good morning. reading, u.s. must declare victory and go home. the the detroit free press headline, the clunkear deal has

frozen. the house is in session today. ael as well as continuing on the markup of the healthcare bill. president obama hosting a senior staff as administration reviews its first six months. >> on the 31st of july, our question this morning, $33 billion in bank bonuses. host: this is the headline this

morning. the front page of the wall street journal, bank bonuses tab $33 billion. >> and one-third larger than california's deficit. one? every 270 employees received $1 million. the nine firms in the report had a combined # 008 loss totally $100 billion. we want to hear from you on this

issue. we'll turn just for the moment to michael on the phone. >> good, how are you? host: it is considered a set back for'ñl president obama. this would delay the long-awayed by partisan deal through the recess. we know they continue her markup today. the senate finance committee conditions its work. where is all of this heading? >> where it is heading is back home for all of these members. this morning, they will have a members only discussion to let them know, look, you got to keep

the pressure on, you can't loose control. that's what this office is critically aware of. this is a legislative process. they have come a lot farther than 20 years ago when clinton tried it. they are going to be gone for five years. the white house will continue to find their way. >> in the "washington post," called obama care, the coming rereet. yes, obama has waned in part because of overexpose your. later this year,le -- he will

reemerge they must put this medical reform through. >> while we are having these debates right now about all sorts of particulars, whether there should be a public plan, how it is paid for, remember, this is just the beginning of what is likely to be a four or five-month process. if you get legislation passed and you still have months of negotiati

negotiating. what will we hear frlt president on thes markup? >> i think you'll continue to see him do what se doing. he said the other day he spent significant portion of his time making sure that the message -- the pressure is on. i did a story the other day about the poling that the president's team has been doing. one of the changes they believe is that if they keep the message on that this is the bill that attempts to reign in and control uns companies, there on firm

ground. people really deeply hate insurance companies. a public plan is going to be a good strategy. it is in effect seeing him with that stratd gi. senator grassley promises not to sell out his party. >> senator grassley is under stream pressure to not move on the healthcare reform bill.

if you see him and a couple of other republican snartz finding a way to make the deal and resisting the pressure they are getting from the party hered shirp. >> michael shear, thanks for buying with us. >> sure. host: back to the other story. inside the money section of the "washington post." bankers bonuses. we want to get your reaction. the republican line. caller: yes, last year, i remember on the bill mires

program he said something about the efforts to block this would not hold them over. it just goes to show that the fat cat wins. they walk. no matter what the american public feel. it is a clear case of the fox dpaurding the hen house. we don't get to see their names. andly say quickly, this senator is not willing to sell out but

wants to give americans what they want. i mentioned i watched msnbc for five hours yet and they did not once did they cover the healthcare reform. i think it is odd. i think they showed that clip of owe bomba, v. p. april biden at least # 00 times. they didn't show the people, the american public doctors, nurses

protesting. host: thank you very much for your call and your observing this issue of the bank bonuses. the numbers are on the screen. hos hos host:al, good morning. caller: it just confirms that they are the biggest threat. host: let me read you a couple of figures. the graph is called banking on bonuses. city sgrup lost $27.p 7 pillon.

wells fargo which lost almost $43 billion and gave nearly a billion in bonuses. caller: see these tarp money that the senators said they wouldn't take, they are just wrong. we have to come to grips that the corruption is there. out of $11 trillion in u.s. government debt. that debt is circumstance lated through certain limited primary

dealers. out of that $11 trillion, it's counterfeiting. these people have the benefits. host: go being to the phone. go morning. caller: investors are paying large fees for essentially nothing. you should just go to a smaller firm. host: sam, atlanta georgia. your reaction to this caller: good morning.

i was watching and saw that obama had the 3 (300) 000-0000 bonus thingy. host: it is not the president. it's banks awarding the bonuses. city bank paying employees bonuses of $1 million or more. rishgs good morning. where is this czar, this pay czar that obama was going to appoint? host: it has been announced

there will be a hearing next month on these bonuses. and so far, the white house has been mute. caller: i see. i was wondering about how they can be getting these bonuses when there's a pay czar. host: a picture of andrew cuomo, the attorney general of new york. caller: why are they telling us this? why is it it is so important that they tell us they are wasting billions of dollars on taxpayer's money. they tell us this without telling us who they are.

why is it so important that we don't know who they are. why don't everyone just say, hey, they sold their soul for that money. let thechl wall owe with that greed. why do we care how many billions of dollars the taxpayers. 90% of the people said, no. we don't want to give the billions to the bank. they are going to do what they want anyway. host: thanks for the call. in green is the bonus pool. the exact number is

$32.6 billion. and the yell is not repaid at $125 billion. the source of this is from the attorney general. host: jackie is on the phone. caller: good morning, steve. my comment with regard to the bank bonuses. hello? host: yes, we can hear you. please go ahead. caller: it's important to consider that these bonuses were negotiated before the bail out. i think that's important to add to the conversation. then we can come to it from a

negative stand point. while it's start willing to hear, when we use the word bail out, we should try to include the understanding that they were loans. and we should under the bay pack -- host: i will stop you there because of the static. our next call is from gene in chicago. caller: they don't discern it at all. they should all be arrested and

given life in prison or the electric chair. host: that's pretty harsh. caller: what they are doing is harsh. >> j. p. morgan chase, glomed a 25 gill r billion dollar bail out. they lead the rivals in pay outs. the bonus pool hit $8. (700) 000-0000. this in saying this is the best of times. where are the jobs? host: gory on the republican line.

caller: good morning. i guess my point is this. until we can find out exactly who these emyear ees are whatscale, what is the reason, we need to let it go. it is a large amount of money and it does not look good. it fuels a fire we don't need right now. host: an arlt kel reporting that president obama's half sister will be moving to washington. good reaction from the bank

bonuses. caller: paul son was the secretary of treasury. when obama came in to say we want regulations on who these banks are paying out, everyone called him a socialist. now, in front of the paper this $100 million is paid out. when he tried put that in place and regulate some of the banking, everyone is running around calming him a socialist. now you see this big headline. sometimes it is damage you do, damage you don't.

host: thank you clunker deals frozen. and in the los angeles times, the auto rebate runs out of money. passed by congress in late june to help the struggling auto economy. giving couchers of $44500 when they trade in those gas guzzl s guzzlers. it has run out of money more quickly than expected. caller: i wanted to talk about the headlines of the newspapers and all these left wing

comments. everyone just makes enough every other week to pay the mortgage and buy groceries. at the end of the year, they make bonus. this $33 billion, that was the bonus in a bad year. if it was a good year, it would have been $300 billion. host: let me read one quote. anthony cuomo. when the banks did poorly,

employees were paid well, when they did not do well, they get paid well. caller: this is not get mb for that huge bunch of people who only get paid in december. host: this report fuelling efforts to reign in compensation. viny is joining us on the independent line. caller: good morning, steve. i appreciate the opportunity. i think what they are witnessing is jefferson's worst fear for

the republicans. the lus for endless profit. i'd like to tie this in to healthcare. most people do not understand or know anything about the underlying tax structure. yesterday, as i heard the ñbait. most people don't know. a rather large corporation in the health industry just like blue cross, blue she'lled are all for tax law purposes considered public charities am

they don't pay profit taxes or corporate taxes. we don't see the control and policy to direct the people and nation and directions we think will benefit us. i can't understand the fundamental unfrarness. host: thank you for the comment. this from a viewer that says, wish i could get paid by taxpayer money. coming up if you were foming the vote. approved president obama plans

to kill the f-22 bomber yet. president obama and other military leaders hailed last week's vote as a sign of their progress in changing military spending practices. but some sometimes tense exchanges on the house floor on thursday, two republicans representatives sout to embarass some other representatives. caller: good morning. it's it's a horrible especially at a time when they were talking

about taxing those bonuses up to 90%. we need to do business with smaller owned businesses or credit unions. the lady was talking about the media not covering healthcare. it is because the media actually receives revenues from the insurance company just like our politicians do. there are certain things we don't need to have private at tied. healthcare is one of them. we need to be vigilant and get out and protest we need to make

our voices heard. that's what we need to do. voefk allies. also this kathleen write saying how many jobs can $1 billion create. host: the front pam of today's "washington post" has healthcare reform front and enter. among those photographed, the democrat from new york. thank you for being with us. >> good morning. how are you. these are difficult and complicated issues.

there is general consensus if we are going to bring down healthcare cost, we need something besides the current costs. there is some tension. we note something else in these proceedings. my republican friends are committed to keeping things the way they are. that's an unsustainable track. host: sdou think they will finalize their version? >> i think today will be the day that we have a lot of work to do. many members want to offer an

appendment, including myself. looking at a single payer plan like medicare, which people understand. the committee will take a vote. it's going to be a very close vote. there are still some democrats not convinced. i know we will get zero republican votes. it will be close. host: there was a reporting that there was a deal made with the so-called blue dog democrats. >> i think the way for this plan to work, we have to do two things in concert. we have to do the so-called

public plan. we have to have subsidies to help pement -- people afford healthcare. we are trying to come up with changes for members concerned about those things. as we speak at this moment, nothing is assured. there are some compromises that need to be made. host: do you think this will be take especially up again ach the august resist? >> i am one of the people this is concerned that we have weakened the public options a bit much. i'll push hard for the idea of a

single pair. others have suggestions of shafi shafing -- just offering healthcare, we know isn't enough. we need to help citizens buy into this plan. we've gon come a very long way in the energy and come ert -- commerce -- we are not there. literally today at about 10:00 eastern when we go in, we are going to know whether we've been able to make accommodations to get this thing passed.

