recognized. the speaker: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank him for his very important and swift action to address the opportunity that was given to us this week. as you know, my colleagues, as part of the supplemental earlier this year the cash for clunkers provision was provided in it. many people had worked very, very hard on that for a long time and we were able to have it passed on a bill that was going to be signed by the president. i want to acknowledge congresswoman sutton for her enthusiastic support and leadership, congressman inslee, congressman israel, steve israel of new york, all worked very hard on this. certainly the chairman emeritus, mr. dingell, the current chairman of the -- the current chairman, mr. waxman, mr. markey, for his leadership on this issue for a long period of time.

i mention all of them because this brings together so many elements of what we want to do to grow our economy, to help our workers, to protect our environment and to do so in a very focused way that works. and that's what is interesting about this week and about -- week. in about six days it's estimated that 250,000 cars were sold. on both sides of the aisle people acknowledge the effectiveness of this initiative. and that is why yesterday, as we were seeing what was happening this week, the obama administration asked us to help consumers who have yet to have the opportunity to take advantage of trading in their old cars for new energy efficient models. when they do that, again, they strengthen the auto industry, strengthen our economy at large and help preserve our environment. what's interesting about it and the point that is made by many speakers already is just -- that

was made by many speakers already is just that everything has performed beyond the requirements of the bill. the cars that have been purchased are much more fuel efficient and the emission standard much better than the bill even required and that's good news. i do share the concern that has been put forth by mr. markey and, i don't know if mr. inslee has yet but he will, about the source of the revenue and that is the innovative technology's loan guarantee program. the recovery package in january, we voted for a $6 billion initiative. it was very important to have it at that level and it's very important in terms of our renewables program. $6 billion. the administration has just released a solicitation for about half of that money, $3 billion, in loans for renewable energy.

the rest of the money would not be released until next year, until after january. so that gave us an opportunity for the time being to use $2 billion of that for this cash for clunkers expansion. and i, again, am concerned about the fact that that money is taken from that account but the not taken -- it has not made any opportunity costs for the program because the timing is that that money would be spent next year. i do hope that whether it's in the continuing resolution or some other step along the way, that those funds will be restored because it's not appropriate for us to take money to do one thing for fuel efficiency out of an account that is designed to do just that looking into the future with further inovation. so i share the concerns expressed by mr. markey and appreciate the comments made by mr. obey in the colloquy that

they had about restoring those funds. but again i think this is pretty exciting -- this is a pretty exciting day. as i said, we got the word just as this news was unfolding this week, yesterday it was determined that we could go forward. the rules committee under congresswoman slaughter responded very positively, the chairman of the appropriations committee, mr. obey, just trying to find solutions for us and the leadership of the republican party very cooperative in how we could bring the billed to floor. so this is a very positive, bipartisan initiative to help our auto industry, to help consumers, to grow our economy, to do it in an environmentally sound way. i think it's the perfect message for us to take home for august. thank you all for your leadership in making this possible. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, the time remaining on each side?

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has four minutes remaining and the gentleman from wisconsin has 7 3/4 minutes remaining. mr. lewis: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield one minute to dr. broun. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. broun: i thank my friend from california for yielding. cash for clunkers has serious problems that are administrative problems. i have dealers in my district in northeast georgia that probably are going to go bankrupt because of these problems and i hope as we go forward that we'll fix these administrative snafus that are in this problem. we're throwing money into another government program that has serious, very serious problems where dealers can't get their money. i have one dealer that has paid out of his pocket for 50 cars and has only gotten money back for one. now that dealer, if he doesn't get paid back, is going to have very severe financial problems and his employees are going to

be put out of work if we don't fix these. certainly we've sold a lot of cars because this program but just throwing money into a program that has tremendous administrative red tape problems and other problems is not going to be the long-term answer. i hope that the administration will straighten out these administration snafus and will get this program the money to dealers that they desperately need. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from new york, mr. maffei. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. without objection. mr. maffei: mr. speaker, today we are faced with a rare problem. we have a program that is proven to be working and all with we need to do is keep it working. getting gas guzzling vehicles off the road replaced by new fuel efficient vehicles is helping our environment, it is

putting money directly into the pockets of middle income families, it is a ray of hope for auto dealers in this country, a ray of hope for the u.s. auto industry and a ray of hope for our economy. finally we have a bailout not for the big businesses, not for wall street, but a bailout for main street. as the lead sponsor of a bill to help protect the legal rights of auto dealers, i can tell you, this is a god send for the auto dealers in my district. don't stall what's working. give it a fillup and let's get cash for clunkers back on the road. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, i'll be the last speaker on our side, so i reserve for now. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to mr. schauer, the gentleman from michigan.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mr. schauer: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your quick leadership on such an important issue. when i ran for congress, and i'm from michigan, i plenged -- pledged that i would fight every day for people in businesses in my community that are being hurt by a brutal economy. the cash for clunkers program has breathed life into a very difficult economy in communities all around my district. here's why this is important. as i've talked to car dealers in my district, they can't keep cars on the lots. they will be ordering new cars from manufacturers in my state and around the country, suppliers who supply parts for those cars will be manufacturing more of them. this is very, very critical and has been very effective in turning around our economy in just a matter of days. mr. chairman, thank you for giving us the opportunity to continue this program and continue to turn our economy around. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the

balance of his time. does the gentleman from california continue to reserve his time? mr. lewis: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: i yield one minute to the gentleman from oregon, mr. -- or washington, mr. inslee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. inslee: revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. inslee: mr. speaker, i want to just make a point that this program has been spectacularly successful from an environmental perspective. it was originally criticized that we did not call for a higher enough efficiency improvement of these cars. the people have fixed this problem for us. we are seeing average increases of efficiency of 60%, well, well above what was required by congress. and one car company, 78% of the cars that they're buying are over 30 miles a gallon, 39% above 30 miles per gallon. the american people have had spectacular improvements in the efficiency and environmental performance. and i wanted to thank the speaker and mr. obey for essentially assuring us, i'll take it as that, almost, that we

in fact are going to replace this money. i hope it is in the c.r., it is necessary to achieve our efficiency goals. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from indiana, mr. donnelly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. donald donald i want to thank the chair in -- mr. donnelly: i want to thank the chairman for bringing this to the floor. this is better for our environment, it's good for our farms who get to -- families who get to save some money had they make this big purchase ands also very, very good for the workers of indiana who are bark to -- back to work building these cars. this is a win-win-win for our country. it's one of the great programs to create jobs, to help our environment and to help our families. we're very supportive and we want to thank the chairman for bringing this program forward. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: mr. speaker, i thought

i had two speakers remaining but i don't see the second. so i guess i will be the last speaker on our side. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, it should be noted that the speaker, when she was presenting her views to the membership, indicated that one way or another she'd find a way to get this money back into the bill somewhere down the line. between now and then it's pretty obvious that this bill could not be on the floor today if it had not been for an emergency designation, that would allow to us exercise ourselves in this fashion -- us to exercise ourselves in this fashion. i would remind ourselves one more time of the quote received from a car dealer in new york. speaking of us, about how this bill was handled, he said, if they can't administer a program like this, i'll be a little concerned about my health insurance. and to that i join the gentleman one more time in saying, amen and i yield back the balance of

my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: mr. speaker, i yield myself the remainder of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. obey: mr. speaker, the commerce department today just issued figures which have indicated that the depth of the recession in the last quarter of last year was much more severe than anyone had estimated. they also estimate that, and this ised good news part of the day, they also tell us that in the last quarter of the year -- in the first quarter of this year that the economy, the shrinkage of the economy has now slowed considerably, which is very hopeful sign because the economy evidently performed significantly better than most of the economic experts had thought it would perform. we all welcome that news but as

you know, that is not good enough. we need to see more progress. our dilemma is this, ordinarily in a recession, when the country is losing jobs, the federal reserve others will interest rates and that helps -- lowers the interest rates and that helps the housing industry and the auto industry and our economy is normally led out of the recession by the housing industry and the auto industry. this time around the situation is very different because those two sectors have been a basket case for the past year and a half. the first glimmer of hope we've seen in the auto industry is the news that we received yesterday from the secretary of transportation, mr. lahood, who informs us that in just three day's time, when this program was started, as far as they can tell it's already oversubscribed. that means the consumers like

this program, it means they are reacting to it and it means that it would be irresponsible of us not to try to prevent the shutdown of this program just three days after it began. so we're here trying to take advantage of one of the few bright spots in the economy to help move the economy forward. we still have a long way to go before the good news shows up on the unemployment side of the ledger. today i think this is one piece of good news and i think we need to respond to it. i'd be happy to yield to my friend. mr. lewis: i just wanted to say, mr. chairman, that for some reason or other the gentleman who is our speaker has drawn the short end of the stick this week. he's been doing wonderful work, moving the process along, and i think the body should recognize his work. his work. mr. obey: i thank the gentleman

>> the senate will take up the additional funding next trick. president obama spoke about the trading program today at the west. first, he talked about the latest economic numbers showing the economy was worse than realized last year and earlier this year. >> hello, everybody. as want to say a few words about the economic growth from this morning. the gdp is the measure of our overall economic growth as a nation. this morning, the gdp revealed that the recession we've face when i took office was deeper than anyone thought at the time. it told us how close we were to the edge. but the gdp also revealed that, in the last few months, the economy has done measurably better than we had thought,

better than we had expected. as many economists will tell you, part of the progress is directly attributable to the recovery act. the difficult and important steps we have taken has helped us put the brakes on the recession. we held responsible homeowners stay in their homes and pay their mortgages. we helped to revive the credit markets and open up loans for him is -- for families and small businesses. we have extended unemployment insurance and insurance for those who have lost their jobs, provided relief for struggling states to prevent layoffs and made investments to put money back to work -- to put people back to work, building roads and

schools and hospitals. i know that much of this is not comfort to many americans were still struggling to make ends meet. when we receive their monthly job to report next rick, it is likely to show it -- next week. i will not rest until every american who wants a job can find history does show that you have to have economic growth before you can have job growth. today's gdp is an important sign that the economy is headed in the right direction and that business investment, which has been plummeting in the last several months, is showing signs of stabilizing. this means that businesses will start growing and will start hiring again. that is when it will truly feel like a recovery to the american people. this will not happen overnight. as i said before, it to as many

more months to fully dig ourselves out of recession that we now know is even deeper than anyone thought. o continue to work every single day and take every step necessary to make sure that happens. i also will make sure that we will return to an economy where our growth is based on inflated profits and maxed out credit cards. we need a robust growth based on a highly educated work force, health care costs that are dragging down businesses and families, and clean energy jobs and industries. that is where our future is and that is where the jobs are. one of the steps we have taken to boost their economy is an initiative known as cash for clunkers. basically, it allows folks to trade in their less fuel- efficient cars for credit that goes toward newer more fuel- efficient cars. it gives consumers a break,

replaces dangerous carbon pollution, and our dependence on foreign oil, and strengthens the automobile industry. a few weeks ago, there were skeptics who were not sure that this cash for clunkers program would work. i am happy to report that it has succeeded well beyond our expectations and all expectations and we're already seeing a dramatic increase in showroom traffic at local car dealers. it is working so well that there are legitimate concerns that the bonds of the program might soon be exhausted. we're now argue with congress on a bipartisan solution to ensure that the program can continue for one out there who still looking to make a trade. i ain't -- i am encouraged that democrats and republicans are working together to pass legislation to keep this program going, with funding that we would work to replace standard. we're doing a thing possible to continue this program and to continue helping consumers and

the auto industry contributes to our recovery. i am guardedly optimistic about the direction that our economy is going, but we have a lot of work to be pairedo. this said ministers and will not rest until -- this administration will not rest until this works for families. >> it provides federal subsidies of $35 or $4,500 for car or truck owners who trade in their clunkers for vehicles that are more fuel-efficient.

this week, as expected, the senate judiciary committee voted to recommend the confirmation of sonia sotomayor. what's the debate and the vote this week on c-span. next week, her confirmation as to the senate floor. live coverage of the full senate debate is on c-span 2. in october, once these -- on c- span, tore the highest court, the supreme court. >> brisk chadwick joins us with " murdered," the killing that shocked the nation. >> how we c-span funded? >> i have no clue. >> met -- maybe from government grants. >> public money, i am sure it gets my taxes?

>> [laughter] >> how is c-span funded? america's cable companies treated c-span as a public service, a private initiative, no government mandate, no government money. >> the house also voted today to approve restrictions on how wall street for it -- wall street executives are paid. the house passed the bill on it 237-185 vote. this lasts about one hour 10 minutes. 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 did get reluctant agreement we put some limits on people . 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

fix. a legislative response to these bailout bonuses and the resulting public outrage. the cure-all solution bears the lofty and noble title, corporate and financial institution compensation fairness act. it is in every way up to the challenge laid down by our former colleague, mr. emanuel. most recently of 1600 pennsylvania avenue who never -- who said never let a crisis go to waste. it is also in many ways closely akin to the recently departed cap and tax legislation and the ever-looming government, or should i say public option, health plan. all three are sweeping power grab into the private sector under the guise of the government riding to the rescue. all three rely on the government to fix the problem. all three promise to fix the problem which to a great extent was caused by, guess who?

that's right, the government. and lack of regulation by the government. all three will create or more accurately duplicate large government bureaucracies. all three represent ill-advised and many cases incompetent government intrusions. just three weeks or four weeks ago, the white house spokesman, our gene sperling, legal counsel for of secretary of treasurer, warned, go slow. he said, this is a very difficult subject. it needs testing. it has potential for unintended consequences. just yesterday before the senate, the white house press spokesman, robert gibbs, stated that the obama administration is concerned that the chairman's legislation may give the government regulators too much say on incentive-based compensation.

but as the chairman said to the rules committee, my legislation goes beyond what the obama administration has proposed. now, if that doesn't take your breath away, nothing will. in some ways, this legislation borders on the classic bait and switch. it's being sold as giving the owners of the corporation the right to set pay and compensation standards. that's the shareholders. chairman frank just this week on cnbc said dollar amounts are for the chair holeders to decide. -- shareholders to decide. i would like -- is my time up? the speaker pro tempore: yes, it is. mr. bachus: i'd like to recognize myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. bachus: he said say on pay is to shareholders. true, the first six pages of the bill give the owners, the shareholders a nonbinding vote on the pay of top executives. but then come the next eight

pages. the switch which gives the regulators the power to decide appropriate compensation for not only just top executives but for all employees of all financial institutions. above $1 billion in assets. and all without regard to the shareholders' prior approval. so under the guise of empowering shareholders it is in fact the government that is in power. one lesson we have learned from the government's arbitrary interventions over the past 18 months, and that is the converse of two big to fail is too small to -- too big to fail is too small to save which is a designation which applies to 99.9% of businesses which have been deemed by this administration and the regulators as significantly unimportant or significant. -- insignificant. but not so unimportant, not so insignificant to be totally ignored.

while not significant enough to receive a bailout, they are apparently worthy of increased regulation in the form of government mandated pay regulations and new disclosure requirements in the chairman's bill. and finally on page 15, the bill designates those same government entities which are empowered to control compensation plans that would threaten the safety of financial institutions or adversely impact economic conditions or financial stability to oversee this riskiness. look over the list and see if it inspires confidence. these are the same government agencies that regulated a.i.g., countrywide and collectively failed to prevent the worst -- i yield myself an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. bachus: these are the same government agencies that regulated a.i.g., countrywide

and collectively failed to prevent the worst financial calamity since the great depression. if it took them 30 years to catch bernie madoff, do you really think the s.e.c. can do beater swrob of identifying -- do a better job of identifying inappropriate risk of financial executives whose businesses have remain solvent during these challenging times? really now, is there any question who is better qualified or for that matter who ought to be responsible for setting compensation within the american corporation? in closing, mr. chairman, this bill continues the democrat majority's tendency to go to the default solution for every problem, create a government bureaucracy to make decisions better left to private citizens and private corporations. that's what we did in cap and trade, that's what we did in the health care proposals, and it's this bill on stpwhreck tif compensation -- executive compensation government bureaucrats don't know what's best for america. for those reasons, mr.

