there are many inefficient things over the years. what i would suggest is that we recognize that there are a lot of great things happening in medicare. but it really needs to be reformed. 44 years ago, this was made, and this has not gone through reform. one great thing that we can do is go through that. i would love to see a blue ribbon panel that will go through this, finding the good things in this and go through the inefficiencies in this. >> or would suggest -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> this does not happen very often but every so often we are able to vote on a politcal f arce. the author is not going to vote for this. is. it's unfortunate, because the author of the amendment is not going to vote for it himself. one thing i would like to note

is that when, as you celebrate this anniversary of medicare, please note the numbers i'm about to give, i also gave when republicans created medicare part d and you were making these allegations even back then that republicans, how could be doing this, you don't even like medicare. so i'm going to repeat them today. when the bill passed the senate, when medicare was created, the vote was 77-21. and in the house, to pass medicare, the vote was 355-59. so please, it was passed by a democrat-controlled -- sir? well, i tell you what, mr. weiner, i would love to have conversations with you. but i don't have the patience for you to an inintellectual smartie, okay? the point here this was a bipartisan vote. mr. weiner, it was a bipartisan

vote. you know what's going to happen here is -- are you going to vote for this amendment, mr. weiner? i yield to you. well, i'm going to yield back to dr. murphy. the farce continues. mr. murphy, would you yield to a question? >> for me? >> yeah. >> mr. ska lease. >> i thank the gentleman from pennsylvania. you can beat up on insurance companies all day, and some people might make a career out of that. but you shouldn't beat up on senior citizens. if you wonder why so many seniors are concerned about this government takeover, it's because this bill cuts over $500 billion out of medicare. and so you can talk about how good medicare is. a lot of us think medicare's got a lot of good components, could surely use some reforms. but you shouldn't go and cut $500 billion out of medicare like this bill does. so go beat up on insurance companies all day. but don't try to stand on the backs of senior citizens to sell

this bill. if you can't sell it on its own merits, don't try to hide behind senior citizens to do it. >> the vote comes on the weiner amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed no. >> i'd like a roll call on that. >> the nos have it. >> i request a roll call vote. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. waxman? no. >> mr. waxman votes no. mr. ding el? mr. ding el no. mr. markey? mr. boucher? mr. pallone? mr. pallone, no. mr. gordon? mr. rush? miss eshoo.

no. mr. stupak. mr. stupak no. mr. engel? mr. engel no. mr. green? ms. degette? no. mrs. capps? mrs. capps no. mr. doyle? mr. doyle, no. ms. harman? ms. harman no. ms. schakowsky no. mr. gonzalez? mr. gonzalez no. mr. inslee. mr. inslee no. ms. baldwin? ms. baldwin no. mr. ross? mr. weiner? no. mr. weiner, no. mr. butterfield? mr. butterfield, no. mr. melancon? mr. melancon, no. mr. barrow?

mr. barrow no. mr. hill? ms. matsui? ms. matsui, no. ms. castor, no. mr. murphy? mr. murphy no. mr. mcearney no. mr. braley no. mr. welsh? mr. welsh no. mr. bart? mr. barton votes no. mr. hall? mr. upton? mr. upton, no. mr. stearns? mr. stearns no.

mr. deal? mr. deal no. mr. whitfield? mr. whitfield no. mr. shimkus? mr. shimkus no. mr. shaddock? mr. shaddock no. mr. blunt? mr. blunt no. mr. williams no. mr. radanovich no. mr. pitts no. miss bono mack no. mr. walden? mr. walden no. mr. terry? mr. terry no. mr. rogers? mr. rogers no. ms. myrick? [ applause ] myrick no. mr. sullivan? mr. sullivan? mr. sullivan no. mr. murphy of pennsylvania? mr. murphy no. mr. burgess? mr. burgess no.

mrs. blackburn? mrs. blackburn no? mr. gainbridge no. mr. doany? mr. doany no. mr. boucher? mr. boucher no. mr. murphy? mr. murphy no. mr. rush? mr. rush no. mr. hill? mr. hill no. mr. matheson? mr. matheson no. mr. green? mr. green no. mr. gordon? mr. gordon votes no.

