect our planet. denueve -- will nuclear-weapons spread unchecked or will we forge a new consensus to use this power for only peaceful purposes? will extremists be able to stir conflict and division or will we be able to unite on behalf of shared security. will nations and peoples the find themselves solely by their differences or can we find common ground necessary to meet our common challenges and to respect the dignity of every human being. we can't predict with certainty what the future will bring. but we can be certain about issues that will define our times and we will also know this, the relationship between

the united states and china will shape the 21st century, which makes it as important as any bilateral in relation ship in the world. host: talk about this dialogue with gary hofbauer from the peterson institute. the strategic dialogue, is first of its kind? guest: the name was changed. when henry paulson was running a it was strategic economic dialogue. you wonder what difference it makes. the difference it makes is that secretary of state clinton is co-host thing on the u.s. side with treasury secretary geithner, kind of sharing the power. you can imagine there is some jostling over that issue. so we have two issues, geithner for treasury and clinton for

state. otherwise, it is pretty much a continuation. host: allows them to broaden the agenda. guest: in the old days -- i mean undersecretariat paulson, but was north korea, iran, and other high-profile diplomatic issues. but not in a public way. it is clear all of those things are on the table. host: a number of newspapers are the slick covering this dialogue in washington. here is the front page of "the financial times." u.s. seeks close of china ties. writing while they praised china for lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty they also highlighted u.s. calls for the religious and culture of all peoples to be respected and protected. washington responded cautiously

to recent clashes involving china's uighur minority in the xinjiang province. u.s. diplomats are likely to balance the like would visit by mr. obama to china this year with a possible meeting between the u.s. president and the dollar llama. individual freedoms entering into the discussion as well. guest: that is true. that is part of the discussion going back to tenement square. it is a major concern of the united states. but it is fair to say that this is an issue on which the chinese are quite testy. they regard it as an intrusion into internal affairs and if they are pushed on and they will probably talk about our treatment of indians on reservations, our racial issues and so forth. they see this human-rights dialogue as rather troublesome

from their standpoint the. the obama administration has tried of the tone of showing its concern, gently pushing but not raising the profile to a level that causes a big blow back or push back. host: mr. t dialogue going and washington this week. -- lee strategic dialogue going on in washington this week. we will get to your e-mails and tweets as well. following of your comments on china being put away on the issue of human rights, that is the headline this morning. u.s.-china tackle prickly issues. it really goes to the point of the u.s. looking at chinese policy. the article reports of the global economy is expected to be a central theme this week.

the obama administration wants the u.s. economy to be less reliance on consumer spending and less of a repository for foreign imports. to do that it must persuade china to stop dealing export as a key to its growth. has the u.s. tried in the past to affect china's trade policy, for example? guest: to be fair to secretary paulson and the bush team, yes, indeed, they did. they started on this path of encouraging the chinese to increase domestic spending, not only at a private level, consumer, but also hospitals, schools, and all the things you do domestically. actually the chinese took that message on and they are moving in that direction. of course, we think they can move faster but they are moving in that direction and that theme has now been continued with a

push by the geithner team in the treasury. and just to state the record, the chinese trade surplus has dropped thanks to the recession. yes, their policies are part of it, but the big crisis is the other part of it. and our trade deficit has likewise dropped a lot. so we have come down. we are getting closer to some kind of balance, but the dialogue we are talking about here is really looking forward when we all recover so we won't go back to both bad old days. host: china still holds a substantial part of u.s. debt, it increased quite a bit from last year. last year, $507 billion and this year they hold 802 billion. from our policies enacted by the u.s. and china i fact that and

tried to reduce that debt? guest: to put the overall number, china's total foreign exchange reserves at the official level is $2 trillion, of which you said, $800 billion of which you said, $800 billion is held in variou >the number has gone up. the policies are meant to slow the growth of those reserves over time. certainly to reduce the imbalance between the united states and china in terms of trade relations. while host: this china continue to be unattractive place for manufacturing facilities? guest: i think the reasons are, there are several, but they are extremely efficient. the court's work -- the ports work extremely well.

you can get things and to be manufactured and out of touch quickly aired than any other ports around the world, other than hong kong. that is one thing. infrastructure is very good. the roads are there. the overall relicts -- teh he railroads are there. when you add that altogether, it is a golden place for manufacturing around the world. host: you mentioned port facility and infrastructure. are these, a higher priority than cheaper labor? guest: in this country we stink cheaper labor is the important thing. why do you go to haiti? the roads are bad, the police

are corrupt, and there is a lot of violence. you do not have any of that in china. i am not going to say that is not a part of it. but there are lots of places around the world with tremendously cheap labor, cheaper than china, but china has other things. host: chris in houston, the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am a novice when it comes to economics, i come from the i.t. world. just trying to grasp the situation betweenhe united states and china and how it works. the value when of the dollar -- why is china continue to buy treasurys in the united states? guest: elwell, that is a very good question. the chinese have asked the same thing and that is probably something we will talk about more as the program goes on beard -- goes on. as you take a large amount of

foreign reserves, they have the largest in the world, and you ask where are my going to put this money where it is very liquid -- that means, i can buy or sell $10 billion in 20 minutes and not change the market, and where overtime over a long period of time, the value has been quite stable, you end up with the u.s. dollar. now, there are alternatives. there is the hero and european bond, but that is much smaller. there is the japanese yen. again, you can't deal in these very large amounts but then you run out, down to the swiss franc and the canadian dollar and australian dollar, and that is about it. the result is, they might be a little bit unhappy about the u.s. dollar having such a prominent, but there is no alternative. host: one of our tweeters asks can you dress workers' rights,