chairman, i urge opposition to this legislation and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: mr. chairman, i yield myself three additional minutes to deal with some of these comments. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frank: first of all, i'm struck by the fact as the gentleman, as he indicated in our markup, is sufficiently nervous about the political implications of imposing this bill and having the house take no action whatsoever to deal with the problem of risk incentivizing bonuses. but he wants to debate cap and trade and health care. they're not before us. what's before us is this bill, and when members debate the bills that aren't here, it's an indication that they're a little shaky on the bills that are here. secondly, yes, it does say that they can deal with all wages but not in general. e gentleman reads selectively. the reading about taking action is in this context. to determine whether the compensation structure is aligned with sound risk management is structured to account for the time horizon of

risks. and will reduce unreasonable incentives by such institutions for employees to take undue risks. it is limited in its grantor authority only to structures that incentivize excessive risk. there is no mandate here to set wages for anybody. there is no mandate to say this percentage is bonuses and that percentage is pay. it's a mandate only to act where the structure invent advises risk. as has been recognized as part of the problem very broadly. i will plead guilty to one issue. yes, we are not in this case taking orders from the obama administration. and maybe having represented a party that took orders from the bush administration, they now wish they didn't, but that's not an example i want to follow. i am not here as a member of congress or as chairman of a committee to do whatever an administration says. i am here for us to put our independent judgment. but the gentleman closed with the key difference between us.

the republican position, as he articulates and it is have the federal government take no action whatsoever to strain the bonuses that incentivize excessive risk. if they pay back that tarp money that they benefited from -- and their position is do nothing to deal with this. we take the opposite position. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: thank you. mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from south carolina. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. barrett: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition of the corporate and financial institution compensation fairness act of 2009. restoring confidence in our financial markets is crucial, mr. speaker. a component in bringing about economic recovery, and i support efforts to responsibly address the issues that led to

the financial crisis that we're facing today. however, 3269 does not do either. instead of addressing the need for smarter regulation, this bill represents further government intrusion into the private sector that culetly hinder economic recovery. if this legislation is passed, it will put in place far-reaching and permanent government regulations on the compensation practices of financial institutions, crippling their ability to recruit top talent and remain competitive abroad and here at home. mr. speaker, this bill goes too far by giving federal government, the federal government the authority to make compensation decisions for a wide range of employees and thousands of financial firms across the united states, which we can all agree is a far cry from just capping executive pay. in tough economic times like these, we need to if he cuss on ways to restore confidence -- we need to find ways to restore confidence in american businesses through responsible policies that restore market discipline and discourage

executive risk. -- excessive risk. i believe we cannot have a full economic recovery with a permanent overreaching regulations that this puts in place by this legislation. i therefore urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on this legislation, and 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. frank: i yield four minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. scott: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i appreciate that very much. let me just start out by saying this. we're hearing complaints from the other side about we are taking over the private enterprise system. we are taking over the free enterprise system. let me remind them that it wasn't us that went to the private enterprise system, it wasn't the government that went to wall street. wall street came to the government to bail them out from their behaviors. now, mr. speaker, the american

landscape is absolutely littered with company after company that has been driven into the ground by executives who were greedy, who were selfish, cared only about themselves with these huge salaries and these companies are left to wither on the vine after they have gotten their golden parachutes and have landed elsewhere. somebody needs to say something about the american people. this is a free enterprise system, but it's not just free for top executives. it's free for shareholders. it's free for those men and women who've given their lives, their blood, their sweat and their tears. and to see their companies in shambles because of excessive pay by executives who have abandoned those companies, what about their pensions? what about their retirement that have gone? no, mr. speaker, this is not about taking over the private

enterprise system. mr. speaker, this is about saving and protecting the free enterprise system so that we all can be free to participate in the system. now, mr. speaker, what we have before us here is something because of the fact that financial firms put together compensation packages and bonuses that were based on incentives, that were layden with excessive risk that caused our financial crisis and brought this economy to the edge of collapse and caused us here in congress to go and get over $2 trillion of the american taxpayers' money to bail them out. now, the first order of business -- and this is why this bill that chairman frank has pushed and i'm proud to say that we worked on this together

over three years ago. had we had that bill in place three years ago we might not have had this financial crisis because we will have been able to rein in the risky corporate behavior that brought about the collapse. and so that's what we're doing. we're putting forward some reasonable means here. what is more reasonable than giving the shareholders a simple say, a vote? it's nonbinding. we're not setting the salaries. even the shareholders are not. but don't they have a right? isn't their company? they're the ones that are pumping the money into it. the other feature about the bill, mr. speaker, that is very simple, very reasonable is that we require these compensation committees that are on these boards to be independent. right now it's a cozy relationship. the c.e.o. refers to them as his board. they're hand picked.

they're paid $50,000, $100,000, $200,000 to come and sit. they need to be independent, and we have rules and regulations in the bill that allow for the regulators to determine what these conditions will be to make sure they're independent. we make sure that the consultants who come in and help set up these compensation packages are there. the other point we do here, mr. speaker, which is important, we also want to make sure that as we move forward in this that risky behavior is disclosed so that we can prevent it. it's a very good bill, mr. speaker. i urge its passage. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. lance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. lance: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise out of concern for section 4 of this bill.

we had had an amendment in the rules committee that i offered with the distinguished gentleman from georgia, and it was ruled out of order by the rules committee. we believe that the amendment was germane, drafted properly and submitted on time. and the amendment dealt with section 4. regarding section 4, i believe, sir, that it is overly broad and in particular i am concerned with a section that says regarding incentive-based compensation that federal regulators can review that based upon other criteria as the appropriate federal regulators jointly may determine to be appropriate to reduce unreasonable incentives for officers and employees. to take undue risks. that gives too much discretion to federal regulators and we should be specific as members of congress in the statutory basis for compensation issues. i am also concerned that if this becomes law, that there

will be a tendency for capital to move away from the united states, places like london and asia, this is a matter i discussed previously in the committee and i certainly believe we should continue to be the place in the world where this type of activity occurs. our amendment in no way takes away the other provisions of the bill regarding say on pay and the independence of compensation boards. but i am sorry our amendment was not considered favorably in the rules committee and therefore will not be considered favorably here. this morning a report from bloomberg indicates that the white house press secretary mr. gibbs said yesterday the administration is concerned that the measure may give regulators too much say on incentive pay.

i agree with that sentiment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i yield myself 30 seconds to say on behalf of the obama administration, i welcome this temporary deference of -- deference to their views. i urge them to enjoy that brief moment of graciousness. i yield four minutes to the gentleman from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. green: mr. chairman, jal though they are not my words, we have heard that it takes an act of congress to get many things done. i would only add to this what i have heard, it also takes a congress willing to act. this is our opportunity to act. this is our opportunity to do what dr. king called bending the arc of the moral university toward justice this piece of

legislation is just given the circumstance this is a we have been coping with. there is no dispute that many c.e.o.'s have had their pay structured such that no matter what the consequences of their actions, they were going to receive enormous bonuses. i think there are two good reasons to support this legislation. one, it deals with the safety and soundness of the banking institutions. it performs perfectly, if it does just this as far as i'm concerned, if it allows a banking regulator who sees that the structure of pay is impacting the safety and soundness of the institution, fit allow this is regulator to take some affirmative action to protect the safety and soundness of the institution, this piece of legislation is working. that's what it's designed to do not to structure the pay, but to prevent the pay from causing ordinary people to have to bail out big banks. people are expecting us to do

something to prevent this from happening again. if we are going to act this is a means by which we can act. talking about that which we cannot do and will not do, that is not on the agenda, that will not help us do what we can do today. i never let what i cannot do prevent me from doing what i can do the second reason i support this legislation, this legislation allows shareholders, by the way, i trust shareholders, i think people who have a vested interest in something ought to have some say. i think they ought to be able to know what the salary structure is and say something about it. in this case, it is nonbinding. there are many people who are of the opinion that nonbinding is not enough. but i trust the shareholders to have an opinion. they have but an opinion. they don't do anything to bind the corporation. these two reasons, when combined, will help us with the safety and soundness of these

stewings and give the shareholders an opportunity know how the salaries are structured and have some say. finally if we want to be a congress that acts, we've got to have courage. these are -- these are trying times. these are difficult times. it is easy to stay with the status quo. those who want change have got to be willing to take the risk of doing the right thing. the arc of the moral university bends toward justice but it doesn't do so by itself. it does so because of people who are willing to do the right thing under unusual and extraordinary circumstances. i am going to stand with the chaian, i believe the chairman is imminently correct he has structured a great piece of legislation, those who really want change will vote for this legislation. those who want to see a better system so that we don't end up with more headline this is a read, bailed out banks gave millions in executive bonuses,

not withstanding the fact that these banks have been -- they have not been managed properly and could have been managed a lot better. these kinds of headlines are going to cause problems for a lot of people. i am going to vote with the chairman. i'm voting for the bill. it is a good bill. it is a just bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: i yield four minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentleman for yielding, mr. speaker. there are aspects of this legislation that i certainly appreciate. all americans have been outraged, it's a word we use frequently and use justifiably. about some of the compensation packages we've seen from failed company this is a come with tin cup in hand to the united states taxpayer. looking for more.

this bill has some provisions that adds increased transparency, some increased accountability, and that's good. but unfortunately, the bad in the bill way outshadows the good. so what i've always said, mr. speaker is what you do with your money is your business. what you do with the taxpayer money is our business. mr. speaker, unfortunately, you can't just read the bumper sticker slogan. you actually have to read the legislation. so we hear speech after speech about these failed institutions taking in all of this government money. well, i wonder then, why in committee on a party line vote did we vote down an amendment amendment i brought that would have ensured that the bailout recipients, that this legislation applied to them and them only.

they're the poster children in this debate, but yet the legislation extends potentially to every public company in america that somehow is defined as a quote-unquote covered financial institution. by the way, i would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, the best way to deal with risky pay schemes is to quit bailing them out in the first place. my friends on the other side of the aisle are enshrining us as a bailout nation system of you complain about the taxpayers picking up the tab, i've complained about the taxpayers picking up the tab. quit bailing them out in the first place. now, again, we have to read the bill and not just read the slogan. because if you read the bill, what you find out is, number one, this isn't just pay restrictions that go to those in the troubled wall street firms.

again it's almost every covered financial institution. guess what? if you read further into the bill, it doesn't just cover the top officers, the top executives. every single employee, every single employee who has a yet-unquote incentive-based can -- a quote-unquote incentive-based compensation can be covered by this. we've learned that somehow work a very intrerptive approach to the english language that general motors and chrysler have been found to be financial institutions. this means any employee, any employee who receives a tip a sales commission a christmas bonus could have a federal bureaucrat take it away from them. ho, ho, ho. that's what this legislation is all about. don't get sucked in by the bumper sticker slogan. read the legislation. that was the problem on the

original bailout. nobody read the legislation. the government stimulus, nobody read the legislation. well, fortunately, this isn't a 1,000-page bill. i think it's 15 or 20 pages. i actually took the time to read it. if this is just about class warfare, mr. chairman, why doesn't this do anything about hollywood stars who make $25 million for a movie, yet the movie loses money? why isn't it about a third baseman for the new york yankees who gets $21 million and ties his worst record for striking out in the season? why doesn't have have -- why doesn't this have anything to do with the personal injury trial lawyers who make millions and millions and their clients are doing good to make thousands. may i have an additional minute? mr. bachus: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hensarling: i hear the rhetoric from the other side of the aisle which seems like a

lot of recycled class warfare to me. another point i'd make, we hear that we need this to deal with safety and soundness. we need this legislation to deal with systemic risk. well, number one, i listened very carefully to the testimony presented in our committee and i'm sure it's theoretically possible that there are pay structure this is a may lend themselves to this, but again, what -- show me the evidence. where is the evidence. when i look at pay structures among financial firm this is a fail versus those that didn't fail, i don't see the correlation. second of all, as we know, mr. speaker, the regulators have the power to regulate the liquidity and capital standards of these financial firms to make it commensurate with the risk. that's remedy. that's the remedy. not to take christmas bonuses

away from employees. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frank: there's a contradiction here, when we're talking about a power, namely to reduce excessive risk incentivizing bonus this is a republicans want to defend they talk about the unelected bureaucrats. the unelected bureaucrats can't be trusted, except the gentleman from texas said, don't worry, the unelected bureaucrats are out there to protect us. the unelected bureaucrats in the republican cost ophthalmology are like the obama administration, they are either great whipping boys or sources of wisdom, depending on how the republicans have them. but i am interested, i notice a number of member says they don't like the bonuses. is there a republican proposal to deal with the bonuses that are being given? our proposal does not empower

anybody to limit the amounts. the question is, is there a republican proposal that would deal with what paul volcker and ben bernanke and the financial regulators in england and warren buffett and many others believe is a destabilizing tendency to give out bonus this is a give you an incentive to take risks, excessive, excessive in the sense that you benefit if the risk pays off and you don't lose. we want people to take risk, but we want them to take risk this is a balance the upside and downside, not which look only at the upside. i continue to point out, not in the committee, not in 12 years when they controlled the place, not during this debate today, not in the rules committee, we have not seen a single republican proposal to deal with bonuses. their position apparently is, however the financial industry wants to structure bonuses, you

get a bonus if it pays off in short term and tushes sour in the long term you get a bonus if it pays off and don't lose anything if it doesn't. they want to leave that the same. last consensus among financial regulators and others that this contributed to risk taking. we believe in the free market system and the incentives. how can it be you acknowledge that there's a system that says to people, take a risk because this is risk-free for you? that's the problem, it's risk-free for the individual. it's risky for the company. when you accumulate riskers in company, it's risky for the economy. we say if it's risky for the company and the economy, we want it risky for the individual. we don't want risky individuals taking risks on the -- risk-free individuals taking risks on behalf of people who

face risks. let us return to the thrilling days of yesteryear when the loren rangers will ride again, untrammeled by any set of rule, they'll continue to give themselves bonuses to allow them to be free of risk. that's deal. the company will face risk, the economy will accumulate and face risk, but the decision makers will be free of the risks, negative side, they will gain from the risks, positive side, and like rational people, they'll take more risks. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. campbell: thank you. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i hear the gentleman's comments and remarks. and, you know, there's no argument with anyone i think on this floor about the -- that executive pay has been an issue, that has been excessive and that there has been

problems that have been created in companies in the economy with executive compensation. i think i would argue that rather than excessive risk taking that it's more about short-term thinking instead of long-term thinking which by the way is way better than executive -- way bigger than executive pay. that's another issue. but the question for me is whether this is the right way to deal with it, and i would argue no, because is the only problem out there in corporate governance is the only thing that has created problems for companies related to executive pay. no. let's look at general motors and chrysler and their recent problems. were their problems created because of executive pay? i am not sure i heard anybody argue that. but were their problems created in part because of excessive union contracts? yes. how about of retirement programs that were unfundable over time? yes. what about other companies where perhaps there have been legal settlements that have created problems that have been fatal or resulted in companies

going bankrupt? those have occurred. how about mergers and acquisitions? so what are we going to do? are we going to have shareholders vote on pay, on mergers, on acquisitions, on union contracts, on retirement pay, on legal settlements, on fees to attorneys? well, now, any of those arguably can bring a company down. and isn't that -- should the shareholders have a say on that? you know, obviously the shareholders are the ultimate owners of the company. if you want to give them a say on pay, fine. then you better give them say on the rest of that. but i am not sure that anybody on this floor thinks that's the right thing to do. the best way for shareholders to express their displeasure with the management or operation of a company is through the board of directors. and that's the way it has been done and that's the way it should be done. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. scott: yes, mr. speaker. i yield to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. miller, four minutes -- three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. miller: thank you, mr. speaker. i look forward to working with mr. campbell on giving shareholders much more -- much more power over their own corporations. there is much more we need to do to reform corporate governance in this country. it's one of many failings of our economy in the last year or so. mr. speaker, i don't want to run corporations, but someone needs to set some rules. we need the law to set some rules. we need someone to provide some oversight. we need someone to be a watchdog for what they are doing because we have found out what happens when there are no rules, when there is no oversight, when there is no watchdog. we are now in the worst economic downturn since the great depression, and we have been close to a financial collapse that would have left

the great depression in the shade. and we know what caused it. essentially the same things that went wrong in the 1920's. corporate executives were looting the country with predatory lending practices to make as much money as they possibly could without any regard to the consequences. and then the corporate executives in turn were looting their companies to make as much money for themselves as they could. they weren't doing right by american consumers. they weren't doing right by their own shareholders. they were only looking after themselves. the idea that corporate executives were acting in the best interest of their own shareholders is simply a farce. we saw vullingar compensation for executives -- vulgar compensation for executives and other top officials who were doing very little of any value to society. in fact, their predatory lending practices were doing much more harm than good, and it wasn't even to the benefit

of their shareholders because of the risk that they were creating for their corporation, that the short-term profits would lead to great risk in a very short while. this bill is part of what we need to do. it is only part of what we need to do. this just scratches the surface. we need to make sure that the financial collapse that we have seen in the last year never happens again. this bill is only part of it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: thank you. three minutes to the gentleman from delaware. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. castle: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank the gentleman for yielding. and, mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 3269, the corporate and financial institution compensation fairness act. this overreaching bill, which is being sold as a response to