i think there's a good chance we are all going to be able to come together on the democratic sign. some of my blie blue dog plans yes, i tried make the argument if you don't like the public plan why are so many people happy with medz i care. we are a very diverse group. i'm confident we'll be able to get a deal done venlth joor we'll be covering that hearing live today on the c-span networks and on line. thank you congressman. >> thank you. host: we'll welcome donna edwards who is not a member of the committee but vocal. you are calling this agreement

fundamentally unacceptable. >> well, it's wrong, steve. when you weaken the public plan as the deal with the other democrats is done. it weakens it so that it isn't competitive. since the price point for both the legislation and the cost of insurance for ordinary americans upward. host: let me read to you the reporting. they say this, by make being a deal with the blue dog coalition

i think when those come together, there's an overwhelming number of democrats that support the plan. it's important to describe what

that public plan is so we will know if it will work for the american people. host: thank you for your calls and tweets. and this morning, net results, another huge transfer of wealth. >> that's a mouthful. the president wants to lead and sign a healthcare reform bill. folks that don't want this are the big insurance companies. and the republicans. i think we are going to get there. it means for many of us, for

example, i have been a long-time single parent advocate. i have had tod@v comprimise embracing a public plan. . it will be a good day for the american people. host: thank you for being here today. a member of the congressional prodpresive caucus. cindy is joining us on the democrat line. caller: good morning. i'm glad you are supporting us. i am a nurse -- i would also like to make a quick comment and

question. i called c-span five years ago and said we need to get rid of the labeling. i see it in the hospitals. the media is being bought by insurance companies. i see it. how long do you think it will take before everyone has appropriate healthcare. i see more and more people who are american who come in everyday. not only do they have to deal with a disease process but with insurance companies and hospitals telling them you need to pay this before we can do anything for you. >> cindy, i agree with you. we are going to get healthcare reform for all americans. i'm convinced of that. many of us will go back to our

home districts and talk to people about reform. one that ensures that your relationship is between you and your doctor and not you and your insurance company. >> i was reading a letter from a young woman in my district whose father had cancer when she was 13 years old. they were worried about how to pay the insurance. she said, no 13-year-old should go to sleep tonight wandering how her father will do wondering how they will pay the bill. >> when you are sick, you are not a republican or democrat, you are sick and you need

healthcare. host: talking about the campaign contributions and where some of the blue dog democrats are at this point. >> i'll tell you, the amount of money being spent in the henl care inspector to stop reform so

that it really doesn't work is outrageous. i don't accept those kind of contributions myself. i'm not going to ma line any of my colleagues in terms of the funds they accept. these companies are not just giving this out because they want to be buddies. they want to kill reform. it is the whiches yik relationship of money and politics. many of my colleagues want to do the right thing. they shouldn't be influenced by this money. host: joe is joining us from arizona on the independent line. caller: good morning. just wondering why the people

are trying to get the republicans on board. when we got the precipitation drug passed legislation, they had it messed around so much so it was almost not fit to have. if it was up to the republicans we would never have social security. they didn't want workman's comp. they don't even want to funds schools. i don't know why it matters so much having to have them on board to do anything. all nail do is mess it up. host: thank you. >> i would love to by a healthcare reform package that is by partisan.

it is less important to get a i bipart sdan package than it is to get the right one. this president was brought in largely on the understanding that he would make changes to our healthcare. we have to own that. by owning that, we need to define what real reform is. this will lower the cost for all americans. the rates of premiums and deductibles and co-payments are sky rocketing.

three times the pace of the incomes. some had increases last year of 26%. what otherñi american can claim that host: we are taking your comments on twirt at c-span wj. bill is joining us on the republican line. good morning, bill. caller: good morning. listen, we are on different sides of this thing but we do have places where we can agree. the preexisting condition. just putting them on a public plan would encourage companies to dunk all the sick people. it's something to focus on and getting insurance for 20

something people, it seems like we could do something with a very high deductible. if they structure their arm, they pay for it. if they fracture their skul, they have medical coverage. there is rument room for its improvement. i did live in germany. can you tell me what the value tax is in germany? >> i sdo agree that all of bills removes exclusions for preexisting diseases.

i think you are right bringing young people in because they don't go to the doctor all the time. i'm one of those in college that got to say, i left my append ix in spainapu but didn't get a bi there. same thing happened here in the united states, treated in the emergency room and thousands of dollars for healthcare for me when i didn't have insurance.

the goal is to make sure we cover all americans. those people where it is really not adequate and that we lower costs for all the rest of us that have insurance but are facing sky rocketing costs. host: in your letter today addressed to the speaker of the house. henry waxman, the house committee and the three committees focussed in on this bill. you are saying you want to keep insurance companies honest. we have this saying as long as insurance companies have all this money, they will always

win. >> that's why it is important we have a public plan that competes with the insurance companies. we need to know what is being offered and not in these plans. people will have a real choice. i want people to have a choice, a public plan has to be one of those choices for so many americans. >> what do you think when politicians will think of when they go on break. why are they going on vakation when they discuss healthcare. >> you are really never on break. i'll hold town hall meetings and going out and visiting our vino vinors -- seniors. august is a time we'll be home

but not necessarily on vakation. the american people right now really can't afford to take a vacation. then to come back to washington after we've worked out in our districts, come back and really get this done for the american people. host: scott is on the line. good morning, scott. >> good morning. thank you for c-span. you are a great spokes person for this issue. unfortunately, we have a lot of elected official that's are just mouth pieces for the eej care industry. they are already indicating that preexisting conditions are something they would take into

consideration. i wanted to say that sclugss are extremely important. i would love to see a bill where there are no exclusions from coverage. you could be ex-clueded from imaging or this, that or the other thing. it could wind up costing you thousands and thousands over and above your deductible. i should really only be charged according to what i'm able to pay a $500 die ductable so i know what it is going to cost me over and above my monthly premium. thank you for c-span. >> thank you for the call.

we've been talking about this in the house. the senate finance committee, it has already passed the senate committee, which is chaired by senator edwards. what is happening on both sides of capitol hill. >> it means there are multiple committees in the house and the senate that have to take a look at the legislation. i'm focussed on the house side.r i think 9 senate can do what it does. our job is to do the work of the people representing the district. host: when you come back after labor day? >> the staffing members will be working to put these bills together and sort through the

provisions that are alike and not alike and which ones make more sense in contacting the other. we will have one bill to vote on when we come back. that's one that embraces the education labor committee. we are going to make sure if you make $85,000 a year and you are a family of four, lue receive some subsidy graduate u waited sdoun ward from that point to help you with your health insurance premiums. then we will have other provisions in the one bill that will make sure to cover

preexisting conditions. we'll add more in there to add more doctors and nurses. this is really complex. over the 4th of july, i read the draft. i'll have a chance to digest the changes from that and then we'll have one bill we vote on. host: you are one of 35 first-term democrats taking a look at 26 of them. winning in what were previous republican seats. look at the margin of vishthryes of some of those democrats. also looking at the previous republican candidate won by in 2006 and look at how all of it

is impacting the healthcare debate. on the phone from pennsylvania, good morning. caller: good morning. i have two questions. my first is for representative he had card -- edwards. everyone likes to make a big deal about how much insurance companies are contributing but how much are law firms giving? >> well, i med a that that i would not receive anything. it is a decision i've made. other members make other decisions. i will say this. the millions of dollars that go

into campaigns and advertising that goes on to influence legislation really does impact the debate and conversation. i think we need to divorce what we are doing on a policy level. it's why i've long believed in public funding of campaigns to separate the money from the politics. our job here is to really focus on healthcare reform, real people and their experiences with their doctors and healthcare system. if we do that, we'll come up with the right thing for the american people. it is when we become diverted. i want to get back to center. is that means focusing on where people are having really

horrible currencies with our system. host: this tweet comment says we need a death clock like a regular an debt clock. what about the american people that do not want a public plan. and i'm not a member of a big insurance company. and trisha on the phone. good morning. caller: i have a question. i hear democrats complain. i want to ask the public what makes you think when you abolish all the private insurance companies which will come about that there won't be someone on

the government plan, i'm sorry, you are too old for this or no, m. r. i.s are not acceptable or i'm sorry, not able to get that test. obama is going to curve its cost. doctors won't make a living, they won't be doctors. if anyone thinks the government plan is the answer is very, very wrong. >> let me say what the legislation is. there's been a lot of misinformation out there. this is not an attempt to

abolish insurance plans. if you work for an employer who has a plan, can you keep your plan. you can choose from private insurers or public. it's all about patient and consumer choice. i think we have created in the two bills reported out of the house, we've created a system where patients really have a choice. they can keep their current insurer or go into the public plan. all of that, i believe, that kind of competition will lower costs. notice there is not one caller, tweet or email that is praising their insurance company. james is on the phone from ohio.