wages and pollution? guest: it is not what sweden has for sure, but let's look at history. i for started following china in the sick -- 1960's and 1970's. they have come a long way. workers' rights and not of our level but the of our improved from what they were, freedom of speech and being able to move to one place and another, that is better. political rights -- there is a little going on at the local and provincial level. the central level is not by our standards a democracy. so what we have is a lot of improvement from the bad old days of mao to today's government but still short of western standards. host: present obama acknowledged the opening of china by president nixon. here is what he had to say. >> during my time in office we will mark the 40th anniversary of president nixon's trip to china. it at that time, the world was

much different than it is today. america has fought three wars in east asia in just 30 years and the cold war was in a stalemate. china's economy was cut off from the world and a huge percentage of the chinese people live in extreme poverty. back then our dialogue with guided by a narrow focus on our shared rivalry with the soviet union. today we have a comprehensive relationship that reflect the deepening ties among our people. our countries have now shared relations for longer than we were estranged. our people interact and so many ways. and i -- we will make state progress on some of the most important issues of our times. host: do you think president nixon could ever and that in the u.s. and china would have the relations and the level they are now? guest: absolutely not. i speak with a little authority because i was in the treasury at the time and one of my desk's

handle the china file. of course, it was a big thing, an enormous thing. but as president obama said, no one could have imagined what happened. we were very concentrated dealing with some old debt issues that were pre-second world war. host: that china had it with us? guest: yes, china told us money. -- all with us money. but in terms of trade relations, we made some projections, they were so low compared to what has happened is quite laughable, but remember we still had mao in power and things that really change until deng came in quite a bit -- well, in 1979 or so, and started changing the whole system. so i guess i will say if mao had stayed on or his concepts stayed on, we would not have nearly the

relationship and openness we have now. host: bill in new york on our democrats line. caller: yes, sir. thank you very much for taking my call. i am concerned about the quality and safety of the products being manufactured and exported from china. i am sure we have all heard about the toothpaste that south america got and the baby formula, milk. host: does that continue to be an issue? guest: it is a big issue and a big black eye for the chinese and they executed some execs -- some executive, and partial panel to then we would have. they shot an executive in china. executed executives in charge with the miller mean, i think

the caller referred to. they take it very seriously and it has very much damage to their brands of they are doing what they can to pull up their socks, but we are also -- and the ambassador said at the other day -- we are also going to be looking into this and we have in the congress some bills moving which would strengthen our own food safety security and it is really a matter of putting more people on the case. so it is a dual problem, but you are right, it is an issue. host: marietta in new jersey. independent -- maria from the jersey. independent. caller: i have a question and comment. i don't understand how we could be partners with a regime that has policies can difficult to everything we believe -- stand for. why did we have an import tariff that kept our country solvent,

and we are indemnifying profiteers and money changers to go and make 1000% profit and pay no taxes to this country. how much are we supposed to take of this economic treason. i encourage people to look up constitution and call congress people. thank you. guest: there are a lot of questions. i will start with the comments. obviously the united states and china are not on the same page on all issues but compared to the days of mao, we are much closer and economic system they adopted is a catalyst -- capitalist system in a communist country. there is a lot more freedom now than there was. and difficult? -- anti federal? well it is not the same to the degree it once was and differences that probably existed between the united

states and russia today. there it is. maybe we are coming closer and they are actually moving in our direction. the second part of the question was about import tariffs and u.s. firms and so forth. if you want a very high level of protection around the united states, i guess the tariff erected during the last great depression in the 1930's, the famous smoot-holly tariff, that was 30% on average. i happen to believe that that would ensure a second great depression in this country and the world, so your economics and my economics are coming from different polls. the third part of your comments is about u.s. corporations going abroad and earning very high profits.

again, there is a different view. my view is when u.s. corporations go abroad, they bring a lot of benefit back to the united states and if we didn't do what we would be laggards to the british and japanese. those are big questions of more that bill wants to -- more than what bill wants me to talk about. host: you mentioned a capitalist economy in a communist government but you mentioned the communist government shot or executed one of the owners for ceo's of companies. do the owners and boards of a capitalist economy, the benefit from the growth of their companies, the salaries and their earnings limited by this communist government? guest: the actual pay is high compared to ordinary workers. but when i say hi, in china

today, a salary of a half a million u.s. dollars would be very magnificent -- host: a ceo there? guest: where as in the united states it goes up to five, 10, $20 million. the difference is enormous. secondly, unfortunately a lot of ceo's and other officials in china do have money on the tape. they get in various types of bribes, which is a big problem for that society and occasionally they round up somebody and put them in prison or shoot them as well. so they are a big user of capital punishment, they believe in capital punishment as a way of discipline in society in a way most of us don't. host: green bay, wisconsin, bruce on the republican line. caller: of good morning, sir. i have just a comment and a question. this country has been pretty much in economic crisis of the past year losing jobs by

hundreds of thousands. we are still committed to greenhouse gases and we have been fighting to find a way to knock them down. china has been grabbing jobs on the the same reasoning, they are not controlling their greenhouse gases. they seem to be totally ignoring the ibm and telling us we do what we do and they do what they do. why can't we tax their imports into the united states, a greenhouse tax, so it can even the playing field and protect american jobs? guest: thank you. that comes to one of the issues that i think has been intensely discussed particularly between secretary clinton and her counterpart. the real difference on greenhouse gases is not between the u.s. and china, but the u.s.