the financial crisis, would in effect take away the rights of individual companies to conduct businesses as they see fit. in places government bureaucrats in charge of making key decisions about how businesses should be run. we can agree that some executives in this country are grossly overpaid, but allowing government to make such determinations is counter to everything that's made our country great. america has always been an economic powerhouse in the world, but this bill restricts competition through government intervention in a way that infringes on the entrepreneurial spirit of this nation. section 4 of h.r. 3269 would actually allow the government to involve itself in the running of private businesses by empowering federal regulators to prohibit compensation arrangements for all employees of all financial institutions, including banks, bank holding companies, broker dealers, credit unions and investment advisors. even regulators under the currented a mfrlings have testified that they do not -- current administration have testified that they do not want to cap pay for how companies should set compensation which could be counterproductive. however, the majority has ignored the administration's wishes by adding section 4 of

h.r. 3269. this bill is an overreaction to the current financial crisis. like many, i am concerned that executives in a handful of large companies like a.i.g. have been awarded extraffic get pay packages and bonuses even after the company received assistance from the government. in this case, when federal assistance has been granted, i do believe the federal government should mandate the pay structure of these firms, which is why i voted for an amendment during committee consideration of h.r. 3269 to only apply the provisions to tarp recipients for the time the tarp money is outstanding. this amendment was rejected, leaving many financial institutions who did not contribute to the current crisis to pay for the mistakes of others. finally, this bill undermines the privacy of corporate governance laws. laws have been left up to the states leaving them to foster competition. for this reason, i support mr. garrett's amendment to allow

state law to preempt the underlying bill. h.r. 3269 was introduced without a single legislative hearing to examine its far-reaching implications despite numerous people from the financial services committee. i believe this bill will have unintended consequences and i urge my colleagues to vote no on the underlying time. 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. frank: mr. speaker, i would ask if i could reserve for one more speaker while i work mg out. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. -- mr. frank: one more speak while i work something out. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. price. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. price: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my

remarks. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. mr. price: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend from alabama for yielding me time and for leading on this issue. what we hear from the other side of the aisle is this famous old phrase, trust us. right? trust us. now, we know that folks on the other side don't have any reluctance to have the government run things. we've seen it over and over and over again. in fact, we just heard it from one of the speakers, we don't want to run private companies. and then he followed that up and said, but this is only part of what we need to do. but the bill, mr. speaker, the bill has language in it that would in effect allow the federal government to determine pay compensation for employees, and that might be all right if it were just companies that were receiving tax money. that might be ok. but in fact it's not. it is so many other companies. covered financial institutions, the definition in the bill would expose companies like c.v.s. care mark, yes, well care health plan, value line, textron, medco health solutions, lowe's corporation.

mr. speaker, this is another far reach by the democrats in charge who believe that the government knows best, not just about automobile companies, not just about energy companies, not just about how to spend your money, not just about your health care. they're working on that government-run health care plan. but also private companies across this country. they believe they ought to come and say, this is what you should make and not make. nobody should be concerned about having shareholders give their opinion, have a say about what executives make when shareholders own part of that company. that makes a whole lot of sense. but what we do have concerns about, grave concerns, is the intervention of the federal government into one business after another after another. this is just another example of that. it's a terrible idea. it strikes at the very core of the free market principles that have made the greatest nation in the history of the world. bad idea, mr. speaker. vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: well, mr. speaker, i yield myself 15 seconds to say i welcome the gentleman from georgia to the cause of say on fay when we debated this on march 22, 2007, weighs -- -- when he was quite critical of it. i now yield to a question of the gentlewoman from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mr. speier: thank you, -- ms. speier: thank you, mr. speaker. in section 4 of the bill it defines the term covered financial institutions to include depository institutions, broker dealers, credit unions and investment advisors. but also authorizes the appropriate federal regulators to designate jointly by rule other financial institutions that are to be covered. because this authority is granted to appropriate federal regulators, can we assume that entities not regulated by the federal financial regulator are not intended to be covered by financial institutions? mr. frank: yes. as to section 4. if the public companies they're covered by say on pay.

and there might be companies that are not federally regulated. as of now if they are not federally regulated they are not covered. because a.i.g. was federalry regulated by the o.t.s., so they would have been covered. but the gentlewoman is correct. i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from -- mr. speaker, i have no further request for time so i am going to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: i thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, let me tie up a few what i consider loose ends about this legislation. one is the motivation. of course, we've heard that one of the motivations is that these pay schemes and arrangements could heighten risk. and then if one endorses the obama administration approach that would precipitate a bailout. because the government would

continually have to assure against some outside risk. and as i've said, the republican approach is simply, don't bail these companies out and then you don't have to be micromanaging every compensation decision by a company. i think there's another motivation, and i think it's a very -- it's a slippery slope. chairman frank was on cnbc this past tuesday, and he asked this question. is there some character defect with some people where they get hired that give them a prestige job but they really won't do it right unless you give them an extra bonus? most of us don't need that. so i'm wondering if one motivation for this legislation is so that the government can decide whether people need a

bonus or don't need a bonus, whether they're deserving of a bonus. and in fact several pages of the bill does just that. some people may not need that bonus. other people may. that decision will be made by the list of government entities on page 15, not by the shareholders, even though this bill is trotted out as a shareholder bill. not by the board of directors, not by the management, who an important tool of management is to offer incentives and incentivize performance and achievement. but apparently now it's the government will decide whether you need a bonus or not. that, mr. chairman, is scary in my mind. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from north carolina.

mr. watt: mr. speaker, i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague from north carolina for his leadership on this issue. in this country we believe that hard work schad be rewarded, and i -- should be rewarded, and i think that most people in this country believes in the concept of pay for performance, but what we've seen on wall street over the last many years is turning that concept of pay for performance on its head. we saw c.o.'s and the folks in the wall street board rooms getting huge bonuses based on short-term gains for their companies even while that excessive risk taking put those institutions at risk. if it was just those constitutions, -- just those institutions, i think we'd say, let them take the risk. if it was just that company at risk, ok but this kind of excessive risk taking went on at the biggest financial

institutions of in this country and put the entire economy at risk, put the financial system at risk, and at the end of the day, put all of the taxpayers in this country on the line. so we all have a stake in changing the system. we all have a stake in making sure people get paid for performance and not paid by putting taxpayers in the financial system -- and the financial system at risk. at the end of the day, we're all holding the line, not just the c.e.o.'s and shareholders. mr. speaker, it's time to say enough is enough. let's pass this legislation to protect consumers, shareholders, and the taxpayer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. roskam. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. roskam: i was minding my own business in my office, i've been listening to this debate and felt like i needed to come

and point a couple of things out. some real weaknesses of this bill. i'm hearing from manufacturers, mr. speaker, in my district who are particularly concerned about section 4 of the bill, they're making their concerns known through the national association of manufacturers. they said they are concerned that this bill would give authority to government regulatory agencies to review and prohibit pay arrangements for a wade range of employees. as a result, they strongly oppose the intervention of government. i'm the first to say if you took bailout money if you took tarp money, be in this category. those are entities the taxpayers have the right to regulate. but when we start to use ambiguous terms, terms that are not well-defined, we are creating an environment where there's going to be more government intervention.

why is it that the national association of manufacturers says don't do this to us? they're working hard to create jobs in this country and they haven't been able to do it, in part because of bad policies that they've seen come out of washington, d.c., mr. speaker. we can do much, much more. look, in a nutshell, this bill is an invitation for political meddling at its worst in the private confines of companies that are trying to work hard to create jobs and to create opportunities. you can imagine a politician getting on a phone with a regulator and saying, you know what, i'm interested in you checking into that company because i don't like them and i don't like the way they're doing business. we can do better. let's send the bill back to committee and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina. >> mr. speaker, we have only one final speaker so we

reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: at this time, i recognize the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett, for one and a half minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one and a half minutes. mr. garrett: i thank the chair. in a few moments, bill submitting an amendment to this bill but first i want to talk about someone else's comment on this bill. this is neil meno, someone who no one would consider ancon servetive. she recognizes why this is coming up, she said the impulse is understandable but the standard is unworkable. what does inappropriate mean? what, while we're at it, does risk-taking mean? and the most terrifying question, who gets to decide

what they mean? chairman barney frank warned earlier this month, and he did so again just recently, that recent news of compensation show this is a some leaders yearn for the stirring need of yesteryear but it's a question of empowering the share holder to decide the appropriate level of pay, not the regulators. she concludes by saying who is in the best position to evaluate and respond to badly designed pay packages. as someone proud of eight years serving in government she says she has the utmost respect for politicians and bureaucrats but also recognizes their limits. the government, therefore, should not be micromanaging pay. instead, this is what republicans suggest, remove the obstacles that currently prevent oversight from those who are best qualified and motivated to manage the risk, the shareholders. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from north

carolina. >> we reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: mr. chairman, it appears as if this bill is so much more than a shareholder's right to say on pay bill. we already have a czar, a pay czar. are we going to have a consultant czar? we're going to enable these compensation consultants, they go to the agenciesing, they meet certain criteria, are we going to have a consultant czar? again, are we going to need management czars? risk czars? because these 20 pages and 15

of it deals with risk, it deals with inappropriate behavior, are we going to, on the bonuses, are we going to have every bonus submitted to some government agency to review? how are you going to report those bonuses? how will you approve those bonuses? how long will it take to approve those bonuss? the administration itself has warned this bill goes too far. independent witnesses have warned this bill goes too far. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. watt: i yield myself the balance of me time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. watt: the fact that we are here today debating this bill with such vociferous opposition , to me is a commentary on how out of whack our whole system has become. first of all, this bill is a modest bill which gives shareholders the right to make advisory votes, take advisory votes on compensation. who are these shareholders? they're the owners of the company. they are the owners of the company. and somehow the opponents of this bill are trying to convince the public that the owners of a company shouldn't have the right to express their

opinion to the board about compensation of the officers of that company. and the bill specifically says, and i'm reading from the bill, the shareholder vote shall not be binding on the board of directors. and it shall not be construed as overruling a decision of the board. we're just giving them the explicit right to advise the board about compensation. one gentleman has said that this applies to manufacturers. it doesn't apply to manufacturers. section 4 doesn't apply to manufacturers. even if it did, it would apply only to the extent that they could threaten the safety and soundness of a financial institution. manufacturers are not financial institutions. and only to the extent that

they could be -- cause serious adverse effects on economic conditions or financial stability and that, i would submit, is an appropriate federal government role to play , to make sure we don't get back into the kind of meltdown that we are experiencing and have been experiencing as a result of greed and irresponsibility in the private sector. this is not the government taking over the corporate sector, either in the financial sector or any other sector of our economy. it is a statement by the american people that it's time for us to straighten up the

. . >> house speaker nancy pelosi and other democratic leaders held a press conference to discuss the ongoing process of drafting health care reform legislation and a number of other issues on their agenda. this is just over 35 minutes.

>> good afternoon. it is a pretty exciting week for us. 44 years ago this week, medicare was signed into law by president lyndon johnson. he reread this week in committee about to move closer to -- here we are this week in committee about to move closer to health care reform than we ever have in history. on that note, we go home in august to promote health care reform and to inform the public of the considerable accomplishments of this

congress, this new direction congress. it read from the start, we passed an economic recovery package, the largest in history and in record time. 100 days later, we passed the president's budget on his 100th day in office. in between, he signed legislation for the s-chip for children, and nondiscrimination in the workplace for women. our colleagues will address these issues more specifically. we have the economic recovery act to begin with, helped american save their homes. 100 days later, the budget. the president called for three colors. investments in education, health care, and a new energy policy for america. we did just that.

i congratulate the distinguished majority leader the we have passed all 12 of our appropriations bill. no small feat. in terms of quality health care, not only do we have health care reform, we have s-chip, food safety, regulation of tobacco, and the list goes on. you know about the clean energy act, cash for clunkers. fiscal responsibility. our budget blueprint. the leader taking responsibility for passing the statutory paygo legislation. protecting consumers, fraud enforcement, military procurement reform, strengthening the oversight of tarp. and that important responsibility to protect the american people in passing the

supplemental that we did earlier this year. and our new gi bill for america's fallen troops. and you see some of the recovery tax provision for public safety being distributed through the country. we are very proud. it is sort of a time to pause and reflect on this very productive congress. to do so, as we go out to promote health care reform for all americans, that has quality, affordability, and success ability, that will be done in a fiscally-sound way that will save the american people money, make our businesses more competitive, and infusion of energy into our economy, and reduce the cost of our entitlement to the american people. we are very proud with the work that we have done.

we will have all three of our committees preparing an august on how we go forward and my colleagues will spend more time on that subject. i want to commend all of the leadership. we have acted like a partnership. our members have the stamina and courage, as well as the intellect and the determination, to get the job done for the american people, because it all comes down to them. how relevant it is to their kitchen table discussions. a person that has that foremost in mind as we proceed majority leader. >> thank you very much. i think you for your leadership over the last seven months. the american people, the president of the nine states, barack obama, and this congress, as we came into office in

january, confronted the worst economy this country had seen in 75 years. that was the legacy that we inherited. we have acted decisively to confront that legacy, to turn around the economy, to make the economy better for our people. i believe we are seeing real progress. we adapted -- adopted a recovery act that not only sought to recover but to reinvest in growing our economy. as members of congress leave and washington meet with their constituents, there are clear signs that our economy is beginning to recover from deep recession that we inherited from the bush administration. just today, we saw the decline in our gdp is tapering off from january to march. our economy declined at a rate

of 6.4%. there is no wonder why we were hemorrhaging jobs and why our people were discouraged about their status. there are still facing tough times. we still have much work to do. today's report showed that there was a decline of only 1%. one could say that is a 600% improvement, or a 5% improvement, but is an improvement. we see signs that that 6.4%, which was a 50-year record low, and as the quarter just ended, the decline was down to 1%. it shows that our economy is stabilizing. it also shows the fund from the recovery act began to hit the economy over the last three months. that is working on the timetable that we expected.

most economists believe the full impact will be felt in the second half of the year, the third four quarters. the 1% decline was the second quarter. the stock market's -- many of you heard me talk about how the stock market went up 226% under president bill clinton. if somebody had $100,000 in a savings account that they built up over 30 years in a retirement account, at the end of the clinton years, it was worth $226,000, plus whatever earnings they had in that account. under george bush, and the 96 months of the bush administration, that savings plan that they had went down 26%. that is what those figures mean in real terms for people. the stock market has shown real

signs of a recovering economy. since president obama took office, the dow jones is up 15%. the s&p is up 22%. the nasdaq is up 38%. all of those three indexes under the bush in addition, over eight years, were down. in this recovery period, the have gone up. the dow has gained more than 1300 points since the recovery act yet there are some that say it is not working. 1300 points since the adoption of the recovery act. an increase of nearly 17% in the housing market. we just saw the largest monthly gain in nine years. sales of newly built homes rose

by 11% in june. for the third straight month, new home construction is up. that is progress. that is success. it is not where we want to be. as long as there is a single foreclosure, as long as we are not getting loans made as quickly as possible, as long as people can't sell homes when they want to sell them or buy them when they want to buy them, we are not where we want to be. it is also clear on jobs. we are seeing a reverse of the terrible damage done by the leadership of the republican party. under the clinton administration and in the private sector, we created 20 a 0.1 million jobs. why is that figure important? -- we created 20.1 million jobs. what happened during the bush administration?