>> i have a two-fold question. we got the blue dogs holding the bills up. if he thinks that the base is going to sit around waiting for him when he runs for higher office later on 4-6 years the road, he has another thing coming. my problem with healthcare is here, it's not a written rule but for the most part, healthcare is almost a given right in america. if you get sick, you'll be dreet treated. . . .

why do we even have insurance companies? guest: well, james raises two very important points, and one is that, you know, in some ways the hidden -- there's a hidden cost of people who don't have insurance who seek medical care and that is all of the rest of us who do have insurance are already paying for that fact, and unfortunately, because people wait when they are sick, to not go to a primary doctor

but go to an emergency room, the cost of that care we celebrated the 44th anniversary of medicare yesterday. people love medicare, even though there are some problems around different parts of the country, that that's a far more efficient administrative system than private insurers, so we're going to try to lower those administrative costs and coverage costs and people will have their choice, and then i think james has really hit it. then we're not paying all those hidden costs of people seeking emergency room care. host: can we check in with you during the summer? guest: unfortunately i live here, so you can. host: congresswoman donna

edwards. the book is called "culture of corruption" "washington journal" moves into its second hour at the bottom of the hour chronicle of white house thattistics mark miller will be joining us on this friday morning but first a news update from c-span room. >> it's 8:03 a.m. eastern time, the commerce department releases its goodell report expected to show the resession easing report tling economy shrank at a 1.5% compared to a 6% drop the previous six months. on critical the house will vote on legislation that could limit corporate bonuses, this in response to million-dollar bonuses paid by banks that accepted taxpayer money. roll call reports the debate on sonia sotomayor's -- senator

max baucus says he hasn't made up his mind on whether or not to confirm the judge. there are 65 expected yes votes, 60 are needed to confirm. those expecting more than twice ads many disibility claims they state resession as well as the aging baby boomer workforce now reaching their most injury-prone years. and an update on the war in afghanistan defense department officials say there's a possibility the general in charge of special forces there will ask for more troops. he is preparing an assessment. >> and in recollect multiple car bombs have exploded near three shiite mosques fear baghdad killing at least 24 people. it's become one of the deadliest bombings since the war began. and g.m. now realizes it made a mistake when it ordered some

dealerships closed earlier this year. a spokes woman says it's now reversed that decision for dozens of dealerships. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span room. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome back michele malkin who is out with her new book. guest: thanks for having me, steve. host: first you say the obama's team is a disfunctional and dangerous conglomerate a business as usual croneys, barak obama owns this cabinet of tacks cheats, crooks and croneys it is his and his alone. judge him by the company he keeps. >> yes. guest: i have to thank david brooks for inspiring this. the culture of corruption opens with a column he had written not long after the election day and just sort of foretelling this klick of achievea-trons

and how phenomenal he was impressed that obama brought with him the best of the washington insiders and praised their ivy league pedigrees, and really this was sort of a repeat of, you know, this idea that somehow these smarty pants were going to come in and change washington. and well, it didn't take long before the obama administration disabused us of that notion in a very big way. and i go through all of the botched nominations and then a lot of the nominations that actually went through, barely by the skin of their teeth. obviously tim quite they are in comes to mind. everybody knows about him, but there are many others that i document and one of the most important and relevant chapters i haven't talked about yet and if you look at the front page of "the new york times" you can

see how well known this is a lot of the officials tied to golden stool and citi who are now reaping enormous bailouts from tim quite they are in and henry paul son preeling proceeding him helped engineer. >> and you wrote host: few january terse in the country worked overtime after barak obama won the presidency. it wasn't easy cleaning the drool off the laptops and floors in the offices of the journalists covering the greatest -- exalted the financially troubled fish rap wrap of record sold the $2,000 worth of obama-themed misdemeanor and the times times has a vested financial interest in propping up the obama administration. >> and that also helped me gave fuel to me fuel to write this book. i did it a in a very

concentrated time period and while i was digging up all these stories and documenting conflicts of interest and croneyism my colleagues and much of the rest of the main stream were slathering over the greatest transition in world history. but even there that was quite a miss because the speed at which the obama administration put people into place was no better than the regan administration. there was a lot of hype about unprecedented this and unprecedented that. and in the end what i concluded was that what was unprecedented were the amount of failures and lapses and business as usual that actually came back to office under guise of hope and change. host: this is one comment saying your president had a record-low approval and your side lost. get over it, get a alive and get a real job.

>> well, change the subject. guest: change the subject. if anyone's real familiar with my work and writing about bush and the last several months of the administration, they would know how hard, probably harder on bush than obama, i was. especially when it came to being architects of these failed financial bailouts. and i think there's quite an irony that ought to be appreciated by this particular tweeter of obama who promised not to continue the old, tired failed policies of the bush administration and yet has many of the treasury officials who helped initiate those policies now in his own administration. host: do you tweet? guest: i certainly do you can find me at@michele malkin and before i came on i let everybody know that i would be here and i follow@c-span and@c-span wj. host: our phone numbers at the

bottom of the screen. journal@c-span.org is our email. you mentioned some of the individuals in the administration that you take aim at first of all you call the c.i.a. director the perfect illustration of the beltway swamp creature and said when it comes to self-policing that puts taxpayers interests above the electoral special interests joe biden doesn't have a serious bone in his body, and you refer to the attorney general, eric holder as a crime-coddling corporate lawyer. >> i think the theme that runs about the culture is there's a massive gap between the obama rhetoric and the reality. i'm not arguing influence-peddlers and power brokers should be outlawed somehow. everybody has to make a living. but the point is team obama

came here on as high a horse as we've ever seen to change the way they do business and yet they have people like leon i netta who par leied an entire career as a government serven't into massive private welterweight. you've got people who came from the hedge fund industries who were bundlers, these are all the prototypes that barak obama and michele obama condemned and yet they fully embraced them in their administration and don't seem to acknowledge the hypocrisy there. >> you moved from -- to colorado springs, how does that affect you in this town? >> i've always had a mental and i had logical detachment from the beltway. that's just part of my views as a conservative but it's easier to view it from the outside and

have my ear to the ground in the grass roots in the mountain west. i feel very liberated out there. and the air is literally and figuratively fresher. host: molly is joining us very early from oakland, california. republican line for michele malkin good morning. caller: god bless you dear for putting up with the incredible abuse. i just bought your book. i haven't had a chance to read it but what drives me crazy is the double-teams -- i want to site obama saying every day you get to keep your private insurance. i'm in the private insurance and i read the bill and in the title of grabbed fathering private health care insurance it goes to explain how within one year of the legalizing of this bill private companies will not be able to sell new policies. people will not be able to go and get their own insurance

within one year of this bill passing and becoming law. and yet the president gets up there and balled face lies and says -- and another a balanced-faced lie. these congress a balanced-faced lie and yet these people fell feel justified in puting this bill and this perfect plan none of them are even going to take this plan. host: your response? guest: yeah. a couple of things. it is galling the contempt and the derision with which members of congress in particular have responded to members of the public about this question of reading the bill. and the story of steny hoyer, the democrat leader essentially laughing when the question was

posed to him, tell you all you need to know about washington's commitment to deliberative democracy and transparency for that matter. i know a lot of people who call into the republican line are as upset as i am that the president essentially admitted he hadn't read the bill either when he was pointed out be the -- >> the conference call. 2k3w0eu7 yes. that the individual market would basically be destroyed he admitted he hadn't even heard of that proigs. and i think that this nearer it is outrage, and we saw it during the stimulus debate. of these massive programs getting rammed through, and then the american people only discovering after they are passed and signed into law that they are not getting what they were promised and in fact every single one of these has turned out to be a slush fund for

special interests and i think that was another reason it was fortunate write to book because when these they think so come and are ramped through we do have the power to say stop and to ask and demand and know who benefits. i have a section in there my question about the health care czar nancy deparo, this is somebody who if he had had an r by her name would have been roundly condemned by obama as a profiteer in the health care industry. in the last years she made upwards of $6 million lobbying and working for various companies, hospital companies and there's been very little disclosure of her activities in the white house because she's a czar. we know thanks to a left-leaning watchdog group crew here in washington that the white house was meeting with these hospital executives and only under threat of

lawsuit did the white house finally disclose the list of executives. they have not, however, told us which white house administration officials were in those meetings. but gets what? nancy depaul has financial ties to some of those executives who were in the meetings. i'd like to know, the public should know was nancy deparo in those meetings and if she was, why didn't she recooz herself? host: good morning. caller: i have two questions, i couldn't wait. i mean, this is what makes politics and i don't even know why i listen i don't even know why in the middle -- c-span has the young lady here. you know, i'm wonder dering where miss malki where you were when bruce leiter spent all those billions and all day there's nothing that you didn't know about it, what about the -- what about all the g.o.p. in

jail and scandals? where were you when other things happened? guest: well, you can just google my name. you can look at my blog and you'll see that i was one of the loudest voices criticizing croneyism and nepotism and you can find many blogs michael brown at fema, a lot of dhs nepotism, which i investigated and covered and uncovered myself. and also you know you can take a look at my files and see even most recently all of the work that i've done criticizing the porkacrats in alaska. don young and ted stevens. i think that my critics suffer from immoral equivalence cri when they can't take a look at

the book where i was written and they say where were you without informing where i was. bush is not in office anymore. barak obama is and that's why i wrote the book. host: a couple photographs inside the book this was the former fwover of illinois and mayor of chicago and president obama. guest: yes. i think it was very important to set the stage for the atmosphere, the culture, the political machine that barak obama grew out of. and there is a section in the book specifically on the episode involving barak obama, valeri jarrett, his senior white house advisor and -- from chicago and the connections to the rod blagblag scandal. -- rod blagojevich scandal and i go into how the employees national union somehow roped into blagojevich's ploy to try

to trade favors for that senate seat. host: you also write about michele obama. the cultured pearls and false eyelashes applied by herful-time make-up artist michele robinson obama is a hardball chicago politico and the first lady long ago was willing to 'em employ racism ackscations of racial o' presentation. >> guest: this seems to raise much amongst my critics. i'm very hard on her and i'm annoyed at the kit gloves she is being treated with and people are coward they don't want to look as racist or -- her father was a patronage