and india. if you may recall, last week's minutes -- went out of his way to be offensive to secretary clinton when he was visiting in india and is a cassette india will not limit its gases come all of the problem was because of the united states and it was not up to the united states to tell the what to do on greenhouse gases. this is a bomb like that. secretary kallenbach the efforts -- this is a bump like that. secretary clayton's -- secretary henry clinton is seeking cooperation i think she'll get much more cooperation from china on this very import issue than from india. now, coming to your point on taxes and tariffs and so forth, i don't think the u.s. and china cooperation will be at such a level that congress will be

relaxed. if you look at the current version of the waxman bill which is now out of the house and over in the senate's, but senate

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father coughlin. chaplain coughlin: how deep are the mysteries and the wisdom of your presence, o lord god, how inscrutable are your judgments and how unsearchable your ways. for who knows the mind of the lord or who has ever been his counselor, who has ever offered you anything that was not already a gift given by your creation for all is from you,

all is because of you, and all is destined for you. to you, the all glory, honor and power both now and forever. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentlewoman from arizona, congresswoman kirkpatrick. ms. kirkpatrick: members and guests in the gallery, please join me in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise?

mr. baca: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. baca: president kennedy once said, ask not what your country can do for you but ask what you can do for your country. immigrants take this question to heart, not only do they ask what they can do for their country but they also ask what they can do for their communities, their families as well. simply put, immigrants are one of the hardest working groups of america, regardless of legal status. their willingness to work and gain assimilation into the american -- enter the american society and culture greatly benefits our country. this month in iraq, 237 foreign-born u.s. service members became citizens of this country. this is a key example of the level of dedication, i state dedication, and service that immigrants give to america. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work with president obama and c.h.c. to

pass comprehensive immigration reform. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? mr. boehner: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. boehner: mr. speaker, democrats in congress don't want the american people to see this chart. this is the chart that outlines the democrat proposal moving through the house of representatives that contains as many as 53 new federal programs, agencies and commissions. that's right, they're trying to restrict members of congress from showing this to their constituents. they say it's misleading. well, there's nothing misleading about it. they just don't want anyone to see it. well, here it is. i'm using it. are they going to turn out the lights, are they going to turn out the cameras? why don't they want the american people to see this? well, i think the american people deserve the truth about

the democrats' $1.6 trillion takeover of our government -- of our health care system. more bureaucracy, more taxes, more mandates and more government involvement in your life. and guess what, it also means less jobs for americans. according to a model developed by the president's own council of economics chairperson, this will cost americans some 5.5 million jobs over the next 10 years. the national federation of independent business says at least a million small business jobs will be lost. and even the congressional budget office over the weekend made it clear that this will cost low-wage workers an opportunity to get a job. listen, after the stimulus didn't work, most of my constituents are continuing to ask the question, where are the jobs? and we have a stimulus bill that's not working, we have a national energy tax bill that came through here last month

that will cost millions of americans their jobs. and while this will ruin the health care system that we enjoy in america, let's not forget it will cost us millions of american jobs when most americans continue to want to know, where are the jobs? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from arizona rise? ms. kirkpatrick: i request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. kirkpatrick: mr. speaker, i rise in support of house resolution 47. this is a house joint resolution, the constitutional amendment to ban the burning of the american flag. for 232 years, the stars and stripes has been a unique symbol of freedom and democracy across the world. it is the embodiment of all we are and all we stand for as a nation. millions of our young men and women, including my father and

uncles, bravely and selflessly defended their country under that flag. every day our service members risk their lives in iraq, afghanistan and around the globe to protect the ideals it represents. to burn or desecrate our flag even in political protest is an affront to the men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom and the many others who have served. i'm proud to be a co-sponsor of this resolution. i urge all of my colleagues, regardless of party, to join me. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cantor: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, in these desperate economic times, congress must undertake all of its actions with a watchful eye toward the effects on job creation.

yet, this unmistakeably has not been the case. from the stimulus bill to the cap and trade legislation, to an effort to pass a health care bill on the backs of small business, the majority has put jobs on the back burner to muscle through an agenda, frankly, that is an anathama to the american people. slapping an 8% payroll tax on struggling small businesses who can't afford to pay for insurance doesn't create jobs. it kills them. imposing a 5% surtax on small businesses and america's producers doesn't hasten our recovery, it prolongs it. the american people deserves an agenda that puts jobs first. that is why we asked the majority to work with us. republicans do have a plan that can expand affordable coverage in health care. it will allow you to keep what you have, not do it by squeezing small business. i urge the majority to begin with us. let's start over.

let's get it right for the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. butterfield: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. butterfield: mr. speaker, i am disappointed that our republican colleagues are refusing to work with us in crafting health care reform legislation. yes, you are. instead of working with us, you have cranked up your message machine, you have labeled our legislation with every label except ones that are accurate. most disappointing, republicans are frightening our seniors with false statements that they will experience a reduction in medicare benefits. wrong. the truth is this legislation would not only maintain important medicare benefits but will enhance them. we cannot afford to continue to do nothing about health care reform. 45 million uninsured, 14,000 americans losing their benefits every day, employer sponsored group plans are getting more expenses. they have high deductibles and

high co-pays and they simply don't provide the security that families need. the cost of family health insurance will continue to rise five times faster than wages. we must have reform, and we must have it now. i urge my republicans to reconsider their strategy to block this legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair would remind members that they are to address their comments to the chair. the gentleman from indiana. mr. pence: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pence: thank you, mr. speaker. republicans do support reasonable health care reform that will lower the cost of health care and health insurance for every american family and every american business. but the democrat plan for health care reform amounts to a government takeover of health care in this country paid for with nearly $1 trillion in higher taxes. the american people know what government-run health care will mean. higher costs, bigger deficits, less coverage, less quality,