they created in average per month, 96 months, 4240 jobs. that meant they were 96,000 short of staying even. is there any wonder why the legacy of the last administration was so dire? economists warn us it would take longer for employment to recover as the economy digs out of the hole left by the last administration. stopping the economy's slide, which has appeared to have happened, is the necessary first step in turning around unemployment. we are not out of the woods yet but we are on the right path. all of those facts show that democrats were right. republicans did not see the value, apparently, in the recovery and reinvestment act. it continues to find a job-

creation projects across america, continues to keep public servants like police officers and teachers with their jobs, and continues to spark economic demand. all of those facts show that a democratic economic policy works. let me say that although we are not where we want to be, as i said, we lost 200,000 less jobs over the last three months then we lost in the last three months during the previous administration. lastly, let me say that a congressman had to leave early, but if he were here, he would talk about fiscal responsibility. when speaker nancy pelosi of for the rules package, when she took over as the leader, one of the first things we did was put in paygo in our rules. we need to get a handle on the fiscal irresponsibility that had

occurred over the previous six years. we adhered to paygo. just a few weeks ago, we passed statutory paygo, which said we are going to make a very concerted effort to get this economy back on its feet. we are going to make equal effort to make sure we return to the fiscal, responsible days of the clinton administration when we had surpluses of 5.6 trillion dollars when thae bush administration took over. from the terms of getting this economy back, reinstating fiscal responsibility, this congress has been an extraordinarily effective one and in my view the most effective seven months of any congress in which i have

served. i think the speaker for her leadership and i now yield to my colleague to get us to where we are. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. this is an historic congress. we are facing some horrific challenges. the worst economy since the great depression. massive job loss. and health care system with rising costs that are bringing america's families, businesses, and the economy to their knees. under the presidential leadership, we decided to tackle these great challenges with bold solutions and job creation is at the top of the list. there is nothing more fundamental to the fiscal health of this nation than the

physical health of every american. we laid the groundwork for health care reform by expanding the children's insurance program to 11 million children. we further protected the health of children by granting the food and drug administration the authority to regulate the advertising, marketing of tobacco products. the number one cause of preventable death in america. 1000 children each day become new, regular smokers. we built on that foundation with significant funding an american recovery and reinvestment act with investments to bring our health-care system into the 21st century. modernizing the system by accelerating the implementation of health information technology

systems. creating a new prevention and wellness fund with $1 billion. investment in biomedical research in disease studies with $2 billion. expanding community health centers by $2 billion. it increasing funding for the training of health care professionals and leading -- and paying medical school expenses in return for practicing in underserved communities. it just this week, we passed landmark legislation to fundamentally change the way we protect the safety of our food supply. closing the gaps exposed by the recent strain of food bonuses, giving the food and drug administration new authorities, tools, and funding. most significantly, we took on

the challenge that has even become grist for 61 years. we move forward with health care reform legislation to lower costs to consumers, preserve it and provide a choice of doctors and health care plans, insure stability and peace of mind that covers can't be delayed or denied, and insure quality patient care. by the end of this day, i expect this legislation will have moved through three committees and house of representatives and we will be one giant step closer to an american health care system where never again will in individual be discriminated against for pre- existing conditions. dropped from coverage because of illness. forced to make job and life

decisions based on loss of coverage. forced to pay out-of-pocket expenses for preventive care. limited annually on the comforts. this august, as we leave, 256 of us will go out to our communities and we will be talking with our constituents about what this bill means to them. i believe that when we come back this september, at this congress will be prepared to make history. with that, i am pleased to yield to the vice chair of our caucus. >> i think our whip and i am also here to pay great gratitude to the members of the democratic

caucus of the house because we have been an active and engaged group of members who have taken on the task given to us by the president to make change for this country. whether it is big change or small change, this house has been very active. whether it was moving to get this country back to work and passing an economic recovery package or whether it was simply beefing up the cops on the beat program to make sure there were 50 dozen new police officers throughout our communities ready to help make sure that child could go to school safely, we did it. whether it was moving toward a reform of our health-care system that would drive down costs and make sure that for the first time americans could say they would keep their health care, whether they were sick, had a change of job,, female nurses now, we are going to do that. whether it was mauled light

given a child a chance to take up the g.i. bill that would have been his or hers as a soldier had he or she not perished in defense of this country. big ideas, very small but very important ideas. they are all part of this ever to bring change to america. we have to be very proud. on behalf of our chairman, i know he would want to tell everyone that when you can grab 170 members of the democratic caucus and have them sit come at any number of that 170 over the course of five hours, to listen to health care reform, you know that members in the congressional democratic caucus in the house are very interested. we have to be very proud because we get to the point of saying we have energy policy that changes america, health care policy that changes america, and when we put americans back to work, it will be because this house of

representatives has been active and engaged. we are very proud of that. i would like to introduce the assistant to the speaker. >> let me thank my colleague for all of this could work and i am very pleased to be with my colleagues today on what really has been a celebration of historic congress. it has been historic in many ways. in one of the ways we have moved this country ford is through, finally, getting serious about changing our national energy strategy in a way that really moves us forward into the 21st century. through the actions we have taken, we have strengthened our national security by reducing our reliance on foreign oil and at the same time put more people back to work here in this country, investing in clean energy technologies and energy efficiency. and if the american people know we export hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas to

the middle east and other places around the world to purchase foreign oil when we should be investing those moneys right here in home in putting people back to work in clean energy technologies and energy efficiency, and that is exactly what we have done beginning with that economic recovery package where we made an unprecedented investment in clean energy technology and energy efficiency. the vice-president just announced not too long ago that that money is being put to work. the department of energy has already identified $30 billion worth of projects and over $7 billion of money is already in the system through energy efficiency programs around the country. that was followed through by a landmark piece of legislation spearheaded by the speaker of the house and the president of the united states to finally move this country toward a

situation where we really do put an end to our reliance on foreign oil and also help protect our environment. it was a win-win protecting our national security, increasing jobs and investment, and protecting our planet from the problems associated with global climate change and all the incredible costs that that would bring with it. we also passed legislation and renewed it today, the very successful cash for clunkers program. which obviously has been a big success with the american people and accomplishing two goals at the same time. number one, helping to revive and resuscitate the u.s. auto industry and help keep people in their jobs in that industry. at the same time, advance our

goal by getting people to switch from gas guzzling cars to more fuel-efficient cars. two very important objective. we also passed the green school modernization legislation here in the house as well as a member of other measures to finally get serious about taking our energy policy into the 21st century. finally, i think we all believe the american people should have an opportunity to enjoy the beautiful areas of this country. god has given duty to this country into the planet, and we believe we should set aside more areas for conservation for the enjoyment of the american people. we pass the omnibus lands management act, which was the most significant conservation land piece of legislation to pass in 15 years and open many more areas for the enjoyment for

the american people. when you look at the whole area of energy policy and protecting the environment and conservation, we have made historic strides. i want to thank the speaker for her leadership, especially in passing the clean energy insecurity at. thank you. >> i thank my colleagues for their presentations and for their leadership. we take great pride in the advances that we have made. we presented to you with all of the commitments and specificity that will make a difference in the lives of american people. one other pillar of the president's budget is education. sherman miller is not with us here by his committee has already passed out the education bill, which will be part of our agenda when we come back in

september on the floor. that is about early childhood education. it is many more young people getting pell grants and just making higher education more affordable. nothing brings more money to the treasury as well as goes the economy more than the education of the american people. we have heard the commission, the specifics, the ira of legislation that we are very proud of to take the country in the right direction. they honor the principles of our budget -- education, health care, energy policy to create new jobs for the american people, to turn the economy around in a fiscal responsible way that lowers the deficit, creates jobs, and gives tax cuts to 95% of the american people. in that spirit of celebration, i would be pleased to take any questions that you may have. >> [inaudible]

given the hard work that you have done, [inaudible] >> we have worked very hard to get the appropriations bills on time. we have accomplished that objective. we have been working with senator read it and the chairman of the appropriations committee. they passed four bills now. we will work on trying to get an agreement on conferences for those four bills. i talked to senator murray during the last leadership meeting. they are working hard to get another four or five of those bills to the floor. we hope to conference those and get as many bills passed prior

to september 30 when the fiscal year ends. we may need a very short-term c.r. for the remaining bills. which we would then hope to complete in october. >> on the health care bill and the costs, why is the message so difficult and the opposition stiffening and explaining how the insurance companies [inaudible] while there is a cost to the bill, consumers can save $2 trillion and the c.r. does not reflect that. >> it is not measure that measurements of prevention to our health care system. i appreciate your question.

certainly, you will be hearing a great deal from our members about the health insurance industry and what it has done to the health of our country. you have a situation where consumers in our country are at the mercy of the health-care industry. you see ceo's making millions of dollars a year and millions of dollars a month for their leadership while withholding benefits for people in need for health. as far as we are concerned, we think that is why we need to have this new legislation and should have a robust public auction in it to keep the health insurance industry honest, to encourage competition, to provide better care at a lower cost for more people in our country. there was never a problem promoting the message, but

certainly, as we go out there with the president leading the way, with his commitment to universal health care for all americans, and us being an echo chamber of that message, i think you will see that change we have been hard at work writing the legislation, building consensus in our caucus as we convey a message, and now we will be mainly focused on the message part. the glory days are coming to an end for the health insurance agency in our country. their profits are obscene. they have increased enormously over the past few years at the expense america's consumers. that is why no longer will an insurance company be able to withhold insurance because you have a pre-existing medical condition, no longer can they rescind your insurance if you get more ill, no longer will if

you lose your job, start a business, the self-employed, you will still have health insurance. think of what that means for the vitality of our economy. we can encourage entrepreneurship white people -- while people have the confidence to take more risks. there will be a cap on what you pay to the insurance companies each year but no cap on the benefits he received. do you know anybody with cancer, disabilities, or diabetes? they will not have a cap on the benefits they receive. this makes all the difference in the world in their health and their economic security. the health insurance industry is the biggest opponent of this legislation passing. they know the glory days are over for them.

the leverage has switched to the consumer. congress and the president or remove the industry in the coming between the patient and his or her doctor. >> water you going to do about the fire power against health care reform? >> did i call it that? >> you called it that in a press call. >> do you want to respond to that? >> what we talked about is the ongoing campaign of distortions and disinformation that you see out there throughout the country. because what the opponents of reforming the system are engaged in is the same kind of misinformation battles that they waged in previous years back in the 1990's, even when we talked about reforming medicare, which we are pleased to celebrate the anniversary just a few days ago.

he saw the same kind of tactics used. -- you saw the same kinds of tactics used. we want to make sure that when our members go home, they have the information they needed, and they do have the information they need to talk to the american people about what this reform legislation means to them. it will bring down people's health care costs by providing more choice and competition and it will make sure that people are not denied the coverage that insurance companies now denied to their own form of rationing health care. we are going to make sure that when our members go back home, they are going to be talking to their constituents and to the american people about the importance of health care reform, because as the president has said, the one way to ensure that your premiums to go up and the one way to make sure that

you are going to continue to be denied care based on pre- existing conditions, or have an insurance company take away the benefit that you need the most the support the status quo and do nothing. >> [inaudible] >> i think what you have seen is a lot of allied organizations that support health-care reform that are already out there carrying the message and will intensify that message over the next weeks. aarp has endorsed the legislation. the ama is on board in support of this legislation. i think that if you look at some of the other paid media that people are seeing on television, you see people on board. at the same time, you have a lot of misinformation coming out of far right wing radio and other

media of this. -- and other media outlets. we are confident the american people will support this legislation. >> i would only add that i was kind of counting on you all. i was hoping that you as reporters of the trip would put out the story and dispel the myths, scaring seniors as the other side is doing when the aarp is supporting the legislation. if you are a senior, you are helped by this bill by making medicare and more solvent and stronger. if you are a small business, you will receive tax credits to provide coverage for your employees. this, in a way, that recognizes the special needs of small

businesses. if you are a person that becomes sick, many families could escape bankruptcy each year due to on affordable health benefits, but their needs are addressed in this legislation. we have given our members this card to take home to help the insurance companies accountable. we urgently reform -- this is available to all of you and it talks about what is in it for the american people. i have spoken to many of these points already. there will be a drum beat across america, a positive drumbeat across america that what this means for the american people, for them individually, their families, their businesses, the economy to be more dynamic, for our budget to be more balanced by reducing the upward spiral of health care costs having an impact on our entitlements. it will be done in a fiscally

sound way that takes down the curve and dispel the mr. being put out there. this is a shock and all, carpet- bombing by the health insurance industry to perpetuate the status quo. a status quo that they do not have to be responsible for antitrust laws do you know that you cannot insure an insurance company -- you cannot sue them if they deprive you of a procedure that your doctor and your hospital that you need. this bill corrects a good deal of that. it goes into the recourse that a person will have. make no mistake, fax mean nothing to them. morphology is their game. misrepresentation is their currency of their round. we want to set the record straight.

we want to educate to what this legislation does. i am so confident of the wisdom of the american people and the fairness of the press that our message will come through. >> thank you, folks. ho[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> this is c-span, public affairs programming courtesy of

america's cable companies. up next, a look at the cash for clunkers program with president obama. a little bit later, a house session on the health care bill. this week as expected, the senate judiciary committee voted to recommend the confirmation of sonia sotomayor as supreme court justice. watch the debate and see the vote on c-span. next week, for confirmation move to the senate floor. coming in october on c-span, tore the home to america's highest court, the supreme court. >> on c-span radio, watch lyndon b. johnson phone calls with his secretary of state. saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span radio.

>> president obama said today that the economy was in far worse shape than anybody realized. his comments last about 5 minute. >> hello, everybody. i just wanted to say a few words about the economic numbers that we received this morning. the gross domestic product, or gdp, as a measure of our overall economic growth as a nation, this morning, it revealed that the recession that we face when we took office was even deeper than anyone thought at the time. it told us how close we were to the edge. the gdp also reveal that in the last few months, the economy has done measurably better than we

had thought. better than expected. as many economists will tell you, that part of the progress is directly attributable to the recovery act. this and other difficult but important steps that we have taken over the last six months have helped us put the brakes on the recession. we took unprecedented action to stem the spread of foreclosures by helping responsible homeowners stay in their homes and pay their mortgages. we help revive the credit markets and open up loans for families and small businesses. we enacted a recovery act that help families and small businesses, extended unemployment insurance, provided relief to struggling states to prevent layoffs, and made investments that putting people back to work, building bridges and roads, schools, and hospitals. i realize that none of this is

much comfort to those americans who are still out of work and struggling to make ends meet. when we receive our monthly jobs report next week, it is likely to show that we are still continuing to lose far too many jobs. as far as i am concerned, we will not have a recovery as f long as we are losing jobs. history does show that you need to have economic growth before you have job growth. today's gdp is an important side that the economy is headed in the right direction, and that business direction is showing signs of stabilizing. this means that eventually, businesses will start growing and they will start hiring again. that is when it will truly feel like it recovery to the american people. this will not happen overnight. as i said before, it took as

many more months to fully dig ourselves out of a recession that we now know was deeper than anyone thought, but i will continue to work every single day and take every step that is necessary to make sure that happens. i also intend that we do not return to an economy that our growth is based on inflated profits and maxed out credit cards. we need a robust growth based on a well-trained work force, health care costs that were not dragging down businesses and families, and clean energy jobs. that is where our future is and where the jobs are one of the steps we have taken is an initiative known as cash for clunkers. this allows folks to trade in their older, less fuel-efficient cars for credits that goes towards buying newer, more fuel- efficient cars, giving consumers a break, replacing dangerous

carbon pollution, dependence on foreign oil, and strengthens the american auto industry. there were skeptics a few weeks ago that we're not sure this program would work. i am happy to report that it has succeeded well beyond our expectations, and we are already seeing a dramatic increase in traffic at local car dealers. it is working so well there are concerns that funds in this program might soon be exhausting. we are now working with congress to ensure that the program can continue for everyone out there still looking to make a trade. i am encouraged that legislation will be passed today to use funding to keep this program going, funding that we would work to replace down the road. thanks to quick, bipartisan responses, we are doing everything possible to continue this program.

i am very pleased with the progress that has been made in the house today on the cash for clunkers program. i am guardedly optimistic about the direction that our economy is going, but we have a lot more work to do. i want to make sure that all of the americans out there still struggling because they are of of work know that this administration will not rest until the movement that we are seeing on the business side starts translating into jobs for those people and their families. thank you very much, everybody. >> as the president mentioned, the house considered a bill to add $2 billion for the cash for clunkers program, which is apparently running out of money because of its popularity.