combleeds and she herself floated with the daily administration to a codesy job at the university of chicago medical center. i have very interesting chart that a blogger compiled that i put on page 65 of the book that showed the skyrocketting of her salary at this cozy job at the university of chicago between the time that she was appointed and the time that barak obama won his senate seat. and the salary nearly tripled and they say that's just a mere coincidence well after barak obama won the white house, she left that job and they thought it was not important to fill again after she left. i also talk about i think an interesting episode that happened while she was serving at the university of chicago medical center because it has really advance to the health care debate now. she engineered what many consider a patient-dumping

scheme that busts poor and minority patients out of the emergency room of chicago emergency rooms to others that would supposedly offer better care and the emergency physicians association condemned it as illegal patient turning and the person she hired to sell the plan was none other than david axelrod and susan sure who is now on her staff no in the east wing was also involved and the senior advisor who at the time of this incident was on the chicago university of chicago board of directors. host: i know you get a lot of teapings because you're the contributor for fox news. it says cough, cough, fox? generally your sense about the role fox plays in the dialogue in this town. guest: well, there are many

parts of fox. people confuse that. we keep saying it until we're blue in the face and people don't appreciate yes in prime time you have hosts who have very strong opinions, shawn hannity, glen beck, bill o'reilly. but even among those three there are very diverse opinions on basics -- basic policy matters and on how hard or soft to treat barak obama. then of course there's a new side when i think is unfailingly fair and balanced. so again to level and add holmen in the fox that discredits a 400-page book? that's ridiculous. host: joining us from iowa independent line good morning. caller: yeah. i just found out who holds her paycheck and i wanted to know if this book, what is your answer to all these questions

you have? what is the answer to the corruption in washington? you've got a book out but you don't have any ideas? >> well, guest: well, i think sun light is the best disenfieck tenant and disclosure will help breed disclosure, and i also think very simply that knowledge is power. i think that the american people have not been fully informed about just how much an illusion hope and change the era of hope and change has been, so i think the book is part of the solution. host: another quote from the book, this with regard to secretary of state hillary clinton and bill clinton. they have always had a knack for dragging the attracting the dregs of set to their donor rolls and even greater talent for avoiding the kind of sustained media scrutiny. guest: one, the double standard in the media and two the

antithesis of hope and change. and i understand the political strategy that went on and trying to neutralize hillary clinton by giving her the secretary of state position. but the lack of transparency of both the clintons throughout their political lifetime should really give paws to the honest progressives who thought barak obama was going to do differently and i don't go -- it's not a reread the. the chapter i wrote about the clintons is not a retread of all the scandal. it goes through the massive amount of con flicks of interest between bill clinton and his charitable foundations, many still undisclosed donors. we know about some of them. foreign state governments. very shady businessmen. some cases convicted criminals.

and the kind of work that hillary clinton does now. the administration tells us and hillary clinton told us after she went through the nomination that she would recooz herself when there were conflicts of interest. it's difficult to say when there wouldn't be. and basically their recoozal policy is just, trust us. host: welcome, good morning to the program. caller: foong, how are you michele? i read your blog all the time and i think it's great, especially head morris he's a great writinger. guest: thank you. caller: i'd like to know what happened to ratner? he seems to have left abruptly. did they find something wrong there? i do belief that your books could be an ongoing tragic because of all these changes in the administration all these crooks leaving it. host: we should point out again there's a photograph in the photographs weir looking at all

from the book michele malkin has completed. guest: yes. steven ratner did just leave over the past week and i think that's proof to my thesis that if there's enough sun light you can have accountability. he was under a cloud the moment he was a pointed car czar by barak obama. because his company had been involved until a long standing s.e.c. investigating and a strange incident involving the production of a movie called "chooch" and a play for pay scheme in which ratner had dealings and promises with the directors' relative. involved with the movie. i did dedicate an entire chapter to the czars because i think this is one of the most troubling aspects of the administration. every republican and democrat

administration has had czars. we had a drug czar, homeland security czar and but it's really the scope and breadth of czars barak obama has appointed. and by the blogosphere's count there may be up to 44 of them now who have been installed by presidential authority. they don't have any congressional oversight and in my m cases they are completely su per flouse. we have -- a lot of people don't even know we have the czar, why do we have a health and human services person and health czar. i think up with of the reasons is that the obama vetters got into so much trouble during the formal nomination process that they just threw up their hands or someone cleverly thought of circumventing this issue and

creating a cabinet. host: the problem that o'reilly don't check facts and promote lies. guest: they are as cannibal as anybody else and know the rest of the main stream media fox bashers are going to be on them like white on rice and a lot of these bloggers dedicate their every bit of life to every sentence said on fox news are going to be those report are then regurgitated word for word by a lot of the main stream media so the idea that they are not held accountable for what they say on air is ridiculous. i have joked on my blog about fox derangment syndrome and also serves as a convenient disstrax of what's going on in this administration and how disappoint ad lot of these obama supporters are. host: the current white house chaffin rahm emanuel and from

tony who said would you please comment on his chief of staff and dual citizenship i voted for obama but knew he would be no better. the very nature of power attracts those who should not have it. guest: the dual citizenship of o'manuel? it doesn't bother me. host: good morning. caller: good morning. good morning. good morning. c-span i think you need to do a little better job. i mean everybody has opinions and this young lady need to be on book tv not c-span. excuse me, hold up, let me make my comment. if she so worried about this and worried about that, write a book stating that hey, health care and all this other good stuff, put it out to the people and let them vote on it instead of going through all these changes. if you don't like somebody that's been in office all these years and doing all this crazy stuff put it out there and you

sitting there and going on and on. everybody has opinions. put me on let me voice my opinions. host: well, you're on right now and we appreciate it. did you a equestion? caller: yes. host: ok, john, thank you. guest: well all i'll say is i'm really glad to answer even after all these years i think the first time i appeared on c-span was six or zech years ago and i'm still referred to as young lady. i appreciate that. host: this is also another tweet that says bravo. big fan reading your books at town hall how did you approach this book and write it? >> it was really after the inauguration and not long after that i really just bore down, there's a lot of leverage between what i do and my syndicated column. aye been writing it twice weekly syndicated column for -- since 1992 and then i blog at

michele malkin.com. i've been doing that since 2004. i have wonderful cleaggeds that blog at hot air.com and that blog has been operating for a couple years as well. and the sinner ji between everything i do made it very easy to hammer out the book. a lot of people that's the first thing they note even though main stream reporters do this all the time. there were stain books on michelle obama and the obama administration in january. so i thought what was interesting is up until the very last second hit that went to press, i was updating it. every day in the headlines there's a relevant story that i think that points to the deficient as is. because i would see a story

that sort of glossed over a lot of the conflict of interests and croney ties and i would say see, we need this book. it definitely has filled a vacuum. host: you were on the "today" show with pat lauer. >> i was shocked at all that they had me on, grateful for that opportunity opportunity and they graciously reprinted the entire introduction of the book on their website. but you know, you've got three or four minutes to try to get your point across and most of the questions had nothing to do with the book, which is fine, but i really think there was was really a game of trying to beat the clock and in the end i think matt lauer got beaten. it was a very entertaining experience. host: michelle malkin thank you for being with us on c-span for a full half-hour. the book is called "corruption -- culture of corruption."

he is called by many at the white house as if unofficial or official keeper of white house thattistics. mark knoller you hear him on cbs radio all the time from the north lawn of the white house he will join us on this last day of july, the 31st of the month. "washington journal" is back in a moment. %ñ/ñ >> this week as expected the senate judiciary commee voted to -- tornado watch commee 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-span 2. and coming in october on c-span, tour the home to america's highest cowart, the supreme court. >> on c-span radio hear 1968

lbj phone calls with his secretary of state. nominee richard nixon and billy graham saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span radio. >> george witt signed the declaration of ipt and was also murdered. question and answer with "i am murdered." the killing that shocked a new nation with bruce chadwick on c-span. >> "washington journal" continues. host: at the white house later today and tomorrow morning the president meeting with senior staff and his cabinet members and joining us from the north lawn a longtime radio reporter mark knoller, thank you for being with us. >> you're welcome. good morning. host: we've now reached the sixth month of the o'obama presidency. what's going to happen tomorrow and is there precedence for this type of activity?

guest: well, obama and biden will be getting together across the street at blair house. they are calling it a retreat even though retreats take place in far more appealing places you may take all your top officials with you to jackson wyoming and not just walk across the street. but they'll have a big four-hour dinner to want and the white house is pore traying it as an opportunity for the president to discuss past and future agendas with his top staff, discuss how things have been going, spokesman robert gibbs says it is not a report card on the first six months. it's merely a mid course correction, he says. but he's saying it as a chance to get away from the office and discuss where the administration has been and where it's going.

host: when did you first start covering the white house, mr. knoller? guest: well, i first covered ford's presidential election in 1976. host: so dating back to jimmy carter through george w. bush, what stands out for president obama and the team he's assembled? >> well, he came into office with a very aggressive agenda, determined to get a lot department don on energy policy, on health care policy. he came in with control. control of both chambers of congress, and that gave him the ability to get a lot of bills enacted in the first six months in office. he often boasts about it. the white house says more has been done in this first six months of this administration than in any other recent administration, and so the president wants to continue

that. he finds himself now stuck in trying to get his health care plan through congress. it is not going as easily as he hoped. he months ago set a decline -- deadline of the august recess for getting the health care bill passed in both the house and senate and looks as though he'll now get neither but it looks like he's willing to accept that as long as he thinks both chambers of congress are making forward change on health care and doesn't seem to have pushed the panic button yet but without question he is worried about it. he is doing a lot of public appearances trying to generate popular support for the health care bill he did two town meeting events. in raleigh, north carolina and bristol, virginia on wednesday. he'll be doing more such events in august. he's done a score of interviews about his health care plan.