>> have all the members responded to the vote? >> is that everybody? >> any member wish to change? his or her vote? all right. when the clerk's ready, we'll get a report of the vote. >> mr. chairman, on that amendment, there were zero ayes and 57 nos. >> zero ayes, 57ñññññw in section-- >> without obj

>> i thank the chairman for yielding. the "dallas morning news" that, highlighted the troubles that a young girl had who was covered by medicaid. she had difficulty finding a doctor to treat her stating due to the lack of medicaid doctors, medication patients often grow sicker. there are of course similar stories out there every day outlining the difficulties that patients with government health care phase on a day-by-day basis. this is not rhetoric. this is reality and it will be reality for millions more americans who inevitably will be pushed onto the rolls of government-run health care if the public plan is part of the health care reform bill. a government plan would not compete fairly with private plans. it is like the umpire being on the home team and it does not work. so, the amendment is fairly simple. it strikes all language pertaining to the public plan

and specifies in the bill that no federal funds may be used to invest in, establish or operate a government-run health care plan. now mr. chairman i'm committed to helping millions of americans who want coverage into lowering costs for everyone. i will not, however, allowed that coverage to come in a slow but inevitable takeover of our health care system and that is precisely what the creation of a public option, which is probably more properly referred to as government insurance, will do. let me be clear, i am not, i was not, i have not nor will i ever be an advocate on behalf of private health insurance companies. but i do believe the role of the government is to play that role of referee or umpire ensuring performance standards are met and that everyone is treated fairly but then it should get out of the way. and let american hard work in

ingenuity and american know how do what it does best. that is why think it is so important for this amendment to pass. we do not need more government involvement in health care. we do not need a government-run health care option. it is often quoted the american medical association's in is in favor of h.r. 3200. let me just say from the perspective of my physician colleagues in texas, this is not a popular notion, so i would encourage members to think of their physicians back home, think of their patients back home. let's do the right thing by creating the right kind of system and reject the public option. i will be happy to yield to my friend from michigan. >> thank you doctor. henry ford was a great industrialist there and he said you can have any color car you want as long as it is black and that is all he sold where black cars. this is exactly where you are going with this notion on a government-run plan and you know i thought the tirade from my friend from new york was

entertaining but the more listen to him that maury really understood that that is the philosophy where we are going. private plans are inherently bad and can't work for america and we should show everybody on to a government plan. as a matter that the lewin study over 100 million americans will lose the health care as they know it today, 100 million. as a matter of fact they said we are willing to use the weight of government to do great things to medicare, cut it $400 billion cut out of medicare. hospice, home nursing, hospitals , $400 billion. why? because that is the only way the government can control costs, by denying access or rationing care. that is it. look at candidate, look at the united kingdom. and systems that have it, that is the only way they can control

costs and you are going to take all of these 100 million people come up with the monta a government plan that tells doctors, we will not pay you what it costs to see that patients. if you don't think that is trouble brewing, look at the health systems in the european system. they are dying under the weight of their system and as a matter of fact the fastest-growing part of their system are people who are escaping it in getting their own private health care insurance. americans deserve better. people like the states of michigan who built the middle class, who built this notion that you could work really hard and by the way you get great health care is part of your employment is destroyed by this system. if you are a cancer survivor, look out. if you are somebody who has a serious ailment that takes very complicated treatment, look out because you are going to have to call up a bureaucrat in hope to god his calculator is more compassionate and smarter than

your doctor and i would yield back my time. >> reclaiming my time and i thank the gentleman is fashion. our subcommittee on health, his medicaid patient population grew to 70% of her practice, she was sparling from retirement fund to keep your doors open. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> can i ask for an additional 15 seconds? >> without objection. >> if we take away the private sector the public sector cannot afford what it is going to be required to pay and doctors across the country are going to inevitably be borrowing for operational expenses and as the business model for those of you in the room who have run your own business you know that is not a model for survival. i urge an affirmative vote for this amendment and i would feel that the additional time and i thank the chairman for his indulgence. >> who seeks recognition? the gentleman from connecticut, mr. murphy. >> i thank the chairman.