less choice and more bureaucracy. house republicans have led the fight against this government takeover of health care, and now house republicans and a handful of democrats are on the verge of a historic victory for the american people and for our american health care economy. but we need your help. if you oppose government-run health care, call your congressman today. if you oppose higher costs, bigger deficits, less coverage, more bureaucracy, call your congressman today. if you want real bipartisan health care reform that lowers the cost and addresses the real needs of our health care economy with american solutions, call your congressman today. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will remind speakers to address their comments to the chair. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. pascrell: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pascrell: i rise today to dispel misinformation that has

been propagated about the health care system. i've heard many of my colleagues across the aisle claim that the democrats' health proposal will result in rationing. let's address it. how many millions of people have put off getting checkups, avoided doing necessary followups, delayed needed care or failed to get the prescriptions their doctors have ordered for them? why? because we ration care every day in this country now. if you want to talk about rationing, listen to these numbers. 45% of americans went without needed care because of costs in this country in 2007. that's rationing. 53% of americans cut back on their health care in the last year because of costs. that's rationing. between 2000 and 2008, five million families filed for bankruptcy because of medical bills. that's rationing. about one-third of the uninsured have a chronic disease. they are six times less likely to receive care for their health problemming that being insured.

that's rationing. as many as 22,000 americans die each year because they don't have health insurance. my brothers and sisters, that's rationing. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington rise? mrs. mcmorris rodgers: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, mr. speaker. we were told time was of the essence when we were considering the economic stimulus package. we were told, we didn't have time to waste in passing the president's budget. yet, despite the hundreds of billions of dollars in additional spending, the trillions of dollars in additional debt, we must ask, where are the jobs? and now we're told we must rush to pass health care reform which will cost you more jobs, increase taxes and put a federal bureaucrat between you and your doctor. house republicans believe in true health care reform that will reduce skyrocketing health care costs while protecting that very special

doctor-patient relationship. reform that must health care more affordable by reducing cost, rooting out waste, fraud and abuse, reining in frivolous lawsuits that cost families millions of dollars in higher premiums. true health care reform that challenges americans to be healthy and invest in health information technology. let's take the time and work together to get the right prescription for health care reform. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. altmire: mr. speaker, the dow is back over 9000 and new housing sales have seen their largest monthly increase in nine years. and while overall the financial indicators remain mixed, there's a growing body of evidence that the american recovery and reinvestment act has helped stabilize our economy. and because of the stimulus, more than 95% of american families have seen their taxes

cut. and 51 million seniors and veterans have received their $250 relief payments in the mail. more than 38,000 stimulus-funded projects are already under way, many of which have come in underbudget. the american people can visit recovery.org to see how every penny has been spent. only four months into the two-year recovery package and already we are seeing results. while the road to recovery is long, we are finally headed in the right direction. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> the speaker of the house got up and said jobs, jobs, jobs. that's when we were dealing with the national energy tax, we call it cap and tax. what was the reality? that particular bill passed by the congress will result in job losses of 2.3 million to 2.7 million.

heritage predicts by 2005, 1.38 million manufacturing jobs will go overseas. the number of jobs created by the democrats so far? zero. none. what jobs was she talking about? her job? we don't know we haven't seen the jobs. where are the jobs. now we're looking at a health care plan which experts tell us between four million and six million more jobs will be lost and there'll be no reduction in the cost to american people. let's get to a health care plan that works and let's ask again and again and again, madam speaker, where are the jobs? i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? >> to address the house for one minute. >> without objection. >> we're going to hear a lot of rhetoric and this floor about why we can't do, shouldn't do health care reform. we need to listen to folks at home about why we need to pass

health care reform. i was recently contacted by a woman from waterbury, connecticut, she worked her entire life, paid her mortgage, she's on cobra and she's about to lose it. even though her diabetes is under control, every company she goes to refuses to insure her. she know this is a getting sick and being in the hospital could put the home she worked so hard for in jeopardy. she said somebody needs to stop the insurance companies from making decisions about life and death. doing nothing here, as our friends on the republican side would like, says to her her situation is unsustainable, she has no way out. we need to have health care reform to answer her and the thousands of constituents in our districts just like her. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

mr. dreier: it's outrageous to say publicans want to do on health care reform. we want to expand health savings accounts, and we want to do more to help small businesses who are out there, working, and struggling carning pool together and purchase health insurance for their employees. we want to do everything we can to allow people to, on the internet, purchase health care insurance across state lines. the fact is, it's no message machine or talking point to realize that the congressional budget office has said that contrary to speaker pelosi's line, this is going to dramatically increase thes to the of health care -- cost of health care. and robert samuelson, no republican , said in with the the post," he said if you listen to president obama, his plan will satisfy everyone, it will insure the uninsured, preserve choice for patients and improve quality of care.

he said these claims are self-serving exaggerations and political fantasies. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. through health care reform, we're going to ensure that families are healthy and we put money back into their pockets. here's an example. yesterday, when i was home in tampa, i paid a visit to a dwhrobal communications form. we unveiled their new on-site clinic. it's staffed with a medical assistant and nurse practitioner. employees love it. the company explained they expect to save over $1 million over the next five years due to the convenient clinic and their wellness initiative that encourages employees to lose weight and lead healthier lives.