all designed as a media blitz to try and generate popular support and these urging he's urging people, call your members of congress to try and get his health care plan enacted, but it's controversial, there are provisions in it that even some double-teams very many problems with, a public office the white house is not where it would like to be on this issue. melissa: mark knoller joining us from the white house and heard on cbs radio. you are the keeper of thattistics. one of the figures that came out earlier this week according to my number is that the president has done about 00 interviews since taking office. >> it's a little less than that, but it's a remarkable figure. six months president obama has done scores of sbruste. about 90 really now and the

reason he does them is one he thinks he's good at them, he thinks it's an opportunity for him to generate popular support for his agenda. and so he does all the interviews he can get. not just with major news organizations but with local news organizations and wherever he goes he's willing to sit for an interview and try and use those opportunities to get his agenda across. host: so here are just some of the figures by the numbers courtesy of mark knoller. first of all the number of visits to camp david, zech, a total of all or part of 15 days. president obama has played 12 rounds of golf, five at andrews air force base in maryland and has held 30 news conferences of which five were form. white house sessions and four on prime time and has been on five foreign trips visiting 15 countries. why do you do this?

guest: well, back in the 1990's i noticed bill clinton was making an awful lot of trips to california, an i thought gee it would be interesting to know and report how often he had gone there so i started keeping track, and it would say it's a reporting device. it enables me to illustrate points about the presidency with hard numbers. how many domestic al president has been on. how many times a person has made a trip to a state, how much pardons, how many vetos. they are not a substitute for reporting but i think they add a lot to it and a lot of my colleagues seem to agree and often come to ask for numbers on certain aspects of the presidency. host: well here are more where regard to president clip on the.

number of visits to camp david, 54 totaling all or part of 174 days. vacationed at martha's vineyard for all or part of 174 days. made 55 foreign trips to 72 countries. mark knoller? guest: well, what's also interesting is the opportunity to compare one president's numbers with another. i think you've got some numbers, for example, on georgal w. bush's visits to his ranch at camp david, which also illustrate what's important to a president and aspects of his presidency that you normally don't get in the day in and day out reporting. >> well, you can appreciate this. for our radio audience we were showing some just for our television audience but visiting camp david all or part

of 487 days, made 77 visits to the ranch totaling about 495 days and played a played that he didn't play any golf after october 13. guest: president bush said he felt that after 9/11 and with american forces at war in recollect, and suffering casualties, he felt it was inappropriate for him to be seen in a recreational environment playing golf. and so about five months after the war in recollect began, president obama decided he would no longer play golf. host: jassen joining us from seattle, washington with mark knoller, good morning, jason. caller: hello, this will be a little off topic from health care there's a lot of talk and

buzz right now about some comments that buzz aldrin made on "washington journal" on the anniversary of the apollo mission and this is first time he's ever said this in which he said that on the moon of mars, that there's a monolith on the moon of mars. and that he went on to say that wait until the people find out about that, that they will want to ask how did it get there and who built it? the question i ask you is do you ever get tired of the day-to-day questions that you ask in the white house press conferences about health care and the same old types of questions? do you think that you might be able to ask the president about what he thinks about space exploration? host: thank you, jason. guest: certainly that is a legitimate question to ask the question about on the anniversary of the apollo 11 moon landing.

president obama met with the apollo 11 astronauts. i didn't get a chance to ask him but had we, we would have asked about buzz aldrin's recommendation that instead of going to the moon that the next big nasa mission would be to go to mars. right now the administration is not pursuing that. the administration also realizes it would be an enormously expense i mission to pursue, and with an $11.6 trillion national debt there really isn't much money or any money that isn't deficit funding for such a mission. but you're right. it does get tedious asking sfokesman robert gibbs the same questions, and it's why you probably don't see much of that on 'til vision because we are getting the same answers and it's not really news.

once the health care measure goes forward and is passed, and there's newsworthy information, it will be conveyed. we're honorbound to ask the spokesman about these issues. it is certainly a priority for the president, but you're right. it does get tedious. >> the c-span of course cover it is daily briefingsing with robert zpwibs. back in the first administration marlin fits water would have the first five minutes open for cameras then turn it off. they changet? because -- guest: certainly the more openness, the better. if the american people can watch the spokesman for the executive branch answering questions, that is certainly a democratic feature that is worth protecting.

brand-new when i first started covering the white house in the 1970's and 1980's. none of the daily white house briefings was available for cameras and the same was true at the department of state. and it was only carter i recall during the runner hostage crisis that he opened the daily briefings at the state apartment. and as you mentioned, mike mccurry was here. host: good morning with mark knoller of cbs news. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my question and comment. my comment is i believe this is, un, of course america, and i believe that the health care should be thoroughly explained to the people of america. so that we can all have our position heard now a formal collection procedure so everyone has a right to say what they want.

i feel that's fair. my question is on health care fur employed you say the obama administration is allowing you to keep your health care plan if you want it. but what if you're not active? what if you're -- guest: president obama repeatedly says if you're happy with the health care plan you have now the government will not force you to change it. so you can hear the very careful wording in that. the government will not force you. if the employer or former employer that provides your health care in retirement chooses to change it, well, the government isn't going to stop them from doing that. host: darren on our camera. i'm going to ask him to pull out and get some context to exactly where you're located on

an area formerly known as pebble beach now known as stonehedge. guest: used to be called pebble beach because this grassy area was covered with large pebbles. and so it got that neck name. but during the bush administration they put down slate, so there's no more water accumulation. used to come out here and you'd get mud up to your ankles from walking in the wet or snowy fwass. we are in the -- on the one-side of the northwest driveway. actually, years ago during the regan administration, we used to be on the other side of the destroy. but of the driveway. but mrs. laura bush didn't like us that close to the white house. she pushed us back on this side of the driveway. and this is where we remain. and it still has the nickname pebble beach. it is the stone henage because

you can see all these large monoliths to use the word, one often our callers did earlier, covered with green tarps to cover up the light stands and camera stands. mrs. bush felt it was an eye sore to have all these things exposed and she asked the network that is keep equipment out here to cover them up with green tarp and from a distance it sort of fades into the grass and tourists out on pennsylvania avenue looking in won't see it as an eye sore, in her view. host: mark knoller. cbs correspondent and our tour guide from the lawn. from ash lund, kentucky, good morning, welcome to the program. caller: yes, i just want to make a comment on the bashing of the clenton administration and all that kind of stuff. it wasn't the double-teams or

independents or democrats or anybody else who put obama in office. any democrat would have won period. host: thank you. the comment from one longtime advisor and aide to now former president bush who said in his new life as a private citizen he doesn't need a communications director he needs a goalie because he does not intend to be a very public president at least for the next 18 months. guest: well, we have certainly seen that in the six months since president obama left office. i can think of only would you be or two public appearances he has made. he has not commented on anything. president obama has done. and he told us that that was going to be his philosophy. that he felt it feels inappropriate for the former president to harp on the

policies of his successor. he feels he was following the lead of his dad, george herbert walker bush, who kept a very low profile and off the radar screen after he was defeated by bill clinton, and he kept out of the limelight and kept his phenoms himself for several years. host: from franklin, new jersey, on with mark knoller. independent line. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, please. caller: thank you. i'm just cures on why we are not addressing the economy first. it is so important, the economy. because how are people going to pay for any health insurance? that's number one. number two, why are they not fixing medicare. it's a government-run agency. and i am on medicare. i'm on disability. and i just don't understand what the problem is that tanks -- medicare is going bankrupt.

guest: well, president obama as recently as yesterday argued that his policies have helped the economy he says the financial markets, the credit markets, have been stablized on his watch. he pointed out how this week housing prices are up for the first time in three years. i know the gross domestic product figures were due out at 8:30, about 10 minutes from now, -- host: this just in from the home office yes we do new government reports showing the economy sank at pace of 1% better than expected according to the a.p. striding the strongest evidence so far that the resession may still be winding down. guest: so that is far less negative growth than the first-quarter of the year which was about 6%.

so president obama says the resession is easing. he didn't go so far as to repeat wednesday he said we may be at the beginning of the end of the resession. and he says that if he is helping the economy to recover, that medicare will recover as a result as well. and he also says his health care plan will serve to help medicare. to ease the medicare unfunded liability as well, although there are certainly members of congress that certainly doubt that. senator orrin hatch says medicare faces a $38 trillion -dollar liability, and that's certainly more money than his mother had or will have enough

for all those eligible for such benefits. host: joe already has a comment on your description and says the press setup is quite an eye sore. it looks like a peace ship crashed on the lawn. >> i don't know. doesn't look good. guest: but the white house is certainly comp mazing mizing. it doesn't like us here but knows having us here is a way for it to getth get its message out so it holds it knows and sexual owes. would you prefer we were across the street? you bet. host: and the former white house pool transformed in the nixon administration. guest: and there is a staircase at the -- behind the podium in the briefing room, you can walk down and see the walls of the swimming pool that used to be there. but now the entirety of that pool is filled up with cables and wires and that come date

all of the electronic broadcasters that are here at the white house on a daily basis. host: we have gone an hour and 43 minutes on this program without talking about one story. this is the headline of the "new york daily news" and others, they call it the brouhaha, not going to ask you about the event last night but the media coverage of what some called the beer summit and the president trying to tamp down the frenzy that was exhibited late yesterday the coverage u.s.s. is so often the case by what we do was over the top. the coverage certainly. exceeded the importance of the meeting. president obama said yesterday that he was fascinated by the press' fascination with what came to be known as the beer summit heand took issue with us and said it is not a summit. it is a meeting. it was three guys sitting down at the end of the day to have a drink.