>> how did this come about? >> there was an indication that it had ran out of money. the latest estimates from dealers showed huge interest in the program and it had basically run through the $1 billion in terms of commitment. >> there seemed to be a rush to get this done. why has it become a top priority today? >> they are trying to get this program through before they leave to go back to their districts. after it gets to the house, it will go over to the senate. >> when was this bill first created? >> this goes back a couple of months.

it only went into effect recently. there was an idea that it would be $4 billion but it was pared back to $1 billion. as the sum was cut back, those estimates were cut back as well. the program itself really only recently got off of the ground. there has been a lot of momentum behind the program in the last couple of weeks. >> if the program gets extended, where will the money come? >> now house lawmakers are talking about adding $2 billion to it. those $2 billion in additional money would come from the stimulus program, which is what

house lawmakers are talking about at the moment. they would take $2 billion from the fund for renewable energy. [no audio] >> the cash for clunkers bill passed in the house. here is a look at house debate on that program. gentleman from wisconsin, mr. obey, and the gentleman from california, mr. lewis, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on h.r. 3435. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. obey: mr. speaker, i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. obey: mr. speaker, late yesterday, it came to our

attention that the cash for clunkers program which enacted a few days ago has proven more wildly popular than its strongest supporters had predicted. just last month, congress passed the program which provided up to $4,500 if you trade in your old gas guzzler for a new car that gets better mileage. that was done in the hopes of spurring some new car sales and encouraging people to be a little more environmentally friendly. we provided $1 billion in the supplemental to get it going, enough for about 250,000 sales. the program kicked off monday, and it's already officially received 40,000 requests for reimbursement worth about $160 million in rebates. in is survey done by the national automobile dealer association this week suggest that at least 200,000 deals have been completed but not yet officially submitted. if that's true and we're being told that it probably is, then the entire $1 billion is just about exhausted, so we have before us a bill to provide

stopgap funding for cash for clunkers by allowing the administration to transfer up to $2 billion from the department of energy innovative technology loan guarantee program which doesn't expect to award funding until late next year. some would call this letting the markets work. consumers have spoken with their wallets and they are saying they like this program and clearly it was intended to do what it was supposed to do, spur car sales in this sluggish economy. this will keep it going, hopefully. i'd urge support for the bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. chairman, i rise to point out the absurdity of the situation we find ourselves in today. in the majority's haste to slam legislation through the floor with almost no consideration at

the committee level, with no time for consideration by the house membership in general, and with absolutely no ability for the members of this body to amend bills on the floor, we are now seeing the effects of such short-sided martial law tactics. mr. chairman, the cash for clunkers program was passed on the suspension calendar, so no members were able to offer amendments. the senate had a exarble which will with some significant differences. the house and senate bills should have gone to full and open conference so those differences could have been negotiated and a conference report then brought for a vote. instead the leadership of this body, without consultation or negotiation, struck the house version of cash for clunkers, they stuck it on what was supposed to be a, quote, clean war supplemental, a bill only for the purpose of funding and

supporting our troops and our efforts overseas and the war on terror. they had to do that because of the mess the majority created of the conferenced bill and i use that term loosely as most of the funding levels and programs were determined not in a conference but by the house leadership and by my chairman. but when it came to counting votes, the leadership and the chairman had to do some dancing and started loading up the war supplemental with extraneous and unrelated items on -- all of which needed to get more votes. cash for clunkers was one of those items. my colleagues in the senate, senator feinstein in particular and senator collins, had some serious concerns with the house bill. senator feinstein tried to negotiate some changes to improve the program, but was rebuffed, as i understand it, by my chairman. basically they were told it was

his way or the highway. here we are today, not one hearing on the cash for clunkers program in the appropriations committee, not one hearing on the needs of the program prior to receiving funds, no one hearing on how the first $1 billion has been spent, not one hearing on how much money the program will need to get through the fiscal year. instead we find ourselves on the suspension calendar for the second time in three days. bailing out another program, shoveling another $2 billion out the door this fiscal year after we shoveled $14 billion out the door to bail out the highway programs and other related items. my colleagues are going to pat themselves on the back for finding an offset for this transfer and for that i say two things. first, you should have been

finding ways to offset spending all year. second, if there was an extra $2 billion in a stimulus program that was suitable for a different purpose, why did we spend the $2 billion in the first place? how many other billions of dollars are in the stimulus not being spent that we can return to our taxpayers? now, many of my colleagues will say, this is a great program, a necessary -- and necessary for the revitallyization for the economy and the car did industry and i'm not really going to argue with those goals. those are good goals and we are looking for solutions. however we are sure this program is working like it's supposed to. i don't think so. how is it that we didn't hear of this funding problem until last night and even then we were told there's roughly 24 hours before they were going to shut down the program? this program has only been up

and running one week. if that is how the government is going to handle $1 billion programs affecting all americans, i ask, whatever will we do if the administration takes control of our health care system? i quote one car dealer from new york, if they can't administer a program like this, i'd be a little concerned about my health insurance. i would say, amen. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. obey: mr. speaker, i'm not going to give any political speeches. we're simply trying to react to one program the public has apparently latched onto. the demand for this was so great that within three days of its inception the funds were apparently totally used up. that indicates that we need to

do something if we don't want the program to shut down three days after it begins. that's what we're trying to do today and with that i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from new york. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. >> i thank the chairman for the time. mr. speaker, i was one of the original co-sponsors or sponsors of the cash for clunkers bill. many of us knew that it would work well. few of us realized how well it would work. this program has been truly stimtive. many people are questioning whether the congress -- stimulative. many people are qug whether the congress is passing anything that will stimulate the economy. this program has stimulated the economy. we have doubled car sales over the past five years. this is truly stimulative. it is creating jobs, it is a creating a surge for -- it is creating a surge for car dealers. the american consumers are satisfied with it. the american consumer has taken cash for clunkers on a test drive and they want to continue driving cash for clunkers.

they want to continue this program. in fact, not only should we continue it over the next six weeks by providing emergency funding, but we ought to improve it when we return in september. we should improve it by increasing the efficiency standards, we should improve it by making used cars eligible for the program, we should improve it through a long-term program because we have learned that the short-term program was so successful that we have exhausted the funds in only five days. this is an example of a bipartisan program that makes sense. we need to create a bridge of funding for the next six weeks, come back and extend it and improve it into the future. i want to thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me the time and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentlelady from michigan three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from michigan is

recognized for three minutes. mrs. miller: mr. speaker, i was proud to be the co-sponsor of the original legislation we passed months ago. cash for clunkers. . what a fantastic success. this program has succeeded everybody's expectations and most of the naysayers are admitting it's the best $1 billion that the federal government has ever spent and here's a couple of today's quotes from those who are directly impacted. first of all, the c.e.o. of one of our nation's largest auto groups said, the most brilliantly conceived and most effective economic stimulus program ever put forward by the federal government. ford motor company says, it's a huge success. this congress appropriated $1 billion on november 1, whatever came first, and only several days into the program and now we need more cash for the cash for clunkers. if we can just think about the tremendous multiplier, economic multiplier, effect this is having. it is good for the auto dialers, it is good for the auto manufacturers, it is good for the suppliers, it is good for workers, it is good for the states, mr. speaker.

think about all of the revenue that is being generated by sales tax and licensing fees as well for this program. good for the environment, it's getting all these old vehicles off the road and it's absolutely great for consumers. let me just read quickly, here's one letter i got from a lady in michigan. american-made 2010 ford fusion that i am going to be picking up on july 30. it has been 12 years since i've been able to purchase a new vehicle. due to the cash for clunkers plan i was able to save over $7,000 before taxes on my ford fusion. my old vehicle was a 1995 ford windstar with 150,000 miles. she says, i'm so excited for me. well, we're excited, too. mr. speaker, throughout our nation's history, since we've had the automobile, actually, it it has been automobile sales that have literally pulled our nation out of recession. and this time is going to be the same. i think we are seeing ourselves being placed on the road to economic recovery here and this road is paved by the cash for

clunkers program. i actually wrote a letter at the beginning of this week to the speaker and to the house leadership saying that we were going to run out of money and that we were going to need some more money for this program. here we are on friday of the first week. we absolutely need to do this, mr. speaker, we cannot leave for our august recess until we fund -- until we vote for this reprogramming of unspent economic stimulus funds for this program. we need to do it. and one other thing, for those who keep saying that we need to get the government out of the automobile business, if you really want to get the government out of the pocket of general motors or whatever, this is the way to do it, mr. speaker. i would urge my colleagues to support this bill. it is very, very important. not just for the state of michigan, this is a national economic program, best thing we've ever done. more cash for cash for clunkers. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: i yield a minute and 45 seconds to the gentleman from

michigan, mr. levin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute and 45 seconds. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent to revise. the speaker pro tempore: without the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. levin: the public has spoken . consumers have been going to dealerships. the white house has now acted and the issue is whether this house will respond. as i see it and i think the public will see it this is a test whether congress can shed its disagreements on other issues and respond to what the public indeed wants. the rush to use this program

shows its need. i say to the gentleman from california and anybody else, what else do we need to see? this program is working. the white house has made clear that the dealers can go forward. this program is open until further notice and dealers are urged not to rush too much but to do it right in the first place and get in line. so, it's open until further notice. the question is whether this institution will shut it down or whether it will continue to open up the valves? it will be good for everybody, it will be good for the national economy. this is an issue -- michigan, ohio, wisconsin, indiana, illinois, but for whole the -- for the whole nation. this is an issue of our national

economic recovery and anyone who votes no on this is saying no to an important boost to our economy at a critical time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: mr. chairman, i am proud to yield two minutes to the co-chairman of the bipartisan auto caucus, the gentleman from michigan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. >> i thank my friend from california. i'm from this great state of michigan where our unemployment is sadly at 15.2%. almost twice the national average. last night we learned from the national association of auto dealers that in fact this program in three days has brought about almost a quarter of a million new car sales in just those three days yet the cash is going to run out literally in the next couple of days without an infusion. it's important that we're not taking new money, this is existing money. this bill moves existing money

into other accounts so it will not add to this year's deficit. but it is going to run out without this legislation. here is today's "usa today," full page ad by chrysler, dodge, jeep, $4,500 if you bring in dollars back, if you purchase a new vehicle, bring in your old one. a lot of our auto dealers can do it. whether it's the big three or the transplants, too. nationwide one in 10 jobs are auto related. in michigan it's about one in four, one in five jobs. auto sales, the last three years -- auto sales the last three years have declined by nearly 50%. 16 other countries have done this. whether it be germany, south korea, even slovakia has done this. and in all of those 16 countries, car sales have come back. this country has lost one in five manufacturing jobs in the last 16 months.

if we want to keep jobs here in this country, bring back some of those that we have lost, obviously it's got to be in the auto sector where one in 10 jobs are auto related. this bill sends those dominoes the other way. it brings people back in the showroom, we've demonstrated that just this week. it brings back the call orders, we've heard in a number of dealers across michigan that they're running out of cars. guess what they're going to do? they're going to order them back and that's going to bring people back to work. wouldn't you rather have -- let me just end on this, wouldn't you rather have people working and paying taxes than being unemployed and receiving benefits which in michigan are becoming exhausted? i ask my colleagues to vote for this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: mr. speaker, i yield a minute and a half to the distinguished gentleman from michigan, mr. dingell.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. dingell: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dingell: mr. speaker, i rise to commend the leadership and commend my dear friend, the chairman of the appropriations committee, for his extraordinary leadership on this matter. the success of the cars program in just a few short days has been extraordinary. the program has been doing so well, in fact, the initial $1 billion allocated for the program is already running low. this is a great problem to have in the midst of all the difficulties that we confront. it's a sign that the program is not only working well and the consumers are very interested, but it's also proving that cars is providing a jolt, a meaningful upward jolt to our economic recovery efforts. this is a simple extension. it's an infusion of money in an area where it's needed and where it's working. the legislation should not get bogged down by calls for

changing the program. that would only serve to stall the extension and confuse consumers. we cannot and should not make changes in an extraordinarily successful program that has only been operating for a week. that would be irresponsible. i would add that the additional $2 billion for the program has already been appropriated under arra and will not cost the taxpayers an additional time. i ask for passage of the bill. i commend the leadership and i thank my dear friend, the chairman of the committee, and the other members of the committee who has made it possible for us to consider this legislation so fast. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentleman for yielding. cash for clunkers, mr. speaker. obviously it's a popular program.

it's a clever title. it pays people several thousand dollars to trade in their old cars if they buy new cars. and, yes, yes, mr. speaker, people are hurting in the auto industry. there's no doubt about it. but i would also note that the taxpayers are hurting. $80 billion to chrysler and g.m., and the auto industry, the auto industry does not have a monopoly on hard times in this economy. recently one of the largest poultry producers in america, pilgrim's pride, just a few miles outside of my congressional district, they had to declare chapter 11. maybe we should have a cash for cluckers program and pay people to eat chicken. then after that we can have a program to pay people to buy tv's and then a program to pay people to buy lumber. it would pass the test. it has a clever title. it would help a large industry. it would put free money in the hands of consumers, but this is not, this is not a humorous

affair, mr. speaker. and it's not humorous because this is an extension of a program that has the government picking winners and losers. why is the auto industry the winner, why is the poultry industry the loser? this is one more step in enshrining us as a bailout nation. now, people say, well, it's $2 billion that's coming out of the stimulus program. well, i would tell my distinguished colleagues that that is still $2 billion that has to be borrowed from the chinese with the bill sent to our children and grandchildren at a time when the national deficit has hit $1 trillion for the first time in history. you cannot bail out, borrow and spend your way into economic prosperity. instead, let's unleash the spirit of entrepreneurial capitalism, let's help small businesses with tax relief, let's grow our way out of this economic recession. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: i yield a minute and a half to the distinguished gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. kildee: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, when we passed the cash for clunkers legislation last month, i said it would provide a much-needed boost to our auto industry and our manufacturing communities. after just one week we see the great success of this program. i've been working closely with the white house, the auto task force and my congressional cleeds to add addition -- colleagues to add additional funds to keep it up and running. this program has been an unprecedented success and there are no plans to suspend it. this program is a successful example of economic stimulus at work. to continue this positive program, i have joined my colleagues today to introduce legislation to redirect $2 billion from the economic stimulus bill to the cash for clunkers program.

we are poised to pass this legislation through the house of representatives today and urge my senate colleagues to do the same as quickly as possible. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: i yield, mr. speaker, two minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. hoekstra. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. hoekstra: i thank my colleague for yielding. i'd like to begin by thanking the chairman of the committee and the ranking member of the appropriations committee for moving so expeditiously in getting this bill to the floor of the house this afternoon. you know, the response from consumers to this program has been, as one of my dealers described it this week, he had chaos in his showroom. it accomplished what we wanted it to accomplish. i was skeptical when this program passed a while back, but it has delivered customers into the showroom, and they are buying cars. and being from michigan, experiencing a 15.2% unemployment rate, this is not

going to only provide opportunities for employment in the people that assemble cars but also for the suppliers and those types of things. and hopefully this can be a catalyst for a stronger economic recovery. it appears to be one of the programs in the stimulus package that have passed this house that actually appears to be working. at the same time, while we are, you know, maybe euphoric about the parts of the program that are working, i think we also have to recognize that the back end of this program, the parts that are being handled by the federal government have been a disaster for our dealers. i have yet to have one dealer who has sold a car that has gotten it approved by the department of transportation. we can't -- the federal government can't process a simple rebate. i've got dealers that have submitted the paperwork three times and have gotten three rejections. the last one came back and it said no reason for rejection. what is a dealer supposed to do? they've already destroyed the

cars that have been traded in, they have sold the car, they're now on the hook and expecting a check for $3,500 to $4,500 from the federal government and they're not getting it. we need to get these back room problems fixed to be able to call this problem truly successful. it can't just be the front end. it has to be the entire process, from selling it to the customer to the dealer getting the money from the federal government. that all has to work seamlessly for this program to be an unqualified success. thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: mr. chairman, i yield a minute and 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. sutton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from ohio is recognized for one minute and 45 seconds. ms. sutton: i thank the gentleman for the time. mr. speaker, i rise in support of this legislation that's going to provide an additional $2 billion for the cars act. a bill that i sponsored, sometimes referred to cash for

clunkers, but by any name, this bill has been thus far a tremendous success. it has helped consumers purchase cars that they couldn't have purchased in this economic downturn, perhaps, but which they needed. it's going to give them cars and fuel savings for a long time to come. it's helping our auto companies, our auto dealers, all of the jobs associated with that very vital and important industry in this country to maintain itself, to continue and give it the chance to grow and restore. the program also, of course, is good for our environment because it's taking out -- less fuel efficient cars and getting them off the road and replacing them with more fuel efficient cars. this is an unprecedented success. and my colleague is right, we must make sure that it works throughout the entire process. but we are well on our way, and i appreciate the leadership of i appreciate the leadership of the chairman of the

the administration who i have been working very closely with to make sure that we build on the success, which is stimulating our economy, keeping people working, helping our environment, and helping our consumers when they really, really need it. i yield back. [applause] >> i would like to say to the gentle lady who authored this bill, she has more influence with the appropriations chairman and most people around here. you expedited the process. i am proud to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california. >> i think the german for yielding. -- and thank the gentleman for yielding. you know, mr. speaker, cash for clunkers program was inartfully drafted, it is more complex than come bersome than it needs to be -- come bersome than it needs -- cumbersome than it needs to be. the administration of it has not gone on well but it has worked. and, mr. speaker, we have passed a number of things in this congress this year

intended to stimulate the economy. the vast majority of them have not had that effect. but this one has. and it has clearly worked. for the initial billion dollars to be exhausted, that means that roughly 250,000 new vehicles must have been sold in just the last week or two in order to exhaust all of that money. that is clearing inventories in car dealerships which means car dealers will be ordering more cars. when they order more cars, plants will begin to run again. plants will open up. they will be producing more cars, and people will go back to work. there will be suppliers that will produce supplies, various parts for those cars, steel mills will be produced for those cars, and those people will go back to work. there will be trucks and trains that deliver those cars and those people will go back to work. and, mr. speaker, the $2 billion for this is coming out of the existing funding, so it is not increasing the debt or the deficit any more than what has already been there. mr. speaker, i support this

bill. i support this effort. there is -- it is the one thing we have done in this congress that is absolutely working. it is stimulating the economy. it is creating jobs and we want it to create more. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: i yield a minute and a half to the distinguished gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. markey: i thank the gentleman very much and i appreciate your hard work in extending this program. this program is a win for consumers who are trading in old gas guzzlers for hybrids, a win for our economy and a win for energy independence and the environment as the new vehicles are averaging 60% more fuel efficiency than the junkers being taken off the road. however, i am concerned that we are taking funding from the renewable energy loan guarantee program and would express my strong belief that we must find a way of replenishing those funds as soon as possible.