employees can bring their families to the clinic with no co-pay, it's smart, convenient, it's less expensive for the employer, they expect lower health insurance because the employees will be healthier. one of the goals of the democratic health care reform is to encourage these innovative community clinics and wellness initiatives for families and businesses so that health care is more convenient and it's more affordable for everyone. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> last week, i came to the house floor to discuss how this democrat congress is bankrupting america. they have forced spending through this body that led to record unemployment and record deficits for america. they are set to do it again this week with health care reform. three years ago, massachusetts set out to accomplish universal

coverage, just like what the democrats want to do for all of america. so far, the facts are plain. insurance prices are higher than expected, saferity net hospitals are struggling more than ever, doctors cannot keep up with the increased demand, and some people without insurance still cannot afford care. the state legislature is already exploring options for rationed care to control health care spending. which in massachusetts is 25% higher than the national average. this is a dangerouses predebit to follow. many in massachusetts are still uninsured, costs are skyrocketing, and the state is going bankrupt. mr. speaker, not a good prescription for america. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

>> i rise today to remind everyone on both sides of the aisle that hope is on the way. we have some things we can agree upon. isn't it a fact that we all agree it's time to end discrimination in health care? where an insurance company is allowed to discriminate against you because of a pre-existing condition. i think it's time we -- i think it's time. we secured equal treatment at the lunch counter 50-something years ago, this week we'll come to an agreement in the house to bring equality to the pharmacy counter as well. it's time to end the discrimination due to pre-existing conditions to pass a bill with a standard plan, an insurance plan that includes all american, a standard plan that each and every insurance company must sell. in this house, at this time we can agree on these things. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose --

>> to dress the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. blunt: there are things we can agree on and things we have agreed to. the minority has never reached out to the majority more than this one. we said, we want a plan where everyone has access regardless of pre-existing conditions. we want more competition and more choice. we are not satisfied with the current system. internally, we think you change this system by medical malpractice reform, more health i.t., more transparency in both results, cost, and care. those are the principles we ought to be advancing. the administration insist this is a this be done their way. we are not for government takeover of health care, we're for a system that works better for the american people and we stand ready to work together to make that system happen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> mr. speaker to address the house for one minute, revise

and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to urge my colleagues to support the u.s. and world education act which i will be introducing today. my bill addresses the critical need to raise student achievement levels in the international education arena, which is vital in order to compete in a world that is rapidly shrinking. my bill will raise the international education competence and literacy levels of elementary and secondary students. my bill will also create an international education research repository which will greatly enhance the international curriculum taught in our schools, as well as teaching methods. i believe our schools today don't focus enough on preparing our youth to interact and communicate with other countries and cultures. given the current economic crisis, future generations must be equipped with a skill seth

that will help them to excel academically and to contribute to our nation's economic recovery. i urge my colleagues to co-sponsor the u.s. and world education act and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. lewis: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lewis: excellent health care begins with a relationship between a physician and his or her patient. government should not attempt to get between hem. -- them. america has a health care system second to none. pre-existing conditions and portability of can be underwritten without throwing out the excellence of care. every american family know this is a excellent care involves some cost. while we pay doctors fairly for their service, government should not get away. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does th gentlelady from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> i'm excited because now is the time for america's health insurance reform. we got a report on friday from the c.b.o. that affirmed that the insurance reforms in our bill are -- excuse me, our bill are deficit neutral over the next 10 years, and will even create a $6 billion surplus. more than 80 major groups have already expressed support for america's affordable health choice act, including the american medical association, aarp, main street alliance, and that's a small business group, and numerous medical specialty groups. i spoke to 3,000 members of the national medical association, i

went through the outline of our bill and there was no question that i could not answer for them and they are 100% supportive of it. we need a uniquely american solution. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. wilson: the house democrat leadership remains opposed to working in a bipartisan effort to cure what ails the system. this has caused bipartisan opposition to their big government, job-killing, debt producing, tax hike health care plan. the american people deserve better to create jobs. the american people know better than to believe that the government is best to run our nation's health care system or keep costs down. the democrat plan does not lower the cost of health care, it just raises taxes on small businesses and cuts medicare by

half a trillion dollars. those tax increases and medicare cuts do not cover the cost, producing an estimated $239 billion more added to the deficit. taxes small businesses and knocking seniors off their current health care plan is no way to reform health care. republicans stand ready to work with our democrat colleagues to develop common sense reforms. in conclusion, god bless our troop, and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from hawaii rise? ms. hirono: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. hirono: we have been grappling with how to provide access to affordable, quality health care to our citizens since president truman's time. we need to take action now. my education and labor committee spent 222 1/2 hour in a 24-hour period debating h.r.

3200, a historic bill. in 1984, the state of hawaii enacted leg of its own, the prepaid health care act this requires employers to provide coverage to full-time employees. it remains the only employer mandate law of its kind in our country. an economist at the university of hawaii estimate this is a per capita health expenditures in hawaii have been about 7% lower than the national average. the economy -- economists leaves hawaii's wider health insurance coverage and support for preventive care led to this outcome. hawaii's prepaid health care act has been the major drive in the health and well being of our residents. h.r. 33200 has the same potential to bring solutions to our national health care crisis. the speaker pro tempore: frurm does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> to address the house for one

minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> i'm increasingly concerned about the president's recent unhelpful remarks. in his remarks last week he maintained a pediatrician treating a child with a recurring sore throat may recommend removing tonsils to increase the reimbursement from a insurance company. to insinuate that doctors are ordering unnecessary surgeries on children for a few more dollars is delipe offensive to millions of $who work each day to help us raise healthy children. over the weekend, i was approached by several constituents in the health care profession who said the remarks were insulting to them. i worry the president may have an unrealistic view of the medical community and the overwhelming and vast number of hardworking doctors and nurses that are concerned first with the health of patients. while we're not trying to do nothing, we're not arguing for