i understand the public plan has become the bogeyman in a lot of this conversation. i think it is a lot harder to present the argument if you really are reading of this is laid out in the bill. there is nothing to be scared of here because this2 that's choice for our constituents, for our patients. the fact is there's no one that's going to be forced into the public option. it's going to be everyone's individual choice as to whether they want to stay in private insurance or they want to choose public insurance. if you guys are right and the government can't run an efficient product, captain put something competitive on the market -- can't put something on the market, then it's going to lose it. this will finance itself completely with its own premiums so if it can't do a good job of running its own show, then no one will buy into it. secondly, it's not going to

eliminate private insurance. we have an estimate that shows us very clearly that not only are there, only by their estimate, going to be about 10 million people to take public option, which by my account is about 3% of total patients, but we're going to see more people as a result of this bill, not less, go to private insurance so contrary to the argument we've heard, though there are going to be about 3% of people in the public option, actually more people are going to be not less. option, actually more people will be in private insurance, not less. lastly this methodology that is out there that people have a choice today is not rooted in fact. 50% of the states in this country have one ensure that controls more than 50% of the market. in some areas especially rural areas in this country, there is one ensure that controls 70% of the market. that is no choice for individuals who are trying to go out there to find a more affordable product. this bill with the public option

gives people the choice and it is not just their choice. it is dr. choice as well. nil physician will be forced into this. it will be their choice as to whether the rate is enough to bring them in, so i think this is the essential to try to inject competitiveness into the health care market by giving our constituents patience in the system of choice they have been longing for. >> would the gentleman yield? >> i would be happy to yield to ms. spaulding. >> i want to underscore a couple of things you said and expand on your point. a robust public option is essential to the success of what we are trying to do here and you have just heard the gentleman talked about the places where there were few choices to begin with selee public choice will make meaningful the idea of choice. i have also just have to name the obvious. our private options are

for-profit. the public option will not have that motivating force. if you look good this ceo salaries of the top seven private insurance, this is on average, $9.7 million that is an average. some are much higher. that is enough to cover 648 families with health insurance for a year. that is what that is. the ceo of a public plan is going to earn a high government salary, under $200,000 likely, maybe somewhere around $150,000. the last one i want to make, and i realize i have made this point many times before, is to draw your attention to the wisconsin example in medicare part d. in all your states, and all people have is private options. we happen to be fortunate in wisconsin as we have a public option. it is called senior care and it exists by waiver of the

department of health and human services. this is a very successful program, very popular among seniors. the cost per enrollee is one-third the cost of private plans. but for all of those of you who are out there saying that inserting a public option will stifle private competition, we have more private sector choices in medicare part d in wisconsin than most other states. this has been a singular success to have a public option competing side-by-side e private option and i will tell you that every member of our congressional delegation, a democrat and republican when that waiver was up wrote the secretary saying please, please give us our waiver to continue our public option and when jim sensenbrenner and i can agree on something, dino you have got a good thing. so, we have got to keep a public option. >> ides is one their constituents to have this

choice. wonder constituents to be able to decide whether they want to stick with their private plan or they want something kind of like we have as members of congress. i think that is okay to allow for our constituents to have that choice. i don't think there's so dumb as to not be able to figure out what is best for them and that is why i support. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> mr. chairman? >> the gentleman will be recognized for five minutes for the last five minutes of debate on the republican side. i hope you won't take it and maybe go to the vote earlier. the gentleman is recognized. >> i won't make promises to take it because i think this is important. there is indeed a heated debate as to whether not a public plan will destroy private insurance. indeed there is debate in the minds of some members of congress because some members of congress have said flat out that the goal behind the public option is a single-payer care. indeed barney frank said that in a reported statement now being