mr. chairman, could you work with me and other members to ensure that the funds for this program will be replenished? mr. obey: if will the gentleman yield? i share the gentleman's view that the renewable energy loan guarantee program is of vital importance to creating a new green economy. we have talked with the white house. we've talked with the speaker. and i want to assure you that all of us certainly have every intention of restoring these funds. mr. markey: i thank the chairman very much. i know that this has always been the highest priority for yourself, for speaker pelosi and for the obama administration. and i look forward to working with you in the future in order to make sure that we have a win-win here for renewable energy and for fuel-efficient vehicles. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is

recognized for two minutes. mr. flake: i won't take two minutes. i have to say i thought i had heard it all until i came to the floor today. somebody said earlier, this bill is a success. ford motor company loves it. i think that that's self-evident. but i think that there are taxpayers around the country who are wondering why we're taking $2 billion more from them to decide which industry here is going to get a break. we decided to give out free money and now we're surprised when people take advantage of it and love the program. i mean, that's the nature of human nature. if you're given free money, you like it and you want more. and that's what this program is. why are we deciding to aid this sector and not another? if you're mr. or mrs. businessman across the country, you've got to be wondering if we have lost our minds here by saying we're going to continue to give out more money just for this industry but not help the others. i just -- i don't understand this process and how we can bring this up this quickly but

an appropriations committee that can bring a defense bill to the floor in 18 minutes for a markup that has more than 1,100 earmarks, i guess, has no problem doing this. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: mr. chairman, i yield myself 20 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. obey: i just want to say, mr. chairman -- mr. speaker, that we've heard several times here today about this action are complaints from the people who helped wreck america's economy and are now complaining because of the way this president and this congress is trying to pull the country out of the ditch and restore economic growth. we've come to expect that, but that doesn't make it any more pleasant. with that i yield a minute to the distinguished speaker of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker of the house is recognized. the speaker: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank him for his

very important and swift action to address the opportunity that was given to us this week. as you know, my colleagues, as part of the supplemental earlier this year the cash for clunkers provision was provided in it. many people had worked very, very hard on that for a long time and we were able to have it passed on a bill that was going to be signed by the president. i want to acknowledge congresswoman sutton for her enthusiastic support and leadership, congressman inslee, congressman israel, steve israel of new york, all worked very hard on this. certainly the chairman emeritus, mr. dingell, the current chairman of the -- the current chairman, mr. waxman, mr. markey, for his leadership on this issue for a long period of time. i mention all of them because this brings together so many elements of what we want to do to grow our economy, to help our

workers, to protect our environment and to do so in a very focused way that works. and that's what is interesting about this week and about -- week. in about six days it's estimated that 250,000 cars were sold. on both sides of the aisle people acknowledge the effectiveness of this initiative. and that is why yesterday, as we were seeing what was happening this week, the obama administration asked us to help consumers who have yet to have the opportunity to take advantage of trading in their old cars for new energy efficient models. when they do that, again, they strengthen the auto industry, strengthen our economy at large and help preserve our environment. what's interesting about it and the point that is made by many speakers already is just -- that was made by many speakers already is just that everything has performed beyond the requirements of the bill.

the cars that have been purchased are much more fuel efficient and the emission standard much better than the bill even required and that's good news. i do share the concern that has been put forth by mr. markey and, i don't know if mr. inslee has yet but he will, about the source of the revenue and that is the innovative technology's loan guarantee program. the recovery package in january, we voted for a $6 billion initiative. it was very important to have it at that level and it's very important in terms of our renewables program. $6 billion. the administration has just released a solicitation for about half of that money, $3 billion, in loans for renewable energy. the rest of the money would not be released until next year, until after january. so that gave us an opportunity for the time being to use $2

billion of that for this cash for clunkers expansion. and i, again, am concerned about the fact that that money is taken from that account but the not taken -- it has not made any opportunity costs for the program because the timing is that that money would be spent next year. i do hope that whether it's in the continuing resolution or some other step along the way, that those funds will be restored because it's not appropriate for us to take money to do one thing for fuel efficiency out of an account that is designed to do just that looking into the future with further inovation. so i share the concerns expressed by mr. markey and appreciate the comments made by mr. obey in the colloquy that they had about restoring those funds. but again i think this is pretty

exciting -- this is a pretty exciting day. as i said, we got the word just as this news was unfolding this week, yesterday it was determined that we could go forward. the rules committee under congresswoman slaughter responded very positively, the chairman of the appropriations committee, mr. obey, just trying to find solutions for us and the leadership of the republican party very cooperative in how we could bring the billed to floor. so this is a very positive, bipartisan initiative to help our auto industry, to help consumers, to grow our economy, to do it in an environmentally sound way. i think it's the perfect message for us to take home for august. thank you all for your leadership in making this possible. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, the time remaining on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has four minutes remaining and the gentleman from wisconsin has 7 3/4 minutes remaining. mr. lewis: thank you, mr.

speaker. i yield one minute to dr. broun. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. broun: i thank my friend from california for yielding. cash for clunkers has serious problems that are administrative problems. i have dealers in my district in northeast georgia that probably are going to go bankrupt because of these problems and i hope as we go forward that we'll fix these administrative snafus that are in this problem. we're throwing money into another government program that has serious, very serious problems where dealers can't get their money. i have one dealer that has paid out of his pocket for 50 cars and has only gotten money back for one. now that dealer, if he doesn't get paid back, is going to have very severe financial problems and his employees are going to be put out of work if we don't fix these. certainly we've sold a lot of cars because this program but just throwing money into a

program that has tremendous administrative red tape problems and other problems is not going to be the long-term answer. i hope that the administration will straighten out these administration snafus and will get this program the money to dealers that they desperately need. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from new york, mr. maffei. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. without objection. mr. maffei: mr. speaker, today we are faced with a rare problem. we have a program that is proven to be working and all with we need to do is keep it working. getting gas guzzling vehicles off the road replaced by new fuel efficient vehicles is helping our environment, it is putting money directly into the pockets of middle income families, it is a ray of hope for auto dealers in this

country, a ray of hope for the u.s. auto industry and a ray of hope for our economy. finally we have a bailout not for the big businesses, not for wall street, but a bailout for main street. as the lead sponsor of a bill to help protect the legal rights of auto dealers, i can tell you, this is a god send for the auto dealers in my district. don't stall what's working. give it a fillup and let's get cash for clunkers back on the road. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, i'll be the last speaker on our side, so i reserve for now. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to mr. schauer, the gentleman from michigan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mr. schauer: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your quick

leadership on such an important issue. when i ran for congress, and i'm from michigan, i plenged -- pledged that i would fight every day for people in businesses in my community that are being hurt by a brutal economy. the cash for clunkers program has breathed life into a very difficult economy in communities all around my district. here's why this is important. as i've talked to car dealers in my district, they can't keep cars on the lots. they will be ordering new cars from manufacturers in my state and around the country, suppliers who supply parts for those cars will be manufacturing more of them. this is very, very critical and has been very effective in turning around our economy in just a matter of days. mr. chairman, thank you for giving us the opportunity to continue this program and continue to turn our economy around. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does the gentleman from california continue to reserve his time? mr. lewis: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: i yield one minute to the gentleman from oregon, mr. -- or washington, mr. inslee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. inslee: revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. inslee: mr. speaker, i want to just make a point that this program has been spectacularly successful from an environmental perspective. it was originally criticized that we did not call for a higher enough efficiency improvement of these cars. the people have fixed this problem for us. we are seeing average increases of efficiency of 60%, well, well above what was required by congress. and one car company, 78% of the cars that they're buying are over 30 miles a gallon, 39% above 30 miles per gallon. the american people have had spectacular improvements in the efficiency and environmental performance. and i wanted to thank the speaker and mr. obey for essentially assuring us, i'll take it as that, almost, that we in fact are going to replace this money. i hope it is in the c.r., it is necessary to achieve our efficiency goals.

thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from indiana, mr. donnelly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. donald donald i want to thank the chair in -- mr. donnelly: i want to thank the chairman for bringing this to the floor. this is better for our environment, it's good for our farms who get to -- families who get to save some money had they make this big purchase ands also very, very good for the workers of indiana who are bark to -- back to work building these cars. this is a win-win-win for our country. it's one of the great programs to create jobs, to help our environment and to help our families. we're very supportive and we want to thank the chairman for bringing this program forward. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: mr. speaker, i thought i had two speakers remaining but i don't see the second. so i guess i will be the last speaker on our side.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, it should be noted that the speaker, when she was presenting her views to the membership, indicated that one way or another she'd find a way to get this money back into the bill somewhere down the line. between now and then it's pretty obvious that this bill could not be on the floor today if it had not been for an emergency designation, that would allow to us exercise ourselves in this fashion -- us to exercise ourselves in this fashion. i would remind ourselves one more time of the quote received from a car dealer in new york. speaking of us, about how this bill was handled, he said, if they can't administer a program like this, i'll be a little concerned about my health insurance. and to that i join the gentleman one more time in saying, amen and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: mr. speaker, i yield

myself the remainder of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. obey: mr. speaker, the commerce department today just issued figures which have indicated that the depth of the recession in the last quarter of last year was much more severe than anyone had estimated. they also estimate that, and this ised good news part of the day, they also tell us that in the last quarter of the year -- in the first quarter of this year that the economy, the shrinkage of the economy has now slowed considerably, which is very hopeful sign because the economy evidently performed significantly better than most of the economic experts had thought it would perform. we all welcome that news but as you know, that is not good enough. we need to see more progress.

our dilemma is this, ordinarily in a recession, when the country is losing jobs, the federal reserve others will interest rates and that helps -- lowers the interest rates and that helps the housing industry and the auto industry and our economy is normally led out of the recession by the housing industry and the auto industry. this time around the situation is very different because those two sectors have been a basket case for the past year and a half. the first glimmer of hope we've seen in the auto industry is the news that we received yesterday from the secretary of transportation, mr. lahood, who informs us that in just three day's time, when this program was started, as far as they can tell it's already oversubscribed. that means the consumers like this program, it means they are reacting to it and it means that it would be irresponsible of us

not to try to prevent the shutdown of this program just three days after it began. so we're here trying to take advantage of one of the few bright spots in the economy to help move the economy forward. we still have a long way to go before the good news shows up on the unemployment side of the ledger. today i think this is one piece of good news and i think we need to respond to it. i'd be happy to yield to my friend. mr. lewis: i just wanted to say, mr. chairman, that for some reason or other the gentleman who is our speaker has drawn the short end of the stick this week. he's been doing wonderful work, moving the process along, and i think the body should recognize his work. his work. mr. obey: i thank the gentleman

>> on c-span tonight, a house markup hearing on health care bill. then senator chris dodd of his prostate cancer diagnosis. followed by michelle malkin on health care and the obama administration. >> on "washington journal" will talk about the cash for clunkers program. the heritage foundation's david mason will discuss a bill to put limits on executive pay, and radio talk-show host joe madison and armstrong williams debate the state of race relations in america. "washington journal" is live each morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> this week as expected, the senate judiciary committee voted

to recommend the confirmation of sonia sotomayor are the supreme court justice. watch the committee debate and see the vote this saturday on c- span at 7:00 eastern. next week, her confirmation moves to the senate floor. live coverage of the full senate debate on c-span2. coming in october on c-span, tore the home to america's highest court, the supreme court. >> now, the house energy and commerce committee's markup of legislation. they discussed the men and that would take the public plan out of the bill and replace it with reinsurance programs that are federally funded. congressman henry waxman chairs the committee. this is 2 hours 25 minutes. >> the meeting will please come to order.

we are still considering amendments to titles a and b. mr. barton, i believe you have an amendment you wish to offer at this time. >> mr. chairman, can we have a colloquy first? i was not privy to the fan club meeting out in the hallway. could you reif the committee on what you told them? >> we have tried to bring the committee together, and we wish we could bring you with us. we are going to have a series of amendments. they will be shared and must be available for two hours in a dance -- in advance. we are looking at it as an overall package that will

include the blue dog amendment and several other amendments. will include the blue dog amendment and several other amendments. we hope members will look kindly on these commitments. >> hope springs eternal. perhaps some of them will be kindly looked upon. i hope so. could you educate the committee on your timetable for concluding for today? >> i would like to conclude the markup by 2:00 this afternoon. i know that's a very tight tame frame and there are lots of amendments, but i think we ought to set that as a goal and try to stick to it. i would hope we could therefore we strict the time of debate -- we were doing ten minutes on each side yesterday.

five on each side would be better. i've discussed this with you privately. you think we shouldn't go to five on each side officially, but encourage all members to stay within five minutes. >> we will try to adhere to that, mr. chairman. with some exceptions. i think that will work. can we now amend the bill at any point? >> we're still on "a" and "b."

>> all amendments considered within the time limits that we have. >> we are appreciative of the way you conducted this markup. we do hope on the republican side that it has a happy conclusion for all. >> thank you. >> with that, mr. chairman, i do have an amendment at the desk. >> clerk will report the amendment. >> without objection the amendment will be considered as read. recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, one of the most controversial and contentious points in the pending legislation is the public plan. the public plan is put into the legislation to provide coverage or insurance coverage for all americans who currently do not

have it for whatever reason. the problem with that is it's very expensive. it's very controversial. it's very difficult to figure out how to put it together. there is an easier way. this amendment is not the only easier way but it is an easier way. a subtitle to division "a" that related to the public health insurance options. we take that out and put in a guarantee. that we would help set up in each state, we call a qualified state reinsurance program. and/or a qualifying high risk pool. we would totally fund it with federal dollars so that every individual in that particular

state has the option to go into this reinsurance program or high-risk pool and get the insurance that they wish. it's that simple. webl that the score on this over a ten-year period would be in the neighborhood of $16 billion. so it is certainly less than a trillion. it is simple. it is straight forward. we have every indication that it would work. there's no need for a massive bureaucracy. you could use the existing state infrastructure that exists for the medicaid and the s-chip program if that's what you wish. or the state could set up a separate system if they wish to do that. so it's a two-page amendment -- or a three-page amendment. the state high-risk pool has to offer assistance for low-income

individuals. it has to offer a variety of covered options. it must be funded with a stable funding source. it has to cover all preexisting conditions. it's pretty straight forward. i would hope that you might look favorably upon it. >> gentleman yields back the balance of his time. >> i'm opposed to the amendment. i do want to point out that he has been a champion for individuals harmed by abusive practices like the rescission practices that have been looked into quite a bit by the oversight and investigations committee. i think you don't believe in

what's so great about what we've done with this bill. i'm so proud of this bill. i'm so proud of president obama. he's managed to get the insurance companies to come in and say that they'll support@@@ the fact of the matter is that the exchange itself is the people the choice of a new covered option that does not have the track record of discriminatory behavior that many private insurers have exhibited. this is one of the unique aspects of this bill. we talk about it being the american plan. it is not the british plan french, -- the french plan, or the canadian plan. it is the american plan. insurance through your employer or medicare or medicaid or the

va or whatever you have, you can keep it. but we know a lot of people don't have insurance. we know a lot of people go out and look for individual policies. often times they can't get them because of preconditions or they're so expensive. small group plans that are too expensive and have all these discriminatory practices. we're setting up this exchange with both public and private insurers competing against each other that has eliminated these practices and provide affordability for several reasons. now there's a large exchange. all the the people participated in it are acting like a large group plan. they bring prices down. then you have the competition between the public option and the other private insurers. it brings prices down more. then you have a sub su di for a lot of people that brings prices down even more. so for a lot of reasons, and the public plan is an important part of it, we're really eliminating

discrimination. and the public plan is a very important part of that. not the only part of it. so what you're proposing simply isn't necessary. there's no reason to set up these high risk pools or the other things that you're talking about and putting that burden on the state. because the exchange accomplishes everything that you're seeking to accomplish. >> would you yield? >> i yield to the gentlewoman. >> thank you very much. i've been pretty kwooiquiet, bue been taking it all in. i'm a blue dog. but i call myself the unblue dog for purposes of health care. like mr. barton and many others on the committee and both sides i strongly believe in the ability of markets to deliver the best health care. that is why i support a robust public option. it can create pooled purchasing power to lowered prices. multistate drug purchasing

pools. there are examples of how well this kind of thing can work. this flexibility. incentives to innovate and competition. the public plan will at the max have 30 million people. many estimates are far smaller. so it won't be the dominant exclusive provider of health care. right now we have a market failure. we have one insurance plan in 50% of the markets in the united states. 94% my abled colleague corrects me. that is obviously worse. i wanted to name it something else. i have always thought that sounds a bit scary. but that's its name. and what it is is a way to drive competition, get prices down, and quality up, and that's what we're all about in trying to report this bill today.