the status quo, as we we form our health care system, we should be careful. we're not trying to fix some thing this is a aren't broken and in the process break other thing this is a currently work for millions of americans, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise. >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> a doctor was named the next president of the american geriatrics society. this morning she told me and physicians that work with the elderly are spending an overwhelming majority of their time spending primary care, often without appropriate compensation to the current medicare formulas. the extra years of training means less pay which is one of the reasons why we have an acute shortage of jeer at rick physicians in america. mr. speaker, baby boomers will cause america's older population to double in the next few years. we must reform our health care system todequately compensate

doctors to coordinate patients in every stage of life. if we do it right it will save money because many harmful treatments will be eliminated and seniors will not only live longer but better lives. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from michigan rise? mrs. miller: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. miller: mr. speaker,en many of my republican colleagues and myself have been coming down to the floor and asking, where are the jobs, because the stimulus package has failed to deliver on the promise three million jobs they said it would and instead our economy has lost over three million jobs. and now we will be soon be asked to vote on a health care reform package that places even more hurdles to jobs and growth of jobs creation. the health care plan being debated puts an onerous new tax on individuals and small business job creators through a surtax on income. it adds a new 8% tax on payrolls for companies that don't provide health care, mr. speaker.

does anyone actually believe that the addition of this new tax will encourage job providers to either raise their workers' pay or create new jobs when both of these actions lead to higher taxes? in the rush to pass a stimulus, the democrats put $1 trillion of new debt on our children and grandchildren and did not create the jobs that we need. and our rush to pass a new health care bill, we will now put new hurdles to job creation and economic growth. where are the jobs? clearly not in this new health care package. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. schrader: mr. speaker, for the past couple of weeks, members have come to the other side of the aisle and rhetorically asked, where are the jobs? assertions have been made the recovery act was ineffective, hasn't created any jobs. well, that's not true, mr.

speaker. as oregon parents put their children back to school, let's talk about the local communities. in my district recovery funds are saving the equivalent of 145 teaching and support jobs in one school district alone. the salem-kaiser school district in the 2009-2010 school year. these jobs would have been elimb dated if not for the recovery dollars. they were -- they are preventing an increase of 2.5% and a reduction in the school year. money well spent. well, we don't spend enough time in this building talking about the jobs being saved and families benefiting from the recovery dollars. more teachers would have lost their jobs and our students would have suffered without this. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise?

mr. poe: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, sammy mayhan owns and operates sammy's wrecker service in baytown, texas. he owns seven trucks, employs five drivers, a dispatcher. his drivers work on a commission and he cannot afford to furnish them health insurance. he says that the new health plan would affect him. leaving out his colorful language, he said, i am worried to death. this government health care bill and the new taxes on energy and small business will run me. i will have to lay off my drivers. they're all young, some with young families and then they will have no jobs. i will be the lone survivor of the business. then i won't be able to sell the wreckers i use. who would buy them? i will be putting the trucks on the side of the road next to the kids who have signs saying, free kittens, and offering free wreckers. now, sammy has a point. the government-run health care plan will cost jobs and put workers on the street or shall

we say, sitting on the side of the road. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from wisconsin rise? ms. moore: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. moore: mr. speaker, i rise today to draw awareness to the unconscionable human tragedy that is still taking place in the darfur region. it has been five years since the united states congress declared genocide in darfur, but thousands continue to perish. today i join activists in 34 countries who started fasting in april when eight organizations were kicked out of darfur by the sudanese president leaving 1.1 million innocent civilians without basic access to food, water and medicine. from sunrise to sunset today, i will consume only water to demonstrate solidarity to the people of darfur. it is an insignificant act relative to the magnitude of

the tragedy unfolding there. but i join thousands in this simple act in hope that a critical mass will prick our global consciousness, keep us focused on the hundreds of thousands who have lost their lives. i especially want to thank the plymouth united church of milwaukee, wisconsin, members of the faith darfur coalition who are joining me today. my fast won't stop the tragedy unfolding in darfur, but i hope that it will carry me deeper into thought and to help me reflect on how to end this tragedy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. paulsen: mr. speaker, health care is one of the most important issues that congress will address this year. we need to make sure we take the time to get it right. however, congressional leaders have other plans.

rather than taking the time to get it right, they want to spend another $1.6 trillion on a government health care plan that includes $500 billion cuts in medicare for seniors. and regardless of any arm twisting, no one can change the fact that this plan will slide our nation deeper into debt. in fact, just two days ago the nonpartisan congressional budget office ascertained and confirmed that the proposed health care plan will cause a massive spike in the federal budget deficit, ending as much as $1.6 trillion over the next 20 years. mr. speaker, more runaway deficits is something americans cannot afford. let's reform our health care system the right way without raising taxes on small business and without adding new debt on our children and our grandchildren. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. ellison: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. ellison: mr. speaker, the time is now. members on the opposite says

slow down. what about the decades demanding we fix health care, what about the 48 hours of bipartisan debate on this legislation, what about the 79 house hearings that we've had? what about those people who today face being turned down because they have a pre existing -- pre-existing condition? what about the folks that have a $10,000 deductible and they have to spend up to get procedures to maybe perhaps deal with a bladder infection or something like that? the time is now. the fierce urgency of now is upon us. mr. speaker, let those who want to delay the care and well-being of others do something else. but for us who care about and who have heard the calls of the people, let's pass health care now. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. boustany: mr. speaker, this week congressional democrats