published all over the internet right now. he said the way we get to a single-payer system is to start with a public option. let's talk about choice but the republicans desperately want choice. we believe in choice but what is stopping choice in america today is not the absence of a public option. what is stopping choice in america today is that tax code says if your employer visor health care he days before tax dollars but if you buy your health care you have to pay with after-tax dollars. that makes it impossible for the average american to go buy health care on their own so they have to take health care that is controlled by a third party. if you want to give choice to the american people, then let every single american buy their health care with pretax dollars. if they like their employer's plan, fine, take that plan but if they don't, let them buy it with their own money. republicans would give them a tax credit to do it and give them a refundable and danceable

tax credit to do it. democrats say that a public option will set a level playing field. it can't set a level playing field. n.t. there will be no property tax imposed on the federal government health care plan. there will be no financial solvency requirements. we were just told there would be no high salaries paid so we are favoring the public plan and the public plan will drive out of existence the private plans. it is just a matter of time. mr. frank is very blunt about saying there are members of this committee that it said that. talking little bit about what is the notion behind a robust option. do we need a robust public option for ottawa insurance? no we don't because we let people buy their own auto insurance on the same basis as businesses. do we have a public option, are you proposing a public option for life insurance? why should we be able to go to a public food vendor and get private competition and profit out of the food sales business?

the reality is that a public option is not needed to promote competition. what is needed to promote competition and bring down the cost of health care in america is to empower individual americans and let them buy their own care. take their employers, if they choose or go by their own care with money that we give to them if they can't otherwise afford care. that is real choice. that is the choice republicans have been talking about, not some government plan. as for the choice that is given in medicare part d i believe you are repealing that in this deal so i don't know how, if that is the great modeled you can also seek to repeal it in this bill. there will be no fair competition by the private sector if you have a public choice option. we will subsidize it like we currently subsidize other public health care. i would be happy to yield to the lady from tennessee.

>> i thank the gentleman from arizona for yielding and i find it so interesting as we have this debate, what we have seen in tennessee is what actually happens when you have a government plan, a government-run plan in competition with private insurance. our plan was put in place in 94. it was a test case for hillary clinton's health care plan. it was the public option plan that you can look at now with 15 years of data behind it and say, it did not work. look at what happened. when it comes to choice and individual choice, is limited and restricted that choice. people work for their private insurance plans onto a government plan and then to get cost back under control, guess what the governor had to do a couple of years ago? remove nearly 200,000 of them. guess what is getting ready to happen now? there are over 100,000 people

there going to be removed. lack of competitiveness is what you see. you do not see more competitiveness. it is a plan that does not work. it has been described in our state as a disaster. >> plan quadrupled and costs and consumes 36% of the state budget and it ended up restricting access and driving costs through the roof and the yield back to the gentleman from arizona. >> i thank the gentlelady. we have offered the idea of choice on this committee in the past. i propose legislation that would let you drive-- buy insurance that was qualified in a separate state. that would address the problem the gentleman spoke about which is there aren't enough plans offering insurance in the state's on the market. but a public plan will solve this problem. >> the gentleman's time has expired. do we need more debate or be ready for a vote? okay. the clerk will call the roll.