thank you for yielding. >> mr. chairman, the problem is you're such a pessimist. you have a notion that what we have out there is doomed to failure. therefore you've got to set up these high-risk insurance pools. this bill is the most optimistic wonderful thing we could possibly achieve. don't take it down with this pessimistic attitude of this amendment. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back his time. >> very briefly, mr. chairman. contrary to what my friend from new jersey says i'm an optimist. but i look at the cbo score in the current bill and i see a trillion. it's not all because of the public plan, but a big chunk of it is. i look at this ternd and i see $2 billion a year. if we can get the same bang for

the buck, it would seem to me we would want to go with the less expensive alternative. but i'm very optimistic. the market, transparency, through the state, infrastructure, it saves a lot of money in overhead. it's much prefer to something that in the public opinion polls less than half the country says they won't. @@@ @ b n@ >@ @ [roll call vote]

no. mr. engle. mr. engle no. >> mr. green, mr. green, no. no mrs. caps, mrs. caps, no. mr. doyle. miss harmon. miss harmon, no.

no. mr. gonzalez. mr. gonzalez, no. mr. insley. mr. insley, no. miss baldwin. miss baldwin, no. mr. ross. mr. wayner. mr. wayner, no. mr. mathison. mr. butterfield. mr. butterfield, no. mr. hill. mr. hill, no. miss matsui, no. mrs. christianson. mrs. caster. mrs. caster, no. mr. sarbane, no. mr. murphy of connecticut.

mr. murphy, no. mr. space, no. mr. mcnerny. mr. mcnerny, no. mrs. sutton. mrs. sutton, no. mr. welch. mr. welch, no. mr. barton. mr. barton, aye. mr. upton, aye. mr. stern. mr. diehl, aye. mr. whitfield, aye. mr. blunt. mr. blunt. mr. blunt, aye. mr. boyer.

mr. boyer, aye. mr. pitts. mr. pitts, aye. mr. terry. mr. terry, aye. >> mr. rogers. mr. rogers, aye. mr. sullivan. mr. sullivan, aye. mr. murphy of pennsylvania. mr. murphy, aye. mr. burgess. mrs. blackburn. mrs. blackburn, aye. mrs. scolise, aye. mrs. christianson votes no.

mr. rusch, no. mr. stupack, no. mr. doyle, mr. doyle, no. mr. marqui, no. mr. mathison. mr. mathison votes n@@@@@@@ @ @ cracks mr. ross folks know. >> have all members responded to the call of the role? this is an opportunity if anyone wishes to change his or her vote. the clerk will report the vote.

vote. >> clerk will vote report the votes. >> 22 ayes, 32 noes. the amendment is not agreed to. you have an amendment at the desk. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk. 06 069. >> may we get the decision on that amendment? it's either "a" or "b." it's to "b." >> to "b"? thank you. >> clerk will report the amendment.

>> young lady is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my colleague is a clarification of medicaid coverage for citizens of freely associated states. which most of you may not be familiar with. i'll just spend about a minute. over the years the federal government has made treaty agreements with the islands and to allow citizens to enter the united states without a visa or health certification. they're called compact migrants. in exchange the u.s. operates military bases on the islands. they tested bombs on the islands, which had detrimental

health effects to people living there. including their children, and their children's children. they're allowed to arrive and live in any of the 50 states. that state is required to pay for them with no federal assistance whatsoever. the federal government stop contributing medicaid dollars towards compact migrant health care. while states are not required to cover compact immigrants, there are serious public health ramifications for not doing so. this amendment addresses that gap, and i'm pleased to offer it i think it's a worthy amendment. i can hardly hear myself speak. i don't think the committee is in order, mr. chairman. >> young lady is correct. committee will please come to order. >> thank you for calling me young lady. i caught that. nice way to start the day. at any rate, hawaii has the

highest number of compact migrants. due to its proximity. that state alone is spending hundreds of millions dollars in medicaid alone. i would like to yield to mr. engle. i thank the chairman for allowing us to offer this amendment. it makes sense. it's practical. it's fair. it makes sense. especially since tts united states entered into an agreement with them. >> the young lady yielding to me, we'll say it twice. i'm pleased to put forward in amendment to her with our friend mr. abecrombie from hawaii. these are agreements made by the united states. we talk a lot about unfunded

mandates on the states. this is an unfunded@@ag@ @ @ @ the federal government signed these agreements and then the states are left to pay for this. this is not right at all. this should be paid for by the federal government. compaq migrants are allowed to freely come to the united states, but the state in which the land mass of stork -- must absorb their costs. that is not right at all. this makes them eligible for medicaid with federal matching dollars to pay for them. that is something that is very important. . p pay for them. that is something that's very important now we have treaty agreements with the islands. and the people come over.

it's not simply they're people come over here. we are getting something in return. return. we have bases on these islands. this is something that's important to the united states' national security. and all we're saying is the state should not be left holding the bag if this is a federal agreement then the federal government needs to be responsible. we will yield back the balance of our time. >> time has been yielded. >> yield back. >> mr. barton. >> i'm going to insist on mr. scolice's point of order. this bill has not been referred to the interior committee. therefore this amendment is not germane. for the same reason one of the

amendments we offered last night was not germane. >> without objection while we check with the parliamentary, may we set aside this issue. we do want to get a definitive ruling. >> sure. >> without objection the amendment will be put aside. the pend iing matter before us which is the point of order. we'll return to it as soon as -- >> just an objection here p mr. chairman. i just want a clarification. we have indicated a point of order. mr. barton indicated a reason. it's almost identical to last night. >> rather than telling me how identical it is, let me find out what his view is. because we do rely heavily on

the parliamentarian's views. i want to put aside the debate on the issue. >> you seem to be able to make the decision last night pretty quickly. i don't understand why we have to put this aside. it's absolutely identical. we wanted to make sure the members of congress had the same policy health care as the rest of americans. we asked for a vote on it. you would not allow the vote because you said it was not germane because it had to be referred to government administration. you made a decision on the spotd. i don't understand. this is absolutely identical. why can't we use a parallel? >> gentleman yield to me? >> sure. >> last night when that issue came up, we called the parliamentarian to get the ruling. that's the way to operate. we have to follow the rules. >> i understand the rules. but once the rule has been set, then you just follow the rule.

i think you established the rule last night. so let's just follow the rule. >> we would like to see if the same rule applies. >> it might be a different rule today. identical. we were slightly offended we couldn't offer this. >> will you yield to me? >> oh, sure. >> i don't know why you should be offended. we're trying to follow the rules. i would think you would be offended if you didn't follow the rules. >> it's not the question of following the rules. a precedent was set. you made a decision. this is an identical precedent. if you're talking in terms of legality. you already set a precedence. i don't understand what the big discussion is. >> some time you may be@@%)@ m

it seemed so blatantly obvious. >> is a bound by the rules of parliament terry? -- is the chairman ruled by the parliament carrying? >> it is a definition of the rules. >> do you want to speak on the point of order? >> where is this parliamentari n parliamentarian? >> i'm going to recognize you to speak on the point of order. you have your views. we'll have some debate. then i'll make a ruling based on the parliamentarian's advice.

>> i don't want you to get upset. >> i don't want you to be upset. all i want to do is follow the rules. >> isn't the parliamentarian right behind you? >> no, no, no. we have a house parliamentarian? >> did you consult last night? >> yes. >> it seems like you made that decision pretty promptly. that decision was made within three or four minutes. it seems like this is very simple to do. i guess the question for you. what is the difference between this and last night that you can't rule without the parliamentarian? that would be the key question for you to answer. >> the question is whether i need a parliamentarian's view or not? >> based upon the decision last night why can't you make a similar decision? why do you need a

parliamentarian? >> will the gentleman yield? >> i just -- let the chairman have that time. >> the judge would like you to yield to him. >> the judge. >> don't you think it's fundamentally unfair to challenge the chairman of this committee on his desire to get an interpretation on a rule? is that unreasonable to give him a few minutes to make an informed decision? >> i think it's fundamentally unfair to allow an amendment to go forward that's not germane. this amendment is obviously not germane. a precedent has been set, judge. you know, having been a judge, when you have a precedent. you follow the precedent. >> if the gentleman would yield. i don't know why you have the time the time. but the issue is -- it does depend on what committee a bill was referred to when it was introduced. and i want to find out if that rule pertains in this particular

case, last night's ruling, was a fact that the amendment which i supported was not in order under the rules because the bill had -- had not be referred to the committee on house administration and therefore, we would be legislationing in that committee's jurisdiction, now the inference from that, had the bill originally sent to the house administration committee, it might have been germane. i don't know if this bill was originally referred to the interior committee. and what the parliamentarian's view would be of that matter. if you want to play strictly by the rules, and you don't want us to do anything else than talk about this issue, i'll ask the

lady to withdraw her amendment and we'll come back to it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. for the record, i just think especially mr. stearns should know that the bill was introduced last year, to reinstate these federal benefits and we went through the story of what happens in the agreements and why we think that this is a good, sensible case to be made and it was -- it was exactly like this amendment, that legislation. and it did not -- it was never isn't to or had to go the interior committee. so, i just ask you to consider that if, if the chairman thinks that we should withdraw and this will be -- you got a ruling in. >> mr. chairman? >> i'm ready -- >> mr. chairman? >> do you want to withdraw it? >> what's the ruling? >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman. >> committee will come to order.

committee will come to order. let's -- i have just now had an interpretation from the parliamentarian, now, i request not to withdraw your amendment. point of order has been recognized. mr. scalise or mr. barton, if you would like to elaborate. the parliamentarian has given me an interpretation. >> i'll yield to the ranking member. >> i think i said what i wanted to say. i might ask á@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ r >> we were told it is referred to the committee last year. that is not the human resources committee. it was referred to that. we are ready to hear your

ruling. >> we have been informed by the parliament terry the this particular amendment does not invoke the jurisdiction of the parliamentarian that this particular amendment doesn't invoke the resources of the resurss committee or any other committ committee, but this committee. the point of order will not be sustain. further debate on the eshoo amendment. mr. chairman. mr. barton. >> i'll recognize your five minutes. >> to oppose the eshoo amendment. i want to make one comment on the ruling. based on the ruling you just ga gave, will it be -- i'll ask that later. we understand what the gentle lady from california and the gentleman from new york are attempting to do, but it does

call into question, this would be an expansion of medicaid, it would waive certain rules that citizens of the united states. there should be another way to help these folks without in essence, waiving current federal law. we would oppose it on policy grounds. >> gentleman opposes the amendment. >> who seeks recognition? >> mr. hall. >> i yield my time to chairman stearns. >> i yield my time to you if i have the time. >> you have the time. >> i rise in opposition of this. i don't think many people know what payload is, it's a very small country, the country only has about 600 people in it, a

huge number of islands that stretch out, supposedly 17 of the terrorists from gitmo, guantanamo bay are going to be sent there. we're going to $200 million so they'll take these terrorists. their all gdp is about $64 million. is a huge surplus. for the united states to say we're going to include in medicaid, to bypass the five-year waiting period, under. personal responsibility and the work reconciliation act, seems a little over the top. i'm not sure we need to do that. mr. engel mentioned that we have a military base there. so, i really think this is a huge amount of money we're gi giving to these folks and i just

impose an amendment on the basis on why not let them wait five years under the waiting period for the law. i just think, mr. chairman, that we should defeat the amendment. >> will the gentleman yield? >> sure. >> thank you. right now, these people are getting what they need. it's just paid for by the states as an unfunded mandate. i know my friend, because we have talked for many years is opposed to unfunded mandates. it's a matter of who will pay for it. the question is, if the united states government entered into an agreement with these people, we may not like the agreement, but they entered into an agreement, shouldn't the united states federal government pay for it. it affects five states, hawaii, california, oregon, washington

state and that is what an unfunded mandate is. >> we have unfunded mandates here anyway. i am sure california has unfunded mandate, too. is there any reason why they cannot wait -- why should we allow them to bypass a five-year wait. ? >> the agreements have been in effect for many years. the state are forced to pay for this. if we wait five years, it is five more years of the state paying for an unfunded mandate. > paying for an unfunded mandate. >> just with the economy here in the united states, so dishefled

and such high employment across the country, should we go into palau, that has such low gdp. isn't there some point where we follow the year? >> if the gentleman would yield? >> just one last question, how much is this going to cost the united states government? what's the total cost? >> i'm told it's $200 million over ten years. scored by cbo. i want to say it's the federal government signed the agreements, allowing these people to enter the u.s. without ve vi visas. >> gentleman, yield. >> gentleman's time has expired. we have consumed five minutes on each side. i would like to ask that we allow the gentle lady from the

virgin islands to have two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm in strong support of the eshoo/engel amendment. the freely associated states, former residents of trust territories of the united states and in some instances, the marshall islands, they have been on the receiving end on many of our nuclear tests and have remain loyal -- loyal to this country throughout. there is a compact agreement between the united states and these freely associated states and i think the fact they were trust territories of the united states, these are not immigrants from a totally foreign country, they have always -- they historically been part of this country as residents of truster

the toirs. the compact being in place, assistance to these freely associated states. supports this amtdment and providing medicaid to the freely associated states who are allowed freely migrate to the united states and placing an undue burden on the states where they decide. >> are we saying palau, is that an island in the south pacific? where it was bypassed already. but a general wanted to take it. >> palau -- >> one of the most beautiful islands in the pacific. >> yes. >> how can there be over 500, 600 people there? >> a lot of people who migrated

to hawaii or arkansas, are not from palau but from the marshall islands, some of the poorest islands in micronesia, and who have suffered because of the activities, the nuclear activities that we have done in those islands. >> all time is expired. >> will the gentlewoman yield? it's over? >> we got a lot of amendments before us. >> these people pay taxes in the united states. >> all those in favor of the eshoo amendment. say aye. mr. chairman, an amendment at the desk. >> mr. chairman, can i reserve a pint of order?