will continue to try to rush through a sweeping overhaul of american health care. and this follows the president's expensive stimulus plan currently mired in bureaucracy that has not prevented a national recession despite his pledge to save or create 3.5 million jobs. so, mr. speaker, i ask president obama, where are those jobs? now, their plan for health care overhaul includes a government-run bureaucracy that will put red tape between patients and their doctors. far too often patients in our government-run programs lack real access to a doctor leaving them no recourse other than to seek emergency room care. now, democratic proposals suggest lumping millions more americans into these government-run systems to somehow improve the quality of care. this defies common sense. instead, health care will be delayed and rationed leaving millions of americans without access to a doctor or quality health care. republicans have a plan to

reduce health care costs for families and businesses and taxpayers. and also maintain quality and that's the best way to -- for americans to be more competitive and to spur job creation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcdermott: well, mr. speaker, we're being treated today to the choir from the insurance industry that we must be afraid and we must go slowly. they've been singing that song since 1935, and we've been trying and trying and the american people are deeper and deeper and deeper in trouble. now, the insurance choir's really worried, mr. speaker, because if we got a public option, they'd have to compete and they can't stand it. for the last 12 years or 15

years since mr. clinton tried to bring us health care, they've done nothing, not one single thing. they ran the house for 12 years, not a single proposal, not a single time did they come out here with any way to deal with the people who don't have health insurance. and now we come with a public option and they say, oh, god, wait, wait, folks. don't be afraid. we'll get to it someday. now is the day. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> i ask unanimous consent -- mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. coffman: mr. speaker, it is unconscionable that democrat leaders have put forth legislation under the guise of health care reform that will result in the direct loss of five million jobs from

crippling new pay or play taxes on small businesses. our economy is hurting, and congress should be creating jobs. the democrats' health care proposal will do the exact opposite. it will take away jobs. the democrats have chosen to try and fund a $1 trillion government takeover of our nation's health care industry in the midst of the worst recession in half a century. worse than that, they have chosen to make small businesses long the lifeblood of our economy bear the brunt of these costs. the simple fact is that the democrats' rhetoric is deceptive. it does not match the legislation they've proposed. they use words like reform and choice, but all their plan does is tax and spend to fund new government mandates. mr. speaker, my democratic colleagues are presenting the american people with a false choice, by comparing their proposal with the alternative of doing nothing. we deserve better, we deserve real reform.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. moran: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i can understand why our friends and colleagues on the other side were very much concerned over the cost estimate that the congressional budget office came up with for this health insurance plan. but there are some things in the c.b.o. report that we also need to be aware. first of all, over the next decade there will actually be a $6 billion surplus. so in terms of adding to the deficit, it doesn't. it actually adds to the surplus. but they also estimate that only about 3% of americans will actually choose the public option. so 97% of americans will continue to be in their private plan. they also estimate that the amount of employer provided coverage is going to increase. so this is hardly some kind of

socialized government takeover of health care when 97% will continue to be insured by their own employer. now the real reason why i think this needs to be done is that health insurance premiums have gone up by -- they've gone up by nine times. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. moran: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from montana rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. rehberg: last week i joined my colleagues on the floor saying, where are the jobs? i found many of them. in south africa. they canceled an order with stillwater mine for palladium. why? our standards are higher, our

wages are higher, it makes palladium more expensive in the united states. g.m. decided to buy its palladium from south africa and russia. just this month, an accident in south africa killed 61 miners. the government owns g.m. and could prevent this, but the president's car czar sees no problem sending u.s. jobs to russia. maybe that's why he's called a czar. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from arizona rise? to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> i rise today to address our single most important domestic issue that faces our country, reforming our broken health insurance program. now we spend too much we receive too little and we're left worrying that the insurance we have won't be enough. nationwide, premiums have doubled in the last nine years, increasing three times faster

than real wages. arizona's eighth district is especially burdened. we had over 509 -- 950 personal bankruptcies due to health care problems. arizona's -- we need law that protects us from being denied because of pre-existing conditions. we need a system that delivers us the best service and the best savings. we need to put control back into the hands of patients and doctors. if you like your plan, you should be able to keep it and your costs should go down, not up. there are savings to be had in our current system and we must focus on squeezing out every drop. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

>> tort reform would create tens of billions of health care savings. there's no reform of the insane cost and arbitrary rewards of our malpractice system in this bill because lawyers on the other side won't allow that in the bill. instead, according to the congressional budget office, we have the democrat proposal with its public option, which will increase costs in excess of $1 trillion and will cover millions of individuals here illegally which will drive additional illegal immigration and will drive future costs for health care in this country. with the subsidized public option and existing businesses shifting out of their current plans into the subsidized public option, as many as 114 million individuals could lose their current insurance, leading to federal bureaucrats, not patients and doctors, making important decisions about their treatment options. i urge we revisit this propose. a the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> request permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> i rise to talk about one of the most important reasons to pass obama's health care plan, the current discrimination amicans with pre-existing conditions face. through no fault of their own, perhaps because of a genetic dizz ability or a childhood disease, many americans are uninsureable or only insureable at a high rate. we should only have to be responsible for actions we undertake. most americans who suffer from pre-existing conditions suffer through no fault of their own. it's not fair to make them or their employers pay more obecause of a pre-existing condition. this could be you, could be your son or daughter, any of us who suffer from pre-existing conditions. what the oba uh ma -- obama reform plan does is pools the risk together and prevents