it ended up to be four guys because vice president biden joined president obama professor gates and sergeant crawly at a wrought iron table on the patio of the rose garden fanned coverage of it was about a minute's worth of a photo op from 50 feet away, certainly too far away to hear anything being said just enough to give photographers and cameras a long-distance look at the president and these two individuals and in order for us to illustrate the story about this round of talks. very unusual talks of the president of the united states getting followed through -- what was part of very a local police matter. host: front page of "the new york times" as theyed that beer and peanuts and pretzels in silver bowls. next is frank joining us from the phone in atlanta. good morning. caller: yes.

good morning, steve i have a question for both you and mark. host: certainly. caller: why when republicans on your show, even the leaders, the republican leaders and for years with president regan, they denigrateed the democratic party by when they speak and talk about representative or senator they say democrat. it's democratic. he's a leader. and it's the democratic party it's not democrat party and you let the republicans get away with that, and nobody calls them out. i'm amazed. nobody says this is wrong. that's not english and also about the beer summit, i mean, come on. the race problem in america is much deeper than president obama sitting down with two or three guys, gates and crowley. we're not in a post racial society yet. host: thank you for the call.

you're a master of words. is it democrat or democratic or both? >> certainly congressman steny hoyer is a democrat but the party is the democratic national commee and we've heard these come plaints before some republicans call it the democrat party because they know it irritates the democrats. i have been criticized on occasion for using that phrase. president bush once called it the democrat party and he corrected himself because he said he knows it bothers those in the democratic party. host: in our remaining minutes we want to share with our party again some statistics courtesy of mark knoller and his travels and former president clinton and former president george w. bush. richard joins us. caller: good morning. yeah, i have one thing i'd like to say. why is it an -- by our last

caller? why is it that it's always so negative about any part of it? the only thing seems like they come up with is negativity. and the fact is your last guest writes a book and tells all of the negative parts, nothing else. how can we ever get back in the world's view of us if we just keep saying all negative? why would anybody want to just thrive on negativity? host: thank you and also kathleen wright who says we are so dumbed down a beer amazed our journalists? we're talking about other things. guest: well there was an information yesterday we found out what types of beer each of the participants had. i wouldn't alert the pulitzer commee about that but the professor had bud light professor gates had sam adams.

sergeant crowley had blue moon and vice president biden had a non-alcoholic brew. host: and how do you go about your craft trying to convey the essence of your story in a minute or less? guest: well boiling down a new story to the essence is what journalism is all about. not just on radio but i also tweet on twitter. tweet on twitter. . proceedings for political or comm ercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] >> is there one statistic with this president that intrigues

you the most? guest: well, i started counting his number of trips on air force one and marine one. to date, president obama has made 101 flights on marine one, and he has made some 57 flights on air force one. at the end of the bush administration, i remember wanted to report how many times did flown on air force one, and it took a lot of effort to find out that it was over 1500 trips on air force one. i thought that was fascinating. it also gives insight into the amount of travel that an american president does. host: he serves on cbs radio. what is your tweeted address. >> it is that twitter.com /marknolar. host: thank you for being with us. we're going to take you to the

floor of the u.s. house of representatives in just a moment. on the issue today, executive compensation. the backdrop -- some of the headlines this morning with the big bonuses totaling nearly $33 billion. the financial times and the "wall street journal," and the washington post." we're watching the house energy and commerce committee. the continue to market the health care bill, one of three key committees in the house working on health-care legislation. we're told that the senate finance committee will hold off on any of its market until after the august recess. we will have live coverage of the house energy and commerce committee today available at c- span.org. we're back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. east coast time. again, watching the floor of the house of representatives for morning business. it will convene momentarily. thank you for being with us on this friday. have a good weekend.

the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, reverend dr. rayley, baptist church, birdstown, tennessee. the chaplain: we humbly come before you in this hallowed place that we might seek your wisdom of the work for those you have chosen to serve our nation. follow the many people in this land that is hurting. there are people this morning who are afraid, they are confused and they are fearful of the future and what it holds. father, they need the help of this congress. god, accept the prayer as our confession of faith in you and total dependence on you.

forgive us for we have failed and fallen short. father, you'd know the solution our nation needs. teach it to these who've been chosen to lead our nation so that they can know your will as well. father, may future generations call these who are now assembled the greatest generation. let them be like those who came before them who rose to their country's need and were thus called. may they say of these they did their best, they are great -- a great generation. father god, we say this in your name. god bless america. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from south carolina, congressman wilson.

mr. wilson: everyone, including our guests in the gallery, please join in. 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: without objection, the gentleman from tennessee, congressman davis, is recognized for one minute. mr. davis: madam speaker, it's an honor to thank my friend and pastor, dr. ivan raley of first baptist church in birdstown for joining us today. pastor raley has served with our chump since 2002 and is retired after 10 years of service as regional vice president of the regional home. he's traveled on mission trips to belize, guatemala. and in 2001 he went to new york to serve as chaplain after the

9/11 attack. he also went to rwanda in 1994. i want to thank ivan for being here today and for serving our church family for the past seven years. i look to him to help build a stronger america for our children and our grandchildren. now in the most difficult economy, i appreciate pastor raley being there to join me in search of findans and wisdom. on behalf of my colleagues, i welcome dr. raley and, again, i thank him for delivering our invocation here this morning. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair will entertain up to five further requests of one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. kilroy: thank you, mr.

speaker. in my district as many districts around the country, medical debt has been a contributing factor in bankruptcies and in foreclosures. in fact, 72 million americans today are affected by the issue of medical debt. another more insidious but other issue from medical debt and one that costs our constituents a great deal of money is the issue of medical debt that is paid let or is settled eventually but paid, nevertheless, but has gone to collections and is reported negatively on a credit report or score. 28 million americans pay their medical debt off over a period of time. some of those accrue debt only because of a dispute with an insurance company. some of them, because of the high cost of medical care and high deductibles or caps that

have been exceeded during the course of the year. some because of job loss. but that negative credit score stays with them for years to come. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. kilroy: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. emerson: i rise to recognize the 150th anniversary of my childhood parish, st. catholic roman church in loveland, ohio. 10 families worked together to raise money to purchase an old one-room schoolhouse from the village of loveland. like many, the original did not meet the needs of the local catholic community for very long. and in 1893 they built the second house of worship on that site. a few years later, a school was built. this church will hold a special place on my heart because my home is built from its bricks. as the paschish was celebrating

the -- parish was celebrating the 100th anniversary, they were forced to go to a different site. i was in attendance that day 50 years ago when the archbishop dedicated the new school building which housed the church and the cafeteria. they required separate additions to house the church. and in 2002, the church finally moved out of the school and into its own building. each year i've had the privilege to host the eighth grade students to the capital. i am honored to be their congresswoman and tour guide. mr. speaker, i ask you to help celebrate their 150th anniversary and wish them continued success. god bless them and god bless the united states of america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlelady rise? >> to address though the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> during the upcoming august work period my colleagues and i will travel back to our districts to talk about meaningful health care reform to fix what's broken and

protects what works. one thing that does not work is the skyrocketing cost of medical treatment in the united states. if congress is serious about tackling the issue, we must address the growing concern of chronic disease. preventable condition this is a account for 85% of total health spending osmbeesity alone costs $-- obese -- of total health spending. obesity alone costs billions of dollars each year. i'm introducing legislation to offer a 20% discount for those who make positive health choices, such as stopping smoking, maintaining a healthy body weight. this will dramatically reduce overall costs. as we look at health insurance reform, we need to make sure we look at encouraging wellness. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and i yield

back. 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, so ordered. mr. wilson: i rise in fond fare well to a member of the congressional staff, allen amar. he served in our field office before coming here. he is leaving washington behind for his law school career in ohio. he will be joined by his wife amber who plives served on the staff of the second district with dr. phil roe. he's been vital in helping staff with military issues, where he's brought his own experience as a veteran of the army national guard in iraq he appreciates the service members, families, and veterans. he's the son of allen and debra amar of johnson tennessee and brother of adam amar.

we are all tremendously proud of allen and amber and wish them and their young son, alexander jacob, all the best in the years to come. god speed to the amar family. in conclusion, god bless our troops, we'll never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> as we debate health care reform legislation, my republican friends say, things are fine just the way they are. take two tax breaks and call me in the morning this despite the fact that health care costs has grown faster than wages this in spite of the fact that 46 million americans are uninsured. when my republican friends say the american people don't deserve health reform, my response is, are you kidding?