>> gentleman from new jersey, reserves a point of order. clerk will report the order. >> the amendment offered by shadegg of arizona. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment is to a stealth provision of the bill, a provision of the bill that no one has talked about in the press and no one has talked in this room. it's a provision i'm betting, that no one knows it's in the bill. under current law, if. an union plan negligently or even willfully and in bad faith denies coverage to an employee, and that employee is either injured or killed by the denial of coverage, that employee can

recover nothing for their injuries, nothing, even if there's a wrongful death. now, one would think that's the kind of injustice that congress would want to correct. no one, in america should be left to suffer a loss like that from the wrongful denial of coverage and recover nothing. but this bill, not only doesn't fix this problem it literally preserves it and extend it. this injustice is a case, late in her pregnancy florence cochran was ordered hospitalized, either she would die or her baby would die. but united health care refused to cover her hospital stay. they would only offer home nursing services. tragically mr. corcoran's treating physician was right. when there was no nurse at the

house, mrs. corcoran went into labor and her baby went distress and died. even more shocking, when the corcorans sued united health care, they learned that united health care had hired their own expert to review her records. they said exactly what her treating physician said, if she was no particular timeized either she would die or her baby die. nonetheless, united refused to provide coverage. here's the kicker, the court ruled that notwithstanding united health care's outrageous conduct, mrs. corcoran and her husband could recover nothing for the death of their child, absolutely nothing. why? because the united states security court had red under section 514 the corcorans could recover nothing for their

injury. in this bill, we do not fix the injustice of corcoran versus united health care, we preserve and protect section 514. don't believe me? open the bill to page 49. and look at lines 19 through 22. we apply section 514 to future plans. this committee has defeated amtdment after amendment to provide medical doctors with some slight form of liability protection. but in this bill, we extend and preserve immunity for government plans, an injustice which leaves people like the corcorans with no remedies. there are unions across the country that support this bill. i wonder if they know they're exposing union members to this kind of an injury? i know that the american medical

association has come out in support of this bill and say they think it's a good idea. it makes doctors liable, but other plans immune. i wonder my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that they're voting for immunity for plans that not only negligently refused to provide coverage but willfully and in bad faith refuse to provide coverage. my amendment simply removes this injustice and provides that no plan should be able to immune. with that, i'll be happy to yield to my partner, mr. terry. >> this is a good amendment, at the heart of a long-running debate about the responsibility of the administrators of plans, this fixes what the courts have dimed an immunity for these plans caused by the language within the arisalaw.

so, this protect patients. this is consumer-or not d. it fixes a long-running problem. and, because the bill opens up arisa, of course you can't do any federal exchange without discussing arisa, because this in essence this replaces arisa. >> mr. burgess. >> i would like to point out, this is a huge, huge problem. but more importantly, there's also an arisa exemption that allows some people access to the white house, specifically members of congress. i yield back to the gentleman. >> mr. chairman, having read the amendment, having problems in the past because i represented distri district, a great number of employers fall under arisa.

i have some concerns about jurisdiction. >> that is a problem, mr. shadegg, that this particular amendment says specifically, that we're referring to the arisa law and that is not within the jurisdiction of this committee. i would -- i am support your amendment, i feel badly that we can't take it up. but we have jurisdictional elements. i don't know if you want to withdraw it. >> i understand, if i can be heard on point, mr. chairman. >> okay. >> mr. chairman, i didn't raise a point. >> mr. pallone did raise a point of order. he's asserting the point of order. i would like to recognize you on the point. >> let's hear what the point of order is. we would like to hear what it is. >> the point of order, if i

might speak for you mr. pallone, it's not within the jurisdiction of this committee and not germane to this bill. it amends the arisa statute. that's not within our jurisdiction. >> shadegg? >> if barton wants to finish. >> i would like to recognize -- >> i do want to be recognized. i'll let you go first, mr. chairman. >> here's, you know, this is an unusual situation, mr. chairman. last night, we had an amendment by mr. blunt on covering whatever the public plan is that members of congress had to be included in that plan, you were eloquent that you supported it but you were constrained because of a point of order that you can't accept it. mr. shadegg put up an amendment

that you're very supportive of. if the majority doesn't make a point of order, we can do whatever we want to do. the point of order is only valid if it's insisted upon. if you're for this, i would suggest that you ask mr. pallone to remove his point of order. let's have a debate on the policy and see where the votes are. because this is acceptable under the rules. >> why don't you yield to mr. shadegg. >> thank you gentlemen for yielding. quite frankly a couple of comments on the substance. i'm stunned that this provision is there. i think there are questions to be asked about this language -- >> the matter before us is the point of or order. >> it's immense dollar values to insurance plans. they're getting an individual mandate.

and they're willing to accept for an individual mandate, a requirement that we have guaranteed issue and community rating. i wonder if they're getting is a immunity? i wonder if they're being candidate wid america? opinions from judges all over the country have called for congress to fix this. now when we have a chance to fix it, we're not fixing it. we're giving those insurance companies immunity. i think it's a little odd to allow insurance plans, under arisa, immunity. but we can't give doctors any i would like to know what is behind it. i would like to make sure the american people know that

somebody is coming in here in the dark of night. it is important to slow down and lifted the provisions. i think they got a raw deal. there are a lot of other people like them across america. >> just briefly. clarification. when we appeal to the house parliament terryary, it is my understanding that it is advisor preeti you and is the chair's right to rule as the chair sees fit. is that not the role? >> the chairmen made the ruling. >> i yield back right time then. >> may i answer your question? >> i am not sure that is true.

>> i respect the discretion of the chair. the challenge that you had here in exercising your leadership is that not all committees of the house obtain jurisdiction of the bill. had here, that all committee of the house obtain jurisdiction of the bill. there have been amendments presented, good in protecting amendments, you would also like to adopt. the challenge will have, is how you go to the rules committee and combine these bills that come out of three committees. what we have here, mr. chairman, i'll be bringing amendments from the veterans committee. when we come to this, my appeal to you, mr. chairman, i believe in you and your sincerity that this is a problem that you would like to work on but you're restrained by the

parliamentarian. keep a side list of amendments that we would like to work with you as we go the rules committee to protect bill. mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman, i want to add, if you rule this as not germane, it's the correct ruling. i would urge my colleagues on the other side if you vote for this kind of language, don't be shocked when you get home in the august break and you're asked why are you voting to extend immunity to plans that for example, can injure or kill people when they deny coverage. in particular, people in union plans. >> will the gentleman yield? >> who seeks recognition? >> mr. greene. >> mr. chairman, i do think that it's not the correct jurisdiction. but i understand the need, we

have multistate employees. it needs to be corrected. i would love to work with my colleagues on the other side. who would be sensitive to that. but, i don't know if we have much choice but to car that immunity forward since we don't have jurisdiction. >> could we move on? because we have a lot of work to do today. the chair is prepared to rule on the point of order. the chair has to follow the rules. i know without objection, without a point of order, legislation late in any other committee's jurisdiction, that's contrary to what the house of representatives and the committee system is all about. i wouldn't want other committees legislationing in our jurisdiction if they do it by some sort of collusion. the rules are the rules. this chair rules that this rule is not germane because it

legislation lates in areas that aren't within the jurisdiction. we're entertaining mandates. >> all i want to say, if people want copies of corcoran versus united health care, i would be happy to give them copies. >> mr. green, you have an amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. . >> the clerk will report the amendment. . >> this is an in-block amendment that was actually submitted as one amendment within the time frame and i think the clerk will confirm that.

>> can i ask the clerk if the amend system in order with within division "a" or "b" and filed within the two hours? >> yes, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, may i proceed? >> has the clerk, amendment considered as read? >> gentlemen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'll try to be as brief as i can.

the first provision deals with abdominal neuestical aneurism, a study, to date the utilization of the triple a screening in medicare is very low, to medicare beneficiaries owner to get a medicare exam. as a result, less than 10,000 beneficiaries look to take advantage of it since 2007. the amendment request -- >> will the gentleman yield. >> we're prepared to accept all three amendments. >> actually four. >> i only have three. >> amendment number five is a quality measure section that supports the development, the study outlined in the bill.

and i don't have a specific signed. i want to make sure that the gao, we can actually measure impairments such as hearing -- >> will the gentleman suspend? >> we only have three amendment zmrs mr. chairman, i apologize, we did not hear the sutton amendment. >> it's not the sutton amendment. i thought it was included. >> what with that, i'll accept minorities on the three that i caught up and withdraw by sutton. >> let's make sure we understand what we're voting on and agreeing on here. we got an amendment -- green 3200. section 1192. insert impairment after outcomes.

we have green 001 xml, dealing with a report to congress on barriers to preventive services. >> mr. chairman, i can't hear. >> the committee is not in order. if the gentleman will suspend. >> can i ask the clerk the review the three amendments we're considering now? >> yes, mr. chairman, we're now passing out the sutton amendment 10, which was not passed out with if other three green amendments. we had green 5 underscore 0015. >> 4, 5 and 10. >> exactly. >> are you in support of the sutton amendment as well? >> we have seen the sutton amendment and staff tells me, we're okay with that. >> can we consider those together at this time?

>> all four considered in bloc and be accepted? >> any further debate on this since they have been agreed to on both sides? okay. without further debate, we'll call to question, all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no and the amendments are adopted. we'll next go to the minority side. mr. whitfield. >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will report the amendment. >> one moment, mr. chairman. >> and i'll ask again, if the amendment is within the divisions and timely with the

two-hour notice? >> it is, mr. chairman. >> the clerk will report the amendment. >> amendment to the amendment -- >> without objection the amendment will be considered as read. >> mr. whitfield, you're recognized for five minute and thank you very much. mr. chairman,chronic pain continues to be an issue, and procedures to deal with chronic pain are primarily done in ambulatory surgical centers and/or hospital outpatient clinics. it's made a decision that they are going to reduce the reimbursements to pain management physicians in ten of their most 11 most prevalent procedures. in fact n 2009, they're going to

receive a reduction of about 27%. and over the next five years, accumulative total of a little over 100%. now, the issue here is that gao has determined that it's more expensive to do these procedures in hospital outpatient clinics than it is in ambulatory surgical centers. so, we feel that if -- >> i can hardly hear. i would ask members to either sit down or go to the coat room so we can continue. >> if these procedures, reduce procedures, which will increase the overall cost of health care. it provides a more toirm on these reductions until additional studies to be

conducted. i will yield to the gentleman from penalty mrichlt. >> mr. stupak. >> he's right that ambulatory centers, those who deal with pain intervention, is facing 135% cut over the next five years. this year, it's about a 27% cut. as we trite to straighten this health care dilemma, i don't think one area or one certain group should take significant cuts in the reimbursement rate. we do have public option which is medicare reimbursement and physicians, but when you start cutting 27% out of one area, it's little much. the other thing that i would point out, these are pain management specialists. if they're going to go specialists, they're going to be

going to emergency rooms. people can still get the relief and still reimburse at a fair rate of reimbursement. i yield back. >> mr. whitfield. >> thank you. >> i yield back. >> yield back. >> mr. whitfield yields back. does anyone else wish to comment on the whitfield/stupak amendment. we'll call into question of the amendment. all those in favor say aye. those opposed. the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. an amendment on the majority side. >> mr. chairman, i have three amendments at the desk. engoal 6, engel 5. >> asked that they be considered together? >> yes. >> the clerk will report the amendments.

>> amendment to the amendment in the nature offer aias as the amendments -- i ask that the amendment be considered as read. >> they are. >> he is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. >> thank you. today i am offering to amendments. the first is with my good friend in california we want to expand import and child health quality improvement provisions to medicaid populations which are traditional bearing women in the newborn. as we live to improve value, our

amendment will help us support the goal. medicaid now pays for 43% in the country. 29% of hospital charges to medicaid are the child-bearing women and newborns. in fact, material and newborn care is the most dissected -- the best one. we want to make sure we spend it was it. secondly, i have worked closely with my good friend on an amendment that is strongly supported by both the american academy of ophthalmology and the american optometric >associatio. these two groups have clashed a lot. this was a good amendment to have them agree. it is not mandate that the

states cover benefits like eyeglasses. it also does not expand the scope of practice. i'm a strong supporter quality work. it doesn't expand provider's scope of practice. i'm a strong spotter of the quality that the opt met reis in my district do. we need to provide quality health care services. i would urge my colleagues to support these amendments combined. and i yield to my good friend, schakowsky of illinois. >> i'm glad we're able to work on a bipartisan way that was agreeable to all parties. i want to thank my colleague, representative hall for co-sponsoring the original bill

and this amend wmt us. i want to thank representative sullivan for joining us on this amendment. we know providing access to comprehensive eye exams is the based way to diagnose eye and vision problems. we identify problems early and give children and adults the care they need. to ensure the people have access -- >> will the gentle lady of illinois yield? >> the minority's prepared to accept these amendments. >> i yield back. >> will the gentle lady yield first? >> i yield to representative hall. >> i want to thank you and thank you the american academy for opthalmology. it's a good amendment. if you would yield to congressman sullivan for one minute for his comments. i yield back my time.

>> thank you, congressman hall. mr. chairman, i support the engell/hall/schakowsky amendment. it's always been defined in the state, never at the federal level. it should be limited to provider's scope of practice as defined by state law. this amendment mandates provider status under medicaid program provided by optometrist. it leads these important decisions to the states. while we want to make sure that americans have access to vision care services, we want to make sure that the federal legislation requiring state programs to reimburse optometrists for their services. this amendment strikes this balance. i encourage adoption of this

amendment and i yield back. >> i thank gentleman. ms. capps. >> thank you. to my colleague, mr. chairman, this will also ensure the quality of maternity care is measured in c.h.i.p. program. when it comes to maternal mortality rates ranked around the world, we're tied with the country of belarus, we're 41st. we lack well-coordinated data. by including maternity care measures, we can do a better job of ensuring that a provider, collecting necessary information and ensuring that companies are follow. >> gentleman's time has expired.

>> mr. barton. >> i have unanimous consent request. we have a new member on the republican side that's joined us, mr. boehner. i asked that he be added on the minority side. for the remainder of the markup with full voting privileges. is there an objection to that? >> i have heard one. from mr. boehner. >> we're glad to have our leader here. >> we welcome the republican leader to our committee. >> the vote now comes on the engel/capps amendment. the ayes have it and the amendment is greed to. . >> mr. chairman, two amendments i'll offer in block.

to the relief of the committee, they have nothing to do with biomaz. >> let's not move on. two amendments. >> walden 3 and walden 2. will offer them in block. >> mr. chairman, we don't have walden 3. i mean -- >> we have walden 3. they're looking for walden 3. >> one is division "b." and one is to division "a." >> we're going to consider the

amendment as read. we're going to accept it with some caveats. but with some statements. if you want to brief on your comment and i'll be very brief, mr. chairman. >> these amendments are similar to legislation of representative polmer introduced. enwit comes to this new health commission that would be established in the bill, a por porti portionate representation. so, it works to about 25% of the makeup where this health commission would be practitioners practice in the rural areas so they have a voice of what it is like to practice in rural areas. i believe welch is a co-sponsor. mr. chairman -- >> will the gentleman yield?

>> it already has a requirement like this. section 1805 of the social security act mandates that medpac has broad representation. adding this new requirement would be redundant. but i'm also open to accepting this and looking into it further. also, i support a balanced and robust benefits advisory committee. but we don't want this committee to become ineffectual. i support this amendment. we'll have to take a look at it as we move forward. >> it has two rural commissioners. i believe one of them is actually a practitioner. they had issues that one practitioner wasn't there. when she finally was able to weigh in, they just missed the

whole thing they were working on once they got her input. we're trying to get some balance. on page 31 of the legislation there's a long list of requirements for participation in the commission, dealing with all kinds of specific areas. we're looking for that rural voice. of the unique nature of delivering health care in rural areas. >> thank the gentleman for the amendment. all those in favor of the amendment. the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. >> mrs. capps. >> thank you, mr. chairman. an amendment at the desk. number 40002.

>> the clerk will report the amendment. >> an amendment to an amendment. >> without objection, the amendment will be considered. >> thank you, mr. chairman, this is the waxman/welch/capps, can combined amendment as we make a move toward wellness-based health care, we're insent vising people to seek care. for the most effective and proven preventive clinical services we'll save money and lives. these services include cervical cancer screening for women, blood pressure screening for adults 18 years and older.

these measures are not only common sense, they're prove on the work in preventing diseases which are extremely expensive to treat. one example that every parents knows about the advantage of screening young children for their vision, as they prepare to enter school, if we can ensure there are no financial barriers for these services, more americans will take advantage of them. i urge colleaguings to support this amendment and ensure that we don't stand in the way of individuals seeking preventive care. i'm happy to yield to the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. >> thank you very much. this amendment is very important to the state of vermont. because vermont entered into a very unusual arrangement with the federal government, instead of having our medicaid payments being totally tied to the number of people on medicaid, we entered into a long-term,

five-year stable agreement, where vermont took on some risk, it might be eligible for some more money, in exchange received flexibility from the federal government in the ability to manage our program locally and it actually worked out. an arrangement entered into between a democrat legislature and a republican governor. if we had flexibility at the local level to administer this program we would be able to develop some efficiencies and provide benefits to folks without sacrificing act ssz and we have been successful doing it. this amendment essentially allows us to maintain a federal state partnership. within vermont, our program has been a partnership between private and public insurer and mr. chairman, we haven't received all of this amendment.

the little b bit that we have gotten, is okay. >> gentleman, yield. you make a good point. it looks like we had the wrong amendment distributed. we'll have the correct one distributed forthwith. >> do you want me to stop? >> let's continue the debate. >> essentially the amendment is respectful of arrangements that have been made by states who have taken some steps to provide access to health care to their citizens and it allows the implementation of the bill that's under consideration to be implemented without providing some ineffect penalty of those states that are taking positive and constructive steps in trying to address the health care needs of their citizens. and i will yield back to mrs. capps. >> i'll yield now to the mr.

chairman waxman. >> can we told, can you read the identifier on the amendment. we got two different amendments and we don't know which one you're all talking about. my understanding was that -- she mentioned the4002 amendment which we distributed. >> the amendment that i have in my hand says 001. >> they have both been distributed now. >> does the gentleman from texas --