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call]

>> any other members wish to record their votes? the clerk will report the tallym >> president, conservationist, wilderness warrior. a look at douglas brinkley on "book tv." >> join the conversation on civil rights and race relations with npr and fox news analyst juan williams live sunday at noon eastern on "book tv"'s "in depth" on c-span 2. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> in a few moments, a new briefing on health care legislation. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 eastern with segments on the health care debate and the obama administration's first six months. and the house is in session at 9:00 eastern to consider a bill regarding executive pay. >> more coverage this morning of the health care debate in congress as the house energy & commerce committee continues its work on health care legislation. see that live this morning at 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> on c-span radio, l.b.j.

tapes. saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span radio. >> this week, as expected, the senate judiciary committee voted to recommend the confirmation of sonya sotomayor as supreme court justice. watch the committee debate and see the vote this saturday on c-span at 7:00 eastern. then next week her confirmation moves to the senate floor. live coverage of the full senate debate on c-span2. and coming in october on c-span, tour the home to america's highest court, "the supreme court." >> more now about health care legislation from a news conference with a group of liberal house democrats from the progressive caucus. also hear from the chairs of the black, hispanic and asian-american caucuses also known as the tri-caucus. this is just under half an hour. >> hello, everybody. thank you for being here. and thank you, tri-caucus and

progressive caucus members for hanging very strong and very solid for health care reform that actually takes care of all americans. we have one major announcement today. we have a letter to the leadership and to the three committee chairs that will, during this break, pull all the bills together. we have 53 signatures on our letter. and i have a few to hand out to you as you'll know how strong and how committed we are. we've gathered here today to demand that the final health care reform legislation has a robust public option. [cheers and applause] and to vow, we will vote against it if it does not.

[cheers and applause] the insurance companies have had decades to provide the kind of coverage that americans need. they have shown that they cannot or they will not do it. 46 million americans have no insurance. another 25 million are under insured. costs are skyrocketing. over the last decade health care costs have risen on average more than four times faster than workers' wages. a robust public plan based on the current medicare provider network and infrastructure and rate will be able to change them. setting rates based on medicare will provide much needed competition and force insurers to control costs. using the medicare provider network where we do start-up

costs by $75 billion and ensure the public plan can begin with the new health exchange is set and ready to go. many of us favor a single payer system standing up here today. [cheers and applause] but we have compromised. we have rallied. because we want a plan with a meaningful public option. and we can compromise no more. [cheers and applause] when leaders of the house meet in august to consider the three bills and produce a final one, we expect that it will retain a robust public option. if it doesn't, we will vote against it. [cheers and applause] we're going to have all of the chairs of the caucuses speak today. and then we will have a few other members who want to say a few words. then we'll have questions for as long as you choose.

barbara lee, chair of the progressive black caucus. [cheers and applause] >> thank you very much. and thank you for being here. i am barbara lee from the ninth congressional district of california. chair of the congressional black caucus, 42 members strong. for many years members of the congressional black caucus and our allies here, our colleagues here in congress, and around the country have been leading the charge on comprehensive and for comprehensive health care reform. today we are closer to providing quality health care to all americans than ever before, but the fight is not over. we must continue to reject these claims of the costs of reforming health care in america as something that our nation cannot afford. we reject that. the money is there to pay for coverage for all americans. to the contrary, if we act and if we fail to act now, we do so

at the peril of the american people. the american taxpayer will continue to suffer from the economic consequences of absorbing health care costs that are spiraling out of control. we must act because the quality of life of millions of americans and the health of our economy hang in the balance. but to understand all of this, the cornerstone of comprehensive health care reform is a robust, public health plan option, similar to medicare. medicare has worked. so let me be clear. there are many of us who will continue to fight any efforts to water down a robust public health plan option like medicare. we're going to fight this with every bit of our strength that we have now and until we come together with this three-pronged bill in september. [cheers and applause] we're going to fight. the benefits of a public health plan are obvious. a public health plan will

guarantee coverage regardless of preexisting conditions. a public health plan will give patients a choice of doctors and hospitals. and the public health plan will build an incentive for private insurers to lower health care costs. that's what we want, lower health care costs. that's why a public health plan is extremely important. when it comes to the public plan we know that the congressional black caucus, the congressional hispanic caucus, the congressional asian-pacific american caucus and the progressive caucus speak with one voice. speak with one voice. [applause] health care should not be a privilege as it has been in the past. it is a basic human right and should be a basic human right, actually. that's what we're saying. it should be. it should be. in the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world. i give you now my colleagues,