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, soed or eard. mr. cao: august 24, 2009, marks the fourth anniversary of hurricane katrina. as i return to my district, i'm reminded not so much of the horror wreaked on the innocent but in the power of every citizen as they returned to new orleans. i lost everything in the storm. my wife and i were forced to start over after losing our home and business. as katrina became the byword of our nation's social ills and failure many questioned the logic of rebuilding. but one only has to look around new orleans today to dispute that line of reasoning. new orleans and jefferson parishes are reeme erging as

the -- re-emerging as the prosperous areas they once were. they are starting to boost commerce and help the job market. the stafford act must be redesigned to bring central natural disaster assistance and there must be a fundamental change in fema's approach to catastrophic disasters. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from maryland rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, ordered. ms. edwards: mr. speaker, today it's time for health care reform. now there are some out there who like to claim that we don't need to do reform now because the private marketplace will take care of everything. the private marketplace hasn't taken care of anything except to increase deductibles, increase premiums, increase co-pays and cost the american people. let me tell you what that means in my home state in maryland. in 2001, if you were paying the

average of $600 a month for your health care, today you're paying an average of $1,000 a month for your health care. i don't know about anybody else but in my household, an extra $400 a month is real money, it's grocery ares, an electric bill, it's day care. this is an important cost to the american people. it's time for us to enact a uniquely american plan, doesn't embrace the insurance industry or close down the insurance industry but says you have to compete with a public plan that relies on medicare rate that ensures we have real competition and that there's real change for the american people. it's time for us to get this done, to educate the american people, get this done for the public so we can be competitive. i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise many mr. poe: request permission to address the house for one minute? the speaker pro tempore: without objection, ordered. mr. poe: government-run health care has been around in england

for years. in those years, the government still hasn't got it right. british health care commission, ironically renamed the care quality commission, reported that 1,200 people have died needlessly at two british hospitals over the last two years. the two hospitals have filthy conditions, unhygienic practices and the government report says government-run hospitals don't have enough doctors and nurses and they are poorly trained. they don't know how to use cardiac monitors and the hospitals don't have enough of the monitors they don't know how to operate. the british report says the two government-run hospitals have left patients with no food no water no medicine for up to four days. mr. speaker, this is another example of government-run health care that hasn't worked. doctors and nurses are rationed, care is rationed, medicine and food and water are also rationed. the british health care plan is just don't get sick because the government-run system can't help you. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> today is a great day. my committee, the energy and commerce committee, will remort out a health care reform bill today. it means -- what it means is people will finally be guaranteed, they'll know they have health care regardless of what job they have, they won't lose it if they go from job to job. right now we have a lot of people who are uninsured. they will be provided with health insurance. we have a lot of other people who are afraid they'll lose their job or won't be able to afford health insurance. we'll address the affordability issue by bringing down depors people who have insurance. we'll guarantee whether or not you have a health condition, regardless of your gender, you'll be able to get the same health care, you'll get the same insurance policy and you won't be discriminated against. this is a real opportunity for america to see that this congress can actually do the job, get the job done, cover everyone, reduce costs, and

finally have the peace of mind that you're guaranteed health insurance. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> the american people know we have we need health care reform but the american people have been gaven reprieve on the government plan to enact a government takeover of health care paid for with $100 billion in new taxes that tax increase number has been disputed in the past 24 hours so i thought i'd pull the stats. according to the congressional budget office and the joint committee on taxation, the house democrat reform bill includes $543 billion in the surtax on high income filers, $208 billion in increased taxes on businesses, an additional set of tax increases, international tax inest creases they're referred to, $37

billion, more taxes on benefits, $30 billion so the total amount of tax increases include in the democrat bill according to official estimates $820.1 billion over 10 years. the chance for me american people to know what's in this plan and come back and pass health care reform without more government and more taxes? priceless. let the debate begin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? >> by direction of the committee on rule i call up house resolution 697 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 100, house resolution 697, resolved that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 3269 to amend the securities exchange act of 1934 to provide shareholders with an advisory vote on executive compensation and to prevent perverse incentives in the compensation

practices of financial institutions. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against considerations of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 21. the amendment in the nature a substitute recommended by the committee on financial services shall be considered as adopted. the bill as amended shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions of the bill as amended are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill as amended to final passage without intervening motion except, one, one hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the committee on financial services. two, the amendment reported in the report of the committee on rules if offered by representative frank of massachusetts or his designee which shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent and shall not be subject to a demand for

division of the question. three, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the report of the committee on rules if offered by representative garrett of new jersey or his designee, shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 30 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent and four, one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. section two, all points of order against amendments printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution are waived, except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 21. section three. during consideration of an amendment, printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution, the chair may postpone the question of adoption as though under clause 8 of rule 20. section four, in the engrossment of h.r. 3269, the clerk is authorized to make technical and conforming changes to amender to instructions.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an hour. >> all time yielded in consideration of the rule is for debate only. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i also ask unanimous consent that all members be given five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on house resolution 697. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: house resolution 697 provides for consideration of h.r. 3269, the corporate and financial institution compensation fair act of 2009 under a structured rule. it provides one hour of general debate controlled by the committee on financial services. the rule makes in order an amendment by chairman frank derek baitable for 10 minutes, and makes in order an amendment in the nature of the substitute by representative garrett, debatable for 30 minutes.

the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. i rise today in support of h.r. 3269, the corporate and financial institution fairness act. i would like to congratulate my good friend and colleague from massachusetts, chairman barney frank, for all of his hard work on this bill. mr. speaker, if the last year has taught us anything, it's that the compensation practices of some of our largest corporations have gotten completely out of control. middle class americans on main street are struggling to hold on to their jobs, struggling to pay for health care and education and food and energy. they have seen their wages stagnate while their costs have skyrocketed. meanwhile, over on easy street, things are great. corporate executives are continuing to give themselves multimillion dollar pay packages. the golden parachutes are still flying. one of the most egregious of

this came when american taxpayers watched as a.i.g. doled out lavish bonuses after being bailed out of the financial mess they helped create. chairman frank is thoroughly committed to ensuring our financial system remains sound. and i am pleased to see this bill as the first piece of larger reforms by the house financial services committee. mr. speaker, i would also like to voice my support for the proposed consumer financial protection agency. i know there has been strong pushback from the industry, but i would like to commend my colleagues for their perseverance in putting these protections in place. the bill will help to give the owners of these corporations, the shareholders a meaningful voice in how companies are run. specifically, this bill grants shareholders a say on pay for top executives by guaranteeing them a nonbinding advisory vote on their company's pay practices. again, this vote is nonbinding.

the boards of directors and the compensation committees are free to ignore their shareholders' wishes, but those shareholders will at least have the opportunity to express their views. the bill will also strengthen the ability of federal regulators, namely, the federal reserve and the federal deposit insurance corporation to restrict pay structures that encourage inappropriate risk at financial companies. if regulators see a large company driving itself off the cliff by employing unstable pay practices for top executives, they should have the ability to act. i'm pleased that the financial services committee adopted a number of amendments. to note one in particular, mr. hensarling, my republican colleague from texas, recognized the need to take the size of the institution into account. his amendment to exempt financial institutions with assets of less than $1 billion from the bills' incentive base compensation disclosure requirements and related compensation oversight was adopted in committee.

i look forward to the debate on this bill and on the republican substitute which is made in order under this rule. i urge my colleagues to set a -- send a strong message that the misbehavior in corporate america must come to an end by supporting this bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i thank you so much, and i appreciate the gentleman from massachusetts, my friend, mr. mcgovern, for yielding me time this morning. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this rule and to the underlying legislation. the structured rule does not call for the open and honest debate that we really had been promised years ago by our democratic colleagues to have an open, honest debate on the issues that are before this country. but once again, time in and time out here we are without an open rule. mr. speaker, it's my intention

today to discuss the dangerous precedent that this legislation sets forth on the future of business in america and the strangle hold that government will have over the free enterprise system. additionally, i offered two amendments in the rules committee last night, and i will discuss those here today. one would ensure this legislation would not create a bonanza for trial lawyers, and the other would provide for the necessary transparency and disclosure for shareholders. both were rejected by the democrats in the rules committee and eliminated from debate on the house floor today. mr. speaker, government takeover of the free enterprise system seems to be a common theme with this democrat congress and with the obama administration. a theme that has led to record deficits and record unemployment. this underlying legislation has masked itself as a bill to restrict c.e.o. pay by giving shareholders a nonbinding vote

on executive compensation. yet, in a reality it gives the government broad authority to review and determine appropriate compensation for every employee of a financial firm. this legislation empowers the federal government to set unprecedented standards for annual shareholder votes while providing broad government authority for regulators who will have guidance to implement this and give authority to them over the free enterprise system. we all agree that we need to curb abuses of the past and to promote responsible approaches to executive compensation. but this bill provides unprecedented government intervention in the free enterprise system. it is the wrong solution. the goal of regulatory reform should be to help, not hinder, our economy's ability to sustain economic growth and job

creation. this legislation does the opposite by legislating a one-size-fits-all rule for public companies that discourage private firms from going public. this will limit u.s. companies' access to the capital markets and undermine u.s. economic competitiveness. this legislation allows financial regulators the authority to determine wages for all employees, not just c.e.o.'s, officers and bankers, but everyone. the rank and file of community banks, minority banks and credit unions could all have their compensation determined by unelected washington bureaucrats. this perception undermines the confidence in corporate america, and unfairly taints the vast majority of u.s. companies.