discrimination against those who have pre-existing condition and ensures that they have adequate access to health care. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the united states has the best health care in the world. but if you don't have insurance, you have the sinking pit in your stomach, it's scary. but i think i feel like most americans. i want insurance i can own. if i lose my job or move to another job or my job leaves me, i want to be able to make sure i have something that's portable. i'm willing to pay my fair share, i want to be able to be covered for catastrophic events. but i want to make sure that others pay their fair share. to find insurance and even if i have a pre-existing condition and i want to the freedom to choose the insurance that best fit ours families' needs. most of all, i don't want a

washington, d.c., pollation making decision this is a should be made between my wife and our doctor. when our son or daughter needs help, i don't want somebody in washington, d.c. to deny it. if my mother or father needs help, i don't want this to the wait for the government bureaucrat to decide whether or not they'll be cared for. we must stop the government takeover of health care. we need reform, but we don't need more government. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from maryland rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. edwards: i rise today because for six decades we debated about how to fix health care reform. now it's time to stop the debates, denials and deceit. we have a uniquely american solution that includes a robust plan that will lower costs, increase coverage and provide quality care. for the american people, let's repeat that again. lower costs, increased coverage, provides quality

care. this is really just about what the insurance companies want to fight. everybody watching, the daily news, the evening news, know this is a to be view true. the insurance companies will pull no stops to try to defeat health care reform. we're not going to let them. premiums for americans have doubled in nine years, three times faster than wages. an american family pays three times extra in premiums. each day 14,000 people lose health care and 60% of small business owners, their workers and families have no health care. that's 28 million americans. so we can create a plan here that eliminates co-pays, eliminates the high cost of deductibles for preventive

care, caps out of pocket expenses and ends the discrimination against pre-existing conditions and i yield back the balance. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, august will be six months since the signing of the administration's so-called stimulus plan. since february, we have been waiting for the jobs that were promised with this bill. we've been waiting so long that my constituents in south carolina are beginning to wonder if they'll ever come. the president insisted that to save or create up to four million jobs, congress must support this stimulus. unfortunately, today, we continue to lose jobs and pass legislation that will further increase unemployment around the country. we were told by experts in the administration, unemployment would peak at 8%. as we all know, national unemployment is now at 9.5%. in my home state of south carolina, it's over 12%. it's a shame what that while my constituents are desperately waiting for jobs, the democratic leadership made job creation second after bigger government and increased

spending. they must join republicans in making our number one priority getting america back to work. my constituents are getting tired of waiting. where are the jobs? the speaker pro tempore: fre -- the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> permission to address the house for one minute and rhett rith my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> our country urgently needs health care reform. health insurance premiums have more than doubled in nine year, growing three times faster than our wages. the arch american family pays an extra $1,100 a year to support a broken system. soaring costs harm american business in the global economy. i had one company in my district said they moved part of their production to the netherlands because the health care was cheaper there than in the united states. for six decades, america has tried to debate what to do to

fix the broken system. we've had 45 hours of bipartisan debate in three separate house committees and 79 house hearings on health care reform in just over two years. if you have medicare or employer-based snurn, you shouldn't be affected. you will have real choice. you'll have the freedom to choose your insurance if you don't have employer-based insurance, we need you to have an option. today you don't have that option. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from rirk virginia rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. as i traveled throughout my district this weekend from middlesex to pittsburgh, they said they're deeply concerned about the health care package we have before us. they said, we see there's a problem and we need to do something, but we need to do the right thing.

we need to make sure we craft solution this is a control cost, that maintain the relationship between patients and their doctors to make sure we keep what is good and what works about this system and when we work on those things that are broken. i hear many ideas from both sides of the aisle that i think accomplish that. i think it's high time for the majority to make sure they incorporate ideas from the minority which i believe we have in common, make sure we come up with reasonable, practical, workable solutions for the american people to make sure we have that access to quality health care reform here in the united states that i know we can achieve. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> c.b.o. projects the public plan option would likely attract around 150 million patients. that puts to rest the assertion that private insurance would go out of business.

the estimates being cited to prove their mistaken point was arrived at by the lieuen group. they're owned by insurance companies. they oppose the public option because it would force them to be honest and keep their premiums down for patients. i urge my colleagues to pay attention to the facts, not the rhetoric. i urge you to join me in supporting true health care reform. let's pass a bill with a strong public option. we were elected to make tough decisions and take important votes. we must fulfill this obligation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

>> mr. speaker, america and ohio are hurting. ohio has an unemployment rate of 11.1%. my district, the fifth district is the number one manufacturing and agricultural district in the state of ohio. one of my counties, williams, has an unemployment rate of 11.6%. i was up there this past weekend. the people were all asking the same question, where are the jobs? where are the jobs? they want jobs today. the president said this past year that with the stimulus bill that america wouldn't have an unemployment rate of 8%. now it's 9.5%. ohio is at 11.1%. since january, america has lost over three million jobs. three million jobs. last month, the democrats passed the cap and tax bill. they estimate it's going to cost millions of american jobs.

millions. now the democrat house bill is before us on health care could cost up to over $5 -- over 5 million jobs. five million jobs my folks are are scared. they want to know where the jobs are are. mr. speaker, we ask for jobs today. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from the virgin islands rise? mrs. christensen tok to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. christensen: we democrats have been explaining the health care bill but our colleagues seem not to have heard. the truth about the bill is it does not create a government-run health care system. instead, there is one public plan. individual and families can keep the plan they have or they are free to choose, free to choods the public plan or one