chair of the hispanic caucus, congresswoman from new york. >> thank you. thank you so very much. i want to thank all of my colleagues for standing up for working families in america. the message is clear. the american public expects for us to pass comprehensive health care reform. one that really provides access to quality health care to every american, especially those working families and the most vulnerable. it is amazing. in the richest, most powerful country in the world, 47 million americans every day go by without access to health insurance. we are here to say we cannot support any deal that short change working families and the most vulnerable in our country. so i stand here and say that, you know, business is usual is

not going to work. we will not be able to support nothing less but real comprehensive health care that has a strong, robust public option. we are saying that we need to lower health care costs. the only way to lower health care costs is by providing competition. and the only way that we can provide competition is by having a public option. [applause] also, we must ask in all of this, where is the accountability for the insurance company? how do we ensure that they are held to higher standards? i know that we're going to go home. and i will ask the public to visit members of congress and to share with us a strong commitment and a strong desire to do what is right for all americans. we cannot achieve anything less,

nothing less, that will not cover the working poor and the most vulnerable. thank you. >> mike, where are you? >> thank you, congresswoman. i'm always behind you. >> i'm behind you now. >> well, first of all, i want to thank the media for being here. it's through you that we'll be getting our stories out. we stand here to support the progressive colleagues in the energy and commerce committee and in the house of representatives to firmly state my unequivocal support for a robust public option, an opposition to so-called compromising push by four members of the house. the recently reached compromise in the energy and commerce committee will, one, cost more than the original bill, two, impose a greater burden on working families, and, three, cut the public plan, eliminating access to subsidies for families

between 300% and 400% of poverty. the people of my district are relying on us to bring true reform to the health care system. and this is not it. every day i receive calls, e-mails, and visits urging me to preserve a strong public option that will help to drive down the cost of care and allow more families the protection of health coverage. the private insurance companies have had decades to provide meaningful reform to our system. they have failed. and congress must now act boldly in order to save lives. 11% of my constituents in my district better known as silicone valley lack health coverage completely. and more are under insured. without a robust public option and a meaningful subsidy structure, my constituents and constituents across this country will continue to struggle with the high cost of private care.

in my district families below 400% of poverty are barely at the medium income level and struggle to buy homes, make rent, pay for foods and gas. a strong public option is net to truly form a health care system. and i will not vote for a reform without one. and let me just close with this. a lot of us have come to congress and a lot of us are in office right now because people want to change. we said during the last campaign we can do it. now we have to fulfill that word. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. my name is raul. i represent the seventh district in arizona and i'm could chair to the congressional hispanic caucus. all of us know how important, my

colleagues that are here, we're at a cross roads on health reform in this country. we're at a point when there is no retreat. and we can and we must hold the line. and what are we holding the line on? we're holding the line on the fact that we from the beginning have been promoting single pay payer. and in absence of that, and that's what happened. and we all have to be honest with each other. we are now saying that we must have a public option that is meaningful -- [applause] that has medicare as its provider network, that has medicare plus five as its rate, that we don't negotiate with private insurance companies for the rate on the private option, and that this will not be paid off this health reform will not be paid off the backs of small businesses, poor people, and working families. we are supporting what happened

out of ways and means. we are supporting what happened out of education and labor. and we find what happens, what is happening in energy and commerce unacceptable. we are not obstructionists. we are advocates. we are here to advocate for the simple right of every person and every american to have an opportunity to have quality health care and a quality life in this country. we're not obstructionists. and we're not here to divide or embarrass our parties. we are here to remind our parties that as democrats we have some basic values. and one of those values is the care and the shared responsibility we have for each other. i'm proud to be with the caucus. i'm proud to be with my colleagues today. it's a robust plan. and we've got to be clear that we are not in the process of threatening people. we are in the process of affirming. we told you months and months