in an effort to provide the clarification necessary to ensure the intent of this legislation is not to create a bonanza for trial lawyers. i offered an amendment in the rules committee. the amendment would have clarified that this legislation simply creates no new private right of action in our courts, nor would its passage make a compensation committee's decision to uphold its fiduciary responsibility to shareholders subject to any existing private right of action. without this amendment trial lawyers will be able to exploit a new opportunity to shakedown companies for huge payments by -- shake down companies for huge payments. this is a commonsense amendment that should have been considered on the house floor today, and it should be in the

bill as law. my second amendment would have provided sunshine and transparency for shareholders by requiring a full s.e.c. disclosure about who is financing efforts to influence votes on this new connelly mandated -- this new congressionally mandated nonbinding resolution. this amendment would put shareholders with access to information about who is spending money to influence that vote. as federal candidates, we are obligated to disclose to the federal election commission the name, occupation and amount given from each of our donors. we require this because the public interest is advanced by letting voters know who funds each candidate's campaign. my amendment asks the same disclosure so that shareholders

know what people, what organization, whether they be labor unions, environmental groups, consumer advocates or simply a normal citizen of this country. we need to know who is spending money on influencing this new machine -- mandated nonbinding vote. americans pride themselves on a marketplace that works for all of us. yet, today, congress will pass legislation that increases government intervention in the financial markets, rations resources, limits consumer choices and dictates wages and prices. in a time of economic recession with record unemployment and record deficits, congress should be enacting legislation to assist our economy. mr. speaker, the motives are

clear. this administration and this congress are using policy and regulation to force a government takeover further of the free enterprise system. mr. speaker, this congress should be doing things to encourage employment, to encourage people to go back to work, to encourage competitiveness, to encourage our country to be prepared tomorrow, not to have record unemployment, not to spend more money for record debts but to give america and the free enterprise system the chance and opportunity it deserves to flourish in america. mr. speaker, i encourage my colleagues to vote against this rule and the underlying legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from

massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, we have no further speakers at this time. i'd reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, in closing, i'd like to stress that while my friends on the other side of the aisle claim to be protecting consumers with this legislation, they refuse to protect all americans in this legislation from trial lawyers from benefiting from their tax dollars, and they also voted in the committee against transparency and accountability. mr. speaker, as a nation, we have many, many, many real problems to teal with that require leadership and dedication to ensure the future of this nation. we need to provide for jobs, encourage economic growth and spur innovation and prosperity of this nation, not to hamper the free enterprise system. this is without question further government control and

muzzling of the free enterprise system. some argue that this legislation's about executive compensation, but in reality it continues to be the government takeover of the free enterprise system. i encourage a no vote on this structured rule and a no vote on the underlying legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself the remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, as we are about to adjourn for the august recess, i think it's important to note that this is a congress that has accomplished a great deal. we have passed all 12 of our appropriations bills. we passed historic recovery and reinvestment act, which is keeping teachers and police officers employed, that is stimulating economic growth throughout this country. we have passed an energy bill that if signed into law will create thousands and thousands of new green jobs as well as

free us of our dependence on foreign oil. we have extended schip which means that more and more children have access to health care. we passed the lilly ledbetter pay equity act bill. yesterday we passed a food safety bill. so we did all of this in spite of resistance and in spite of obstructionism by many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. but i think it's an indication that this is a congress that has accomplished a great deal. let me just say finally, mr. speaker, with regard to the underlying legislation, that if you like the status quo, if you want to embrace the same old same old when it comes to corporate misbehavior, then vote against the rule and vote against the bill. if you want things to change, if you want to ensure corporate responsibility, then please support the underlying bill championed by chairman frank. with that, mr. speaker, i urge a yes vote on the previous question and on the rule, and i

yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the rule. -- on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the adoption of the resolution. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is agreed to. and without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempor for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise in mr. frank: pursuant to house resolution 697, i call up h.r.

6239 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: unocalen darp number 131, a bill to amend the securities exchange act of 1934 to provide shareholders with an advisory vote on compensation and prevent perverse incentives in compensation packages. the speaker pro tempore: the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on financial services is adopted and the bill is amended and is considered read. after one hour of debate on the bill as amended, the amendment printed in house report 111-237 if offered by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. frank, or his designee, shall be considered read and shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided or controlled by the proponent and an

opponent. thereafter, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the report, offered by the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett, or his designee shall be considered read and shall be debatable for 30 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. frank, and the gentleman from alabama, mr. bachus, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. frank: i recognize myself for such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frank: i have encountered gaps between rhetoric and reality in this chamber, never one as great as the wildly distorted the de-prescription

of this bill that we got before. let's be clear. there are differences between the party here's on the whole. at least as reflected in the committee vote, i think it will be different on the floor there is much mess -- much less difference than there used to be on the say on pay. when the republicans were in the majority prior to 2007, on this and many other issues, the democrats tried to do reform and got nowhere. we did try to bring up this. the republicans used their majority not to allow it. in 2007, when we were in the majority we did bring it to the floor, it passed other the objection of most republicans. i'll introduce to the record their comments on say on pay. they've moved some. they are for reform on say on pay, though a somewhat watered down form. one thing i want to address here is the question of -- but

i should say, there's a stark difference between us remaining on whether or not any action shall be take bin the federal government to restrain compensation practice this is a inflict excessive risk on the economy. we should be clear this assertion that this allows the control of all wages and prices is nonsense. there is nothing about prices at all in the bill. as to wages, what it says is that the s.e.c. may -- shall impose rules that prevent excessive risk taking. and the reference to wages is only in that context. the amount of wages is irrelevant. what this bill explicitly aims at is this practice where people are given bonuses if the gamble pays off but don't lose anything if it doesn't. there's widespread consensus

that this incentivizes risks. if you take actions that are risky and it looks like they paid off and you get your money, six months later, it turns out you were wrong and it blows up, you don't lose anything. at the outset if you take a risk and it blows up, it doesn't cost you anything. all we are saying is there has to be balance to the risk taking, the excessive risk taking. what is excessive risk? when the people who take risk pay no penalty when they are wrong. when the company loses money, the economy may suffer, duh the decision makers do not. one of the sillier remarks we heard was this will cause us to have less competition. say on pay, when the republican party opposed it, was borrowed from great britain.

we were told we were losing business to great britain and we should cut back on sarbanes-oxley because people were going to england. today i read from an article from a couple of weeks ago, the prime minister of england says they are going to adopt plans forcing banks to hold back half of all bonuses for five years and the conservative opposition is critical because it's not mandatory. we have been in conversations with the european union, the united kingdom, canada and others. in fact, american salaries, american compensations have been much higher system of no, there is no price control. no there's no wage control. no it is not a problem for international competition. by the way, as to every institution, every credit union, you heard that rhetoric, the bill exempts any institution with less than $1 billion in assets. it gives the s.e.c. the authority to raise that so

there's even les. the republican party has reluctantly been dragged by events, reality sometimes has an impact to support a watered down version of say on pay. say on pay says the shareholders can vote and express their opinion. the gentleman from texas was upset we don't have a federal election commission mechanism for these votes. why only these votes? shareholders vote on anything. apparently it's only when the shareholders tend to vote on pay that republican sensibilities are trampled. we do not in this bill talk about the amounts. we do say the shareholders should. we say in consultation with advocacy groups that represent shareholders and pension funds, that the people who own the company, the shareholders, should be able to express opinions on the compensation. we go beyond that to say we believe the federal government has interests not in the level of compensation, that's up to the shareholders, in the structure. when you have, as we have seen,

structures whereby companies lose lots of money and they lose lots of money on particular deals, but the people who made those deals make money on them, that that has a systemic negative impact on the society because it incentivizes much too much risk. what is the republican approach to that? nothing. they say -- they admit these are problems. they regret these things are happening. but their regrets won't stop the damage. in the republican substitute there is a watering down of say on pay but they at least acknowledge that reluctantly. when it comes to the pracktoifs large corporations in the financial area structuring bonuses that incentivize excessive risk, my republican friends admit that's the case and lament that and are adamant we should d nothing about it. that's the big difference. we believe the s.e.c., and by the way, as to the form, it was a republican former member of this body, christopher cox, who was chair of the s.e.c.,

proposed disclosure. he broached it first. he said we have an important public interest in knowing it. we are going to take the form of disclosure of compensation prescribed by a republican member of this house, chairman of the s.e.c. work his colleagues, and let the shareholders say yes or no. we are going to go beyond that and say that the s.e.c. should look at this and say, you know, you have a situation here where people making the decisions will have an incentive to take too much risk. if you tell people that if they take a risk and it pays off they are enriched and if it fails miserably they don't lose anything, they will take more risks than should be taken. you should not incentivize to tell people to take risks where they can only benefit and never suffer penalty. that's all this says. we will prevent that kind of thing from happening. we won't set amounts or deal with wage controls and we exempt institutions under $1 billion. i await the republican counter.

they want a watered down say on pay, but they reluctantly accept it. but they have zero tufere with regard to the situation of excessive bonuses. we did get reluctant agreement we put some limits on people who are recipients of tarp funds. one of those who received tarp funds prospered with those funds, paid them off and are now -- paid back the funds, and are ebb geap -- engaging in the risky practices they had before. the republican position in the committee was do nothing about it. ours is, have rule, not that set the limits or wage controls but say that you cannot structure it so that whatever level of compensation you have, you profit if the bonus pays off and you lose nothing if the bonus causes great damage to the company and the commism i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the hougs will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam

secretary. the secretary: i have been directed to tell the house that the senate has passed s. 337. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama. >> i rise in -- mr. bachus: i rise in opposition to this legislation and yield myself five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. bachus: thank you. mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to this legislation. the american people are rightly disturbed by almost daily reports of so-called too big to fail corporations that have received billions of dollars in government assistance and have at the same time paid their employees billions of dollars in bonuses. in response to those events, republicans have introduce ed legislation which gets the american people -- introduced

legislation which gets the american people out of the bailout business. that, mr. chairman is our response. it prohibits the government from picking winners and losers. we believe that's the solution. the legislation we have introduced clearly establishes a structure where failure is not rewarded. and market discipline is reestablished by placing responsibility for those who endwage in risky behavior squarely where it belongs, on the risk taker, not the taxpayer. that is the republican response. the obama administration takes a different approach. it continues to embrace the too big to fail doctrine. that's why we're here today, that's why we have to address executive compensation. it appoints a pay czar to oversee compensation at the growing list of companies receiving taxpayer-funded bailouts and guarantees, despite growing public outrage over these companies dishing

out billions of dollars in government-enabled bonuses. the obama administration and the democratic congressional leadership steadfastly refuses to embrace republican legislation or offer its own proposals prohibiting further taxpayer bailouts. instead, it says that these same corporations are simply too significant to allow them to fail. which not only enables but encourages these same corporations to continue what the obama administration concedes is more risky behavior. one of the behaviors that the administration and chairman frank identify as risky in these significantly cig cabot -- i mean, in these systematically significant corporations, is executive compensation. today we are presented with a