ago, leadership, administration, months and months ago. we're on this ride with you. because of the commitment to a strong, meaningful, robust public option. if it's not there, we're not there. thank you very much. >> stay for questions. questions. yes, sir? >> it seems like what we have right now is a game of chicken, you versus the blue dogs. whoever wins first is going to win. what i want to know is it looks like a lot of the blue dogs and a lot of the conservatives are sent rift senators, are from districts with things near and dear to them, like the farm bill. >> it's part of a response and i think it's important. we took the seven members that are energy and commerce that are

part of the blue dog coalition and kind of looked at their districts, collectively. and their districts are 671,000 people that are uninsured. 6,500 families lose their homes and their businesses because of bankruptcy, because of health care costs. we have over 3,200 people, almost 40,000 people that are trapped in that medicare donut hole that with the public option would not be there. they are going to cost almost $1 billion or more of compensation for care for their facilities and their providers. there's 99,000 small businesses that would receive tax credit under a public plan. that's part of the strategy. that there is -- sometimes we play too much chess here and don't talk enough with the public. i think the public when they see this information are going to talk to those same members and say give us a break, too. right now it's about insurance

companies and what they need. i think this month of august is with the general public in saying this is what's in it for you. we have to put that kind of political pressure on. >> another question? >> next question, please. >> just curious -- my understanding of the compromise allows the secretary of health and human services to negotiate within a range. how does that detract from the public option? >> it detracts from having a strong public option. we would like donna edwards to respond to that. >> i'm donna edwards from maryland. the problem with the deal that has been struck is that when you negotiate from medicare rates upwards to where the private insurers are, that is sending the cost value up. and the goal of the public plan in addition to all of the coverage that we've talked about, the goal of the public plan also is to lower costs for all americans. those of us who have health insurance and all americans. and the only way that you do

that is to have a set rate, medicare plus five, that is set. and then you will have a competition that's real competition. frankly, i don't understand what the insurers are afraid of. they're afraid of the competition. and what i say is that we have a medicare plus five percent set rate that we bring the cost curve down, that will ensure we bring people into the system and will provide quality care. if the insurers believe in the market, we believe in the market. but it's important to compete downward on costs and not upward on costs. >> question? we're going over here now. who are you, please? >> david, investors business daily. have any of the progressive caucus members on the energy and commerce committee signed that letter? and if not, have they given you any indication whether they're going to support or oppose the deal? >> well, it would not be appropriate for them to sign the letter. they're in markup right now.

we do expect the bill to get out of committee. yes, we do. next? >> in the month of august, those opposed to various forms of health care reform are going to unleash an onslaught that would make it difficult for almost anything to pass. >> carolyn? >> hi. from michigan. first of all, there will be a lot ads. we stand here for americans. some people want a bill. we want to save lives. that's our mantra right there. we want a bill that can save lives, that reduce costs and that is competitive with private insurance. the very deal they set out yesterday set a limit on what a public plan would be, but at the same time said the private companies can raise their premiums as much as they want. so we need you all to help us, help educate. ours is we want an insurance bill that will cover most of americans that is fair that lower the costs. and you all know the preexisting

conditions and all that's in there. so write a good story. 53 votes and we don't believe we're going to get any republican votes in this bill. >> we don't need them! >> i know. so we're there. we want to work for it. america wants to us work for it. and 70% plus americans want a strong, robust public plan. >> yes, sir? >> are you saying -- you said you cannot support the bill as it stands. but are each of the chairmen saying that their caucuses will not vote as a group for the plan unless it has an option? are you speaking for all the members? >> we have a letter signed by 53 members saying they will not vote for a plan that does not have a robust public option. and there are way more members than that that believe what we believe. >> the speaker said today that there was -- that she was for the kennedy public option, didn't go as far as she hoped.

is that enough to get everyone on your side? >> let me just say there is a great deal of affection and love for senator kennedy for the work that he is doing and has done. but i also know the pathway that senator kennedy's family has walked in. they have walked against the odds and they have stood for those who could not stand for themselves. so what i say, i will stand here in the name of senator kennedy. and i believe in standing in that name we are standing for those -- i think the numbers are as high as 83% who want a public option because they know that $1,800 are being lost by families every year. here is the point. do we want to take the flesh out of the working people of america by $100 billion on the plan that is being proposed by the blue dogs, by in essence cutting the subsidies so that these low-income families cannot have a vigorous public option? is that who we stand for? and if we do not stand for that, then i will say as it relates to

senator kennedy, i stand with the nurses, the doctors. i stand with the health workers. i stand with the sick and the downtrotten. i stand with the children. i stand with the victims of h1n1 who have not been able to get into the hospitals today because there is no public option and no vigorous public option. i will close on this. because i think senator kennedy will understand this. and i said this before. and a lot of people look quiz cal when i say it. i am here today because of the voting rights act of 1965. if we could not unify around or push to do the right thing, it could have been a voting right act that said let's do a study as to whether african-americans need the right to vote. i'm not going to support that and i don't think we will. we want a vigorous public option. [cheers and applause] >> two more. the young woman back there in the blue and the man in the blue. >> wabc. what do you think pelosi and reed could be doing right now to get these needed votes?

>> votes on what? >> to be able to pass the health care? >> well, they've got a ways to go. and the next step is to take the three committees and put those bills together. and they need a bill that has a robust public option. and then they will have the votes that they need. >> democrats.com. in education and labor there was an amendment that passed with bipartisan support that didn't cost the bill a single vote in that committee that would allow states to do single payer. are you all going to fight to keep that language in the bill? >> i am. and i'll let somebody else speak to that. >> dennis, are you here? no? all right. keith. >> absolutely we're going to fight to give the states the right to pursue single payer. it's an essential thing. we believe that states are important laboratories for legislation that can lead the

nation. we are going to vote against a bill that does not have a robust public option. we made it very clear. we are going to stick together. we are going to stay together. and most of all we want the american people to get out there and let their government know that they want a robust public option that can take care of all americans. thank you. >> isn't safe not to draw a line -- >> let me just conclude by saying one thing in terms of a strong, robust public health option. the dollar amounts, we're understanding, some saying, no more than $1 trillion and have added $100 billion. so the costs have been added while the expenses for this proposal have been reduced. and we're saying, who pays -- on whose back does this $100 billion lie?

so we're insisting also that included in the strong, robust public plan we have to have the resources to pay for that and prevention is a large part of that. so we're not going to accept the most vulnerable, the working poor to pay for the insurance industry and the profits that they will make if in fact, this works the way this latest proposal is presented. thank you very much. >> all right. thank you very, very much. thank you. yeah! thank you all for coming. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> this week, as expected, the

senate judiciary committee voted to recommend the confirmation of sonya sotomayor as supreme court justice. watch the committee debate and see the vote this saturday on c-span at 7:00 eastern. then next week her confirmation moves to the senate floor. live coverage of the full senate debate on c-span2. and coming in october on c-span, tour the home to america's eyest court, "the supreme court." >> president, conservationist, wilderness warrior. douglas brinkley's look at teddy roosevelt. two hours saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2's "book tv." >> how is c-span funded? >> publicly funded. >> donations maybe. i have no idea. >> government? >> c-span gets its funding through the taxes. >> federal funding? >> sort of a public funding thing? >> maybe. i don't know. >> how is c-span funded? america's cable companies created c-span as a public

service. a private business initiative. no government mandate. no government money. >> "washington journal" is next. the day's news and your phone calls. the u.s. house of representatives is in session at 9:00 eastern to consider a bill that would give shareholders the say in executive compensation by requiring annual non-binding votes on corporate pay. .